Page 185 - Religion in the Media Age Media, Religion & Culture

174 Born-agains and mainstream believers

themselves that way. My colleague Diane F. Alters considered the idea of
religious “mainstream-ness” and its relationship to household media prac-
15
tice in our book Media, Home, and Family. In it, she introduced a family
we called the Roelofs. While they were not regular church-goers, and had
done quite a bit of shopping around, this family felt quite strongly that
they were religious, not denominationally identified, but simply
“Christian.” The father, Ryan, insisted that they wanted their children to
lead a “Christian, moral” life, but was rather vague about the nature of
that life, and its relationship to religiously rooted values. As Alters noted,
his explanation of what that meant evoked the kind of “golden-rule”
Christianity we might expect in a “mainstream” household. As Ryan put
it, “You know, love-thy-neighbor-as-thyself type of attitude, do-unto-
others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you type of situation.” 16
The Roelofs’ religiosity and its relationship to media were complex, as
Alters noted. 17 However, some commonalities and contrasts with the
Allens and Boswells are apt here. Like the others, the Roelofs valued the
idea of families viewing media together (though they rarely did). They
also stressed the importance of parents using media to help their children
learn about values. Like the others, the Roelofs expressed a vague set of
media prohibitions, focused mostly around sex and violence. They
expressed a rather more focused set of accounts of media than these
other families, though, specifically criticizing daytime talk shows and rap
music. Like the Boswells, the Roelofs focused on the issue of time,
expressing an intention to limit the amount of time their children spent
with media of all kinds. Also like both the Boswells and the Allens, the
Roelofs seemed to be embedded in media. In spite of the parents’ claims
that they attempted to set limits on the kinds of programs viewed by
their children, they found that the reality did not exactly fit the aspira-
tion in that regard.
One of the most important ways that these mainstream families seem to
differ from the born-again believers is in the sense on the part of the latter
group that their religious or spiritual beliefs necessarily put them at odds
with the broader culture and its claims. In contrast, these mainstream
believers rarely expressed such a notion of difference. As Alters put it in
describing the Roelofs, “They believed that they shared with other people
in the society certain morals that helped them judge media products.” 18
Commonality with the rest of the culture, rather than difference from it,
seemed to define their view. Whereas the born-again believers seemed to
accept and express a received view that they were necessarily more moral-
istic, sectarian, and partisan, these mainstream believers did not express as
developed and extensive received stereotype of their beliefs and attitudes
about media. In addition, their accounts lacked much if any reference to
contemporary issues in religious politics, matters that were more common
in our discussions with born-again believers.