Frances Forde Plude

Recent Work In Communication And Theology: A Report

By Paul A. Soukup, S.J.

[Presented to the 4th International Conference on Media, Religion, and Culture, Louisville, KY September 1-4, 2004.]

Theology occupies a small, but distinct, corner within the larger intersection of communication and religion, an intersection that encompasses sociological investigations, individual uses, institutional productions, popular culture phenomena, and much more. Theology, as the systematic reflection on belief or faith practices, seeks understanding of both individual commitments and corporate actions. And so, theological investigations often begin from materials within the faith tradition, such as the Scriptures, or from cultural practices, such as worship. At other times, theology seeks to understand faith through a dialogue with culture or learning, something apparent in the long association of theology with philosophy. Here, in these places, we find the theological interest in communication. 

The interest grows up in two distinct, but related ways. On the one hand, theology follows the path made familiar with philosophy and locates, in communication study, a lens through which it can view and understand contemporary life and culture. In so doing, it hopes to better understand faith, personal commitment, and ecclesial life. On the other hand, churches look to theology to make sense of the communication culture and, particularly with an applied area like communication, to guide church action.

Christian churches have long employed communication media–stretching back to writing and mosaics, if we want to go back that far, or to technologies like the printing press from the 16th century. The last century raised the churches’ awareness of communication technology as groups produced films, set up radio stations, and developed television ministries. That growth in audiovisual technologies, much more than any expansion of printed resources, led to repeated calls for theological reflection on communication.

Perhaps the most prominent of these calls for theological reflection on communication media came from the Roman Catholic Pontifical Council on Social Communication. In Communio et Progressio, an instruction commissioned by the Second Vatican Council, the group writes, “The whole question of social communications deserves attention from theologians particularly in the areas of moral and pastoral theology… This will be more readily achieved when theologians have studied the suggestions in the First Part of this Instruction [on theological principles] and enriched them with their research and insight” (1971, para. 108). Similar calls came from the World Council of Churches (1968) and, more recently, from the World Evangelical Fellowship (Adeney, Bennett, Mudditt, McCaskill, McCaskill, Nichols, & Thatcher, 1997).

Many of the requests for theological evaluation stemmed from a perceived need for guidance in the face of a media culture and of growing religious involvement with mass communication. The rise of the (mostly evangelical) televangelists on cable television in the United States prompted a good deal of concern among the non-evangelical denominations (Horsfield, 1984), which, in turn, led to calls for more theological work. Early theological interest in communication, then, followed several courses. Jorgenson (n.d.) classifies World Council of Churches’ statements into the broad theological themes of evangelization, education (especially for peace), and ethics.

Soukup (1983) proposed four dimensions: religious self-understanding, Christian attitudes towards communication, pastoral crises of communication, and ethics and society (p. 21). Many of the earlier theological writings about communication, however, tended to take a purely instrumental view of communication, one criticized by Hamelink (1975), among others, as insufficient to understand either communication or culture. Some historical studies highlight a kind of corrective: they note that concerns for what we would today classify as communication media (images, texts, church decor) did elicit nuanced theological responses and rationales in the fifth, ninth, and 16th centuries, from Christian theologians like Augustine, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Martin Luther, and Ullrich Zwingli. 

Churches or theologians reflecting on communication media, practices, or products tells only part of the story. As a consciousness of communication grew in the later 20th century, theologians began to use the tools and ideas developed in understanding human communication as part of their own repertoire to seek a better understanding of God and of God’s action in creation. Thus, where theologians and communication scholars address one another’s concerns in

the later 20th century, they fall into seven general categories: (1) pastoral theology, communicating the Christian message or supporting communication among believers; (2) applied theology, answering questions about communication using theological categories (for example should churches use television?); (3) applying theological categories (trinity, incarnation) to communication in an effort to understand communication; (4) using communication tools to analyze religious texts; (5) examining communication as a context for theology; (6) using communication content (film, television, music) to prompt religious reflection; and (7) using communication constructs to inform theological reflection. 

This ordering of the general categories is somewhat arbitrary; I have also tried to organize this report from the more typical or more predictable, to the more original. In this paper, then, I shall review each of the areas and introduce some of the more recent work at those intersections of communication and theology. While this review cannot be all encompassing, it will at least introduce some representative examples of the recent work.

1. Pastoral Theology: Communicating the Christian Message

Among other things, pastoral theology addresses questions of applied communication: How should churches or individuals proclaim the Christian message? What communicative forms best suit religious education? How do people talk about spiritual matters? Where communication study and theology meet here, the typical encounter has theology borrowing the practical advice offered by communication. 

Not surprisingly, many writers examine evangelization. Rose, Sander, and Kayser (1998) emphasize the proclamation of the gospel as giving voice to the oppressed. They choose the sender-message-receiver model of communication but insist that theological analysis and priorities (liberation, for example) must precede any actual choice of communication media (p. 267). Using a similar sending and receiving information model, Puloka (1998) emphasizes the need for contextualization in support of evangelization. Dalton (1999) and Flemming (2002) make similar arguments for contextualization, and both use the example of Paul’s preaching in Athens to anchor their analyses. Dalton compares Paul’s “communication principles”–critically engage the content of the culture, use the language and discourse of the culture, and know and proclaim the Gospel message (pp. 18-21)–with the practice of G. Ernest Thomas, a well-known Methodist preacher. Flemming cites Paul’s Areopagus address as a model of both contextualization and awareness of one’s audience. Writing like Puloka from the context of the South Pacific, Teinaore (2001) stresses not only preaching but also witnessing for effective evangelization.

Raja (2000, 2001) presents a carefully developed theology of proclamation for India, basing his thinking on the World Council of Churches’ Uppsala statement and on Kierkegaard’s model of indirect communication. He notes, “Christian communication is not primarily information about doctrines or about the churches’ activities or about Christian faith. It is the process of sharing the experience of God’s involvement in people’s lives and interpreting the gospel through all forms of communication” (2000, p. 100), He suggests a contextualization that makes “use [of] the communicative forms that are shared by the audience” (p. 103), in this instance, Hindu forms and musical instruments. These can take their place alongside the more traditional Christian forms of worship and service. Beginning with the parables of Jesus, Raja (2001) develops the argument in more detail, citing not only Kierkegaard (on indirect communication) but also James Carey (on communication as ritual) and Paolo Freire (on the pedagogy of the oppressed).

Sorenson (2000) looks more explicitly at religious ritual as a means of communication. Calling ritual a “universal mode for communicating about the meaning of life and the nature of divine and human powers” (pp. 119-120), he asks, “Is theology involved when Latter-day Saints participate in these rituals? Virtually every principle and concept of the gospel are brought to attention, either explicitly or by reflection, by the repertoire of rites” (p. 123). Ultimately, he argues for the lex orandi, lex credendi and notes that increased use of rituals has replaced theologizing in the LDS Church as it has expanded and encompasses increasing cultural diversity. Schwier (1998) also stresses ritual. However, he takes a “ritual as language” approach within worship. He argues for the progression from perception to context to the theological concept.

