Frances Forde Plude

Representing Faith in a Digital Media Culture: Problems in Church Policy Statements on Media and Communication

By Rev. Ineke de Feijter, Ph.D 

[This paper was prepared for the International UCSIA conference, April 2007, at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. There are references in the text to chapters in Dr. de Feijter’s book The Art of Dialogue, published by Lit Verlag, Berlin.]

Introduction 

Media and culture are deeply intertwined in contemporary society. Media are not only our ‘global central nervous system’[1], they also are the main provider of images of social reality and our shared cultural environment, and they express our shared identity (McQuail: 2000). They set the agenda and every social institute somehow has to come to terms with ‘media logic’. At the same time media are part of a range of trends and changes like deregulation, liberalization and privatization, concentration, globalization and commercialization, and convergence and digitization. Due to the latter, patterns of the traffic of information in society change and increasingly turn towards interactivity (as well as to consultation and registration).  

Religions are struggling to deal with this media culture, which is shaped by media processes (mediation)[2] and conditioned by digital (mass) media and interactive forms of communication. Media profoundly challenge religions, both with respect to their public communication, as well as their very existence and public relevance. Moreover, media themselves involve religious dimensions (rituals, identification, myths, celebration, community, identity, ultimate meaning) and have become the religious ‘iconofiers’ [3] of our world. People increasingly use media for shaping their (religious) identity and for their search with respect to questions of ultimate meaning. Mainstream institutional churches in the North-Western European context are deeply impacted by these realities and are having problems to relate to them. Solving these problems is often merely thought of as a matter of praxis, e.g. on the level of improving public relations, restructuring communication departments or even applying marketing techniques. In our opinion, however, there is a preceding level that initially should be researched and is often missed: the location of these problems at the level of policy outlines. Exactly at this level ecclesiastical insights are to be found on the views of media context and media culture, on issues of Christian identity, theological presuppositions in communication, and responsibilities and priorities in public communication. Moreover, insights may be gained on churches’ definitions and views on communication and communication models.  

Hardly any profound theological studies exist, which reflect on churches’ policy-views in this field (and the ways these policies ground their communication praxis) related to the way -and extent to which media culture affects churches’ communication and being. This is even more compelling as present media culture, to a large extent, is conditioned by digital media and information and communication technologies (ICs) and meditated ‘interactive’ forms of communication. At the same time, mainstream institutional churches find themselves in a crisis, which is related to the shift in dominant media in society - from writing and print to digital interactive forms of communication. Churches, having a longstanding tradition of being attached to the book and print culture, and of proclaiming linear forms of communication, in which media are merely instruments of dissemination, hardly seem capable of handling this crisis. This text[4], then, will focus on the identification and analysis of the main problems in recent policy statements on communication and media published by mainstream churches in North-Western Europe (and their global communication institutes) since the 1990’s[5]. By this focus we will gain a better insight into the representation of faith in contemporary media culture and the challenges and opportunities for contemporary public communication by the churches. 

Summary of the Content Analysis 

In general, we can discern five main categories of statements: basic overall documents about church, media and communication; statements on communication and media ethics; documents on new media and the ‘information society’; on churches’ communication strategy, involvement, education and theology; and, finally, statements, which reflect churches’ official reactions on media policy. A variety of denomination, institutional background, regions and (inter) national and ecumenical levels is included in the research.

Our content analysis of the statements is based on the identification of nine key issues in the documents: (1) sort of document, its goal and addressees; (2) analysis of the media context, media structures and media culture; (3) references to media studies, in particular audience research; (4) views of Christian culture/identity; (5) views on media roles and communication models; (6) theological presuppositions in communication views; (7) churches’ involvement in communication and media; (8) churches’ social responsibility with respect to communication (ethics, communication rights, structure and legislation, public debate etc.) and (9) challenges and priorities for churches’ public communication (communication strategy, media literacy, education, theological curriculum etc.). Providing a detailed overview of every key issue of the content analysis is beyond the scale and scope of this paper[6]. Its aim is to focus on the problems identified in the policy statements on communication. We will however briefly summarize our findings of the content analysis, in view of gaining a better understanding of the problems. 

The 26 policy statements vary in sort, scope addressee and purpose, which are not always clearly explicated. References to other documents hardly cross denominational and/or regional borders. Main key issue of the documents are challenges and priorities for the church and its communication - followed by the analysis of media context, social responsibility by the churches and church views on media roles and communication models. Audience research scarcely receives attention. New media appear to be evaluated and used along traditional patterns of outlook and use of mass media. Concepts used are not adequately defined. The degree of integration of media and culture is valued to different extents and not always clear. The challenges communication developments offer to religion, religious attitudes and the perception of the church are acknowledged but not fully thought through. The religious component in media culture is overlooked and does not result in a critical analysis, in which the being of mainline Christianity and institutional and structural change is involved (with the exception of the Lutheran churches and the WACC/UNDA specialists’ document).  

Human service, community, and progress constitute the paradigm media should be oriented to. Media use, as part of everyday social interaction, is mainly related to new media and elaborated upon in a moral and ethical sense. It is not an explicit issue in itself. Audience views differ between a ‘subject’ and an ‘object’ outlook. Receiver orientation is acknowledged but not pursued for its implications. The tension between informing, proclamation, and dialogue remains unsolved. Christian and church identities are variables with higher and lower degrees of: openness to media culture; theological grounding; proclamation; safeguarding tradition; emphasis on interpersonal contact within the faith community; recipient orientation; dialogue; living interaction; and a common search for truth. The outlooks differ from a ‘communicative community’ to a ‘non-centralized living participative community’, a communio, ‘Christ’s mystical body’, and a fellowship.

Communication is a basic human right and a necessity for social cohesion. The one-way model of communication and the instrumental view of media are under pressure; however, they prevail in the majority of the documents. Communication appears strongly related to proclamation. The emphasis on personal encounter within parish or congregation, interpersonal communication and the second-hand value attached to mediated communication shows faith and the gospel are bound up within the institution. This raises questions of power and of connecting with the religious dimensions of media culture, as well as to the understanding of media use by the audience for autonomous ritual community and meaning negotiating activities. Public service broadcasting is an important issue in the statements. Definitions about interactivity are not elaborated nor is the concept analyzed for its implications for the church and its communication. Interactivity is mainly related to the communication of the gospel to new generations. The statements by the Lutheran churches and the Christian media professionals break new ground in seeking a different attitude towards media and their own communication praxis, involving the church itself. 

Theological presuppositions grounding media and communication praxis by the churches are still strong. They involve a variety of arguments. Whether they are the best point of departure or are adequate in coping with a digital media culture is not reflected. Neither are methodological problems. Church involvement in communication and social and ethical responsibilities are extensively elaborated upon. The outlooks vary from engagement for the sake of sociability to mission. Ecumenical and interreligious cooperation are mentioned, but not specified. Maintaining their own religious media is felt to be important, whereas the communication specialists of UNDA/WACC caution against niche thinking. Another important issue is media education and media (self) regulation for the sake of community, diversity, integration, and democracy. Communication should also have a curriculum of its own and be part of all fields of theology. Challenges and priorities differ according to the major focus of each statement. The focus varies from: skills in personal communication; democratization and empowerment; pastoral planning; public presence and participation; grass roots communication as a space for dialogue; communication justice and theological reflection. The need for a theology of communication is mentioned, however without further explanation. This short summary already marks the contours of problematic issues in the statements.

Main Problems in Church Policy Statements on Media and Communication

An inventory of the main problems refers to the following five related issues.

• the outlook on media, communication context and culture

• the outlook on the audience and related audience research concepts

• communication models and theological presuppositions

• ecclesiological identity

• theory related to praxis. 

A general underlying problem is the absence and inaccuracy in defining terms frequently used. Related problems include coherence in outlook, repetition, and the status, goal, and addressees of statements. Repetition questions whether new media cultural developments and their impact are judged on their merits, and whether they are contextually applied. An accurate understanding of the relationship between communication technology, media culture, and religion is of vital importance and one of the major underlying problems in church documents.  

1. The outlook on media, communication context and culture

Media are credited with considerable power in the statements. They appear to satisfy each eight of the hallmarks with respect to the ‘omnipotent media theory’ (de Boer and Brennecke 2003). Effect research, however, is a complicated and contested area and the omnipotent media theory on communication scientific grounds no longer holds. Current paradigms take into consideration a range of variables: selective exposure; selective perception and remembering; groups and group norms; opinion leadership; the spread, adoption and use of media in society; gender; and social/economical variables etc.

This raises a first question: do the statements have an accurate outlook on media and what exactly is their definition of media? An instrumental vision and a traditional concept of ‘mass’ media (especially traditional television) appear to be prevailing[7]. Technological developments, however, do also change traditional media and interpersonal communication (computer technology, for example, strongly impacts newspaper and magazine production; television becomes more interactive; people can and do make their own radio and films in podcasting, weblogs, You Tube etc.). Moreover, in the outlook of the statements there is a contradiction in the recognition of media being cultural transformers, on the one hand, and an instrumental view of media, on the other. This might also account for an over-emphasis on assumed ‘effects’ (which are treated mainly in moral claims) and of media ‘use’ for church purposes. It is striking, however, that hardly any media theory is given to ground visions and positions taken, or even to define concepts accurately. Likewise, the relationship between media and culture is not examined thoroughly enough.

