Page 91 - Religion in the Media Age Media, Religion & Culture

80 Media and religion in transition

Evangelical past or even the older cultural or religious establishment in
which many of them grew up. 120

There are several things we might predict about how this group would
relate to media culture. First, they are the group that is most linked, theo-
logically, to the neo-orthodox “mass-culture” critique discussed earlier.
The religious context with which they identify, then, has traditionally been
skeptical of the value and substance of the media sphere. 121 This would be
likely to have class-taste dimensions, with some members of this group at
least valuing “high” or “elite” culture over “popular” or “low” culture.
This might even emerge as a self-conscious term of differentiation for them
as they compare themselves with other groups, especially the “born
agains.” At the same time, though, their reflexive self-consciousness of
difference might well have them eschewing the kind of judgmentalism
about the “values” of the mass media we suggested might be more likely
among “born-agains.” Further, to the extent that we might expect the
media to represent in some way an evolving “cultural mainstream” in
terms of its overall textual output, this group would be the group that
would most identify with that “mainstream” in religious terms.
Like others, they would likely be motivated to look in some corners of
media culture, at least, for resources relevant to their religious/spiritual
quests of the self. If, as Roof suggests, they would also be less judgmental
about cultures beyond their own, even accepting of them, we would expect
them to be particularly drawn to media materials that bring them
resources and insights from beyond their immediate cultural surrounds.
Metaphysical Believers and Seekers. This is the core group of the
“seeking” sensibility, the one most self-consciously disconnected from
tradition. According to Roof, they often have a narrative of “bridge-
burning” with a former faith group to share that is parallel to the
“born-again’s” narrative of salvation. They can be identified by labels,
according to Roof, including identifications with Wicca, Zen Buddhism,
channeling, “New Age,” various “masters” or “paths,” and feminist spiri-
tuality. At the same time, some defy labels, according to Roof. They tend
to reject the label “religion,” favoring “spirituality” or “spiritual explo-
ration” instead. They share with “mainstreamers” a sense of adaptability
to shifting realities.
As other scholars have, Roof notes that this sensibility has deep roots in
the nineteenth-century “new thought” and metaphysical movements. They
reject the old dualisms, however, thinking of them as outmoded categories.
They favor a kinetic and holistic conceptions of human existence and
action. Roof suggests that this is the most Gnostic of the categories,
believing in an intuitive sense of religion and spirituality without the medi-
ation of institutional or clerical authority. Roof presents them as the
central group of exemplars of the religious project of the self as predicted