Religious Authority and the Blogosphere - Wiley Online Library

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Religious Authority and the Blogosphere Heidi A. Campbell Texas A&M University, Department of Communication, Texas A&M University, 4234 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA

It is often argued that the internet poses a threat to traditional forms of authority. Within studies of religion online claims have also been made that the internet is affecting religious authority online, but little substantive work has backed up these claims. This paper argues for an approach to authority within online studies which looks separately at authority: roles, structures, beliefs/ideologies and texts. This approach is applied to a thematic analysis of 100 religious blogs and demonstrates that religious bloggers use their blogs to frame authority in ways that may more often affirm than challenge traditional sources of authority. Key words: authority, blogs, religion, religious authority. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01519.x

Religious Authority and the Blogosphere

Since the mid 1990s internet technology has frequently been presented as a tool of revolution, possessing the possibility to transform society in positive ways and overthrow traditionally bounded limits, structures and groups (Boyd, 2002; Dyson, et. al. 1996; Rheingold, 1993; Stone, 1994). One of the main claims made about the internet is its ability to flatten hierarchies and give voice to the voiceless or typically marginalized populations (Castells, 2001; Pullen, 2000; Turkle, 1995). The ability of the internet to challenge traditional political, social and even religious authorities has become an accepted assumption. Undoubtedly many examples can be found within studies of online activism, gender and online organizational politics (Cherney & Wise, 1996; Couldry & Curran, 2003; Kahn & Kellner, 2004; Torres & Pina, 2005). As the diversity and breadth of internet users has increased, more people have been given access to a global audience for their ideas. In early studies of religion online the issue of authority became an area of interest, especially how traditional religious authorities might be challenged by online religious activity. Dawson (2000) speculated that the internet would result in the ‘‘proliferation of misinformation and disinformation’’ (p. 43) by opponents of particular religious groups or disgruntled insiders, the ‘‘loss of control over religious materials’’ by religious organizations, and also provide ‘‘new opportunities for grassroots forms of witnessing’’ (p. 44) thus encouraging the rise of un-official or alternative voices to traditional discourses. Overall Dawson saw that the internet’s potential to enable users to transcend time, geography and traditional channels of protocol may give rise Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

251

to public practices and discourses that empower religious practitioners in ways that might subvert the authority of accepted religious structures or leaders. Research into different online religious groups has often echoed these assumptions. For example, offline religious organizations have expressed concern about the effect of bringing normally closed private policy or theological discussions of religious leaders into public forums where new conclusions may arise that ‘‘stewards of the public image, would wish to deemphasize’’ (Piff & Warburg, 2005, p. 97). Also the internet may create new religious authorities, such as the moderator of an online group being identified and treated as a legitimate spiritual authority by members of an online religious community (Herring, 2005). However, other research has questioned these assumptions, and even suggested the internet may empower traditional religious authorities. Barker (2005) suggested that religious organizations, namely strongly hierarchical religious cults, may infiltrate online groups in order to try and control information shared online or create alternative forums which reinforce their established structure. Barzilai-Nahon and Barzilai (2005) also found through their study of Ultra Orthodox Jews and the internet that elites can use the internet to control information flow and access. This may be done through public pressure placed on members who post information online that is perceived as hostile or challenging to the community, or leaders may condemn the internet publically so that its use is seen as a mark of rebellion against the community. Also efforts may be made by leaders to limit the availability of technological infrastructure to the internet. So we see that the internet can be used to both challenge and empower traditional religious authorities. Thus the question of the internet’s impact upon authority, especially religious authority, is a complex one. This is further problematized because while ‘‘authority’’ is often noted as a key topic of interests within studies of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and the internet, it is often left as a nebulous or undefined term (Campbell, 2007). A more nuanced approach to the topic of authority online has been suggested, an approach which distinguishes between recognized authority hierarchies or roles, structures of authority, official ideologies or beliefs of a community and official texts that serve to legitimize specific groups. By differentiating between these different types of authority, Campbell (2007) argues that we might more accurately address and make claims about what specific forms of authority are being destabilized or supported by online practice and internet culture. The focus of this article is to apply this approach to authority to a study of Christian bloggers in order to see how traditional forms of religious authority—namely roles, structures, beliefs and texts—are being presented and framed online. This exploratory study seeks to address the question of how authority is framed within religious blogs in order to contribute to our understanding of how religious authority is regarded online in general, as well as what types of traditional religious roles, structures, beliefs and texts are primarily affirmed or challenged online. The article begins with a brief discussion of how authority has been studied in the past and why the blogosphere provides an interesting place to study issues of authority online. This leads to the 252

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

presentation of the study’s key research questions and a mixed methods approach used. Through a detailed thematic analysis of the postings of 100 Christian bloggers, this study explores how religious bloggers frame and understand religious authority online. Studying Authority and Blogs

In order to focus this investigation on how the internet is impacting the perception and presentation of religious authority online, this study focuses on such presentations in blogs. ‘‘Blog’’ is short for ‘‘web log’’ and is defined in this study as an online journal focused on personal content, composed of individual entries, which are frequently updated by a human author and whose contents are intended for a public audience (Nardi, et. al., 2004; Herring, et. al. 2004). Blogs allow individuals the opportunity to self-publish narratives on a variety of subjects and passions using text, images and even video to help express their thoughts. Because blogs are often equivalent to individuals making their personal diaries public online they provide a rich source of content for studying many questions related to personal beliefs and identity. In recent years researchers have studied what blogs can teach us about issues including motivations for technology use (Nardi, et. al. 2004), gender construction (Huffaker & Calvert, 2005), perceptions of privacy online (Vi´egas, 2005), political communication (Lawson-Borders & Kirk, 2005) community boundaries (Efimova & Hendrick, 2005) and presentations of sexual identity (Rak, 200).5 However to date no studies of blogging have specifically focused on studying authority online or, more specifically, religious authority. The concept of authority, while being a subject of much interest within CMC and internet studies, has often been treated as a broad, undefined concept. Therefore claims that the internet challenges traditional authority online often fail to fully clarify what aspects of authority are being challenged by these emerging technologies. Much of the previous work exploring religious authority online comes from ethnographic or narrative analysis studies of a single online community (Berger & Ezzy, 2004; Introvigne, 2000). While these provide important initial insights, in order to make more specific claims about how or what types of religious authority are being affected, there is a need for research studies that specifically focus on the framing of authority online. Campbell (2007) has argued that the study of ‘‘authority’’ online needs to be further clarified as it is often used as a amorphous term to indicate a range of understandings including the role of official systems or structures, specific individuals/entities and their position of power, sources of information, ideological positions and even broad framings of ‘‘moral’’ or ‘‘higher’’ authority. Many previous studies have failed to clarify what kind of authority is actually being talked about, especially when claims about the impact of the internet on authority are being made, let alone acknowledge that multiple forms or understandings exist. She draws on Max Weber’s (1947) classic definition of ‘‘pure legitimate authority’’–which differentiates between legal, traditional and charismatic authority–in Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