A second related question involves new media developments, patterns of information traffic and the concept of interactivity. With respect to new media developments, even a statement like Cybernauts Awake! (3.4), though analyzing cyberspace for its ethical, moral and spiritual implications, claims that ‘historically every new advance in communication has been a means of proclaiming the gospel and cyberspace is no exception’ (1999:89). Again, the question arises whether an instrumental, moral, and institutional preoccupation hinders an accurate outlook on the way the media context is developing. This holds true not only for the integration of conventional media and the computer, but also for virtual reality, the application of artificial intelligence, the symbiosis of human/machine (humanoid robotica), the application of cybernetics, etc. Whatever the outcome of developments may be, they seem to be moving beyond ethical control and without societal debate. A dispute about online and physical worship, (in this respect a concern in several statements) is not the height of identifying priorities in the vital need for accurate evaluations, public debates and signposts towards a commonly defined future communication society. It is also not helpful in learning to cope with new social-cultural ICT realities. Churches and theology, however, could make important contributions to such a societal debate, (provided they dare to release themselves from inner ecclesiastical survival and power strategies). In this respect, it is striking that general statements, regarding regulating contemporary and future media policy mostly keep to moral and ethical responsibilities of audiences and journalists. Whether the same ethical standards (e.g. of honesty and openness, objectivity, and representation of different views) also hold true for church internal and external communication praxis is to be argued. Acknowledged on paper, the praxis (especially when there is ‘bad news’ to report) shows the opposite.

It is also questionable why the statements easily seem to leave the area of media policy to self-regulation by media industries and political regulation (which increasingly is more difficult to reach) to safeguard, for example, public broadcasting. This again questions whether the statements have thoroughly analyzed the impact of contemporary developments beyond their views of traditional mass media - in which new media are incorporated. The contribution that could be made by the churches, in this respect, in the public arena - if the focus was less on moral, and more on human communication ethics and values in the so-called information society - seems to be underestimated. This contribution is restricted to media education (no matter how important that is). Calling to mind the four patterns of information traffic as identified by Bordewijk and Van Kaam (1982) - allocution, registration, consultation and conversation - the documents appear not to distinguish between them. Registration developments, e.g. get little to no attention. The implications of the redistribution in communication patterns, from allocutary to conversational and consultative patterns, are neither considered fully. An instrumental vision of media appears to remain unaffected.

Another overlooked issue is that each pattern has its own view of the audience. This questions whether the statements are aware of the need of non-mass medial typologies of the audience that can no longer remain based on a center-peripheral form of communication. It is even questionable whether the latter can be regarded as communication in its full meaning, and whether the uncritical muddling of terminologies of communication, proclamation, etc. is possible. Even views about communication via new media appear to be considered more as an extension of these forms than as a new form of communication, in its own right, demanding different policies. Compared to the continuum definition of interactivity given by Jensen (1999) as a variable with diverging multidimensional interactive degrees, the outlook given by the church statements is feeble and instrumentally restricted. In particular, the expectations regarding the possibilities in internal networking and in communication with youth are high. So are the assumed effects. De Boer and Brennecke (2003) state these assumptions are not always materialized. They refer to studies on the effect of violent videogames on aggression[8] (which appears to be small), and the positive effects of games on children with learning problems in improving concentration, being more aware of what happens in class, and their attitude towards tests[9]. This again questions whether the statements in the double outlook of high instrumental expectations, on the one hand, and their emphasis on the moral dangers and ‘responsibilities’ of parents and young people themselves, on the other hand, are based on media studies. Uses and gratifications studies in the motives of the use of internet[10] for example, point to ‘interpersonal use’ as the main motive. These motives are a combination of ‘helping others, express myself freely, like to answer questions, know more points of view, take part in discussions, learning what others think and meet new people’ (De Boer and Brennecke 2003:147). This also questions the valuation of personal communication as ‘best’ given in several statements.

With respect to the concept of interactivity, De Boer and Brennecke (2003:149/152) identify six underlying dimensions: (1) reaction or feedback; (2) conversation or mutuality; (3) selectivity; (4) modification; (5) linearity/non linearity (the internet, contrary to, for example, a book, is structured non-linear) and (6) multimedia. They state media theories do not allow enough for interactivity. The possibilities of internet change both media and interpersonal communication processes. Considering the latter and the dimensions mentioned above, one might say none of the church statements allow enough for interactivity. Putting a ‘contact’ button on a church web page filled with rationalist and linear oriented messages, in this respect, is but one very limited dimension.

A general overview of churches and faith organizations on the internet[11] shows content on church websites consist of: self-presentation: time tables, agendas and programs; art and tourist attractions of church buildings; publications; prayers (prayer lines); ecclesial statements, encyclicals; historical and theological studies; education by extension; community access and literacy programs; missionary activities and pastoral counseling and care; -- all classical church functions. It is the church leaflet of olden days in an electronic coating. A study by Sturgill (2004:165-176) endorses this outcome. Researching the scope and purposes of church websites, she concludes literature suggests ‘churches may see Websites as instruments of evangelism, corporate reputation builders, or community extenders, that provide virtual substitutes for relational experiences.’ Her content analysis of 251 Southern Baptist church web sites shows the ’promotion of the church as an organization was quite important and was followed by the evangelistic function of Web sites. (92% of the sites had the schedule for the church services). “The ideas that communication creates community or that it is participatory did not seem to be developed in the Web sites that were examined. (…) The Pew study found church Web masters primarily wanted to attract visitors to the church, which seemed to be the focus of many sites (Larsen, 2000[12])” (Sturgill 2004:174). The most vital issue regarding interactivity and the church statements, in our opinion, is whether ‘interactivity’ includes the core of communication: dialogical conversation, which creates community by the mutual willingness to listen, understand and be changed. (Thus, it is strongly related to identity, which we will discuss later).

The third and last issue under this heading, involves the outlook on the social cultural role of media and its religious implications. Regarding the social cultural role, the main focus in the statements is on issues typical of the churches: sociability and disintegration, the perception of identity, the meaning of life, and the reshaping of values and moral. An analysis of the underlying media logic as given by Van Ginneken (1999), however, is not elaborated upon. It is acknowledged that media have their own ‘rules’, but important aspects of media logic such as the (long term) implications of framing, are scarcely considered. Statements do expect, however, that religious or ecclesiastical issues should be considered more accurately. This is not to say this might not be an appropriate claim (albeit churches themselves in their communication could contribute a lot to this by taking a more service-oriented communication position towards media instead of an instrumental outlook and moral demands). The point is, however, that claims towards media (e.g. participation by all) do not, by definition, seem to equally apply to church praxis itself. The focus on sociability and disintegration questions the position of the church itself within the social cultural realm. It is self-evident that the churches’ position has changed and become more marginal (at least in the Western context). The globalizing issues identified by Scholte (see above), however, at least also question the churches’ relationship with and attitude towards rationalist knowledge, capitalist production, technology, bureaucratic governance, the different forms of (nation) state, democracy, and non-territorial communities.

As it questions the churches’ outlook on culture. The majority of the statements appears to still dichotomize between culture and media and between church and culture. Apart from being questionable whether this outlook is still feasible, it also points to an underlying orientation towards ‘high’ culture apart from ‘popular’ (mass media) culture[13]. This brings us to the religious implications of media culture. In analyzing the outlook on these implications in the statements, we concluded a contradicting view in acknowledging a ‘climate of religion in and outside the churches’, on the one hand, and concern about a ‘climate of absence of meaning’, on the other. Definitions about religion, spirituality, secularization, meaning, tradition, truth, etc. are not given and appear to be self-evident. However, they no longer are. It is questionable, therefore, whether the profoundness of the religious implications of media culture are fully acknowledged.

The focus remains on institutional religion. There is awareness of new developments taking place, and at the same time there are astonishing assumptions that the church and church communication can remain the same. Media cultural developments, however, force the church to rethink her identity, societal position and structures: her stand towards culture; the meaning of faith, religion, spirituality, truth and tradition; the position of the people in and outside the church; the way people use media as part of their symbolic social interaction and religious identity and expression; the way outward bound ethical claims with regard to communication and communication rights can be implemented within the church; and finally the ways the church communicates and the underlying premises of church communication, including power structures. It will also be necessary to rethink concepts of rationality, linearity (church and print are still very close) and to understand what the incorporation of a concept of interactivity means.

It is necessary, as well, to rethink the main ethical challenge in an era in which communication, in its full sense, is harder to get at and (religious) fundamentalism, hatred, and violence are increasing. Recalling Scholte’s one important key continuity of communitarism by which communities sustain themselves through processes of ‘othering’ (others are ‘different’), and group solidarity is built through denigration and exclusion of the other, producing artificial cohesion internally and violence externally; this last issue might be of vital importance.

2. The view on the audience and audience research concepts

In The Art of Dialogue (2007, chapter two), we discuss the different approaches in audience research, the views on the audience and the views from the audience. With respect to the implications for church communication goals, we conclude that simple remarks of the audience no longer apply. We argue that a revision and refinement of definitions suited to the present media situation and new emerging types of audiences is needed. Those definitions should take overlapping typologies and main dimensions of audience as identified by McQuail (1997) into account. In the same chapter, we also point to Van Kaam and Bordewijk’s concept of the traffic of information (allocution, registration, consultation and conversation). Those different patterns of information flow not only express power relationships with respect to control, access and storage, but also hold different audience roles.