Communication practice also plays its role in religious education. Steinmann (1997) reports a survey of the understandings of theological terminology in adult Bible study classes, noting that simplicity of language leads to greater effectiveness. Wimberly (1996) develops a theoretical model for the use of narrative and storytelling in African American religious education. Building on the strong oral traditions in the culture, she argues, “the narrative paradigm involves both remembering the personal and cultural story and re-membering a faithful and hope-filled community that is guided by God's Story… Narrative is to be shared” (p. 318).

Such pastoral use of stories is another kind of contextualization, as it builds on the existing resources and practices of the community. Jordan (2001), in contrast, stresses not narrative but nonverbal communication as an integral part of theological education. Knippenberg (1998) publishes a series of essays from a conference on spiritual counseling and spiritual direction. Drawing heavily on the psychological side of communication research, the contributors wrestle with what happens when people communicate, how people communicate, what those communication patterns means for religious/spiritual/theological understanding. The group also concerns itself with the wider sense of communication: community, ritual, and interpersonal interaction. Rossi and Soukup (1994) offer a series of essays that address moral theology from a

communication perspective. While contributors approach the subject in different ways, the unifying theme is the “moral imagination,” particularly as that imagination is formed by and through the mass media. In each of these areas of pastoral concern (evangelization, ritual, education, counseling, moral theology), communication plays a central role and pastoral theologians have not hesitated to look to communication studies to form a theological approach.

2. Pastoral Theology: Using Communications Media

Pastoral theology also addresses what we might term policy questions for the churches: Should they, or how should they, use the mass media? How might Christians evaluate media productions? What theological principles guide these choices? Although such questions occupied a great deal of theological attention in the 1980s, when the rise of televangelism in the United States challenged the non-Evangelical churches the issue has received less attention in recent years.

The most detailed analysis by far comes from Hoover (1993). Writing as part of a symposium for the Mennonite Conrad Grebel Review, Hoover, with degrees in both theology and communication studies, provides an overview of communication as well as a careful consideration of the church’s position. First, he reminds us how people interact with the media: A critical point here is that this relationship, between people and media, is entirely a volitional one. The paradigm shift that has taken media theory and cultural theory away from notions of the “direct effects” of messages on their “audiences” toward a view that stresses audience autonomy and action, leads to this inescapable proposition. People live on the media “map” because they want to, and more importantly, because that map is an authentic one for them. They do not see the media in the dualistic terms Muggeridge did or Fore does (pp. 98-99).

Hoover then sketches the various ways that Christian churches use the media before he turns to options for the Anabaptists. In offering these options, he grounds the discussion in the theological values of the church. Admittedly, there are many barriers to Anabaptists coming to adapt to the style and approach of the televangelists. And it is that First, technology, particularly media technology, has long been problematic for Anabaptist groups. Coming to accept and adopt these devices carries with it today the same sort of dangers and challenges it always has.

The Second, that Anabaptist groups tend to be deliberative and communitarian in discipline and organization. Surrendering to one-man (and media figures tend to be men–another critical issue), power and control to “tell our story” would be a major break with tradition and practice. Third, while Anabaptists do believe in personal transformation, we also have held that this must take place in the context of community to be authentic… Fourth, we have not traditionally sought cultural or social acceptance, much less ascendance and power. The fact the media are largely used for promotion of symbols of power and control makes the media environment one that seems basically at odds with who we are. Fifth, the kind of almost mercenary pragmatism demonstrated by those are successful in the media seems also to run counter to some basic Anabaptist social and spiritual precepts. We want to be open to all. to many positions and perspectives. To eliminate any simply because they do not “work” in the media seems to be a confusion of priorities. Finally, we would be unlikely to adapt to a mythology of the media that would put seemingly “mechanistic” approaches to community and discourse ahead of “authentic” (p. 105). This essay provides a good model for the kinds of discussion and debate within pastoral theology about church use of the media.

The same issue of the Conrad Grebel Review publishes a talk by Roman Catholic theologian Gregory Baum (1993), who notes that Christian attitudes toward the world divide between “liberal” and “radical,” with the former being optimistic of inculcating Gospel values in the world while the latter see the Gospel only as a judgment on the world. These attitudes characterize the different Christian churches’ approaches to the media as well. Papathanasiou (1999) addresses the question of church use of the media from the perspective of Orthodoxy. Within a larger context of language and the vernaculars, he concludes that media use is consistent with Christianity; of particular interest is the grounding of his argument in the example of the saints, who did not hesitate to translate the Scriptures and theology into the languages of the various nations. Peterson (1997) suggests that “public theology” should take a critical perspective on the media and media ownership. This places him more along Baum’s radical axis as he asks, “As the Church attempts to be faithful to such traditional values as equality, justice, and human dignity, what should the Church say in criticism of the dominant value of commercial mass media, which is possessive individualism” (p. 16)?

Finally, a report from the World Evangelical Fellowship theological commission consultation (Adeney, et al., 1997), raises theological concerns about media use, even within a group that has typically led the way for involvement with the mass media. The commission stresses the need for community, understanding God, clarity in language, and a relationship with God. All derive from the theological analysis of how God communicates with us. These five essays illustrate the general approach within pastoral theology to questions of media use.

3. Pastoral Theology: Using Communications Media

A parallel question deals with how the churches should evaluate the media: Is television, for example, harmful to Christian living? Having dealt with television in its 1971 statement, the Roman Catholic Pontifical Council for Social Communication turned to other media. More recently, it has issued a series of very carefully reasoned statements on ethics in advertising (1997), ethics in communication (2000), and ethics on the Internet (2002). Each statement follows a similar pattern of highlighting the good of the communication media, sketching theological principles (such as community, solidarity, primacy of the human person, 2002, nos. 3-4), and identifying the ethical challenges posed by the media. The statements end with attempts to resolves the ethical problems through appeal to the theological principles.

4. Theological Categories Applied To Communication

Some writers apply theological categories to communication, in the attempt to develop a theological model for communication. One highly developed, and quite typical, example of this approach appears in Communio et Progressio, the 1971 statement of the Pontifical Council for Social Communication. That statement devotes one major section to a theological perspective on communication and includes, for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and human community. More recent writers follow this lead. Peterson (2000) proposes a Trinitarian model for communication when he notes that the Trinity is active in creating and advancing communication (p. 17). He illustrates this for each Person of the Trinity: “God said, let there be light.” … Such a basic interpersonal act of communication, simple speech, can have very creative results…. God also created the possibility for mass communication and long-distance communication when he created light. … The Word becoming flesh is also an act of communication, an act of sharing. It was not possible for God to share our experience as human beings until the Word became flesh. … “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak foreign languages, as the Spirit gave them the gift of speech” (Acts 2:4, ff).

