fishers, surfers and casters

At CMRC, David Michel, from Dalhousie University (Canada), told his story of a small conservative Christian community on the Atlantic side of Canada, who wanted to go live online, by video-streaming their services.

One of the big questions affronting the small congregation was what could be in the view of the camera, and what would be shielded from the eyes of viewers online. Some people believed there were parts of the inside of the church that shouldn’t be seen by people who weren’t in the building. Others believed their were sections of the service where private information about members were shared, and also shouldn’t be seen by those participating through computer screens. For David, but more so for me who listened to his story, it raised questions about how people negotiate private and public in a church community, and how people consider the internet as a public space.

It seems, by the small introduction to the church community that I was given, that the notion of the church service as a public event had been eroded away among its members by its recent history. In the years where the congregation’s numbers dwindled, and where one-time visitors were seen increasingly seldom, the church service was conducted among people who “knew” each other to the point where being together was a private event. Even if there were people present at a service whom congregants did not “know”, at least congregants were fully aware in the space of who their audience was, to the point of better control over how to present information and themselves in a setting that appeared private.

Yet for the congregants, the Internet was seen as the opposite. Going live through video-streaming was, for them, like placing themselves in a panopticon, a Big Brother House where *everyone* could see them, and they could see nobody in return. Going live online for them was a test where the search for new and distant friends and fellow congregants required the relinquishment of control over their own church environment.

Somewhere in this dichotomy of “landline church = private” versus “online church = public” is the reality, which deserves further exploration and requires time and experimentation. I wish them luck.

At CMRC this week I saw two presentations on religious videos and personalities. The first was by Rianne Subijanto and Nabil Echchaibi from the University of Colorado (US) and explored the rise of the “TV Muslim preacher” in Egypt and Indonesia. The second was by Denis Bekkering from the University of Waterloo (Canada) and focussed on the rise, fall and slow rise again of a US web-based Christian evagelist.

Echchaibi and Subijanto’s presentation started with the question “How do Muslims relate to their religion daily through mass media?” and used examples from YouTube, religious channels, and even a reality TV show called Imam Muda, where contestants battle it out to be the best rookie Imam, and the winner is ordained. They made the following conclusions:

1. That Islam on TV exists in struggles between modern/moderate and orthodox/islamist struggles on the political level and in the public sphere
2. That the television personality acts as a religious brand with which viewers/users find a connection and through which they can express and work on their religious identity
3. Television allows for the rethinking of religious imagery and symbolism, including even the way the Imam dresses
4. It appeared to me that the videos borrowed much from prosperity model of (tele-)evangelism. The presenters noted that the producers of these videos and channels borrowed business models from American televangelists, however the new “messages” found in the videos also reflected local preaching styles and some traditions.

Bekkering’s presentation focussed on the struggle to maintain authority in the face of protest in YouTube. Focussing on recent videos of an American evangelist, who a few years ago lost much popularity after his extra-marital affair was exposed, Bekkering discusses how the evangelist’s ministry endeavours to prevent and block protest on his site through the active moderation of comments on his youTube page, and the editing of videos where protestation appears in the filming of his ministry events.

I found in both presentations a great comparison between “viewers” and “users” in the negotiation of religious text, meaning and authority in videos in both platforms. I also saw a great potential, which was touched upon, in the examination of aesthetic approaches to the construction of religious authority (how scenery is used to promote the authority of the presenters in the videos, and how an “image” is created for the promotion of religious branding). I would like to talk with them more about it.

Handing in the thesis for examination meant that I could rediscover the joys of weekends and eight-hour snoozes, and I’m happy to report that I regained the ability to listen to my kids’ talking and pay attention to them at the same time. I bought a PS3 and a new TV as a congratulations to myself, and got bored with them almost instantly. Watching television was so much more enjoyable when I was mortgaging precious PhD time. Not so much when it’s the only thing on my agenda for the day.

Now the examination has come back I’m into full swing again. I’m thinking there will be at least two all-nighters a week, a few meaningless “uh huh” and “sure you can” to my children every so often. But while the actual PhD work is not that much, I’m involved in getting a few things published which is cool, but keeping me up. Here’s what I let myself into:

I’m presenting at two conferences, the first of which starts in a couple of days, followed two days later by the second. Both are in Toronto. The first one is the biennial Conference on Media, Religion and Culture, and I’m giving three papers: religious cyborg, godcasting, and authority in the blogosphere. The second is the quinquennial (does that mean every five years?) International Association of History of Religions Conference, and I’m giving the religious cyborg paper. I’m hoping to escape to Montreal for a breather in-between, wallet-willing.

By the time I return to Oz I have an article due for the online journal on religions on the Internet, Heidelberg Online. I have always been really impressed with their publications so I’m really chuffed to have an abstract accepted by them. It’s on how Aussie emerging church bloggers use visual text, including photographs, A/V uploads, and design and layout, to help present their religious identity. I’ve got all the main data and discussion done. The journal edition focusses heavily on aesthetics and the senses so I’m doing a lot of reading on that to steer my arguments correctly. The two big names on religion, media and aesthetics, Birgit Meyer and David Morgan, will be in Toronto, as will the journal editors, so I will be buying people lots of drinks in exchange for wisdom.

Also by the time I get back I will have received peer review comments from an article I’ve submitted to the Journal of Technology, Religion and Theology. It’s a literature review of studies into religion online, with a focus on fourth-wave stuff. I hope it’s good, because going back to old articles and re-editing is such a pain. Then again, it’s something I have to get used to.

I have also just found out I was accepted to write a chapter for a new book called “Networked Sociability and Individualism: Technology for Personal and Professional Relationships.” My chapter will be on religious bloggers and their negotiations of networks and congregational/denominational identity.

It feels good to be able to get these things underway. One regret during my PhD was that, while giving so goddamn many conference presentations, I hardly wrote at all for journals. So this is nice, and I’m aiming that I will get into a writing rhythm that somehow got lost when the new TV arrived.

A big thank you to Fr Jose at IMPACT for hosting me for a week, driving me around everywhere, making sure I was well fed (oh, I was so well fed!), and introducing me to hundreds of people.

Here are some pictures of all the people I met at the various colleges and seminaries. Everyone was beautifully welcoming, and treated me like royalty. These guys should be careful because a white guy like me could get very used to that.

View Full Album