We also identified two main paradigms[14], that relate society/media views, audience views, outlooks on communication models and research and analysis. We argued the choice of a mass communication paradigm is normative. It is not just an optional choice for one communication scientific model over another, but implies positions with respect to society, media, culture and also the audience. So we argued as well that the different generations of cultural reception research and audience ethnography have drawn attention to the social cultural use and reception of media, as well as to the interaction within daily life and to the identity politics of gender, race and ethnicity. The perception of the audience and the existence of ‘interpretative communities’ has also received attention. The same applies to the shift from factual to fictional media outlets and to the fact that media use and meaning are part of a complex web of media culture, with many discourses. 

If we relate these findings to the outlook of the audience presented in the policy statements, we can identify various problems. The concept of ‘the audience’ is taken for granted. References are undefined, varied and sometimes contradictory. They do not include views from the audience and appear to be based on historical ‘mass’ typologies. The shift in patterns of information, overlooked in the analysis of the media context, consequently, results in overlooking the need of differentiating audience concepts. If we look at the two main paradigms as given above, the majority of the documents show features of both, but in overall outlook appear to be closer to the dominant paradigm. Regarding two positions with respect to the audience, objects in need of formation, or subjects in dialogue, the former is found more frequent than the latter. However, features of both are found sometimes within one and the same document. The concept of the audience thus remains unclear. The implications of either position taken, or of mingling the two, are not explicated. The reason the audience concept is not adequately treated is twofold. On the one hand, the (religious) implications of media culture are not fully acknowledged. Neither is the concept of interactivity and its implications. On the other hand, the focus on media as instruments to be used for church goals of proclamation and on presumed effects, favors a communications model in which the emphasis is not on the audience and the way they construct meaning in their interaction with media. Audience positions simply do not get much attention. Even when the audience is viewed in terms of subjects in dialogue, and the need of communication to be receiver oriented is acknowledged, implications of this stand are restricted to the issue of communication an media choice. Moreover, no references are made towards insights of audience research.

The majority of the statements thus appears to rely on a functional, linear transmission model. Its focus on effects, and its view of powerful media as humanizing technologies for regulation and progress of society, however, became criticized - especially for not being related to social and cultural factors and human experience. This gap is visible in the policy statements. The audience research tradition, appears to have passed the churches’ policy statements completely. Therefore, audience typologies are not distinguished. Different typologies however lead to different views of the audiences. The transmission model, aimed at cognitive processing, holds a view of the audience as a target for the transfer of meaning. A ritual or expressive model aims at sharing and commitment, considering the audience as participants. The attention model (regardless the communicative effect) considers the audience a spectator (based on ratings and amount of time spent).

A similar division applies to the communication patterns by van Kaam and Bordewijk (1982). Allocutive communication patterns (center-periphery) contains a passive view of the audience role - as in the traditional mass media audience. In consultation, the audience is an active individual searcher. In conversational patterns, there is interaction, involvement and feedback. With respect to new media developments new non mass medial typologies of audience can develop. New interactive technology makes mixed forms of mass and interpersonal communication possible, in which production, distribution and consumption can be mixed. This leads to new audience behavior and media use. Media effect theories apply only to allocution patterns (transmission model). Moreover, the trend is from allocutary to consultative or conversational modes that urge new interactive, ritual, or user determined models. This again questions the focus on effects by the majority of the statements. The view of the audience remains message related. McQuail (1997), however, has shown a diversity of possibilities of audience formation and audience meanings. He argues message related views no longer hold. Theory and experience showed the significance of the behavioral, social, emotional, and affective aspects of media use. In this respect, the audience receives far too little attention in the policy statements. As the choice of a paradigm is not value free, neither is the accompanying outlook of audience concepts, which should be clearly revised and defined.

Insights in communication theory and media studies, therefore, are indispensable when churches consider communication and publish communication policies. At least the main theories about media effects and audience research should be taken into account and incorporated[15]. In this respect, it would be helpful to pay attention to the various theories of limited effect-models (media reach, multi-step-flow, impersonal impact and knowledge gap hypotheses, news diffusion and to the spiral of silence theories) and (with respect to the audience), to the uses and gratifications approaches, media system dependency theories, interactivity and cultivation theories. Theories combining the role of the audience and media content (agenda setting, priming and framing and reception analysis) should also receive analysis. This is not to say that one concluding paradigm can be deduced. Theories are criticized, refined, combined, and constantly developing. They could, however, arouse awareness about the complexity of pronouncements about media, the communication concepts and context, the importance of the choice of a paradigm, and the impossibility of naïve outlooks. Moreover, new media developments inevitably imply changes in culture and the use people make of media. Empirical research on the latter, therefore, should also be noticed[16]. The fact that communication theories and audience research are lacking, therefore, is a serious and problematic shortcoming. Whether these shortcomings are to be related also to the underlying theological presuppositions of the communication models will be the issue in the identification of the third problem.

3. Communication models and theological presupposition

In our content analysis we pointed out the different views of communication and the underlying theological presuppositions. We concluded an instrumental view of media and linear communication models prevailed in the majority of the statements, notwithstanding references to, for example, dialogue. The Finnish Lutheran statement clearly opts for two-way communication; however, their outlook on media shows features of an instrumental view. The statements by communication experts of UNDA and WACC opt for a truly different view, emphasizing the social cultural role of media, public interest, and the serving of communication as a value in itself. This view also involves the position of the church. The latter is also included in the statement of the Lutheran Finnish Church, however, an emphasis on the growth of church membership as one of the top priorities for the coming decade, again questions the exact view of the institutional position of the church, its communication goals and models. The majority of the statements grounds its view of communication in theological presuppositions (which are not always explicated nor clarified with respect to their application). We identified ten different options, including Christological, anthropological, Trinitarian, pneumatological, soteriological, scriptural, ecclesiological, ritual, and ecumenical arguments, next to the self-revelation of God. Remarkably, the kingdom of God as a separate category is absent. These presuppositions are treated as autonomous categories, apart from any communication context. Albeit the analysis given from the latter, there is no explicit relationship between the theological arguments, communication developments, communication traffic patterns, media structures, and culture. Moreover, references to, or definitions by, communication theory are absent. Consequently, the theological models are not tested against communication models or media studies, nor to communication praxis or audience use. This is another major problem - next to the inadequate understanding of the (religious) implications of contemporary media context and media culture. It is questionable whether (sometimes contradicting) theological arguments can be applied directly to communication, as the majority of the statements assume.  

How, for example, are we to derive and apply communication models, which are adequate to the contemporary (mass) communication context, from, for example, Trinitarian arguments as the communication and communion of love between Father, Son and the Holy Spirit? Dulles (1992:37/38, The Craft of Theology, From Symbol to System) states that the Trinity is the ‘deepest mystery of communication’ where: ‘Our human eyes are blinded by its surpassing brilliance. The created analogies, while falling immeasurably short, point through their convergence to the communicative character of this exalted mystery. The Trinity is communication in absolute, universal perfection, a totally free and complete sharing among equals. In generating the Son as Word, the Father totally expresses himself … the Holy Spirit completes the intradivine process of communication’ (quoted in Eilers 2003:159/160). Or how can we derive and apply communication models from pneumatological arguments? Or even from the acts of Jesus, labeled as ‘the perfect communicator’ (sic)? Or from scripture, which shows many different styles and formats of (non-mass-medial, contextual) communication as a contemporary ‘code of communication’? Moreover, applying, for example, a Trinitarian based model of dialogue to a non-dialogical medium, such as, television, causes problems of method. Soukup (1999: 219-231), on communication models and translation of the Bible in new media with respect to fidelity, shows how within four different perspectives on communication each contain different consequences. A transportation model looks upon fidelity as a message that can be transmitted and measured in likeness and in meaning. In ritualistic models of communication, fidelity becomes more functional and depends on both ritual exchange as well as information (encoded message). Semiotic systems consider fidelity to ‘manifest surface changes in a deeper structure’.

And in the interactive, conversational outlook of communication, fidelity becomes more an issue of the audience than of the text.

Each perspective on communication suggests a perspective on the Bible. The transportation or transmission model regards the Bible as valued information that must be delivered from one location to another. The semiotic model also regards the Bible as information, but as encoded information that exists in relation to other codes. Here we become aware of the Bible as part of a larger structure of relations. The ritual model sees the Bible as a container of shared beliefs, as an opportunity for sharing belief, and as a means of maintaining the believing community. The Bible does not exist apart from the community and any use of the Bible presumes the role of the community.

Finally, the conversation model situates the Bible as a partner of the believer or the community. It takes life only in the interaction; the Bible manifests the power of the Spirit who acts upon the believer. (…) Multimedia translation focuses our attention not only on the question of fidelity but on the nature of the Bible itself. Does what translators do change the nature of the translated text? Historical studies show the use of the Bible has changed over the centuries, as has the nature of the Bible – the manuscript Bible functioned differently from the oral tradition. The advent of the Gutenberg Bible (or, more generally, the printed Bible) similarly changed how people regarded the Bible and how people used the Bible. But these changes do not affect the Bible only; they are part of a larger sweep of cultural change marked out in communication patterns. Multimedia work has identified another phase change and can tell us much about the Bible and the Church in our own day, as well as about fidelity’ (Soukup 1999:230/231).

In other words: it is of extreme importance that churches clarify their communication models, not merely from a theological point of view, but from a (critical) communication scientific stand. This necessarily involves their own societal position, their outlook on the audience and culture, their view of theology, tradition and Scriptures, and communication scientific stands. Moreover, it would help clarifying their perspective and involvement in public communication.