The gift of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was speech. There are other gifts of the Spirit, but the first gift was the gift of speech in foreign languages. (pp. 18-19). From this, he argues that all human communication should refer to such biblical models. Medhurst (2004) seeks to develop a Christian rhetoric, again by reference to biblical values and models. While not ignoring the traditional rhetorical concerns with audience and context, he looks to the teachings of Jesus for central concepts (love of God and neighbor, service, repentance, faithfulness, peacemaking, reconciliation); to biblical metaphors for figurative language; to the witness of the Church Fathers and 20th century sources like C. S. Lewis, for rhetorical sources. 

Kim (1995) also chooses biblical themes in developing a theological understanding of Christian communication. The People of God, or community, flows from such New Testament themes as participation, solidarity, and reconciliation and stands in contrast to the Old Testament loss of linguistic unity at Babel. Such biblically informed communication also works to correct the dangers of Western models and globalization. Kaufmann (1994) chooses a starting point grounded in later theology: that of the sensus fidelium. This concept refers to the collective belief of the Christian community, and he uses it to examine the social role of communication. His general approach is one of sociology of communication, but the theological starting point opens up a consideration of how faith is passed on.

A less typical example of the use of theological categories to illuminate communication practices comes from Boureux (1995) who re-reads Michel Serres in the light of angelology. Serres (1993) likens the role of the mass media to that of the angels in traditional theology. Boureux explores the origins of the concept and proposes that a stronger theological reading of the concept of angels (as divine communication, in the line of Karl Rahner’s theology), develops Serres’ ideas with more coherence. Poole (2003), in contrast, reports an historical investigation of how 17th century linguists/theologians wrestled with questions of the origins and universality of language. Here the theological presuppositions of the interlocutors influenced their reading of the empirical data before them. While Poole does not develop the theological implications of the debate, he does show how scholars of an earlier era used theological concepts in their concerns about language. Each of these writers either proposes or summarizes ways that theologians can understand communication on theological grounds. Others turn the tables and explore how communication studies can lead to a better grasp of theology.

5. Communication Tools: Analyzing Religious Texts

Some communication scholars use the methods of study appropriate to their own disciplines to better understand theology. The first group encompasses primarily rhetoricians who choose to analyze religious discourse. Apple and Messner (2001) studied the rhetoric of the Christian Identity Movement, a racist group in North America. By applying concepts from apocalyptic and paranoid discourse, they reveal the underlying theological structures in the group’s belief system. Gring (1998) approaches the texts of people’s reflections on revolution in Nicaragua in a similar rhetorical fashion; he, too, makes manifest the theological presuppositions that structured the revolutionary discourse. Litfin (1994) takes on a more ambitious project in his extended study of ancient rhetoric as the background for Pauline discourse. Beginning with 1 Corinthians 1-4, he separates the Pauline theology from the classical and intertestamental period rhetoric, noting how Paul challenges and changes the tradition.

Chase (2003) explores ways “to generate Christian discourses of peace” through an analysis of the rhetorical situation of Christian teaching and the development of two theological principles from the New Testament (the sufficiency of Christ’s death, and the ultimate justice of God’s judgment). He submits each principle to a rhetorical analysis (following Kenneth Burke and René Girard) to craft an argument that carefully integrates communication tools with theology. “The task for Christian rhetors, then, is to take their own theology with utmost seriousness. Christians who enter a global dialogue on peace ought not to soften their commitment to theological principles, but to strengthen it, such that the full implications of the New Testament teaching on sacrifice and judgment saturate their discourse” (p. 134). Though not in the direct ambit of Christian theology, studies of Jewish rhetoric also shed light on the theology that developed out of Judaism. Katz (2003), for example, explicates the rabbinical practice of interpretation, one based on the Hebrew alphabet. These practices come to function as a kind of hidden foundation to later Christian practice.

Rather than rhetoric, Hughes (2001) draws on aesthetics as he contrasts theological exegesis and aesthetic exegesis in his examination of the theology illustrated in medieval art. He acknowledges that medieval artists and viewers knew that “artworks can enhance theological ideas and take them in startlingly original directions or create new ones–all by their own visual devices” (p. 185). Focusing on typology, he shows how the artistic use of this Pauline concept sheds light on medieval theology.

Written in a much earlier period but only published in 1999, Marshall McLuhan’s reflections on religion offer his typical probing, aphoristic analyses, but in these instances devoted to religious communication and practices. McLuhan is certainly one of the most cited authors by theologians interested in communication. Here, we read his own words as he teases out the deeper communication and cultural consequences of religious texts and rituals. The collection includes his essays on the church’s understanding of communication as well as those dealing with liturgy and ritual.

6. Communication: A Context For Theology

McLuhan’s work provides a bridge to a different approach that communication scholars take towards theology. Following his lead in examining the ecology of the media–that is, the environment the media create for human living–they argue that this larger media context has an indirect, but nonetheless, indelible effect on theology as communication media make their imprint on human thought and action. McLuhan expressed these effects and relationship through easily remembered phrases like “the medium is the message” or “the Gutenberg galaxy.” His “global village,” the interaction created by instantaneous communication stands among McLuhan’s enduring ideas.

Schüssler-Fiorenza and Corsani (1993) integrate this concept, together with feminism to create a larger context for reading the Bible. Several others look not so much to the global village as to the impact of the forms of media. Boomershine (1995) argues Christian theology must adjust to the reality of contemporary thought pattens. Instead of continuing to invest our energy, our money and our thought in reinvigorating the forms that have made the gospel boring in electronic culture we could reinvestigate our tradition to discover the forms of the religion that will be meaningful in the communication system of electronic culture and invest our energy in them. The energy of Christian creativity needs to be poured into other forms than the essay and the sermon. 

These forms do not comprise the Christian tradition. The Bible, for example, is overwhelmingly composed of forms other than the theological essay, the sermon. The tradition of the Church has many forms–story, sacrament, liturgy, song, prayer, icon, poem, proverb, diatribe–that are directly relevant to this culture and that will work in its communication system. The current renaissance of narrative in virtually every area of Christian thought and ministry–narrative exegesis, narrative theology, narrative preaching pastoral counseling–is a sign of this recognition (p. 97). Boomershine goes on to encourage churches, pastors, and theologians to develop new forms for theology since the context of contemporary human life has changed so. Weber (1993) similarly argues for a homiletic style matched to the electronic culture in which people live. Following the work on oral cultures of Walter Ong, Green (1999) sees the contemporary world as moving towards a return of oral forms; on this basis we must replace “the bourgeois hegemony of religion,” the “‘let-me-explain-the-answers-to-you’ type of religion” (p. 334) in favor of a theological style that better fits oral patterns: experience, analysis, theological reflection, and action.

