Page 90 - Religion in the Media Age Media, Religion & Culture

Media and religion in transition 79

sense of judgment about culture and media artifacts, rooted in the legacy
of “strictness,” may be the important factor. 117
This would lead us to expect relations to media among this cohort to be
complex. On the one hand, there would be a general acceptance of the
notion that media can be an appropriate context for religion and spiritu-
ality. There would be a class-taste dimension to this, as well. Traditionally,
Evangelicalism has tended, demographically, to be a lower-class
phenomenon (though this has changed in recent years). At the same time,
though, Evangelicals would be more likely than others to be critical of the
values present in “secular media,” and more likely to be suspicious of the
idea that non-Christian media might be an appropriate place to look for
religious or spiritual insight.
Mainstream Believers. According to Roof, this group is most centrally
defined by the fact that they continue to identify with the Mainline or
“Oldline” faith groups that were at the center of the religious landscape at
the mid-point of the last century. They tend to think of themselves as
“mainstream.” 118 Continuity in religious history is important to them, with
religion important as a “shared tradition.” Unlike the “born-agains,”
where they are is more important than what they are. They often identify
their religion with family heritage, and like their worship traditional.
Importantly, Roof contends that they often identify themselves by “nega-
tive reference.” That is, they are not “born again.”
Tolerance is also an important value for this group, a “mainstream”
that can transcend traditional barriers, and include Jews, Catholics,
Protestants, and the “new” immigrant religions such as Buddhism and
Islam. Distinctions are less important to them, and they are more likely
than “born-agains” to look across faith boundaries for cultural resources.
As with others, the “self” is an important project here, and they tend to
agree with others that the traditional resources of religious institutions are
inadequate to the task of the religious self. They tend to be unfamiliar with
religious symbolism and language, particularly the Protestants, and see
their position as one of “practical reason and responsibility.” This is in
contrast (in their view) to the extremes of “born-agains” and “traditional-
ists” (who we will get to presently) who they see as too inflexible and
dogmatic, and the “metaphysical seekers,” who they see to be “too flaky”
or indifferent to religious values. 119
Roof describes mainstreamers as “straddling,” thinking of Jesus as a
savior and a teacher, redeemer, and moral teacher. They represent an inter-
esting contrast with the “born-agains,” according to Roof. Whereas
“born-agains”

have a personal language, but must “work at” connecting with a
viable cultural and religious past, mainstreamers search for a fresh
vocabulary but must “work at” distancing themselves from either an