Regarding the latter Hamelink (1975) commends the development of a prior conceptual framework that grounds the perspective for public communication involvement by the churches. Theological motives in this respect, in his opinion, are not adequate. He examines four of them in relationship to the social reality of public communication and meta scientific aspects of communication research. His objection is to the communicatio divina as basis for human communication is its ‘transmission syndrome’. Media, in this model, are seen as inferior to the Divine communication; they are technical instruments, used for one-way messages to passive receivers. Moreover, the term communication is overloaded with non-realistic assumptions, which are not related to actual processes of communication.

The second theological motive is based on the perspective of the Incarnation. The Christological dogma justifies and shapes communication activities by the churches. This motive again regards media as instruments. Moreover, it does not critically examine the structures and messages from the media. Another objection is the incarnation motive is not pursued for its consequences with respect to culture. Respecting the incarnation motive fully means being ‘in the world’, not separating Christ and world into different dimensions. The commission of the church is not to fight for its own position, but to testify.

The third motive is the kerugma motive. The mass media’s reach offers the church the opportunity to proclaim the kerugma publicly a thousandfold. Targeted, however, to an individual believer. Thus, the social context and ideology criticism are not included. According to Hamelink the church is tolerated as long as she justifies the current order. Dominant values remain untouched. Liberation is out of the question. Used as a model for the public communication of the church, it becomes either a presentation of identity without social political identification, or a social political identification without critical self-analysis of prejudices and conditioning. An ideology-critical, public proclamation, says Hamelink, is not the only thing that is needed. Needed as well, is a critical public communication within the church. Another problem is that the conceptual framework of the kerugma motive is presented in terms of evangelization. Aimed at winning people, is rejected by Hamelink. It is a crucial element in the ideology of oppression and contrary to emancipative self-discovery. It does not hold a view of people as subjects of their own choices and passes by the issues of communication structures, message content, and needs of the audience. It is a market model of proclamation as a product that coincides with commercial media structures. As a result, these structures cannot be valued critically anymore. 

The fourth and last model examined by Hamelink is the ecclesiological model - the church as the body of Christ. Within this concept Hamelink identifies a problem of method. Changes are to be achieved by better understanding, and reason with logic. This, however, is not helpful with respect to irrational prejudices. Moreover, the social economical context is again disregarded and the ‘should be’ structure of the ecclesiological model is not realistic. A functional, pragmatic approach - aimed at the actual and potential functions of the church in its praxis and at the analysis of infrastructural factors - would be more appropriate. Hamelink thus objects to a ‘theology of communication’. His alternative conceptual frame is a dialectical, ideology critical analysis. This approach is interested in emancipation and dialogue and views public communication as a common process aimed at public consensus. Moreover, it holds an intrinsic relationship between theological theory and communication praxis. In terms of communication research, this concept breaks with conventional marketing research, which is exchanged for an emancipating research interest.

Hamelink motivates his choice for the dialectical concept with theological, ethical and sociological arguments. Theologically, there is the fundamental hermeneutical question about how biblical reality and contemporary reality relate to one another. This involves the social relevance of theology. When information is contextualized, it becomes relevant to the information seeker. In theology, says Hamelink, an application-information model is often used that is based on the ‘transport syndrome’. Simple and frequent repetition of the same is supposed to have missionary impact. Contextualization of information, however, remains closer to biblical exegesis and takes the analysis of social reality more seriously. ‘The biblical reality does not prescribe the form the here-and-now reality should take, but provides insights enabling us to discover and de-mythologize the character of the here-and-now reality. The biblical narratives are the hermeneutical framework without which the analysis of the here-and-now reality inevitably remains no more than a description of unalterable factuality. When superimposed on the concepts arrived at by analysis of the social reality, the biblical concepts became strongly de-mythologizing forces’ (Hamelink 1975:105). He elucidates his point with reference to the key concept of biblical history: tsedaka, which is about serious partnership, justice, and solidarity. Biblical history shows a multiplicity of contributions that are dialectically united and in which all people participate and are taken seriously. From that experience of communication all appear changed.

An ethical argument why the churches should opt for a dialectical perspective is in the debate of the effects of media. When people are not taken seriously with their alternatives in the decision-making process which determines their reality and identity, this leads to alienation. Churches should make this identifiable and act towards emancipation as an ‘exodus from the powers’. The sociological argument given by Hamelink is that churches are often blind to social reality - especially in matters of church structures and political functions. Churches are part of existing power relations. Critical self-analysis is needed to identify how churches as social institutes are involved in societal and political communication processes, both structural and functional. Traditional research methods should make room for methods oriented to the users of information and involve them in the research. Otherwise, information remains a tool of oppression. The Roman Catholic statements appear to be most explicit in grounding their view of communication in theological arguments. Roman Catholic theologians/communication specialists are also prominent in the development of a communication theology or theology of communication (Forde-Plude, 2001; Bonnot, 2001; Martini, 1994; Dulles, 1989, Eilers 2002, 2003; and White (1992, 2001). White (1992:258) for example states, “one of the best syntheses of Catholic Theology of communication is still that found in Part I of CP” (Communio et Progressio). On the issue of communication planning, White (1998), discerning six different phases, calls for a ‘new theology of communication, to be perfected in all phases’ (1998:20). In the same article he notes:

A Theology of communication provides a justification and explanation of why we must communicate our faith in a particular way. For example, the emphasis on communitarian communication emerges from our theological tradition and is very much supported by the theology of communication in Communio et Progressio. Virtually every decision we make about how we are to communicate (…) will be determined on the basis of our theological reflection on the communication context in which we live (White, 1998:38/39).

In his article on ‘the new communication emerging in the church’ (2001), he states:

Christianity is preeminently a religion of communication, placing central emphasis on: a divine revelation, the Incarnation and a Church that is continually becoming incarnate in different cultures; the mandate of proclaiming the Word of God; the formal ecclesial community as the context of faith development; the key role of written scriptures; and the teaching of a tradition to succeeding generations. The vitality of the Church has depended very much on adapting its gospel witness to the forms of communication of a particular era (White 2001:18).

Koole (1981), former director of the ecumenical broadcaster IKON in the Netherlands, and thus speaking from a praxis experience for over 30 years, along with Hamelink, opposes a relationship between theology and communication science, that is too close. But then the other way around: in applying scientific models of communication to theology. He opts for a dialogue between both - departing from the actual situation of the churches. He agrees with Hamelink the direct involvement of the churches in the social political spectrum must be continuously under dispute. Media structures reflect power structures and questions the churches’ independency. With respect to a more ‘communicative’ theology, Koole makes a plea for the development out of the praxis - not normative, not descriptive, but creative[17]. Issues at stake are, for example, how to translate Christian concepts to a media public and the implications of working with images. Finally, he concludes that a move outside always implies a move inside. A key issue, in this respect, is whether churches and theology are prepared to be changed by working with media and learn something new about themselves. If not, they will not be able to critically guide the media or reflect on codes of ethical conduct, says Koole.

Concluding, we might say the outlook on communication models reveal more than just the choice of a paradigm. It also includes the role allotted to the audience, an outlook on culture and the relationship between theology and culture, and the position of the church in society. Hamelink’s criticism, based on four policy statements published before 1975[18], questions whether the documents published after 1990 show a changed outlook. They partly do. The mass media context is widely analyzed, (including media structures), the tone of the churches towards the media is different (more realistic and less demanding), and social and ethical responsibilities by the churches towards the realm of communication are given. However, if we look at the paradigms given earlier, we must conclude that the dominant paradigm prevails in the majority of the churches’ outlook on communication and media. This poses major problems with respect to the public communication by the churches. These include the overlooking of the role of the audience, the outlook on culture, and the societal position of the church itself, with respect to the media context. Theological presuppositions, as given, do not solve these problems. Therefore, the issue of the relationship between communication and culture and between theology and communication must be further examined, as well as the identity of the church.

4. Ecclesiological identity

In chapter three of our volume the Art of Dialogue, we view the churches’ outlooks on their identity. Included are the view of authority, the cultural style in relating to the audience and media culture, the view towards plurality, the outlook on tradition and the outlook on cultural materials in social practice, as being a subject for theology. Ecclesiological positions differ and are denominationally related. Due to overlapping (and sometimes contradictory) features, clear cut categorizations are difficult to derive. The lack of definitions aggravates the understanding of identity. Identities appear to be variables with higher or lower degrees in respect to media culture, theological grounding, proclamation, safeguarding tradition, emphasis on interpersonal contact within the community of faith, recipient orientation, dialogue, living interaction, and a common search of truth. Differences in attitude, however, also account for different outlooks with respect to institutional change and tradition. Overlooked is the possibility of cultural materials in social practice as a subject for theology. The latter corresponds with the partial analysis given to media culture and the position of the audience. The identity of the churches, as given in the majority of the statements, appears to be non-problematic to themselves. At least, not problematic enough to redefine issues of identity and societal position - let alone reforming itself. The lack of distinct definition of their identity, however, is a problem. The crisis the institutional churches in Western Europe find themselves in, in fact, is a crisis of public communication and public relevance.

Horsfield (2003: 271-282) sees ‘many of the current institutional forms of the Christian Church as well past their use-by date’ (272). Albeit he is not concerned about the de-institutionalization of religious faith as such; he questions its concept. In his opinion, what is going on is not the de-institutionalization but re-institutionalization of religious faith within the institutions of commercial mass media. The maintenance of diversity, however, needs social institutions, which can counteract institutional forms constructed or privileged by those media. The churches’ analyses, both of the crisis they find themselves in as well as of culture, overlook the crucial role of changes in the structures of mediated communication. Those changes impact the forms of mediation in the construction of culture and cultural meaning.