253

order to emphasize the need to look at the different manifestations of authority. Weber’s categories highlight that authority may be grounded in different sources and thus the need to identify means in which authority is conveyed rather than simply noting the end result of such authority. His categories differentiate authority as either a legitimized system, a traditional or official role, or as personification or representation of a unique belief. When Weber’s categories are applied to a literature review of current CMC studies dealing with issues of authority online, Campbell suggests that one can identify four separate categories of authority which emerge, specifically related to the study of religion online. They are: the influence of the Internet on religious hierarchy (specific roles, official leadership positions or recognized religious or community leaders), religious structures (community structures, patterns of practice, or official organizations), religious ideology (commonly held beliefs, ideas of faith, or shared identity) or religious texts (recognized teachings or official religious books). Campbell (2007) concludes that in order to clearly evaluate how the internet affects the presentation of religious authority online there is a need to more clearly identify what types of religious authority are being named and evaluated. It is important to note that religious authority, the focus of this study, does differ slightly from a general conception of authority in that religious authority draws on a particular form of legitimation. As Chavez (1994) states, ‘‘the distinguishing feature of religious authority is that its authority is legitimate by calling on some supernatural referent’’ whether that be a specific activist (i.e. god or spirit) or designated structure supporting ‘‘god talk’’ (p. 756). Yet, even with this unique source feature, studies of specifically religious authority mirror references to systems, roles, information/texts and beliefs as sources or manifestations of authority. Research on religion online is often concerned with similar conceptions of authority such as religious authority structures (Barker, 2005) and hierarchies (Herring, 2005; Piff & Warburg, 2005). Therefore while the focus here is on religious authority, it is possible that taking a more refined approach to authority may also help researchers investigate authority online in other contexts. Therefore exploring how religious bloggers refer to and talk about different forms of religious authority within their personal narratives of faith offers an interesting realm to explore questions of authority. From this background research, two central research questions emerge: RQ1: What forms of religious authority—roles, structures, theology/beliefs and texts—do religious bloggers refer to in their blogs? RQ2: Do religious bloggers affirm or challenge the sources of religious authority they refer to?

However, in order to answer and contextualize responses to these questions related to what forms of religious authority are noted online it was also necessary to collect general demographics about the user population. This led to a third research question. 254


RQ3: What are the notable practices of religious bloggers that might have a bearing on their framing of religious authority online?

Gathering background data related to the traits and faith presentation of religious bloggers helped contextualize their positions towards the different categories of religious authority under study. Method

This exploratory study on the question of the framing of authority in religious blogs focused on analyzing the content of Christian blogs in order to address the stated research questions. Information was gathered about the traits of Christian bloggers, how they present their religious belief in the blogging context and how their blog commentary presented their perceptions of religious authority. An initial pilot study was conducted in March 2006 with the full study beginning in March 2007. The pilot served as space for refining categories of data collection, the coding system and sampling strategies. The thematic analysis provided a basis for identifying the dominant frames used to present traditional sources of religious authority online. It also helped identify key characteristics of the bloggers that may serve as contributing factors as to why these frames were used. Sample

In order to answer the research question related to how individual bloggers present themselves and their beliefs about religious authority, the study focused on one religious tradition—Christian bloggers—in order to draw more cohesive conclusions. The sampling process involved selecting blogs whose authors explicitly identified themselves as Christians or connected themselves with the Christian faith either in the blogger profile, the theme/title of the blog or dedicated 50% or more of their blog entries to the topic of Christianity. The sample was also limited to single-authored blogs and only those with active postings within the designated coding time frame period. For the pilot study Blogger.com’s advanced search function was use to identify a sample using combinations of the terms ‘‘Christian,’’ ‘‘Christianity,’’ ‘‘blog’’ and ‘‘blogger’’. (Note 1) After reviewing the links and eliminating blogs which were inactive, had moved to other forums, did not have posts with the chosen coding time frame (1 March to 31 March 2006), or were not single authored, a list of 137 blogs was generated. A random sample of 1/3 of the blogs was then taken from this population to serve as the pilot sample. For the full study 100 blogs were selected randomly from 2 different populations. This was achieved by using SPSS to generate a random list of 50 blogs from each of the two samples. The first part of the sample was taken from a population of self-declared Christian Bloggers. This was drawn from a survey conducted by Cory Miller of ChurchCommunicationPro.com in January 2007 in collaboration with Rick Warren’s Ministry toolbox web site (found at Pastors.com). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

255

This survey drew response from a sample of 367 Christian Bloggers, and focused on collecting demographic information on the ‘‘Christian blogosphere’’ (Miller, 2007). This population was selected because of the clear identification of these being ‘‘Christian bloggers’’ and the study also provided some basic demographic results that could be used for comparison. The second half of the sample was drawn from a Google Blog Search using the term ‘‘Christian Blogger.’’ After eliminating multiauthored blogs and those no longer active or having no post during the designated sample month, a set of 408 blogs emerged from which a random sample of 50 blogs was selected. Drawing from these two different sources (self-proclaimed Christian bloggers and Bloggers identified as ‘‘Christian’’ through a broad search engine) created the potential for an interesting comparison to be made in relation to the self-presentation of religious identity. The coding month selected was November 2006, in order to avoid a biased amount of religious commentary which might surface during December (related to Christmas) and January/February (where many segments of the Christian blogging community focused on discussion of the above stated Christian Blog Survey).(Note 2) Units of Analysis

The unit of analysis was individual blogs identified from a sample of selected blogs that had the following criteria: single authored, posts appearing within the selected timeframe and explicit connection of themselves to Christianity. In order to keep the data collection manageable, information was collected only from the Blogger profile, first page of the blog, the very first post made by the blogger and a selected one-month time frame of blog posting. The data collection was limited to these parameters in order to provide a manageable amount of data for analysis. Within the selected sample bloggers averaged 17.5 entries per month (posting more than every other day), from a range of 1-131 posts in a single month. Due to the amount of posts often generated in a single month on a blog it was decided that a one month time period would provide an adequate time frame for collecting postings. Analysis of these blogs involved searching for answers to specific questions and coding categories outlined in the coding booklet, discussed further in the next section. Coding Categories

