A Short Review of Quentin J. Schultz's. Televangelism and American Culture: The Business of Popular Religion. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003.
The frightful backdrop of American cultural values gleams through in Televangelism and American Culture as the essay portrays a quintessential description of the purely American phenomenon of televangelism and similar media-based contraptions. Quentin Schultze brilliantly dissects the under girding values of televangelism and compares them to the American cultural values of entertainment, materialism, spirituality, consumerism, narcissism, personality cultism, etc. Schultze has become a student to popular American culture and as a result he is wittingly able to describe the ironically unfortunate situation; his astuteness is vivid and cunning as is demonstrated by the fact that he perceptively adds the subtitle to the book “business of popular religion.” In reviewing Schultze’s work I will attempt to answer two questions: How does televangelist popularity reflect American culture? And what clues can one gain from the book about ministering in the current American culture?
American culture, as described by affiliated persons and non-affiliated persons alike, demonstrates unique patterns which can be observed to even the most casual of viewer. The most telling cultural description of American culture can be seen by America’s fatal fascination of mindless entertainment. American entertainment generates billions of dollars in revenue; from sporting events, to amusement parks, to movie theatres, to musical venues of endless variety, to restaurants, to religious events, to ad infinitum. (I am currently writing this with headphones in! How telling! We are products of our culture indeed.) Schultze describes a televangelism that simply caricatures the mentality of American entertainment cultural values. The obvious fact is that televangelism takes place on the television; the television is the place to which millions of Americans default on a nightly basis simply to be entertained.
How can televangelism be faithful to the gospel which Paul calls “foolishness” while integrating into the most popular of American traditions? Televangelists must balance faithfulness to the Christian tradition all the while they must compete in the American environment of entertainment business. This makes for a difficult integration. Business insists that they must “sell” their “product” in order to produce economically graded “profits.” Schultze writes, “In the United States, then, televangelism is an outgrowth of commercial broadcasting. Both types of broadcasting are based on the modern concept of marketing, which insists that products and services should be tuned to the wants and needs of consumers. Not all religious messages will sell in the competitive TV environment; the most effective gospels both attract viewers and elicit donations to the ministry.” (Schultze, 30) Though describing the economical factors behind television, the quote describes the fact that televangelism as a religious message is simply another form of “entertainment” to viewers as it functions in an atmosphere of entertainment. Again Schultze comments, “In the world of commercial television, the audience ratings race pushes program producers to sensationalize their shows. Experience tells them that sensationalism attracts viewers, no matter how critical some viewers are of such programming.” (Schultze, 106)
Quite naturally following the paradigm of entertainment is the American lust for profit. Greed turns the turbines of American business, and since our corollary holds that popular televangelism is simply a business at heart, likewise, profits must turn the engines of televangelists. Schultze writes, “Televangelism is the modern-American version of such financial and religious entanglements.” (Schultze, 155) It is not true that all religious broadcasting is motivated by greed, the quality of programming will be the first clue; but it is true, as Schultze demonstrates, by way of anecdotal evidence, that popular televangelism in general is a machine devouring dollars for maximum output, i.e. high quality, entertaining, and outlandish programming. Schutlze tells of his inquiring some of the most popular religious broadcasting companies for both a doctrinal and financial statement. Upon requesting these documents he soon began to receive literature from the organizations. However, many of them rather than sending the requested information sent him literature simply soliciting his donations; very few, actually only two, sent the requested documents. Schultze tells of televangelists continuing to solicit donations even after they had reached their goals. Example after example in Schultze’s work demonstrates that televangelists are highly interested in the donations and programmatic giving of both casual viewers and consistent patron alike.
Not only do televangelists solicit funds excessively, but they also use shaky techniques for gathering those funds. Many of the televangelists preach a “health and wealth” gospel, a gospel that says if you have just enough faith and give bountifully to selective organizations (namely their organization), the faithful devotee is guaranteed, because of Scriptures teaching, blessing beyond their imagination. The fact that Americans continually buy into this sort of teaching demonstrates even further the American cultural milieu concerning the acquiring of material wealth across all economical boundaries. The sedition of the “health and wealth” gospel is that it generally plays upon the mind and emotions of the underprivileged and less fortunate. (Schultze, 145) The televangelist tells the poor man that his situation doesn’t have to be that way if he would just have enough faith and believe the “gospel” so-called. In the end, the poor man ends up giving his money to the “religious leader” as demonstration of his faith toward the “truth” so that he can be freed from his economic oppression; however, ironically, the liberator is essentially continuing the strokes of oppression.