The method of making faith real by grounding it in a text, interpreted by accredited teachers into ethical actions and remembering rituals has remained a very effective method for making faith real within Christianity to this point. To a significant extent, the ‘reality’ of the words of textual faith have been validated by the development of powerful religious institutions aligned with significant political, military and economic forces. Reality was constructed in the words through the churches’ political and social power to discipline, socially ostracize, or even execute those who ignored them (Horsfield 2003:281). 

Those text-based strategies today are no longer valid. Text-based mediation has shifted to electronically mediated reality and churches no longer can exercise ‘exclusive’ power over meanings in words and symbols of Christianity (and the ways these are publicly used). The consequence, according to Horsfield, is that the social and cosmological view, which provided meaning to Christian words and rituals, has disappeared. Their logic may still have meaning for insiders, but increasingly the logic acks the power to be meaningful in differently mediated cultures. Thus, the analysis of the crisis by the churches is inadequate. Consequently, the strategies to cope with it and reposition themselves, according to Horsfield, are ‘retrograde – their operating assumptions seems to be a Christendom model of social dominance, political coercion, patriarchal imposition and moral imperialism’ (Horsfield 2003:273). Related to the problem of inadequate analysis by the statements, we pointed out the lack of definition, and sometimes contradictory features with regard to identity. Mentioned are Communicative community, participative community, ‘the body of Christ’, fellowship, ‘bearer and custodian of the revelation’, and ‘teaching office to authentically interpreting his Word’. 

In particular, Roman Catholic volumes have considered the subject of church model related to communication. They all draw upon the work of Avery Dulles; The Church is communication (1972), Models of the Church (1974) and Vatican II and communications (1989). Dulles analyzed the Vatican II documents and derived five different models of a communicating church: the church as institution or hierarchy; the church as herald; the church as sacrament; the church as communion and the church as servant. Each model of the church implicates a different model of communication. Both Soukup (2002:54-56) and Eilers (2002:58-60, 2003:55-58) summarize these models. 

In the institutional model, authority and official doctrine are important features. Communication in a theological view begins with God and descends through hierarchy as an authoritative teacher to church members. This model favors print-mass communication for its match of centralized organization with central authority. The faithful thus receive all the same message and they are expected to submit. The herald or kerugmatik model is based on the mandate of Jesus to proclaim the gospel to the world, which can be effected by all baptized believers - the entire church. The model of communication is oral, person to person proclamation; its aim is conversion. In the sacramental model, Christ is the revelatory symbol and sacrament of the covenant of God. The church, in its turn, is the sacrament in which Christ is present. Communication in this model is communication of salvation by God and the church via sacramental action, for example, liturgy aimed at sanctification. The communion (koinonia) or community model favors dialogue. It is based in the secular dialogic theology, in which both the church and the world communicate mutual knowledge, fellowship, truth, etc. with the aim of enriching and respecting each other and effectuating communion of the church. Since the world is created and redeemed by God, it can, through the Holy Spirit, be a place where salvation is spoken. The church as servant, following in the footsteps of Christ, includes the entire church, which serves the world through actions and works for others - more than communication in words.

In Eilers’ terms this model is the secular-dialogic model based on the Vatican document Gaudium et Spes. The world is looked upon, not as an object of mission, but as a place where the mystery of God’s will is in action. The interpretation of the times and dialogue with cultures (including the world of communications as well as with religions) find a place here. Eilers points out that, according to Dulles, this secular dialogic theology also impacts the kind of dialogue in the church. Both Soukup and Eilers state that no one model suffices for the communication of the church. Eilers (2003), differentiating between pastoral communication (inner ecclesiastical, ad intra) and evangelizing communication (outside, ad extra), connects the community and sacramental models to the first and the herald and secular-dialogic models to the latter. He also identifies different modes of church discourse: the prophetic mode (related to the hierarchical institutional model), the theological mode (explaining principles), the diplomatic mode (to foster better relations) and the pastoral mode of discourse (combining the three others) (Eilers 2003:58/59). Soukup concludes:

Correlating the different models of the Church with various modes of communication invites both a deeper understanding of the Church and a more communicative response by the Church. It also dramatically proposes a communication strategy with multiple prongs so that the Church can be present in the world and to its own members in a variety of ways. Finally, it corrects an ecclesiological error that favors only one kind of communication, thus leading people to misunderstand the nature of the Church itself (Soukup 2002:56).

Thorn (1996:82-106), building on Dulles as well, points to different analytical starting points in both communication and ecclesiology. Communication analysis can begin with the mass media system, the communicator, or the audience. Church analysis can be identified theologically or sociologically. Thus, the interdependency between communication and church can take different directions and is a complex phenomenon. A mass media model, oriented to communicators and the medium, emphasizes the communicators’ control by ‘proper manipulation of the instruments’. This model ignores the role of audiences (selective attention and perception according to psychological and sociological needs and gratifications), the fact they use and interpret media within familial and social groups, and the role of interpersonal communication. Churches structuring communication to this instrumentalist view overemphasize the power of the communicator and the message. At the same time, they overlook the frames of reference that audiences and individuals use to interpret a message. If the primary peer groups of a person differ from church like-minded, communication can be unintelligible, due to interpretations from a different perspective, and can lead to misunderstanding. Subcultures (which hold different values), therefore, need to be taken into account. Moreover, primary groups (as well as the churches) are related to surrounding social structures.

The model’s [Riley&Riley 1959] emphasis on primary groups should alert Church communicators to another dimension: dialogue as a way of clarifying misperceptions arising from divergent ways of understanding. The vast reach of electronic media multiply the difficulty, particularly as economic pressures reduce the amount of time available for full elaboration and public dialogue (Thorn 1996:87). 

Communio et Progressio, according to Thorn, called for using the media for dialogue and participation in the formation of public opinion, and explanation of the church to the community. Being present in public debate and public policy, however, also increased public scrutiny by the press. It reports on problems and conflicts that are based on diversity of the community, whereas church leaders expect the press to maintain consensus. Since dominant media shape expectations of the audience, they impact religious media that might differ in tone or style but cannot afford to diverge too much from dominant models, because of the risk of being not feasible, nor accepted. Thorn, with Dulles, underlines that successful communication is not an absolute criterion.

Not everything that is congenial to the mass media is consonant with the Gospel of Christ. In the perspectives of theology, therefore, communications, like every other human reality, has to be interpreted and evaluated in the light of the gospel. Concern with the techniques of communication must always be subordinated to the primacy of the Christian message (Thorn, 1996:98, quoted in Dulles 1989:546).

Departing from models of church, Thorn states theological analysis prioritizes the relationship between the hierarchy and the faithful and the self-image of the church. Sociologically, ecclesiological models are based on social structures. According to Thorn, until Vatican II, the dominant model was a monarchial one. With the Pope as the supreme pontiff over the entire church, this model underlined the juridical structure of the church. Fitting this ecclesiology, non-dialogical top-down communication was the result. After Vatican II the dominant ecclesiology shifted, and with it, the implicit communication models. References were now made to the body of Christ (all the faithful are one in Christ). Authority is with the Pope and the bishops. The latter are also teachers. The laity must testify and make their needs known to their pastor. Thorn shows how this shift in ecclesiology results in a far more complex communication model, including internal and external subsystems. Building on the Dulles models of ecclesiology, Thorn develops an expanded model which includes the demands of transmission of authentic teaching, proclamation, and dialogue (with church members, other Christians and non-Christians). Moreover, building on Aetatis Novae the media society, with its multiplicity of sources, needs to be incorporated. As well as legal and economic aspects, account must also be taken of the dominant media styles against which church communication is evaluated. Therefore, Thorn locates the Catholic community within a larger framework of culture and society, stressing communication relationships. The social cultural component includes political and economic systems, social mores, and culture. The Catholic community is segmented and includes official church media, other Catholic media, and the Catholic population at large. The latter is divided in autogenic, pneumatic, and institutional groups that differently define the role of the church and their spirituality. Institutional groups are loyal to the church and rely on its teachings as their primary source of information. Pneumatic groups focus on spiritual growth, which can be nourished by the church. Social and theological issues are secondary to them and they are less interested in media. Autogenic groups consider the church as divinely inspired but fallible. Self-responsibility in religious development and church teaching as one source among many others, and parish commitment over commitment to diocese or Rome, are features of this group.

With addition of generational differences (older rural and younger urban) and differences in attention to, and consumption of, Catholic media, Thorn concludes the ‘Catholic community is far from a homogeneous audience patiently waiting for the latest official information (…) The profound differences based on the perceived role of the Church and personal religious life demand a sophisticated, multi-pronged approach’ (Thorn 1996:104).

Returning to our conclusion about the outlook on communication models and their theological presuppositions in the section above, we might conclude that ecclesiological identity is closely related to both. Likewise, the outlook on communication models is more than just a choice of paradigm, as is the outlook on ecclesiological identity. Different outlooks about identity include different outlooks about communication, the audience and tradition, or message. These issues need to be clarified more accurately by the statements. Eilers and Soukup and Thorn stress that communication by the church, should not be restricted to one model. We agree on that: however, the question arises whether the church can opt for any model of communication, any model of church, and any possibility to relate the two. In our opinion, it cannot. Like Dulles’ pronouncement that not everything congenial to the mass media is consonant with the gospel, we might say that not every church model is either. The analysis we have given of the media context and media culture (chapter one) and the insights of audience research (chapter two) force the church to redefine its view of communication, its societal position and, consequently, its identity. In my opinion, both on theological and communication/scientific grounds, this implies the exclusion of an instrumental vision of media and communication and of dominant models of church. Departing creatively from contemporary praxis, as Koole urges, and a functional approach, as suggested by Hamelink, seem to be a more appropriate. This questions how the insights of the policy statements are implemented in praxis.