The code book provided a detailed explanation and examples for each theme for which data was being collected. This included demographics; use of religious identifiers or key words (Christian/Christianity, Religion/Religious, Spiritual/Spirituality); identification of religious group affiliation; identification of religious beliefs; connection to other social/cultural/political affiliations; and motivations for blogging and expression of views related to media/technology. To answer RQ1, information was collected on the different forms of religious authority bloggers mentioned, and then it was determined whether these references challenged or affirmed these categories of authority. The categories used were those identified by Campbell (2007), coders were instructed to find references to the four 256


categories of authority: religious hierarchy, religious structures, religious ideology and religious texts. These categories were refined and defined in the study in the following ways: • Religious hierarchy was identified as ‘‘roles’’ and within the code book and described as ‘‘references or appeals to a recognized religious authority figures or a traditional church leadership role’’ with examples such as ‘‘Apostle—, Evangelist—, Saint—, Bishop—and Pastor—‘‘. Examples of the range roles identified included Jesus Christ, Pastor Rick Warren, Pastor Dallas Willard, Pope John Paul and Rev. Charles Spurgeon. • Religious structures were identified as ‘‘structures’’ and defined as ‘‘references or appeals to religious hierarchies, church structures or other patterns of church life’’ such as’’ Cell Groups, Presbyter, church service format, Diocesan Board, Lay Councils, Liturgy, Liturgical Calendar or Sunday School’’. Examples of the types of structures identified by the coders included: Children’s Ministry, Church Ministry Team, Leadership Team, Small Groups/Cell Groups and Southern Baptist Convention. • Religious ideology was referred to as ‘‘theology/ideology’’ and defined in the code book as ‘‘reference or appeals to commonly held Christian beliefs or characteristics used to identify individuals as Christian’’ with examples of ‘‘Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Body of Christ, Discipleship, Glossolalia (Speaking in Tongues), Rapture, Salvation/Saved, Sanctification’’ being given. Examples of the theological concepts or ideas identified by the coders included: Baptism, Emerging Church Missiology, ‘‘Justification by Faith’’, Salvation and Servant Evangelism. • Religious texts were referred to as ‘‘texts’’ and defined as ‘‘references or appeals to a religious text used to support argument ‘‘ such as ‘‘Apostles Creed, Apocrypha, Bible, Christian books [such as Purpose Driven Life, Pilgrims Progress], the Nicene Creed, or Westminster Confession of Faith’’. Examples of the types of text identified by the coders included: Bible, Celebration of Discipline, Colossians, Old Testament, Purpose Driven Life, and Southern Baptist Convention Articles of Faith. Information was collected both on what specific names or items were identified in the blogs under each category, and the number of times each appeared in the blog. To answer RQ2 coders determined whether or not each reference to a religious authority category was made in the context of a statement that either clearly affirmed or challenged the noted source. As the code book stated, ‘‘Do these references to authority support or challenge these religious authorities?’’ Thus the ‘‘angle’’ of these names/items was also coded, noting whether the context of the reference was positive/affirming, negative/challenging or neutral/unclear, as well as the number of times. In order to contextualize RQ1 & RQ2, data related to RQ3 was collected concurrently. For RQ3 coders gathered detailed demographic information related Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

257

to such issues as the blogger’s personal identity, profession, location, length they had kept a blog and number of posts per month. Information related to blogger’s affiliation with specific religious groups (such as a church, denomination or religious network) and other groups they connected themselves to (such as cultural/social, political or ideological groups) were also collected. Coder Training and Reliability

The pilot coding was conducted by three research assistants who were trained in the coding of these specific variables with an extensive code book and correlating Excel document where data was entered. Coders were tested on accuracy and consistency of coding over a 4 week period of training, covering 15 different blogs, until all coders achieved synonymous coding on coding categories related to RQ1 & RQ2 of the same two blogs in a row before the pilot project began. The pilot study served as a reliability check for the study and an opportunity to test the coding framework that had been constructed as well as an opportunity to verify if the code book descriptions provided clear and consistent enough instructions for the coders. The pilot study revealed a need to clarify and refine the names and definitions of some the categories of authority under study for the sake of coder clarity. After reviewing the pilot study data, changes were made to coding rubric, specifically to the wording of some questions while other questions were combined in order to further collapse the study down from 120 to 90 variables in the questions. Related changes and clarifications were also made to the coding booklet. The final result was four set categories of questions: demographics, religious identification and affiliation, positions towards religious authority and reasons for blogging. In the full study coders completed ten hours of training for the three coders. Two of these coders had been previously involved in the pilot study, with one new coder being added. The training covered 10 blogs, continuing until all the coders achieved perfect correlation of their responses on the four categories of religious authority on coding two blogs in a row. None of the blogs used in the pilot were included in the final sample. Coding took over 210 hours and occurred over a 5 week period by the three trained coders. The intercoder reliability was calculated for the four questions related to the four categories of authority using a Scott’s Pi calculation. The results were deemed acceptable for the sample and were as follows: Scott Pi = .95 for the Religious Hierarchy, Scott Pi = .61 for Religious Structure, Scott Pi = .78 for Religious Ideology, and Scott Pi = .95 for Religious Texts. Findings

The presentation of the findings can be divided into three areas which correlate with the project’s three research questions: (1) information on which religious authorities were referred to; (2) data on how bloggers frame religious authority in their blogs; (3) the characteristics of Christian bloggers and their blogging practices. The first two areas deal directly with research questions one and two about the identification and 258


treatment of sources of religious authority within the blogs. The final area relates to the third research question providing background information about these Christian bloggers which helps contextualize and further interpret the data. Sample Demographics

In this study more bloggers were male than female, χ 2 (df = 1, n = 96) = 42.6, p < .001. Overall 80% of bloggers were men, with the Christian Blogger Web Survey Sample (CB) being a slightly higher 88% and the Google Blog Search Sample (GB) being 72%. Of the 87 bloggers who stated a profession, most were pastors (34%). However, when combining professions across Christian ministries, including pastors, missionary/church planters, and teachers or students who taught or attended a theological school, a total of 62% could be identified with a Christian organization. The majority of bloggers (69%) came from the USA with the next largest group coming from Australasia, including Australia (3%), Malaysia (2%) and Singapore (1%). As in the pilot, men who worked in church-related organizations positions or held a Christian leadership position were the greatest percentage of the blogging sample. In summary, the majority of Christian bloggers were male, Christian professionals who lived in the USA. RQ1: Religious authorities referred to in Christian blogs

A total of 4,280 references to different forms of religious authority (roles, structures, theology/beliefs and texts) were coded in the study. Religious roles were the most common category of reference (n = 2,314, 54.2%), followed by religious texts (n = 1,183, 27.6%), theological ideas (n = 584, 13.6%), and religious structures (n = 199, 4.6%), χ 2 (3) = 2,403.91, p < .001. See Figure 1. What follows is the breakdown of the each of the four categories. First, for religious roles, 16 different subcategories were identified and coded (see Table 1). The most frequently identified role or religious figure was God (n = 1,369, 59.1%) followed by Biblical characters (n = 219, 9.5%), Pastors (n = 204, 8.8%), and Religious Authors (n = 138, 6.0%). All other categories represented less than 5% of the total. Table 1 provides a summary of the frequency in which all religious roles were coded including the breakdown of each category by affirmations, challenges, and blog source. For the second of the four major categories, religious texts, nine different subcategories were identified and coded (see Table 2). The most frequently identified text was the Bible (n = 910, 76.9%), which replicates the results from the pilot study. This was followed by Christian Teaching/Devotional Books (n = 167, 14.1%) and Theology Books (n = 47, 4%). Other texts that were identified represented less than 3% of all identified texts. Table 2 provides a summary of the frequency in which all religious texts were coded. For the third category, theological ideas, 14 different subcategories were identified and coded (see Table 3). The subcategory of which was most frequently identified Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