Soukup (2002) proposes a more sweeping connection between the context of the media and theology, suggesting that communication forms and affects the approach, the context, and the content of theology. Communication also affects theological method and reception; it has the possibility of offering fresh insights into traditional theological questions. In a later article (Soukup, 2003), he investigates how media forms allow people to substitute one thing for another: the book (Bible) for the temple, information for experience, graphical spaces for ritual places. Soukup, Buckley, and Robinson (2001) argue that similar changes enter the teaching of theology due to digital media. Berger (1996) makes the point more dramatically, following the reflections of Lanham and Birkerts on the digital world to their logical conclusion. The impact of

these media will be profound: If, as Lanham and Birkerts so convincingly argue, the electronic media and related rhetorical devices radically alter the way we communicate, even think, how do they affect the way theology is done? The way catechesis is carried out? The way worship is structured and planned?

More fundamentally, how do they modify the authoritative status granted to carefully crafted creeds and confessions (p. 195)? In fact, Berger maintains, such new media will change the nature of the church. They will give the laity a greater prominence in the church, will decentralize church polity, will change religious education, and will even affect pastoral counseling (p. 198). Each of these changes, of course, reflects substantial theological differences from the tradition. Walhout (1994) presents a carefully crafted explanation of how such changes occur by placing Ong’s thought into dialogue with that of Jacques Derrida. After reviewing the challenge posed by Derrida’s thinking, Walhout argues that Ong’s positions, built on his understanding of orality and literacy and on the impact of communicative forms, may help to resolve some of the theological issues.

Two lines of argument are implicit in Ong's work, I believe, even though he does not himself develop them. First, his emphasis on the historicity of thoughts and the history of logic itself, supports the view that metaphysics cannot be built on the foundation of reason alone. Logic and theoretical thought have their own histories and are meaningful in the final analysis in relationship to those histories. This view seems to coincide with Derrida’s. However, Derrida’s claim about the limits of language and thought seems to be a claim about the limits of understanding generally; the limits of language and of logical uses of language determine the limits of all theorizing. Ong, in contrast, develops a different line of argumentation, namely, that historical interpretation is heuristically more useful and ultimately more basic to human understanding than the internal coherence of logical systems. (pp. 448-49) This larger, partly rhetorical ,and partly interpretive, context allows theology to develop its themes more freely and with greater historical grounding. Communication, both as media and as content, forms the cultural matrix for such theology.

7. Communication: A Source For Religious Reflection

Another general intersection between theology and communication has the theologian look to the

 popular culture created by the communication industries. Here, the culture provides sources of theological reflection as well as the locus of inculturation for faith and religious practice. Schultze, Anker, Bratt, Romanowski, Worst, and Zuidervaart (1991) offer a survey of one specific group: youth culture in the electronic media. While they do not specifically address theology, the motivating force for the book is a religious one and they acknowledge as a bias the

Reformed Church commitment that they bring. For us this means, among other things, that the world belongs to God, that God created humankind, that humankind’s purpose in life is to magnify the Creator, and that Christians should not only save souls but also transform society and culture for the good of all people. The Reformed tradition especially demonstrates a passionate interest in caring for the whole of creation and culture as an expressive arena for the loving, redemptive action of God. Today that arena includes popular culture, especially the popular entertainment distributed through the mass media (p. x).

The book itself provides a history of popular culture and the ongoing presence of religion and Popular religious movements, a review of the entertainment industry, and examinations of popular music, music television, teen films, popular art, and leisure culture. Schultze (2002) continues this kind of work with a detailed consideration of the information society as the cultural matrix for religious understanding and practice. Hess (1993) endorses such approaches, terming them a “hermeneutic of popular culture” and seeing them as a condition for the possibility of theology. Beaudoin (1998) raises theological questions more explicitly as he examines the faith of Generation X. He, too, provides a reading of popular culture and suggests that it forms the theological sensibility of contemporary young people in the United States. His work, like that of Schultze and his colleagues, tries to open a place for popular culture within theological understanding.

Film studies represents one area that holds continuing interest for theologians. Many regard films as an ideal medium that implicitly engages in theological debate; others take film to be theological in their very nature. May’s (1997) collection presents essays that articulate a variety of theoretical positions on the religious and theological dimensions of film, some situated in aesthetics, some in narrative, and some in the specific kinds of consciousness induced by the film going experience. May (2001) takes a different approach, this time using the Apostles’ Creed as a theological lens through which to experience film. In this work he suggests specific films to view in conjunction with the various parts of the creed.

Malone and Pacatte (2001, 2002, 2003) similarly tie films to specific faith statements; in their books they propose films for each of the sets of readings in the church’s three lectionary cycles. In addition, they provide study questions and other tools to help their readers connect theological issues to individual films. Marsh and Ortiz (1998) combine these approaches. Their collection includes both theoretical pieces and case studies of individual films that pose theological questions. Marsh’s (1998) introductory essay situates the film and theology intersection within the tradition of Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture and Tillich’s method of correlation. After offering correctives to each approach, Marsh suggests the value of film for theology: First, using film in theology is a key way in which Christian theology can work out what it is going to be possible to say in our contemporary climate about any of theology’s major themes. Taking this too far would mean, of course, allowing contemporary relevance wholly to shape the content of Christian theology today. This is not my intention.

Second, using film in theology reminds us of the importance of the public dimension of any Christian theology. In the same way as Tillich’s theology can be viewed as apologetics, so also a theology of culture unavoidably enters the realm of missiology. Third, films enable Christian theology to be reminded that it is a discipline which seeks to do justice to the emotional and esthetic aspects of human life, as it deals with life’s issues. Precisely because film, as a medium, works through the creation of an emotional response first and foremost, as a reaction to the visual image presented, film invites theological reflection to begin through an emotional channel. Fourth, films are vulgar in the sense of being “of/for the people,” i.e. they constitute arguably one of the most influential cultural media at the moment in the West today (television alone being perhaps more influential). Fifth and, finally, theology comes much closer to journalism than it may ever care to admit. Theology, which takes film seriously, reminds itself of its own ephemeral character. We have already noted a word of caution about theology simply desiring to be relevant. But attending to that caution does not mean–as has happened so often in the history of Christian theology–seeking to say a word which is valid for all time. Tillich’s own “system” belies its own ephemeral nature here (pp. 32-33). 