5. Implementation of theory and praxis

Earlier we treated the methodological problem of theological theory related to communication praxis. In this section we will consider some issues of implementation and praxis. Our goal is not, however, to overview the actual involvement of the churches in communication, -which is context-determined-. This is beyond the scope of our research and would be the subject of another thesis. Identifying implementation and praxis as one of the problems, however, can also be looked upon from within the policies of the churches and by relating them to our findings of media context and media culture and audience research. Thus, this line of the study will be pursued. Moreover, it will facilitate summarization of various issues that have not been addressed so far.

Eilers (2002) pointing to the consultations and continental meetings held in all parts of the world to implement Communio et Progressio (1971), concludes the recommendations of the conferences had only limited effect. ‘Generally, it seems the Pastoral Instruction on Social Communication still has to be discovered by many people’. (Eilers 2002:231) White (1992), evaluating the Roman Catholic Church’s thinking about communications comes to a similar conclusion in his considerations on Aetatis Novae (1992).

Indeed, the message is coming through “loud and clear”: although Communio et Progressio provided us with a beautiful, idealistic vision of communication in our societies and in the church, at the level of the typical diocese and parish there has often been little action. The Catholic Church, in comparison with other religious groups, still has not put a new era of communications to work to communicate the gospel both within ecclesial communities and to the society around it (White:1992:248). 

Nevertheless, according to White, Aetatis Novae is an important document for emphasizing social communication and should be an integral part of pastoral planning. In doing so, it reflects the major shifts of thought about communication among people involved in church communication activities. These shifts include, says White,

1.     the notion of social communication (which is broader than mass media but also involves alternative forms of communication),

2.     the shift from linear models to communion models and the close relationship between communication and cultures,

3.     a growing concern with internal pastoral communication and evangelization,  

4.     a more critical stand towards media institutions, and

5.     the centrality of theological reflection on communication, media, and church communication.

Surprisingly, however, the communion model of public communication was never picked up, commented on, and used to any great extent within Catholic Church circles. In my years of teaching and discussing CP in seminars with Catholic communicators, I find that virtually all still tend to work with a linear, transport model of communication. The exceptions are those who come from the “New Churches” and who have an experience of the “Communio” model of church embodied in the basic Christian communities (White 1992:252).

However, although Aetatis Novae reflects the new communion and cultural understanding of communication, it does not pursue this outlook in its appendix, “Elements of a Pastoral Plan for Social Communication”. In White’s words, it “tends to evaporate and we are back in a more linear, transport and technology dominated conception of communication” (White 1992:253). Moreover, the concern with internal communication and evangelization, due to the crisis the church finds itself in, shows difficulties as well. Communications activities by the church (mostly on the level of a communication office taking care of public relations) are not coordinated or integrated in pastoral planning. They are marginal to both the pastors and the parish.

The pastoral communication at the diocesan and parish level continue in its traditional, centuries-old patterns as if the media did not exist at all. At best, the media are looked on as “just entertainment” that might be vaguely damaging to religious and moral values but still something quite tangential to the spiritual growth of Catholics. Most pastors have had only the vaguest notion of how much their parishioners use film, television, popular music, radio, and the press, and there is even less awareness of how this enters into the construction of values of the people. (…)

Preparation of future priests and other pastoral personnel is generally carried on with no reference to the arrival of the mass mediated culture that CP has proclaimed. (…) seminarians and young religious are often restricted in their use of mass media with little or no introduction to the cultural and pastoral significance of the media. (…) In fact, with the influence of the recent great systematic theologians, theological education since Vatican II often has tended to become more analytical and even more remote from pastoral communication.’ (White 1992:254). 

Albeit churches have not yet integrated communication developments and new notions of communication. White appears to expect much of pastoral planning, especially at the local level, “since it has become ‘a much more central ‘language’ for evangelization and renewal” (White 192:258). He recommends including spirituality of faith communication and the grounding of the pastoral planning in a process of theological reflection. Whether his expectations - one and a half decade later - have become true remains questionable, at least in the Western European context. Nevertheless, both Eilers and White point to problems that, by no means, are unique to the Roman Catholic Churches. However, contexts, ecclesiological structures, theological, liturgical, and sacramental traditions, and the outlook on believers and the wider audience, prohibit an easy ‘application: similar problems apply to other churches.

Examining the statements, one might ask, for example, whether the statement on audiovisual media education ‘an urgent pastoral and social concern’ by UNDA/WACC (1994) has been broadly implemented. To my knowledge it has not. Or whether communication has been integrated in theological education. It has not. Or whether churches engage themselves in the development of communication structures and communication rights. The recent campaign on Communication Rights in the Information Society (CRIS) alongside the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) did not attract much church attention, apart from individual ‘critical enthusiasts’ and UNDA/WACC. The many repetitions of the same arguments and similarity in overlooking the same issues in the majority of the statements is not very promising. The lack of financial efforts and manpower to put policies in place (very exceptionally mentioned in but a few of the statements) is another fateful sign. This would require a major restructuring of flow of funds and church personnel.

One might object that the statements by the Lutheran churches opt for a different outlook on communication, which I fully admit. Also, they attempt, as do the German churches, to involve the local level in their policies and offer parishes and congregations assistance in communication. Or, in the case of the Anglican church, they provide materials to think through the dawning cyber society. Nevertheless, I find it hard to avoid the impression that communication from a church perspective, is primarily focused on ‘surviving’ the institutional crisis the churches find themselves in. Whatever legitimacy one feels this might be, it might also restrict the churches to an inward perspective, avoiding the real challenges that media culture places upon them. Moreover, it hinders ecumenical and interreligious cooperation as well as cooperation with organizations that strive for the same societal goals (e.g. non-governmental organizations or pressure groups). However, this cooperation is stressed as being important in the majority of the documents. This impression is likely due to the fact that churches, in their statements, incorporate both church communication as well as communication from a Christian perspective and sometimes intermingle the two. The moral and ethical claims of objectivity, truthfulness, etc. placed on media do not always appear to be unbiased. Moreover, standards of ‘highest quality’, referred to in terms of their own church communication, - theologically grounded in the perfect Trinitarian and incarnational communication of which the church is the continuation - cannot always bear the test of implementation and praxis.

Summarizing Conclusion 

With respect to the outlook on media, communication context, and culture, the emphasis on media power and effects is problematic, resulting in instrumental and traditional concepts of media use and a contradiction to the recognition of media being cultural transformers. It is striking that barely any media theory grounds these views and positions taken. A second related problem involves new media developments, patterns of information traffic, and the concept of interactivity. The question arises whether an instrumental, moral, and institutional preoccupation, hinders an adequate outlook about the way media and communication context are developing, resulting in moral and ethical claims to media, the emphasis of media education and positions regarding media regulation. The vital contribution that could be made by churches to initiate and be part of societal debate on the development of the information society, is not fully acknowledged when letting go of inner ecclesial survival and power strategies. Types of information traffic are not distinguished, nor pursued in their implications. This results in non-adequate typologies of the audience that can no longer be based on center-peripheral forms of communication. The uncritical muddling up of terminologies like communication, proclamation etc. is problematic, as well as the inclusion of new media in the same outlooks and policies that are held with regard to traditional media. This also applies to interactivity which is focused on internal networking and reaching the young and traditional church functions and information. With respect to the social cultural role of media and its religious implications, we may identify problems as well. The focus on sociability and disintegration brings up the position of the church itself within the social cultural realm. The churches’ attitude towards, and relationship with, rationalist knowledge, capitalist production, technology, bureaucratic governance, the state, democracy and non territorial communities, for example, is to be questioned, and no longer holds true in an era of globalization.

The outlook on the religious implications allows for contradictions. Definitions about religion, spirituality, secularization, meaning, tradition, truth, church etc. appear to be self evident, which they no longer are. This questions whether the profoundness of the religious implications is acknowledged and accounted for. They force the church to rethink its identity, societal position, the meaning of faith, tradition, concepts of rationality and the incorporation of a concept of interactivity, etc., as does the media use by people as part of their symbolic social interaction and religious identity and expression. It is also vital to rethink ethical challenges in an era in which communication is problematic and processes of ‘othering’, religious fundamentalism and hatred is increasing. With respect to the outlook on the audience and audience research concepts, one of the main problems is that ‘the audience’, based on historical mass typologies, is taken for granted. References are undefined and sometimes contradictory. Views of the audience are not included and the shift in patterns of information traffic are overlooked. This results in overlooking the need to differentiate audience concepts. Features of two main paradigms are intermingled in the statements (they tend, however, to be closer to the (dominant) first, than the last position). The different generations of cultural reception research and audience ethnography have drawn attention to the social cultural use and reception of media; the interaction with daily life; the identity politics of gender, race and ethnicity; the perception of the audience; the existence of ‘interpretative communities’; the shift from factual to fictional media outlets; and the fact that media use and meaning are part of a complex web of media culture, with many discourses. Have mainline churches - one way or another - taken notice of those new insights and are there traces to be sensed of impact on communication policies by the churches? The audience role is no longer restricted to ‘traditional’ descriptions of a passive receiver, consumer, or target. There are new roles to play, as a seeker, consultant, browser, respondent, interlocutor, and conversationalist. Allocutory patterns, according to McQuail, perform less well. They still exist, but in new ‘small scale’ forms that are aimed at special-interest- audience segments (narrow-casting).