259

Figure 1 The Affirmation and Challenge of Religious Authority

was theological debates/issues (n = 145, 24.8%), followed by the comments to the Character of God (n = 109. 18.7%), Christian Practice (n = 82, 14%), Salvation (n = 68, 11.6%), Doctrine related to the Sacrament (n = 31, 5.3%) and Character of the Church (n = 30, 5.1%). All other categories related to theology that were identified represented less than 5% of all identified theological ideas. Table 3 provides a summary of the frequency in which all religious theological ideas were coded. For the fourth of four major categories, religious structures, 14 different subcategories were identified and coded (see Table 4). The most frequently identified structural category was that of Liturgy (n = 42, 21.1%) followed by the categories of Church structure (n = 27, 13.6%), Governing Church Bodies (n = 20, 10%), Leadership positions (n = 20, 10%), Church ministries (n = 17, 8.5%), Religious Festivals (n = 12, 6%) and Official Doctrines (6.5%). All other categories related to religious structures represented less than 5% of all identified structures. Table 4 provides a summary of the frequency in which all religious structures were coded. RQ2: How Christian bloggers frame religious authority

Overwhelmingly, most references to religious authority were coded as affirmations of authority (n = 3, 952) whereas far fewer were coded as challenges to authority (n = 328). Thus, bloggers were 12 times more likely to affirm a category of religious authority in their blogs than they were to challenge or speak critically about them. The affirmation of religious roles was the most common authority category for bloggers (n = 2134, 54% of all affirmative religious roles). ‘‘God’’ was the religious figure most commonly referred to in a positive light (n = 1361, 64% of all positive role references). This was followed by positive references to biblical characters such as Moses or the Apostle Paul (n = 215, 10%), pastors (n = 150, 7%), Christian authors (n = 111, 5 %) and then historical religious leaders (n = 54, 3%), such as John 260


Table 1 Religious Authority Roles

Roles Authors (Contemporary & Historical) Affirms Challenges Total Biblical Characters Affirms Challenges Total Catholic Saints (Historical) Affirms Challenges Total Church Fathers(Historical) Affirms Challenges Total Church Leader (Contemporary) Affirms Challenges Total God Affirms Challenges Total Historical Church Leaders Affirms Challenges Total Missionaries (Contemporary & Historical) Affirms Challenges Total Popes & Catholic Priests Affirms Challenges Total Pastors (Contemporary) Affirms Challenges Total

Google (GB)

Christian (CB)

Total (GB + CB)

65 19 84

46 8 54

111 27 138

178 3 181

37 1 38

215 4 219

24 0 24

0 0 0

24 0 24

19 0 19

0 0 0

19 0 19

1 7 8

16 6 22

17 13 30

935 6 941

426 2 428

1361 8 1369

52 1 53

2 0 2

54 1 55

6 0 6

3 0 3

19 0 9

36 10 46

1 0 1

37 10 47

94 46 140

56 8 64

150 54 204


261

Table 1 Continued Google (GB)

Roles Religious Bloggers Affirms Challenges Total Religious Musician Affirms Challenges Total Religious Professor (Contemporary) Affirms Challenges Total Religious Teacher/Media Figure (Contemporary) Affirms Challenges Total Televangelist Affirms Challenges Total Theologians (Contemporary & Historical) Affirms Challenges Total

Christian (CB)

Total (GB + CB)

21 0 21

10 0 10

31 0 31

8 0 8

1 0 1

9 0 9

6 3 9

2 0 2

8 3 11

31 19 50

3 2 5

34 21 55

2 23 25

1 1 2

3 24 27

50 14 64

2 1 3

52 15 67

Calvin or Thomas Aquinas. All other religious role categories coded represented less than 3% of the total, see Table 1 for a full summary. Religious texts were the second most common category of religious authority affirmed (n = 1147, 29% of all affirmative mentions). Bloggers primarily referenced ‘‘the Bible’’ or portions of scripture in order to support their arguments or to speak about positive sources of authority within the Christian faith (n = 899, 78% of all affirmative religious text mentions). This was followed by positive affirmations of Christian teaching or devotional books such as The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren (n = 153, 13%) and theology books such as St Augustine’s Confessions (n = 39, 3%). All other references to religious text represented less than 3% of the total. Table 2 provides a full summary. For theological ideas (n = 514, 13% of all affirmative mentions) theological debates/issues were the most commonly noted category (n = 120, 23% of all affirmative religious theology/belief mentions). This was followed by the character of God (n = 101, 20%), Christian practices (n = 69, 13.4%), Salvation (n = 66, 12.8%), and 262


Table 2 Religious Authority Texts Text Bible Affirms Challenges Total Bible Commentaries Affirms Challenges Total Christian Teaching/Devotional Books Affirms Challenges Total Christian Blogs Affirms Challenges Total Christian Magazines Affirms Challenges Total Christian Songs/Lyrics Affirms Challenges Total Christian Websites Affirms Challenges Total Religious Films Affirms Challenges Total Theology Books Affirms Challenges Total

Google (GB)

Christian (CB)

Total (GB + CB)

651 11 662

248 0 248

899 11 910

14 2 16

0 0 0

14 2 16

104 9 113

49 5 54

153 14 167

8 0 8

4 0 4

12 0 12

9 1 10

8 0 8

17 1 18

5 0 5

0 0 0

5 0 5

5 0 5

0 0 0

5 0 5

13 0 3

10 0 0

13 0 3

34 6 40

5 2 7

39 8 47

beliefs about the Sacraments (n = 29, 5.6%) such as baptism and communion and Character of the Church (n = 28, 5.4%). All other religious belief references were less than 5 % of the total, see Table 3 for a summary. Religious structures was the least common category of affirmation (n = 157, 3.8%). Liturgy was the most common religious authority structure affirmed (n = 42, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

263

Table 3 Religious Authority Theological Ideas Theology Afterlife Affirms Challenges Total Character of God Affirms Challenges Total Character of Church Affirms Challenges Total Church Life Affirms Challenges Total Christian Practice Affirms Challenges Total Creation/Evolution Affirms Challenges Total Gift of the Holy Spirit Affirms Challenges Total Homosexuality Affirms Challenges Total Proselytizing Affirms Challenges Total Sacraments Affirms Challenges Total Salvation Affirms