Other essays in the book develop these approaches. For example, Graham (1998) takes film as a

medium for theology, in which people can experience the religious through the media. In their summary essay, Marsh and Ortiz bring the discussion back to the meaning of incarnation for theology and for contemporary living. A truly incarnational theology takes flight from these considerations of film. It is also a theology quite optimistic about culture and cultural products. Blake, a film critic, takes a similar approach. He restricts his study (2000) to just six film directors (Scorsese, Hitchcock, Capra, Ford, Coppola, and DePalma) for his case studies, but introduces them with a careful theoretical statement of how very specific theological themes come through their films. The introductory chapter on Catholic imaging provides an excellent introduction to this kind of theology-in-film approach.

Both Malits (1998) and Hess (1999) incorporate the habit of using popular culture products into their teaching of religious educators and seminarians. Malits recounts how students learn to do theology in dialogue with their (often, youth) culture. Hess, both here and in other, unpublished work, argues that media “texts” form the raw materials out of which people shape their identities and theological understanding. Her general approach as a theologian consists of opening the media texts (and unlike many, she includes popular music) into a dialogue with students’ experience and with the theological tradition. Writing from India, Carr (1995) also raises the issue of identity and explores the role of the media in shaping people’s identity. For him, the theological challenge lies in finding a way for the biblical word to inform actions and identities within the media content.

8. Communication: As Constructs In Theology

The final intersection between communication and theology occurs when theologians adopt concepts and ideas from communication study to enrich or resolve issues within theology. The last 10 to 15 years has seen more and more theologians conversant enough with communication to adopt its tools. While some restrict their inquiries to the communicative grounding for religious discourse, others use communication insights to open problematic areas within theology. 

A. Language

Communication scholars and linguistic philosophers have long examined how language works, particularly in specialized or restrictive settings like religious discourse. Both Austin (1975) and Searle (1979) single out liturgical and theological language as they develop the theory of speech acts–the theory that language goes beyond description to action. De Jong (2001) follows Searle’s distinction between illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts to analyze theological language and theological practice about talking about God, especially in catechesis and daily talk. Noting, too, that theology has shifted from a pastoral theology focused on God to one focused on the human situation (that is, a theological anthropology), he examines language–both the intersubjectivity and interactive aspects of religious communication. In this project, De Jong attempts to restate theological understandings of meaningful expression in the light of speech act theory, recovering as he does so, the classical theological concept of participation. In his study, he provides a different grounding for theological hermeneutics.

De Jong and his colleagues turn also to the insights from social constructionism to illuminate religious language. Hermans (2002) specifically looks to the anthropological side of religious communication and theology. “Therefore, the focus of this chapter will be on the anthropologic side of religious communication instead of the ‘theistic side.’ … [Communication is challenged not so much by the otherness of God … but by the separateness of other people, each expressing different religious viewpoints. Here social constructionism is useful because it stresses the transformative power of dialogue. … [T]he main topic of this chapter concerns the idea that truth in religious communication is relative to meaning within a certain tradition, place and time and form of life” (pp. 113-114).

Since the social construction model within communication, challenges individualism, Hermans sets up a contrast between two models of God. Borrowing terminology from Bakhtin, he calls them the author hero-God and the polyphonic author-God. In the former, “God gives form to the life of the hero” (p. 135) and encounters humans in a kind of personal dialogue, a situation Hermans judges more fitting for a premodern context. The latter model allows for many voices and for the larger human community to play a role, along with greater levels of uncertainty in God-talk. For De Jong, Hermans, and their colleagues, the overall project seeks to establish a meaningful way to understand religious communication, a theoretical grounding for theology in the postmodern world.

Rather than examining the social context of religious communication, Parmentier (2001) examines the form of that communication. She takes the inspiration for her theology from studies of narrative. In so doing, she wishes to reclaim narrative, especially biblical narratives, for theology in the light of contemporary research. “During the last 30 years, research on narratives in different areas of human sciences has led theology to reconsider the story, not only as an educational tool, but as a basic structure of the theology itself” (p. 29). She recasts salvation history and soteriology, for example, in terms of the history of the reader of the narrative.

B. Communicative Action

Moving beyond these questions of religious discourse, a group of primarily German theologians has quite systematically explored communication as the conditions for theology itself. Building on the communicative action theory of Jürgen Habermas and largely following the lead of Helmut Peukert (1984) in fundamental theology, they examine the theological implications of communicative action. Some papers and essays appear in works edited by Edmund Arens (1995, 1997). Lamb (1995) follows Peukert to examine the church, (the kingdom of God): Communicative action gives an approach to truth to balance power. He sees connections with nature, history, and culture (and, in this way, opens the theological dialogue to include Benjamin and Adorno). For him, the communicative emphasis on action leads to an emphasis on community. In the same volume, Schreiter (1995) builds a bridge from communicative action to intercultural communication. In his view, this combination calls for a rethinking of theology from an intercultural hermeneutic and praxis, with more attention paid to reception, the need to bring practical theology together with systematic theology, the consideration of identity, and the rethinking of evangelization. The 1997 book more explicitly sets out points of dialogue with the thought of Habermas, with contributors addressing questions of faith, theological aesthetics, eschatology, inspiration, consensus, and church structure.

Pieterse (1998) provides a comprehensive English-language introduction to the theological theory of communicative action, albeit from the perspective of South African theology. Because of the importance of reconciliation in South Africa, a theology that stresses dialogue and domination-free communication acquires a vital interest. He writes, “The concept of communicative actions is built on Habermas’s idea of the ideal speech situation. … From the perspective of Jesus’ communicative actions religious communication in all its facets ought to be domination free. It should be conducted on an equal footing with the freedom of every participant to bring her/his own perspectives, interpretations, and ideas to the communication on and of, our faith. For this kind of communicative actions, the mode of it, I propose a dialogical theory of communication” (p. 185). In this kind of dialogue, the partners must include not only believers, but also the Scriptures, their history of interpretation, and the contemporary understanding of the tradition.

Hawkins (2000) also uses concepts from the ideal speech situation, while drawing more on Apel’s ethical readings. Because of his interest in Christian millennialism, his essay suggests the “reign of Christ with the martyrs” from Revelation 20: 4-6, can function as the ideal communication community. In so doing, he situates the variants found in the millennial movements in theology. Fresacher (2001) takes up the theme of participation, particularly participation within the church and theology. He criticizes fundamental theology for not adequately incorporating the “turn to society” (in the theory of communicative action). In his view, fundamental theology depends too much on “its two dominant trends of theory formation, to subject-oriented reasoning (“anthropological theology”) and to consensus-oriented theory (‘communio-theology”). Communication, however, differs both from subjective consciousness and from collective community” (p. 283). He proposes a more comprehensive model of both communication and social reality that can work as a new ground for theory formation in theology.

