On Gospel Guidelines and Critical Conceptual Frameworks

When churches discuss communication, they are usually light on theory and move directly into their own preoccupations. That is normal for international organizations. When U nesco's International Commission for the Study of Communication reported in 1980, for example, it made no pretense with respect to theory. All it indicated were possible correlations between research and its own interests. (...)  Zusammenfassung Wenn die Kirchen uber Kommunikation sprechen, kummern sie sich meist wenig um Theorie und gehen sofort zu ihrem Anliegen uber, wie es fur internationale Organisationen ublich ist. Die Kirchen sprechen von der Kommunikation Christi, der Kommunikation des Evangeliums, sie wollen Menschen gewinnen. Man kann ihnen das nicht vorwerfen, aber eigentlich musten sie sich dessen bewust sein, das dies genau dem entgegenlauft, was sie predigen. Sie ubernehmen zu leicht unkritisch die vorherrschenden Kommunikationstechniken und werden so leicht auch Teil einer ungerechten Struktur (Hamelink). Es gibt verschiedene Wege, mit berechtigten Zielen und oft unerwarteten Ergebnissen fertig zu werden. Der erste Weg ware, sich weg vom rein kirchlichen Gebrauch der Medien voll der Kooperation in den weltlichen Medien auszuliefern. Die Medien werden hier einfach als Teil einer von Gott gewollten Welt gesehen, aber diese Haltung entspricht eigentlich nicht dem Ziel des Menschen, diese Welt zu gewinnen. Der zweite Weg ware, das Anliegen der Kirche, Menschen zu gewinnen, gleichzusetzen mit gleichen Anliegen ahnlicher Organisationen. Dies ware der Weg der elektronischen Kirche, von dem manche bezweifeln, ob er der Weg der Evangelien ist. Hier wird man wohl Richtlinien erarbeiten mussen, was teilweise versucht wird. (...)

A second possihility would be to accept the fact that the churches want to "win people" as much or more than other organizations. While calling foradeliberate comparison between what they are doing and what is actually said in the New Testament. Those who defend the electronic preachers see them as following in a Iitera) way the command to go forth and teach all nations. Butthose who seek guidelines for a truly Christian communication sometimes doubt whether the electronic church squares with the gospels. The search for such guidelincs is considered in the following section.
A third possihility ist suggested by Hamelink. 7 He notes "the churches' extensive participation in communication mediathat are controlled by corporate industry". He then claims that with no critical conceptual framework of their own, they will adopt a public communication shaped by industrial interests. There and elsewhereK he proposes some hard thinking by the churches before they board the media. This possibility differs from the previous one in that it necessitates more sophistication about communication itself and more reflection prior to beginning media work. An obvious problern with Hamelink's suggestion is the need for theory, of which international groups like the churches have been seen to be impatient. But the proposal has its merits and demands at least the attention given it below.