The problem of communication models grounded in theological presuppositions is that the latter are treated as autonomous categories, apart from any communication context or praxis. The theological models are not tested against communication or media studies, communication praxis, or audience use. This provides methodological problems. Different communication models each carry their own outlook on communication, on the role of the audience and on messages, and accentuate different positions in which they are related. Churches’ clarification of their communication models, therefore, is of extreme importance. It will necessarily involve their societal position, their outlook on the audience and culture, their view of theology, tradition, scriptures, and communication scientific stands. Whether a communication theology is feasible or needed, is not an issue discussed in the documents. Regarding ecclesiological identity, the positions differ according to denominations and, again, overlapping and sometimes contradictory positions, and the lack of definitions aggravate clear cut generalizations. Identities appear to be non-problematic to themselves. This questions whether churches are aware of the crucial role and impact of changes in the structures of mediated communication. The social and cosmopological view which provided meaning to Christian words and rituals has disappeared. Moreover, different models of church result in different communication outlooks (and the other way around) and therefore are not ‘merely’ a choice of paradigm.  

The last problem we identified is the problem of implementation and praxis. Neither communication nor media issues have become an integral part of theological reflection and the theological curriculum. 

Appendix: Research Population, an Overview of Included Policy Statements

Basic Overall Documents

Ethics

New Media and Information Society

Church Communication Strategy, Involvement, Education, Theology

Churches’ Official Reactions on Media Policy

1998

2001

2003

2004

References

Alasuutari, Perrti. 1999. ‘Three Phases of Reception Studies’ and ‘Cultural Images of the Media’ in Alasuutari, Pertti (ed). Rethinking the Media Audience. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Sage Publications. 1-21, 86-104.

Arthur, Chris. 1993. Religion and the Media, an introductory reader. Cardiff, University of Wales Press.

Arthur, Chris. 1997. ‘Media, Meaning, and method in Religious Studies’ in Hoover, Stewart, Lundby, Knut (eds.) Rethinking Media, Religion and Culture. Thousand Oaks, Sage, 184-193. 

Bailey, Edward I. 1997. Implicit religion in Contemporary Society. Kampen, Kok Pharos.

Bailey, Edward I. 2002. The Secular Quest for Meaning in Life. Lewiston, New York, Mellen.

Bordewijk J.L. and van Kaam, Ben. 1982. Allocutie, enkele gedachten vercommunicatievrijheid in een bekabeld land. Baarn, Bosch&Keuning. 

Buber, Martin. 1958. I and Thou. New York. Chalres Scribner’s Sons.

Carey, James W. 1992 (1989). Communication As Culture. London, Routledge. 

Christians, Clifford G. 2000. Social Dialogue and Media Ethics. Politeia Conference May 2000. Leuven, European Centre for Ethics, Catholic University of Leuven.

Christians, Clifford G. 2003. ‘Cross-Cultural Ethics and Truth’ in Mitchell, Jolyon and Marriage, Sophia (eds.) 2003 Mediating Religion. London, T&T Clark, pp 293-303.

Deacon David, Pickering Michael, Golding Peter, Murdock Graham. 1999. Researching Communications, a Practical Guide to Methods in Media and Cultural Analysis. London, Arnold, New York Oxford University Press Inc.

De Boer, Connie, Brennecke, Swantje. 2004. Media en Publiek, Theorieën over media-impact. Amsterdam, Boom.

De Feijter, Ineke. 2004. Mainline Religion and Global media Culture: Kairos or Curtain Line? Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Media, Religion, and Culture. University of Louisville, Kentucky.

De Feijter, Ineke. 2007. The Art of Dialogue, Religion, Communication and Media Culture. Berlin, Lit Verlag.

Eilers, Franz-Josef, SVD. 1997. (1993). Church and Social Communication Basic Documents. Manila, Logos (Divine Word) Publications, Inc.

Eilers, Franz-Josef SVD. 2002. Communicating in Community, an Introduction to Social Communication. Manila, Logos (Divine Word) Publications.

Eilers, Franz-Josef. 2004. Communicating in Ministry and Mission, an Introduction to Pastoral and Evangelizing Communication. Manila, Logos (Divine Word) Publications.

Eilers, Franz-Josef. 2006. Some reflections on Communication Theology. Paper at the 5th International Conference on Media, Religion and Culture. Sigtuna, Sweden.

Emmanual, Dominic. SVD. 1999. Challenges of Christian Communication and Broadcasting, Monologue or Dialogue? London, Macmillan Press LTD. 

Forde-Plude, Frances. 1994. ‘Interactive Communications in the Church’ in Granfield, Patrick, The Church and Communication. Kansas City, Sheed and Ward. 

Fore, William F. 1997 (1990). Mythmakers Gospel Culture and the Media. New York, Friendship Press.

Goethals, Gregor. 1989. ‘The Church and the Mass Media: Competing Architects of Our Dominant Symbols, Rituals and Myths’ in McDonnell, James and Trampiets, Frances Communicating Faith in a Technological Age Middlegreen, St Paul Publications, 56-77. 

Gräb, Wilhelm. 2002. Sinn fürs Unendliche, Religion in der Mediengesellschaft. Gütersloh, Chr. Kaiser Gütersloher Verlaghaus.

Granfield, Patrick. (ed). 1994. The Church and Communication. Kansas City, Sheed and Ward.

Hamelink, Cees J. 1975. Perspectives for public communication: a study of the churches’ participation in public communication. Baarn, Ten Have. 

Hemels, Joan, Hoekstra, Henk (red). 1985. Media en Religieuze Communicatie, een uitdaging aan de christelijke geloofsgemeenschap. Hilversum, Gooi en Sticht. 

Henau, Ernest (e.a.). 1996. Media & Spiritualiteit. Leuven, Davidsfonds.

Hinze, Bradford. 2006. Practices of Dialogue in the Roman Catholic Church, Aims and Obstacles, Lessons and Laments. New York, London, Continuum.  

Hoover, Stewart M. and Knut Lundby (eds). 1997. Rethinking Media, Religion, and Culture. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Hoover, Stewart M. and Schofield Clark, Lynn (eds). 2002. Practicing Religion in the Age of the Media. New York, Columbia University Press.

Horsfield, Peter. (undated) The impact of electronic media on the culture we live in and some major implications for churches and Christian faith. And: The media: the major source and centre of religious activity and ritual in contemporary society. Melbourne. Electronic Culture Research Project Uniting Church Commission for Mission.

Horsfield, Peter G. 1997. ‘Changes in Religion in Periods of Media Convergence’ in Hoover, Stewart M. and Lundby, Knut Rethinking Media, Religion and Culture. Thousand Oaks, Sage, 167-183.

Horsfield, Peter. 2002. The Mediated Spirit. CD Rom. Melbourne, The Commission for Mission, Uniting Church in Australia.

Horsfield, Peter, Hess, Mary E. and Medrano, Adan M. (eds). Belief in Media, Cultural Perspectives on Media and Christianity. Aldershot, Burlington, Ashgate. 

Hunke, Heinz. 1997. Churches and Faith Organizations on the Internet, A General Overview. London, WACC.

Katz, Elihu. 2000. Vermenigvuldiging van media en sociale segmentatie. Vertaling Ria Vandebeek. Politeia Conference May 2000. Leuven, European Centre for Ethics, Catholic University of Leuven. 

Kelly, Mary, Mazzoleni, Gianpietro, McQuail, Denis (eds). 2004. The Media in Europe. London, Sage Publications.

Kellner, Douglas. 1995. ‘Advertising and Consumer Culture’ in Downing, John, Mohammadi, Ali and Sreberny-Mohammadi, Annabelle (eds) Questioning the Media, a Critical Introduction. (second edition). Thousand Oaks, Sage, 329-344.

Martín Barbero, Jésus (1985). De los medios a las mediaciones. México, Ediciones G. Gilli, S.A. de C.V. Also published in English (1993) as Communication, culture and hegemony: From the media to mediations. London, Sage.

Martín Barbero, Jésus 1997. ‘Mass Media as a Site of Resacralization of Contemporary Cultures’ in Hoover, Stewart M. and Lundby, Knut Rethinking Media, Religion and Culture. Thousand Oaks, Sage, 102-116.

McChesney, Robert W. 2000. Rich Media, Poor Democracy. New York, The New Press.

McQuail Denis. 1995. ‘Western European Media: The Mixed Model Under Threat’ in Downing John, Mohammadi Ali and Sreberny-Mohammadi Annabelle (ed) Questioning the Media, a critical introduction. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

McQuail, Denis. 1997. Audience Analysis. London, Sage.

McQuail, Denis. 2000. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. London, Sage.

McQuail, Denis. 2002 (1998). ‘Commercialization and Beyond’ in McQuail, Denis and Siune, Karen (eds for the Euromedia Research Group) Media Policy, Convergence, Concentration & Commerce, London, Sage Publications, 107-127.

Meier, Werner A. and Trappel, Josef. 2002 (1998). ‘Media Concentration and The Public Interest’ in McQuail, Denis and Siune, Karen (eds for the Euromedia Research Group) Media Policy, Convergence, Concentration & Commerce, London, Sage Publications, 38-59.

Mitchell, Jolyon and Marriage, Sophia (eds) 2003. Mediating Religion, Conversations in Media, Religion and Culture. London, T&T Clark.

Mohammadi Annabelle (ed) Questioning the Media, a critical introduction. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

Peters, John Durham. 1999. Speaking into the Air, a History of the Idea of Communication. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. 

