Comments on: Book Review: Shopping for God: How Christianity Went From in Your Heart to In Your Face

By: Shopping for God : Mormon Metaphysics

Shopping for God : Mormon Metaphysics — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:28:07 +0000

[...] The book Shopping for God and Mormonism. Interesting discussion in the comments. [...]

By: Chris H.

Chris H. — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:12:19 +0000

Thanks for this review. I think the idea that we are constantly marketing ourselves is one which we are often not aware of.

I think that our public relations push will be the main legacy of Pres. Hinckley.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:32:45 +0000

John, Mormonism seems to be more like Presbyterianism than I thought. Old, white, stodgy, and confused theologically sounds like my own faith tradition in many respects.

Sam, I largely agree with you. You’re quite right about Twitchell’s work mirroring Finke and Stark’s book in many respects. He goes as far as to directly acknowledge the influence of their work on his own conclusions, in fact (though, to be fair, he does briefly mention some of the critiques of The Churching of America). Because of this, his book is problematic for all of the reasons that Finke and Stark’s work is.

All of that said, it seems to me that what Twitchell and others like him (that specialize in the academic study of advertising and marketing) have to add to the study of religion should not be entirely discounted. Twitchell’s analysis of the advertising techniques, successes, and failures of megachurches is quite insightful, I think. His brief discussion of the ways that technology is changing religion is also significant (I have a short post planned on this topic as it relates to blogging and religion that I plan to put up soon.

By: smb

smb — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:30:28 +0000

#6: JT–I like your brand.
May I rant, please? I find these importations of business-marketing pseudo-scholarship into discussions about religion obnoxious and vacuous on principle. It marred the otherwise fairly entertaining Finke and Starke volume on the dynamics of church membership in America, and this strikes me as the same drivel (based entirely on your review here, admitting my prejudice). Talk about market as God, my stars, now we can’t even talk about God without market? I’m with Steve in #1 that this is appears to be the mere rephrasing of more interesting arguments about religious identity (again, a prejudicial view based solely on how nauseous I find marketing analyses of religion).
Rant over. (I have nothing against the scholars writing this; I just find this line of argumentation distasteful on a wholly visceral level.)

By: John Turner

John Turner — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:08:44 +0000

As a Presbyterian, I take issue with Twitchell. We most certainly do promote a distinctive lifestyle brand: old, white, stodgy, dwindling, and simultaneously both confused and cantankerous about theology. It’s just not a terribly attractive brand to outsiders.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:38:49 +0000

Thanks for the comments, all.

Taysom, I was hoping you and others with a background in religious studies theory would chime in. Thanks for your insightful and critical remarks. Can you point me toward a book that explores this theoretical model of outsiderhood? I’m intrigued and would like to read more.

Researcher, thanks for weighing in re: separation making the heart grow fonder. I don’t know about religion, but I am certainly more loyal to the Dr. Pepper brand since living in Utah than I was while growing up in Plano, TX (where DP is bottled and headquartered).

I don’t know if this is exactly what Twitchell is going at or not, but I have heard from a number of BYU grads who have traveled elsewhere for graduate school that they felt more at liberty to critique the actions of the church/church members while living in Utah, because they saw themselves as the lone liberal in a sea of cultural conservatism. But now that they are the religious outsiders elsewhere, and find others critiquing the church (quite harshly at times), they find themselves with a renewed desire to defend their own faith. It is an interesting dynamic.

Seth, I liked it, too. Twitchell did not originate the term, and traces its coinage to an Atlantic Monthly article by Jonatah Rusch.

By: SC Taysom

SC Taysom — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:11:47 +0000

Researcher,
I was just gesturing toward the theoretical idea, which is well-developed in religious studies and sociological literature, that a group’s cultural “outsiderhood” helps to define and maintain a strong sense of identity. This idea is coupled with the theory that investment functions as an important commitment mechanism within a community. It may or may not be true in any individual case, but it certainly has been true of Mormons historically.

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:39:05 +0000

This post was worth reading just for the new word: “apatheism.”

I love it!

By: Researcher

Researcher — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:33:39 +0000

Thank you for the review. I agree with Twitchell’s point about the costs of membership being greater outside the Salt Lake area. “Separation makes the heart grow fonder”? Hasn’t been the case for me. (Not that I’m going to stop attending, just that I don’t see myself as being any more committed due to distance.)

I’m wondering about SC’s comment that the increased costs of living outside that region are “mitigated by an increased sense of outsiderhood and identity”?

I fail to see any benefits to my family based on being outsiders in our community (which we hardly are, since we live in a conservative, fairly religious East Coast suburb that is in many regards similar to a Utah neighborhood) or how our identity is positively affected by the long drive to church, almost impossible drive to the temple, the heavy costs of early morning seminary, the difficulties of associating with any other church members simply due to distance. I suppose these costs winnow out members who are less committed, but that also means that we carry a greater responsibility for some of the day to day details of church membership.

By: SC Taysom

SC Taysom — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:41:47 +0000

Interesting review Chris. I think you have raised some important and central issues here. I was frustrated in my reading of Twitchell by his assumption that some form of generic “Christianity” exists–it does not. Also, while his thesis about the branding issue is sound, it strikes me as little more than a reader-friendly repackaging of the much older and more technical arguments about the sociological benefits of identity derived from investment. On the issue of sacrifice–I think he was arguing that Mormons living outside of the Mormon culture region end up shouldering more social and even economic costs (transportation costs arising from the proximity of chapels and temples for example) than their Utah-based brethren and sisters. I think such an argument is weak because such costs, in general, would be mitigated by an increased sense of outsiderhood and identity.