Afrasiabi (1998) remains skeptical of the whole project. He feels that theologians have uncritically accepted Habermas’s approach, including his secular orientation. He summarizes his argument in this way: “Contrary to what has become an article of faith in recent theological forays into social theory, I contend: (a) that Habermasian theory has little to contribute to theological thought and is more valuable as an indirect aid in critiquing various deficient theological discourses, and (b) that the current Habermas-sympathetic attempts at a communicative theology are, by and large, open to criticism for the same shortcomings and problems found in Habermas’s own works: and that the need to address these problems necessarily points us toward an alternative post-communication theology” (p. 75). In this very thorough article he attempts to situate each of the theologians in the communicative action movement. But even acknowledging their contributions, they still fall short.

Despite its usefulness as a critique of deficient theologies illustrated above, one of the problem with communicative theology, as formulated by Peukert and others, is that it is limited in its freedom to reconstruct the theoretical framework within which its theology works itself out. It is exposed to the syndrome of a methodological atheism that forms a specific barrier to the stated objective of a transcendental hermeneutics. To elaborate, communicative theology is wedded to Habermas’s pragmatic theory of meaning, in which meaning is assimilated to intersubjectivity. This is, however, precisely what makes communicative theory a theology-nullifying endeavor; the theological leanings nullified are those that belong to the elements of “God-consciousness.” This corresponds to the dissolution of any sense of foundational ‘transcendental grounding” (p. 81). Afrasiabi then offers a corrective in the proposal of a “post-communicative” theology, in other words a theology that offers a self-conscious critique of communication and the role of communication in society and in religious discourse.

C. Church 

While the communicative action approach touches in some ways on the nature of the church, other communication approaches are possible. Granfield (1994) presents a collection of essays that root the understanding of the church in communication concepts ranging from symbol formation, dialogue, personal witness, and interaction technologies. Granfield himself suggests a cybernetic model. Cornelius (1995) applies a model involving acceptance theory to the local parish.

D. Self-Communication

Although Karl Rahner’s term to describe God’s activity, “self-communication,” has resonance with communication, he did not derive the term from communication study. However, some theologians have turned more explicitly to communication to develop this key idea. The most creative and detailed project appears in Beeck (1991), which seeks to resolve several issues in the theology of revelation. After a critique of the impact that Enlightenment models of knowledge have had on theology, Beeck attempts to recover Patristic insights about the relation of the immanence of God and revelation. To do this, he turns to communication studies and the distinction between the content and relational components of any interpersonal communication. In constructing his argument, he demonstrates first the anthropological infrastructure for revelation: that communication is both process and content; that interpersonal self-communication presumes the other and implies the possibility of transcendence; that interpersonal communication implies both responsibility and freedom; that communication requires the role of tradition; and that interpersonal communication has transcendent preconditions. Then he applies this, by analogy, to divine revelation, which occurs, he says, not from the outside, but in relationship. The appeal to an analysis of communication provides new perspectives on a traditional theological problem.

Molnar (1997) uses the concept of “self-communication” to contrast the theologies of Rahner (Roman Catholic) and Thomas F. Torrance (Reformed). For Rahner, “self-communication” describes the human person as well as God. Rahner sought a closer unity between fundamental theology and dogmatic theology. The concept of mystery does not hinder this because mystery does not describe something senseless and unintelligible but the “horizon of human existence which grounds and encompasses all human knowledge.” … Thus, creatures have a positive affinity, given by grace, to the Christian mysteries of faith which he [Rahner] conceptualizes as our obediential potency and supernatural existential. The former refers to our openness to being (as spirit in the world) and as such it refers to our openness to God’s self-communication, at least as a possibility. “This potency is … our human nature as such. If the divine self-communication did not occur, our openness toward being would still be meaningful … we are by nature possible recipients of God’s self-communication, listeners for a possible divine word” (p. 306).

Self-communication, then, both establishes and describes revelation and the human participation in the divine mystery, a mystery which includes “the self-communication of God in the depths of

existence, called grace, and in history, called Jesus Christ, and this already includes the mystery of the Trinity in the economy of salvation and of the immanent Trinity” (p. 307). Torrance also explores the relationship between theology and science (particularly human knowing). He considers both natural theology and the resurrection and holds that the resurrection, as a unique event, is the point of scientific access to God’s self-communication. In examining the two theological traditions, Molnar finds keys differences, especially in doctrine of immanent trinity, but acknowledges the similarities in the desire to unite fundamental and dogmatic theology. While both theologians use the concept of “self-communication,” they understand it differently; neither draws directly on communication study. The consideration of “self-communication,” especially by Beeck, includes some sense of interpersonal communication. Several other theologians use this construct in developing their thinking. Like Beeck, Gorsuch (1999) incorporates an interpersonal model in her understanding of revelation.

She considers it one of several possibilities. “Three understandings of revelation have been discussed in relation to their meaning and role in pastoral theology: a cooperative view of sensing and laboring with God’s presence in creation, the notion of collision between Christian and personal narratives, and the analogy of interpersonal communication which reclaims mutual relationship and its ongoing development as the content of revelation” (p. 45). Muers (2001) also looks to interpersonal communication as a model for revelation; however, her focus is more on listening and speaking, contact and silence. Finally, Hedahl (2000) puts interpersonal listening at the heart of Lutheran theology, but in this case, listening in multiple contexts, ranging from revelation to homiletics to pastoral counseling.

Conclusion

While communication remains a minor part of contemporary theology, it also retains its place as a contact between theology and culture, between theology and the human person. This review of more recent writings on theology and communication reveals some important things. First, some theologians do take communication seriously as a dialogue partner, as something which says something significant about being human. Second, these theologians have an increasingly sophisticated understanding of communication; they have moved beyond the simple sender-message-receiver model to models that include culture, structures, and audiences. Third, theologians, with an interest in communication, work together more and more to develop their ideas. Fourth, the Christian churches and theologians show a greater understanding of the importance of popular culture in the identity of believers. Fifth, communication scholars also show a growing interest in theology. 

On the other hand, this review reveals several weaknesses. First, those theologians showing the greatest interest in communication draw only indirectly on communication studies. For example, the group around Peukert and Arens, which considers communicative action, draws inspiration from Habermas, a philosopher. Their knowledge of communication seems filtered through his approach rather than directed by communication scholars. The same applies to the work of Beeck, whose ideas about interpersonal communication come more from philosophical analysis, and De Jong and his colleagues, who draw on the philosophy of language tradition. Second, a similar weakness applies to communication scholars interested in theology. Third, an interpersonal communication model dominates theological reflection. Few people seem to develop their ideas from mass communication study. Here, much of the writing about communication and theology still regards communication only in an instrumental fashion. Some, while addressing important questions, content themselves with pointing out problems rather than resolving them. Few have undertaken historical studies of theology to see how “the story takes a different form if you structure it around communication” (Edwards, 1994, p. 171).