Pottmeyer, Hermann. ‘Dialogue as a Model for Communication in the Church’ in Catholic International, Vol. 12, No 4. November 2001.

Rebel, Henk Jan. 2000. Communicatiebeleid en Communicatiestrategie. Amsterdam, Boom.

Rosengren, Karl Erik. 2000. Communication, an introduction. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Sage Publications.

Rossi Philip J. & Soukup Paul A. (editors). 1994. Mass Media and the Moral Imagination. Kansas City, Sheed & Ward.

Siune, Karen and Hultén, Olof. 2002 (1998). ‘Does Public Broadcasting Have a Future?’ in McQuail, Denis and Siune, Karen (eds for the Euromedia Research Group) Media Policy, Convergence, Concentration & Commerce, London, Sage Publications, 23-37.

Soukup, Paul A. SJ. Media, Culture and Catholicism. Kansas City, Sheed&Ward.

Soukup, Paul A. SJ. And Hodgson, Robert (eds.). 1999. Fidelity and Translation, Communicating the Bible in New Media. New York, American Bible Society and Franklin, Sheed and Ward.

Soukup, Paul A. SJ. Recent Work in Communication and Theology. Paper, 4th International Conference on Media, Religion and Culture. Louisville, US.

Staudenmaier, John M. SJ. 1989. ‘Moving at the speed of Light: The influence of Communications Technologies on Modern American Culture’ in McDonnell, James and Trampiets, Frances (eds) Communicating Faith in a Technological Age Middlegreen, St Paul Publications, 28-48.

Stout, Daniel A. and Buddenbaum, Judith. M. Religion and Mass Media Audiences and Adaptations. London, Sage. 

Sumiala-Seppänen, Johanna, Lundby Knut & Salokangas, Raimo (eds.). 2006. Implications of the Sacred in (Post)Modern Media. Göteborg, Nordicom, Göteborg University.

Tanner, Kathryn. 1997. Theories of Culture, a New Agenda for Theology. Minneapolis, Augsburg Fortress Press.

Thorn, William. 1996. ‘Models of Church and Communication’ in Soukup, Paul A. SJ. 1996. Media, Culture and Catholicism. Kansas City, Sheed and Ward. 82-106.

Tillich, Paul. 1955. Biblical Religion and the Search for Ultimate Reality. The University of Chicago Press.

Tillich, Paul. 1959. Theology of Culture. New York, Oxford University Press. 

Van Ginneken, Jaap. 1999. Understanding Global News. A Critical Introduction. London, Sage.

Warren, Michael. 1997. Seeing through the Media, A Religious View of Communications and Cultural Analysis. Harrisburg, Trinity Press International.

White, Robert A. 1992. ‘Twenty years of evolution in the Church’s thinking about communication’ in Communicatio Socialis, 25 – 1992/3, pp 248-259. 

White, Robert A. 1997. ‘Religion and Media in the Construction of Cultures’ in Hoover, Stewart M. and Lundby, Knut Rethinking Media, Religion and Culture. Thousand Oaks, Sage, 37-64.

White, Robert A. 2004. ‘Major issues in the Study of Media, Religion and Culture’ in Horsfield, Petere (e.a). Belief in Media, Cultural Perspectives on Media and Christianity. Aldershot, Ashgate. 197-217.

Footnotes

[1] Downing, Mohammadi and Srebreny-Mohammadi (eds.), 1995. Questioning the Media, a Critical introduction. London, Sage.

[2] The term ‘mediation’ in communication studies, is said to stem from the Latin American media scholar Jésus Martín Barbero. 1985. De los medios a las mediaciones. México, Ediciones G. Gilli, S.A. de C.V. Also published in English (1993) as Communication, culture and hegemony: From the media to mediations. London, Sage. However, as Franz-Josef Eilers pointed out to me (personal conversation, September 3, 2004) Gaston Roberge, in 1980 wrote his book entitled Mediation: the action of the media in our society. It was published by Manohar, ASIN: B0006E4BKK.

[3] Goethals, Gregor. 1989. ‘The Church and the Mass Media: Competing Architects of Our Dominant Symbols, Rituals and Myths’ in McDonnell, James and Trampiets, Frances, Communicating Faith in a Technological Age. Middlegreen, St Paul Publications, pp 56-77.

[4] This paper is based on an elaborate and extensive study of media context and media culture, communication theory (audience research) and content analysis of recent policy statements on communication by churches in North Western Europe. The results are related to the concept of dialogue as the most appropriate form of communication (both on theological as well as communication- and contextual arguments). This implies churches’ social and ethical responsibilities with respect to communication in society include care of public space. The concept of dialogue is furthermore related to media culture, the audience (both church membership as otherwise), ecclesiological identity, and (communication) theology. See: de Feijter, Ineke. 2007. The Art of Dialogue, Religion, Communication and Media Culture. Berlin, Lit Verlag.

[5] See Appendix I for an overview of the policy statements.

[6] Its identification and analysis can be found however in de Feijter, Ineke. 2007. The Art of Dialogue, Religion, Communication and Media Culture. Berlin, Lit Verlag. And in: de Feijter, Ineke, 2004. Mainline Religion and Global media Culture: Kairos or Curtain Line? Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Media, Religion and Culture, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

[7]Statements do note the importance of all forms of communication and of all media ‘to be used in church communication’. The focus, however, is on mass media and new media; alternative media are not equally elaborated upon. Even interpersonal communication, which is said to be the most important form, is not specified or grounded in communication theory.

[8] Sherry, J.L. 2001. ‘The effects of violent video games on aggression’ in Human Communication Research 27 (3), 409-431

[9] Giles D. 2003. Media psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[10] De Boer and Brennecke 2003:147 point to a study by Papacharissi, Z. and Rubin, A.M. (2000). ‘Predictors of internet use’. Journal of broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44 (2), 175-196.

[11] Report compiled by Heinz Hunke, Secretary-General of IDOC in Rome, for the international workshop on ‘Globalisation and Electronic Communication’ in Seoul Korea, 9-14 June 1997 (London, WACC).

[12] Larsen, E. 2000. Wired churches, wired temples: Taking congregations and missions into cyberspace. http:www.pewinternet.org.

[13] In chapter four of the volume The Art Of Dialogue, Religion, Communication and Global Media Culture (see note 4) we extensively consider the views about the relationship between church and culture, when discussing the work of Niebuhr and Tillich.

[14] We distinguished between a dominant and an alternative paradigm:

the dominant paradigm holds a liberal pluralist view and a functionalist perspective of a large-scale mass society. Technology serves progress of society and humankind and the influence of the market is essential. Media are seen as powerful instruments that are essential to maintain stability and cultural continuity. They follow and -confirm- the logic of the market. Beyond that they have no wider responsibilities to society. They link people to the world in an objective and neutral way. The audience is a mass public of individual consumers (market), who exercise power by choosing and buying. Public interest is consumer interest. Culture is to be divided into elite and mass culture; the latter is evidence of lower quality. Communication follows the process model of linear transmission. Power in this process is concentrated on the sender’s side. A message is a ‘take away,’ ‘meaning filled’ package ready to be received by a fairly passive consumer. Attention may prevail against being informed or genuine communication. Research and analysis is by nature quantitative and focuses on numerical measurement whether it is content, effect or audience.

the alternative social cultural critical paradigm is critical of mass society and concerned with questions of power and inequality. Technology is not an automatic guarantee for progress, but can be dehumanizing. The market reflects power relationships and must be controlled. Media are instruments of power and control and carry and maintain ruling ideologies. They are in no respect neutral or objective. The audience is not a passive consumer, but active, which means it can be critical. It is able to interpret and co-determine meaning. Public interest far exceeds consumer interest. Culture is a contested area of powers and relationships in society. Human experience is of great importance. There is a strong interest in popular culture, which is not at all inferior. Communication is not to be described in terms of linear effect process models. Transmission is rejected. What a message means is eventually decided upon by the receiver, who has the power to resist. Genuine communication has to do with sharing and community. Research and analysis are by nature qualitative and in depth. They recognize the interaction between media experiences and social cultural experiences and take into account the different discourses of media culture. 

[15] This not to say that theories about media effects and audience research are the only ones that should be taken into account. Communication theory involves many other aspects of communication processes, as shown in the first two chapters of The Art of Dialogue. Effects and audience are highlighted here because the policy statements to my opinion overemphasize media effects and at the same time overlook the position of the audience. Moreover, especially in the area of audience theories, recent shifts took place.

[16] Stewart M. Hoover and Knut Lundby (eds. 1997); Chris Arthur (ed 1989) ; Jolyon Mitchell and Sophia Marriage (eds.2003); Daniel A. Stout and Judith M. Buddenbaum (eds. 1996); Stewart Hoover and Lynn Schofield Clark (eds.2002); Peter Horsfield, Mary E. Hess and Adán M. Medrano (eds. 2004); Paul A. Soukup and Robert Hodgson (eds. 1997).

[17] Hamelink (2002:6) underlines Koole’s view with respect to praxis: He pleas for a shift of the centre of practical theology from ‘the accent on the practical application of theoretical-theological knowledge into the communicative praxis, towards the fundamental questioning of the theoretical-theological knowledge from within the praxis of public communication as a process of inclusive dialogue’.

[18] Inter Mirifica, the Vatican, 1963; The Church and the Media of Mass Communication, World Council of Churches, Uppsala 1968; Communio et Progressio, The Vatican, 1971; Joint Report of the Task Force on Mass Communication and the Task Force on Publication Strategy, Lutheran World Federation, 1973.