264

Google (GB)

Christian (CB)

Total

15 1 16

10 0 10

25 1 26

82 5 87

19 3 22

101 8 109

23 2 23

5 0 5

28 2 30

7 1 8

0 0 0

7 1 8

62 13 75

7 0 7

69 13 82

6 7 13

0 1 1

6 8 14

10 6 16

8 0 8

18 6 24

8 1 9

0 0 0

8 1 9

12 1 13

7 0 7

19 1 20

22 2 24

7 0 7

29 2 31

53

13

66


Table 3 Continued Theology Challenges Total Spiritual Realm Affirms Challenges Total Structure of Church Affirms Challenges Total Theological Debate/Issue Affirms Challenges Total

Google (GB)

Christian (CB)

Total

1 54

1 14

2 68

13 0 13

3 0 3

16 0 16

2 0 2

0 0 0

2 0 2

109 17 126

11 8 19

120 25 145

26.8% of all affirmative religious structure mentions) or comments on order of service or components of Church worship services. This was followed by positive mentions of specific Church ministries (n = 17, 10.8%), Governing bodies (n = 16, 10.2%), Forms of Leadership (n = 14, 8.9%), Religious Festivals/holidays (n = 11, 7%), Local Church (n = 11, 7%), Church classes/trainings (n = 11, 7%), Official Doctrines (n = 8, 5%). All other religious structures categories coded represented less than 5% of the total, see Table 4 for a full summary. Religious roles were also the most common category of religious authority challenged (n = 180, 54.9% of all challenging references). Pastors were the most challenged religious role (n = 54, 30% of all challenges to authority role), with pastors who were also authors or had national prominence being more frequently criticized than local pastors (46 of the 54 references). This was followed by Religious Authors (n = 27, 9.4%), Televangelist (n = 24, 13.3%), Religious Teacher/Media Figure (n = 21, 11.7%), Theologians (n = 15, 8.3%), Other Church Leaders (n = 13, 7.2%) and Popes and Priests (n = 10, 5.6%). All other references were less than 5%; see Table 1 for a full summary. Notably, only a very small number of women were identified with religious authority roles, about 1% of all affirmation (22 out of 2314 role affirmations) and about 3% (5 out of 180 role challenges) of all challenges. Theological ideas were the second most common form of authority challenged (n = 72, 22% of all challenging references). Theological Debates/issues was the most common category mentioned (n = 25, 34.7%) such as criticism about Feminist and Fundamentalist based Theology or ‘‘heath and wealth’’ gospel teachings. This was followed by critiques of Christian Practices (n = 13, 18%) such as ‘‘contemplative prayer’’ or ‘‘showing compassion and forgiveness without repentance, the Character of God (n = 8, 11.1%) such as the ‘‘sovereignty of God’’, Creation/Evolution debates Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

265

Table 4 Religious Authority Structures Structure Church Affirms Challenges Total Christian Community Affirms Challenges Total Christian Events/Conferences Affirms Challenges Total Church Committees Affirms Challenges Total Church Ministries Affirms Challenges Total Church Membership Affirms Challenges Total Class/Training Affirms Challenges Total Denominations Affirms Challenges Total Festivals/Religious Holidays Affirms Challenges Total Governing Body Affirms Challenges Total Leadership Position/Forms Affirms

266

Google (GB)

Christian (CB)

Total

10 4 14

1 12 13

11 16 27

6 1 7

2 0 2

8 1 9

3 0 3

1 2 3

4 2 6

0 1 1

6 0 6

6 1 7

6 0 6

11 0 11

17 0 17

2 1 3

1 3 4

3 4 7

9 0 9

2 0 2

11 0 11

0 0 0

0 1 1

0 0 1

10 1 11

1 0 1

11 1 12

11 1 12

5 3 8

16 4 20

7

7

14


Table 4 Continued Structure Challenges Total Liturgy Affirms Challenges Total Organization Affirms Challenges Total Official Doctrines Affirms Challenges Total

Google (GB)

Christian (CB)

Total

1 8

5 12

6 20

41 0 41

1 0 1

42 0 42

5 3 8

1 0 1

6 3 9

8 4 12

0 0 0

8 4 12

(n = 8, 11.1%) and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (n = 8, 11.1%) specifically ‘‘speaking in tongues’’/glossolalia. All other references were less than 5%; see Table 2 for a full summary. For religious structures (n = 42, 12.8% of all challenging references) it was challenges to the idea of the Local Church (n = 16, 38%) which were most common. This was followed by critiques of various institutional Leadership Positions (n = 14, 33.3%), Governing Church Bodies (n = 4, 9.5%), Church membership (n = 4, 9.5%) and Official Doctrines (n = 4, 9.5%). All other references were less than 5%; see Table 3 for a full summary. Religious texts was the least common form of religious authority to be challenged (n = 36, 11% of all challenging references) with Christian teaching/devotional books (n = 14, 38.9%) to be the most critiqued category. This was followed by the Bible (n = 11, 30.6%) and Theology books (n = 8, 22.2%), with all other references were less than 5%. See Table 4 for a full summary. The sample from this study includes a variety of different subgroups of bloggers who might warrant special attention, especially to consider whether they might uniquely respond and frame these categories of religious authority. For instance in looking specifically at pastors and those on church pastoral staffs who represent 46% of the total population, we see similarities with the general sample, but a few interesting variations. As in the general sample affirmations of authority (n = 993) overwhelmingly outweigh challenges to authority (n = 48). The rank order of these categories also corresponds to the larger study with affirmations of religious roles being the most common (n = 504, 50.7% of this sample), followed by religious texts (n = 281, 28.3%), theological ideas (n = 153, 15.4%) and religious structures (n = 55, 5.5%). Yet there is a variation in the types of authority being affirmed in that Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

267

it is affirmations of theological ideas dealing with the Character of the Church (n = 34, 22.2%) that are most commonly noted, in contrast to Theological Perspective/Issues in the general population. Also within religious structures equal emphasis is placed on Church Governing Bodies (n = 12, 21.8%) and Ministries (n = 12, 21.8%) as the dominant categories verses Liturgy and Church Ministry in the general sample. Investigating the nuances and differences between subgroups is beyond the scope of this study, due to its sample size. Yet such initial observations suggests future studies could benefit from a fine-tuned analysis when seeking to make more detailed claims about how religious authority may mean different things for different groups of bloggers. It might also help elucidate the priorities and justifications used by specific groups of bloggers related to issues of authority online. RQ3: The profile and practices of Christian bloggers