Comment on popular culture products always runs the risk of succumbing to the ephemeral. However, those with an interest in communication and theology should begin an investigation into those doing theology in forms other than the traditional printed statements or sermons of the churches, other than in theological journals. Christians throughout the centuries have expressed their theology in art, music, and ritual. In today’s culture, we should expect to find theologians working in film, television, and graphic novels. One can only wonder whether those associated with a program like “Joan of Arcadia” regard themselves as theologians. The topics they explore (Does God exist? Does God communicate with us? How do we discern what is of God?) certainly sound like theological ones.

References

Adeney, Miriam, John Bennett, Jeremy Mudditt, Randy and Nicole McCaskill, Kathleen Nichols,

Bill Thatcher. (1997). Reflecting on the role of media in communication in the ministries of the church. Evangelical Review of Theology, 21, 37-40. 

Afrasiabi, K. L (1998). Communicative theory and theology: A reconsideration. Harvard Theological Review, 91, 75-87.

Apple, A. A., & Messner, B. A. (2001). Paranoia and paradox: The apocalyptic rhetoric of Christian Identity. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 206-227.  

Arens, E. (Ed.). (1995). Anerkennung der Anderen: Eine theologische Grunddimension interkultureller Kommunikation. Freiburg im Bresau: Herder. 

Arens, E. (Ed.). (1997). Kommunikatives Handeln und christlicher Glaube: Ein theologisches Diskurs mit Jürgen Habermas. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöringh.

Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd ed., J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisà, eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Baum, G. (1993). Christians in the communications media. Conrad Grebel Review, 11, 137-144.

Beaudoin, T. (1998). Virtual faith: The irreverent spiritual quest of generation X. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Beeck, F. J. van. (1991). Divine revelation: Intervention or self-communication? Theological Studies, 52, 199-226. Also (1997) In W. R. Barr (ed.), Constructive Christian theology in the worldwide church (pp. 14-40). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 

Berger, D. O. (1996). Theology in the brave new world. Concordia Journal, 22, 189-200.

Blake, R. A. (2000). Afterimage: The indelible Catholic imagination of six American filmmakers. Chicago: Loyola Press. 

Boomershine, T. E (1995). The Polish cavalry and Christianity in electronic culture. Journal of Theology (United Theological Seminary), 99, 90-102.

Boureux, C. (1995). Une angelologie apollinienne: Convergences et divergences theologiques a propos de La Legende des Anges de M Serres. Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques, 79, 283-292.

Carr, D. (1995). Communication, identity and the church: A theological reflection. In Communication and human dignity (pp. 86-95). Delhi: ISPCK.

Chase, K. R. (2003). Christian discourse and the humility of peace. In K. R. Chase & A. Jacobs (eds.), Must Christianity be violent? Reflections on history, practice, and theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

Cornelius-Bundschuh, J. (1995). “Brücken bauen” -- Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem Kommunikationsmodell fur evangelische Kirchenkreise. Evangelische Theologie, 55(4), 373-391.

Dalton, R. W. (1999). “Electronic Areopagus”: Communicating the Gospel in multimedia culture. Journal of Theology (United Theological Seminary), 103, 17-33. 

De Jong, A.(2001). God in our talk. In H.-G. Ziebertz, F. Schweitzer, H. Häring, & D. Browning eds.). The human image of God (pp. 193-214). Leiden, Boston, Koln: Brill.

Edwards, M. U. (1994). Printing, propaganda, and Martin Luther. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Flemming, D. (2002). Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens: Paul’s Areopagus address as a paradigm for missionary communication. Missiology, 30(2), 199-214.

Fresacher, Bernhard. (2001). Kommunikation: Leitbegriff theologischer Theoriebildung: fundamentaltheologische Anstosse. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 123(2-3), 269-283.

Gorsuch, N. J. (1999). Revelation and pastoral theology: Cooperation, collision, and communication. Journal of Pastoral Theology, 9, 35-48.

Graham, D. J. (1998). The uses of film in theology. In C. Marsh & G. Ortiz (Eds.), Explorations in theology and film: Movies and meaning (pp. 35-43). Oxford: Blackwell.

Granfield, P. (Ed.). (1994). The church and communication. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward.

Green, L. (1999). Oral culture and the world of words. Theology, 102, 328-335.

Gring, M. A. (1998). Attention, power, and need: The rhetoric of religion and revolution in Nicaragua. World Communication, 27(4), 27-37. 

Hamelink, C. (1975). Perspectives for public communication: A study of the churches’ participation in public communication. Baarn, Holland: Ten Have. 

Hawkins, C. S. (2000). The millennium and the ideal speech community. Review and Expositor, 97(3), 355-365. 

Hedahl, S. K. (2000). Installation address–Gettysburg Lutheran Theological Seminary. Seminary Ridge Review, 2(2), 53-61. 

Hermans, C. A. M. (2002). Ultimate meaning as silence: The monologic and polyphonic author-God in religious communication. In C. A. M.. Hermans, G. Immink, A. DeJong, & J. Van der Lans (eds.), Social Constructionism and Theology (pp. 113-145). Leiden, Boston, Koln: Brill.

Hess, J. D. (1993). Toward a hermeneutic of popular culture. Conrad Grebel Review, 11.

Hess, M. E. (1999). From trucks carrying messages to ritualized identities: Implications for religious educators of the postmodern paradigm shift in media studies. Religious Education, 94, 273-288

Hoover, S. M. (1993). What do we do about the media? Conrad Grebel Review, 11, 97-107.

Horsfield, P. G. (1984). Religious television: The American experience. New York: Longman. 

Hughes, C. (2001). Visual typology: An Ottonian example. Word and Image, 17(3), 185-198.

Jordan, S. (2001). Embodied pedagogy: The body and teaching theology. Teaching Theology and Religion, 4(2), 98-101.

Jorgenson, L. (n.d.). The WCC and communication: A survey of the discussion so far. Geneva: World Council of Churches. [Although not dated, this report seems to have been written in 1982, in preparation for the WCC Vancouver Assembly in 1983.] 

Katz, S. B. (2003). Letter as essence: The rhetorical (im)pulse of the Hebrew alefbet. Journal of communication and religion, 26, 126-162.

Kaufmann, F. X. (1994). Glaube und Kommunikation: eine soziologische Perspektive. In D. Wiederkehr (Ed.), Glaubenssinn des Gottesvolkes - Konkurrent oder Partner des Lehramts (pp. 132 -160). Freiburg im Breslau: Herder.

Kim, Yong-Bock. (1995). The Church in Asia and people’s struggles: Towards a Gospel for life. In Communication and human dignity (pp. 67-85). Delhi: ISPCK.