Driven by “budgets” and ratings televangelists have created programming the plays upon the culturally American desire for the sensational, the emotional, and the dramatic. One would think that the scandals of a Christian Leaders such as Jimmy Swaggart would cause televangelism to become suspect with regards to a legitimate means of religious expression. Though ratings and budgets suffer for a period of time, sooner rather than later, the program recovers and continues to produce the sensational programs. Americans flock to drama and scandal. America craves the shock factor. As a result of catering to these cultural tendencies, televangelism has produced a generation of TV viewers who have come to understand their faith to be based upon sensational subjective experiences of dramatic conversions and supernatural spiritual occurrences of divine interference rather than a historical understandings of basic Christian orthodoxy. Televangelists, according to highly selective motives, broadcast the most spectacular and fantastic occurrences of physical healings and spiritual conversions to raise ratings. They claim hundreds and thousands of converts each year who are “healed” and “saved” from dangerous diseases and extraordinary demons to ensure donations. These spiritual experiences are then marketed to authenticate the veracity of the program to the ear of the viewer, however soon the real motive usually presents itself: the pocketbooks of the viewers. Donors are solicited to supply the funds necessary to “win souls” and “heal bodies.” Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that? Unfortunately, the polls demonstrate that at least 90% of televangelist viewers are already converted believers.
It is difficult to assess the real motives of televangelists because, without a doubt, there are real, serious, faithful Christians who simply want to communicate the Christian message of hope. However the fact is that televangelists must compete on a market scale based upon the principles of a greedy American capitalism. Producers are pressed to produce programs that catch the attention of a wider and wider audience; which usually means that producers must cater to whims and wishes of cultural Americanism.
In light of the case of televangelism, the question must be considered: How can one minister, given these clues of American culture, in the American Church? It is simply a difficult conundrum. Ironically, the same evidence that witnesses against televangelism can be presented to witness against Church communities throughout the United States. That is, televangelism is not the only venue that suffers from these cultural disorders; so do the churches, though most churches do not suffer the plight of surviving in a highly competitive television market.
To describe a problem is one thing, to offer prescriptive advice is another. It must be understood first that not all American Culture is evil or destructive. There are real virtues found in American culture such as ingenuity, dedication, productivity, hard work, flexibility, quick change, etc. The minister cannot simply ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’ so to speak.
First, ministers must be faithful to the historical Christian community before they are faithful to market driven devices of conventionality. The pressure to conform to a commonly accepted cultural application cannot supersede the fundamental ideology of the Christian faith, i.e. faithfulness to the truths of Scripture. Scripture must point the direction of any ministry or ministers goals. Televangelism often uses experience to validate is practices. Ministers can view that and see the destructive tendencies of such a philosophy.
Second, that long-held faithful Christian doctrine is under fire by televangelists is not questioned; the causation falling somewhere between the individualistic spirit of our age and the lack of thoughtful education among believers. In understanding his culture, the minister will do well not to promote theologies based upon “private readings” of scriptures. The minister must understand that the individualistic spirit of televangelism is not healthy, nor is it wise for ministers to support individualistic programs and philosophies. Christ calls the churches to be one in the Spirit of peace, not one in individual calling. This is only possible when ministers intentionally align themselves with other faithful men and women who are faithful to both Scripture and the historical teachings of the community of believers.
A third clue the minister must consider is the fact that all people are products of their age. Christian leaders will never completely free themselves from the purely American cultural values for they are values to which we all hold dear. It is also true that in preaching the faithful gospel of Christ the minister is called to minister to people of their own worlds. Ministers must prepare themselves to understand, face, and criticize the problematic values; however instead of triumphantly solving every problem in one conquering swoop, the minister must approach the pressing issues with caution and care. Pastors and Christian leaders alike must care for the delicate world-views in which people operate and as a result they must gently lead the Church of God in faithful witness to the glory of Christ.