More individuals (54%) provided a personal photo on their blog than those who do not, although the number was not statistically significant. Significantly more individuals (73%) also provided a full name, χ 2 (df = 1, n = 100) = 21.16, p < .001. Only 6 offered a handle or obvious alias inferring the self-disclosure and personal ownership may be important for religious bloggers. Significantly more individuals (62%) explicitly stated they were a Christian or a follower of Jesus Christ in the very first post made in their blog than those who did not reveal this information, χ 2 (df = 1, n = 100) = 5.76, p < .05. Of the 62%, GB bloggers (n = 33) identified this information more frequently than CB bloggers (n = 29). A total of 37% used blog titles or descriptions on the opening page of their blog which clearly link them to the Christian faith. Of the 37%, 16 stated that their blog was focused on a Christian topic such as ‘‘as for me and my blog we will serve the Lord’’ or written by follower of Christ, i.e. someone ‘‘becoming more like Jesus,’’ 11 used a verse from the Bible, 6 connected their blog to a particular Christian tradition such as Catholic or Methodist, and 4 used some part of a quote from a Christian theologian or author (4%). A total of 27% used Christian images or symbols on the front page of their blog. A cross was the most popular image (use by 11 blogs), but other pictures included popular Christian books, Bibles and Catholic saints. In relation to affiliation, 45% of all bloggers noted their membership to a specific church although the number was not statistically significant. Significantly fewer bloggers (40%) linked themselves to a specific denomination χ 2 (df = 1, n = 100) = 10.0, p < .001, with Baptist & Presbyterian being the most mentioned groupings). And 47% of the bloggers associated themselves with a Christian ministry (such as Cottonwood School of Ministry, emerging church), Christian network (such as Vineyard Movement, church planting summit) or religious organization (such as Navigators or Society of Biblical Literature) although nonsignificant from those who did not. Finally, 55% of bloggers stated an explicit motivation for their blogging with 33% offering a religious connection or explanation for this motivation. The thematic 268


analysis of these statements made by bloggers suggests these motivations fit into one of four categories: Descriptions of Christian Living, Theological Development, Proselytizing or Personal Networking. It is important to note that of the 33 bloggers who noted motivations 30 of these were pastors and church leaders, a finding that suggests religious leaders may bring distinctive strategies to their blogging that inform the content they produce, a claim to be explored later in a follow-up study. The most common motivation was sharing about one’s Christian Living or Lifestyle (n = 13) where blogging is seen as an opportunity to make their spiritual journeys and lifestyle transparent. This was followed by Theological Development or the desire to use the internet as space to develop and refine their theology, with the hope of gaining feedback or interaction from this (n = 8). A few bloggers had proselytizing motivations (n = 4) or a desire to make public proclamations of their beliefs online in order to influence the unchurched or those of different religious persuasions. Finally, a few (n = 3) created their blogs as intentional networking spaces, using the blogosphere to address a specific church group of people. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore how religious bloggers, namely Christian bloggers, challenge and/or support traditional forms of religious authority through their blogging content. This was accomplished by looking at which religious roles, structures, beliefs/ideologies, and texts are most commonly referred to by these bloggers and how they framed the sources of authority they mentioned. With regard to RQ1, this research showed Christian bloggers most frequently referred to religious roles followed by religious texts, theological ideas and religious structures. For RQ2, the data suggest that Christian bloggers were far more likely to affirm a category of religious authority than challenge or speak critically about them in their blog. Affirmation of religious leaders was most common, followed by the affirmation of religious texts, theological ideas and religious structures. Challenges to specific religious leaders were the most common critique, followed by challenges to theological ideas, structures and text. Finally, for RQ3, the research revealed that most bloggers were male, held positions of religious authority offline and were American. Moreover, most bloggers provided personal information about themselves in the form of pictures or stating their full name. Many also explicitly identified themselves as Christians in their blogs and connected themselves to a specific church, denomination or Christian group. While early studies of religion online suggested that the internet might primarily be used by religious users to challenge traditional sources of religious authority, this study is consistent with more recent claims that the internet instead can serve as a source to empower religious authorities. This study provides evidence that religious users may spend a significant portion of their discourse online affirming, rather than challenging traditional religious leaders, structural bodies, theologies and core texts. It also affirms the value of looking at the study and treatment of Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

269

authority online in terms of different forms of authority in order to reveal a more nuanced understanding of how authority is framed and constructed within online communication. Furthermore, through this study several noteworthy findings emerge which not only have theoretical implications, but also have raised important questions for further research. Although the claims of this study were drawn from a 100-unit data set and so provide narrow window for making some generalizations, they offer some interesting and important initial findings worthy of further exploration. First, Christian bloggers in this study invoked many traditional sources of authority, namely appeals to God and references to the Bible, in their blogs. Overall ‘‘God’’ was the most commonly referred to religious figure and was also the most affirmed religious figure. This finding may be explained in that God is the central figure of the Christian religious tradition and, even though different conceptions of God exist within Christendom, is recognized as the divine source. Thus ‘‘God’’ necessarily has a higher place than human authorities and therefore often given priority or deferred to. This was followed by references to biblical characters and then pastors. Many of the pastors identified were also noted Christian authors such as Rick Warren, author of a Purpose Driven Life, and John Piper, author of Seeing and Savoring Jesus. While some bloggers challenged various theological roles, structures and theological beliefs, Christian bloggers in this study were primarily focused on affirming their own beliefs rather than challenging other positions. This suggests that the Christian blogosphere may be focused on promoting specific beliefs, perceptions of authority or even trying to create consensus online. This raises interesting questions about what topics or conditions are most likely to generate debate or to challenge traditional sources of religious authority. Secondly, these findings demonstrate that Christian texts, and more specifically the Bible, play an important function for Christian bloggers serving as a tool for establishing authority within their blogs. This is done by affirming the positive role the Bible plays within the greater Christian community as a source of legitimate authority. Bloggers in this study overwhelmingly employed this text to support their personal claims, arguments or adherence to specific traditional beliefs associated especially with Protestant Christianity. This was echoed in the many positive references to dominant beliefs within Christian theology. This included the affirmation of certain beliefs about the character of God as loving and the importance of salvation through faith in Jesus. Thus references to traditional theological doctrines or beliefs appear to play an important role for bloggers trying to solidify or affirm a particular Christian viewpoint. Theology can be seen as a source of authority in its own right, as a realm that provides a platform or grounding for other sources of religious authority, especially roles and texts. These first two findings also suggest that future studies of religious authority would benefit from a detailed investigation of the difference between divine authority in its various manifestations (such as different conceptions of God or divinity in Scripture and elsewhere), and the charismatic authority of the prophet or one who claims supernatural powers or gifts, the hybrid authority of the preacher who appeals to reason in interpreting the Bible, and the 270