Knippenberg, T. van. (Ed.). (1998). Between two languages: Spiritual guidance and communication of Christian faith. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. 

Lamb, M. L. (1995). Kommunikative Praxis, die Offenheit der Geschichte und die Dialektik von Gemeinschaft und Herrschaft. In E. Arens (ed), Anerkennung der Anderen: Eine theologische Grunddimension interkultureller Kommunikation (pp. 167-192). Freiburg im Bresau: Herder.

Litfin, D. (1994). St. Paul’s theology of proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Greco-Roman rhetoric. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Malits, E. (1998). Teaching theology by exploring the ordinary. In E. O. Springfield (Ed.), Spirituality and theology (pp. 124-132). Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Malone, P., & Pacatte, R. (2001). Lights, camera . . . faith, A movie lover’s guide to Scripture (A movie lectionary–cycle A). Boston: Pauline Books and Media.

Malone, P., & Pacatte, R. (2002). Lights, camera . . . faith: A movie lover’s guide to Scripture (A movie lectionary–cycle B). Boston: Pauline Books and Media.

Malone, P., & Pacatte, R. (2003). Lights, camera . . . faith: A movie lover’s guide to Scripture (A movie lectionary–cycle C). Boston: Pauline Books and Media. 

Marsh, C., & Ortiz, G. (1998). Explorations in theology and film: Movies and meaning. Oxford: Blackwell. 

May, J. R. (Ed.). (1997). New image of religious film. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward.

May, J. R. (2001). Nourishing faith through fiction: Reflections of the Apostles’ Creed through literature and film. Franklin, WI: Sheed & Ward. 

McLuhan, M. (1999). The medium and the light: Reflections on religion (E. McLuhan & J. Szklarek, eds.). Toronto: Stoddart.

Medhurst, M. J. (2004). Religious belief and scholarship: A complex relationship. Journal of Communication and Religion, 27, 40-47.

Molnar, P. D. (1997). God’s self-communication in Christ: A comparison of Thomas F. Torrance and Karl Rahner. Scottish Journal of Theology, 50(3), 288-320.

Muers, R. (2001). Silence and the patience of God. Modern Theology, 17(1), 85-98.

Papathanasiou, A. N. (1999). The language of Church and world: An adventure of communication or conflict? Ecumenical Review, 51, 40-45.

Parmentier, E. (2001). Le recit comme theologie: Statut, sens et portee du recit biblique. Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 81(1), 29-44. 

Peterson, C. (1997). Theology and mass media from a critical perspective. Covenant Quarterly, 55 (1), 14-22.

Peterson, C. (2000). Communication, media, and the Christian life. Covenant Quarterly, 58(2), 17-26. 

Peukert, H. (1984). Science, action, and fundamental theology: Toward a theology of communicative action (J. Bohman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Pieterse, H. J. C. (1998). A theological theory of communicative actions. Religion and theology/Religie and teologie, 5(2), 176-194.

Pontifical Council for Social Communication. (1971). Communio et Progressio. Retrieved July 5, 2004, from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc pc_pccs_doc_23051971_communio_en.html

Pontifical Council for Social Communication. (1997). Ethics in Advertising. Retrieved July 5, 2004, from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc pc_pccs_doc_22021997_ethics-in-ad_en.html

Pontifical Council for Social Communication. (2000). Ethics in communications. Retrieved July 5, 2004 from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc pc_pccs_doc_20000530_ethics-communications_en.html

Pontifical Council for Social Communication. (2002). Ethics in Internet. Retrieved July 5, 2004 from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs _doc_20020228_ethics-internet_en.html

Poole, W. (2003). The divine and the grammarian: Theological disputes in the seventeenth century universal language movement. Historiographia Linguistica 30(3): 273-300.

Puloka, T. T. M. (1998). Evangelization: Culture and communication. Pacific Journal of Theolog, ns 19, 42-54.

Raja, J. (2000). Church and sign of contradiction: Relevance of Kierkegaard’s concept of indirect communication to Indian churches. Bangalore Theological Forum, 32(2), 94-107. 

Raja, J. J. (2001). Facing the reality of communication: Cultures, church and communication. Delhi: ISPCK.

Rose, M. Sander, L. M., & Kayser, I. (1998). Comunicação. Estudos teologicos, 38, 252-272.

Rossi, P. J., & Soukup, P. A. (1994). Mass media and the moral imagination. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward.

Schreiter, R. J. (1995). Theories und Praxis interkultureller Kommunikationskompetenz in der Theologie. In E. Arens (ed.), Anerkennung der Anderen: Eine theologische Grunddimension interkultureller Kommunikation (pp. 9-30). Freiburg im Bresau: Herder.

Schultze, Q. J. (2002). Habits of the high-tech heart: Living virtuously in the information age. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Schultze, Q. J., Anker, R. M., Braat, J. D., Romanowski, W. D., Worst, J. W., & Zuidervaart, L. (1991). Dancing in the dark: Youth, popular culture, and the electronic media. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Schüssler-Fiorenza, E. & Corsani, M. (1993). Leggere la Bibbia nel “villaggio globale”: Riflessioni teologiche femministe. Protestantesimo, 48(2), 80-93.

Schwier, H. (1998). Blickrichtungen im Gottesdienst: Pladoyer für ein elementares Modell. Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie, 37, 87-97. 

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Serres, M. (1993). La legende des Anges. Paris: Flammion.

Soukup, P. A. (1983). Communication and theology: Introduction and review of the literature. London: World Association for Christian Communication.

Soukup, P. A. (2002). The context, structure, and content of theology from a communication perspective. Gregorianum. 83(1), 131-143.

Soukup, P. A. (2003). The structure of communication as a challenge for theology. Teologia y Vida, 44(1), 102-122. [Facultad de teologia, Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago.]

Soukup, Paul A., Buckley, F. J., & Robinson, D. C. (2001). The influence of information technologies on theology. Theological Studies, 62, 366-377.

Steinmann, A. E. (1997). Communicating the Gospel without theological jargon. Concordia Theological Quarterly, 61, 201-214. 

Teinaore, R. (2001). From communication to communion. Pacific Journal of Theology, ns 26, 55-68. 

Walhout, C. (1994). Christianity, history, and literary criticism: Walter Ong’s global vision. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 62, 435-459. 

Weber, D C. (1993). Preaching to be heard in a television age: A study of the homiletical response to the modern media context. Unpublished Thesis (Ph.D.), Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

Wimberly, A. S. (1996). An African American pathway to hope: Belief formation through uses of narrative in Christian education. Religious Education, 91, 316-333.

World Council of Churches. (1968). The Church and the media of mass communication. The Uppsala report 1968 (pp. 389-401). Geneva: World Council of Churches