institutional/traditional authority of denominational or ecclesiastical bodies which found their claim to legitimacy on a divine mandate. Thirdly, according to data in the pilot and main study, Christian blogging was dominated by males. This is not to say that female voices are absent, but if this study is representative of the Christian blogosphere it could be concluded that the dominant Christian voice appears to be male. This is a claim that needs to be further explored as it raises interesting questions related to gender and religious blogging. Are religious bloggers online mostly male? Are there particular forums or platforms where the female voice is more (or less) present or represented? Fourthly, related to the previous, is that a significant portion of the Christian bloggers in this study were also Christian professionals offline. This suggests that blogging may be strengthening the voice and influence of the offline elite online; or it at least demonstrates that many of those who are creating platform of influence online are also those who hold official positions in a church or Christian organizations. This questions the notion that the internet primarily serves as an alternative religious media source, giving the voiceless or laypersons a space for influence. Are Christian professionals the dominant population within the Christian blogosphere? What about blogging from the pew? How do the motivations and styles of church goers who do blog differ, if at all, from the ‘‘professional Christian blogger’’? Finally, there is evidence in this study that suggests religious affiliation is important to Christian bloggers, as they linking themselves not just to the religion of Christianity, but to specific religious traditions or groups. Due to the size of the study sample and the diversity of denominations indicated by bloggers (40 bloggers citing 14 different groups) a fine tune analysis of denominational difference was not possible here. However, the construction of the religious identity and links to offline affiliations in blogs could be an important area of further exploration. It appears religious bloggers consciously associate themselves to groups or beliefs, whether by links, images or textual reference, in order to affirm or support a certain construction of religion online. It is possible that Christian bloggers may link themselves to Christian groups (esp. specific churches, denominations & Christian ministries) in attempts to support their particular interpretation of religious beliefs online. It may be that they hope that readers will know they are Christian bloggers not just because they say so directly, but because they present a particular picture of their religion online. This leads to the question, might theological interest or affiliation be an indicator of whether or not you choose to blog and how you blog? This study both echoes and challenges recent work by Cheong, Halavais, & Kwon, (2008) on the practices of religious bloggers. Similar to Cheong, Halavais, & Kwon‘s study this research found that bloggers shape the blogosphere in line with their spirituality and faith practices. In other words, bloggers who state an explicit religious group affiliation concentrate their blogging on religious topics. Both studies also found that there is a multiplicity of intent for religious blogging such as chronicling one’s spiritual journey, offering a prophetic voice clearly tied to a religious mission, a forum for apologetics and occasionally for venting. Both studies found that using Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

271

religious blogging as a space to present one’s spiritual life and daily practice was the most common motivation for religious bloggers. However there were also some notable differences in the two studies. Cheong, Halavais, & Kwon’s exploration of the subject content of Christian blog posts found that didactic, or ‘‘educational’’ posts with the intent to inform and provide authoritative insight, was the most common one of the three forms of criticism noted. This criticism focused on institutions or dogmas related to the Christian church, followed by critiques of religious stances on social issues and then general critiques of the Christian faith. Their findings differ from this study which suggest religious roles (i.e. nature of the pastorate or function of other religious leaders) is the most common item of criticism in Christian blogs, followed by theological ideas tied to a specific theological tradition and criticism of the institutions of the church being third. Also Cheong, Halavais, & Kwon found some evidence that Christian blogs are used to build alternative frameworks for religious interpretation and that religious bloggers operate outside the realms of the conventional nuclear church. This claim is counter to the findings of this study which found close links between Christian bloggers and affiliation to traditional church authorities and structures. This difference might be accounted for or explained by the fact that this study had a particularly high percentage of religious leaders within its sample, which could explain the strong positive affiliation with organized religion. In light of these differing findings, claim as to whether the Christian blogosphere primarily serves as a space to challenge or affirm religious authority needs to be further explored to see how particular religious and professional affiliations may serve as indicators for blogging motivation and practices. Both studies point to the need for further research on denominational comparisons and correlations, in relation to how bloggers from specific Christian groups may differ in the content of their blog texts and underlying motivations. Analysis and discussion of this data ultimately shows that while some individuals use their blogs to critique religious leaders, structures, theologies and text, many Christian bloggers use their blogs to affirm traditional religious authorities that are in line with the religious beliefs and the identities they seek to present online. This raises an interesting area of discussion related to how the internet may serve as a realm to affirm offline religious authorities, rather than challenge. This finding challenges previous assumptions that the internet primarily facilitates critiques of traditional authority and affirms alternative voices. It appears those authorities who have a voice, power and status offline may also be the power brokers online. If those who have the power or authority offline are also those who have the power online, this creates an interesting area for future research that turns on its head the claim the internet is reforming or challenging traditional authority roles, structures, beliefs and texts. There are limitations to this study as well. While attempts have been made to provide a spectrum of the Christian blogosphere, this is not a representative sample. For example, the sample was dominated by Protestant bloggers which likely influenced the conclusion of this study, as Protestant groups often hold a more flexible view of authority and are more open to dissenting voices. Future studies 272


would benefit from exploring the difference between such as Protestant and Catholic bloggers, who may have distinct and different blogging strategies stemming from their complex histories related to the Reformation and its legacies of media negotiation. Related to this the sampling strategy employed by this study has a significant impact on the findings reported. It also means that some critical blogs may have been left out of the analysis. Subsequent studies must seriously consider how best to set parameters in order to capture a representative sample of such religious blogging populations. Also the study did not look at the entire content of the blog as data collection focused only on the blogger’s first entries, their profile, title page and a one month period of post. Further study might benefit from including data found in the blog links or the blogroll. This thematic analysis relied on detailed investigation of wide breadth of questions related to religious authority in blogs and so the data collected was very focused, thick and rich. Therefore, future studies would benefit from investigating a larger population of bloggers while focusing on a single research category of authority to see if the claims can be verified in a wide-scale representative sample. Also it would be important in future studies to offer a more in-depth coding scheme, in order to explore in greater detail which contemporary religious figures, texts or groups are most frequently challenged and affirmed within online blogging discourse. The current categories seek to emphasize a differentiation in the types of religious authority noted and enacted by bloggers online, yet often overlooked in other studies. Emphasis was placed on distinguishing, for instance, references to persons in authority over systems and beliefs. However, it could be argued that the categories as they are currently defined could be made more concrete in order to note the distinctives or links between, say religious authors and the text which they create noted by bloggers. Also comparing how bloggers refer to historic figures or texts in contrast to contemporary ones could prove useful, as it could be asserted that it is easier to challenge contemporary sources due our ease in access to their words in through the digital record of our new media world. Yet even with these limitations this study provides valuable insights into how Christian bloggers highlight, and more specifically affirm, religious authorities in their blogs. Future studies would also benefit from investigating whether this trend towards affirming traditional authorities online is seen primarily in Christian blogs, or if this is evident in other religious blogger’s online discourse. This study still raises an interesting question about how bloggers from different denominations as well as religious traditions may differ in their framing of the multiple forms of religious authority. It will be important in future studies of religious blogging to consider how and why members of different groups challenge or strengthen a particular type of religious authority online in comparison with members of other religious or denominational communities. Also the larger question of the role technology plays in the process of building or deconstructing social and ideological authority and how technology interacts with other sociodemographics resulting from this phenomenon should be further considered. These questions are vital to explore when trying to explain what influence the internet is having on the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

273

constructions of traditional authority. This study marks a starting point for such an investigation and highlights the fact that online and offline power structures are becoming increasingly intertwined as the online context becomes both a mirror of traditional patterns of authority and a potential tool for the maintenance of control online. This investigation has sought to highlight the need for a more refined understanding of broad concepts such as ‘‘authority’’ within studies of internet culture, and future research must continue to push for development of theory to such vital questions. Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Pauline Cheong, Srividya Ramasubramanian, Michael Stephenson and the anonymous referees for JCMC for the helpful suggestions that they made to this work. (1) At the time of the pilot study Google Blog search did not exist, and at this time it was previously embedded in Blogger.com blogging platform. (2) While several blog search engines exist, such as Google Blog search and Technorati, it must be recognized that each has its own limitations related to the sample each pulls up which influences the nature of any sample drawn. Technorati is arguably the most popular blog search engine. Yet it is based on an opt-in policy of self-identification in which bloggers able to link their blogs to certain key terms when they register. Google Blog Search combs the internet for blogs associated with key terms so is seen as able to give a greater breadth of options; and for this reason it was selected. Yet it is also important to note that at the time of the full study the search mechanism only offered general searches, with limited advanced options for focused searches References Barker, E. (2005). Crossing the boundary: New challenges to religious authority and control as a consequence of access to the Internet. In M. Hojsgaard & M. Warburg (Eds.), Religion and Cyberspace (pp. 67–85). London: Routledge. Barzilai-Nahon, K., & Barzilai, G. (2005). Cultured technology: Internet & religious fundamentalism. The Information Society, 21 (1). Retrieved February 18, 2007 from http://projects.ischool.washington.edu/karineb/html/pub/techrelig.pdf Berger, H., & Ezzy, D. (2004). The Internet as virtual spiritual community: Teen witches in the United States and Australia. In L. Dawson & D. Cowan (Eds.), Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet (pp. 175–188). New York: Routledge. Boyd, J. (2002). In community we trust: Online security communication at eBay, Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 7(3): http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue3/boyd. html Campbell, H. (2007). Who’s got the power? Religious authority and the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), article 14. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/ issue3/campbell.html 274


Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Chavez, M. (1994). Secularization as declining religious authority. Social Forces, 72(3), 749–774. Cherney, L. & Wise, R.E., (Eds.). (1996). Wired women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace. Seattle: Seal Press. Cheong, P., Halavais, A & Kwon, K. (2008). Chronicles of Me: Understanding Blogging as a Religious Practice. Journal of Media and Religion, 7, 101–131. Couldry, N. and J. Curran (Eds.). (2003) Contesting media power. Alternative media in a networked world. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield. Dawson, L. (2000). Researching religion in cyberspace: Issues and strategies. In J. Hadden & D. Cowan (Eds.), Religion on the internet: Research prospects and promises (pp. 25–54). New York: JAI Press. Dyson, E., Gilder, G., Keyworth, G., and Toffler, A. (1996.) Cyberspace and the American dream: A magna carta for the knowledge age’’ Release 1.2 (August 22, 1994). The Information Society 12 (3), 295–308. Efimova, L. & Hendrick, S. (2005). In search for a virtual settlement: An exploration of weblog community boundaries. In Communities & Technologies, Retrieved October 12, 2007 from https://doc.telin.nl/dsweb/Get/Document-46041/ Herring, S.C., Scheidt, L.A., Bonus, S., Wright, E. (Jan 2004). Bridging the Gap: A Genre Analysis of Weblogs, Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’04), Retrieved November 10, 2008 from http://www.ics.uci.edu/∼jpd/classes/ics234cw04/herring.pdf Herring, D. (2005). Virtual as contextual: A Net news theology. In L. Dawson & D. Cowan (Eds.), Religion and cyberspace (pp. 149–165). London: Routledge. Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), Retrieved October 12, 2007 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html Introvingne, M. (2000). So many evil things: Anti-cult terrorism via the Internet. In J. Hadden & D. Cowan (Eds.), Religion on the internet: Research prospects and promises (pp. 277–306). New York: JAI Press. Kahn, R. & Kellner, D. (2004). ‘‘New media and internet activism: from the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to blogging.’’ New Media & Society, l6(1), 87–95. Lawson-Borders, G & Kirk R. (Dec 2005). Blogs in campaign communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 49 (4), 548–559 Sage Publications INC. Retrieved November 5, 2006 From ∼http://portal.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi∼ Miller, C. (2007). Blogging believers: Who’s out there in the blogosophere?, Rick Warren’s Ministry ToolBox, Retrieved February 25, 2007 From: http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/ printerfriendly.asp?issue=299&artID=10277 Nardi, B A., Schiando D.J., Gumbrecht, M. & Swartz, L. (2004). Why we blog.’’ Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 41–46. Piff, D., & Warburg, M. (2005). Seeking for truth: Plausibility on a Baha’i email list. In M. Hojsgaard & M. Warburg (Eds.), Religion and Cyberspace, (pp. 86–101). London: Routledge. Pullen, K. (2000). I-love-Xena.com: creating online fan communities, In D. Gauntlett (Ed.) Web. Studies: Rewiring media studies for the digital age, (pp. 52–61). London: Arnold. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2010) 251–276 © 2010 International Communication Association

275

Rak, J. (2005). The digital queer: Weblogs and internet identity. Biography 28 (1) 166–182: Retrieved October 25, 2007 From http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/biography/v028/28.1rak. html∼. Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community. New York: HarperPerennial. Stone, A. (1994). Will the real body please stand up?: Boundary stories and virtual cultures. In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First Steps (pp. 81–118). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Torres, L. & Pina P. (2005). E-government developments on delivering public services among EU cities. Government Information Quarterly, 2(22), 217–238. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon & Schuster. Vi´egas, F B. (April 2005). Bloggers’ expectations of privacy and accountability. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(3), Retrieved October 25, 2007 From ∼http:// jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/viegas.html Weber, M. (1947). Theory of social and economic organization. (A. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.

About the Authors

Heidi Campbell is Assistant Professor of Communication at Texas A&M University where she teaches media studies. Her research focuses on questions of authority, community, identity and ethics online in relation to religious use of new media. She is author of Exploring Religious Community Online (Peter Lang, 2005) and When Religion Meets New Media (Routledge, 2010). Address: Department of Communication, Texas A&M University, 4234 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA

276