Gospel Guide/ine.1·
This section summarizes two attempts to articulate these. The first is made by Anne van der Meiden in her doctoral thesis on ethics, propaganda and apostolate. 9 The second is made by the World Council of Churches (WCC). 10 Their attention to gospel standards -in van der Meiden's terminology-or to gospel criteria-in the WCC's-does not exclude theory. But the elaboration of such guidelines is their main focus and this presentation Iimits itself to that.
Van der Meiden's thesis on ethics, propaganda and apostolate Part of this work concentrates on Jacques Ellul's rejection of evangelism via the mass media. 11 That section of the Ellul corpus brings together two parts of the author's career: Ellul as "quintessential Protestant" 1 2 and Ellul as expert on propaganda. 11 As van der Meidensums it up: Ellul rejects evangelism through the media on gospel grounds. The media address a "mass", whereas the Christian God addresses the individual person. They are "techniques" of which the Holy Spirit has no need. They play on conditioned reflexes that have no rapport with faith. And they will fail because ofwhat the "quintessential Protestant" sees as the rupture between nature and grace.
But van der Meiden finds some middle ground between uncritical use ofthe media and Ellul's outright rejection. V an der Meidentakes the mass media critically but not negatively; they represent human activity and therefore human ambiguity. Even though there is "massification", there might also be some good done. He is willing to accept evangelization through the media as long as that activity is true to standards distilled from the gospel: authenticity, freedom and responsibility. True, that is, to the Standards one purports to preach.
Mediamanipulation and sales campaigns for salvation do not measure up to the standards of authenticity, freedom and responsibility. But other media work might. For example, to contact the socalled para-church: " ... research does reveal that there are numbers of peoplc whose religious concerns are greater than their church attendance would indicate, so there would seem to be at least some opportunity with this group". 14 The WCC's Study Process As one of the study resources puts it: "criteria are much needed, but need to be developed with great care. Like ice cubes, they can melt in your hand if clutched too tightly". 1 5 Guidelines for credible Christian communication start with the whom (Jesus Christ) or the what (the gospels) one hopes to communicate. lt has been asserted that "substance rather than technique is our starting point, though it quickly Ieads to choices about the media ... "' 6 Elsewhere it has been said that " ... to take seriously whom we communicate does provide some sharp answers to how ... we are to communicate as Christians".i7Jdentifying the whom and the what is the main thing; other criteria like respect for two-way communication flow from that.
In some ways these criteria compete for attention with the central canon of Westernmedia orthodoxy: neutrality, reporting and not supporting. Or how Westernmedia determine what is or is not newsworthy: timeliness, prominence, proximity and the like. The gospel criteria keep professionalism from becoming an end in itself.
As did van der Meiden's gospel standards, the WCC criteria point to a middle ground between uncritical use and outright rejection. While the electronic preachers pay a Iot of lip service to the who and the what, they seem to stay on the Ievel of how in their professionalism. But there are other instances of media work where the who and the what actually do determine the how.'x

Doubts About Their Adequacy
There are some who find such guidelines insufficient. They would note, for example, that reflection on the gospels has given rise to dozens of theological schools. And that scripture has been used to argue both sides of many issues: pacifism v. violent revolution, unilateral disarmament v. nuclear deterrence, and so on. Taking communic? _;on guidelines from the gospels would certainly allow lots of latitude. M oreover, the gospe; guidelines seem to offer no critique on the injustices ofthe information and communication order. They appeal to the consciences of would-be media manipulators, which might not be enough. 19 Thesearepoints weil taken. They cannot be rebutted to everyone's satisfaction. But they can get a response.

I. A Chance With The Churches
The positive side of taking guidelines from the gospels is that it is an activity in which the churches have some competency. This is already a major selling point. The churches's dabbling in sociology, economics and political science has compromised some of the worthwhilc things they have had to say on complex issues likedevelopment. 20 Their dabbling in communication theory would probably allow similar resistance.
Since the guidelines come from the gospels, they have a chance of being heard and understood by those who make the churches' communication options. lf the guidelines are accepted, they might not be uniformly applied. But they might encourage a more critical use of the media. That goal is modest; as such it stands a chance of being rcached.

Churches as Leaders in Communication
Those who Iook for critiques of unjust systems sometimes overlook the value of setting a good example. Years ago, Emile Gabel called on the churches to set a good example in communication, tobe Ieaders and not followers. 21 The gospel guidelines might help them to Iead, to stop imitating others.
Besides that, any critique by the churches of media systems will Iack credibility so long as they are mesmerized by them. Reference to gospel-based Standards or criteria in their own communication policies would render thcm more credible should they choose to speak to global communication problems. A parallel casc is thc WCC's withdrawal of all its funds from banks doing busincss with South Africa; that madc thc WCC more crediblc to some when it spoke about apartheid.
In a way this is the inverse of Hamelink's proposal, where a critique of media systems would precede use of the media. In this approach, the churches' own ethical choices would serve as the backdrop for what thcy have to say about global problems.

Summary and Transition
This section has shown one possibility of dcaling with a discrepancy in thc churches' communication: that between what they practice and what they preach. lt sketched two proposals for gospel guidelines that would makc the practicc fall in line with the preaching. lt foresaw criticisms and tried to respond to two likely ones.
The following section will treat anothcr possibility of dealing with the discrepancy: the elaboration of critical conceptual framcworks that are Ionger on theory and social critique. The gospel criteria were seen to be vulnerable bccause they are short on those elements. While critical conceptual frameworks escape that. they too have their difficulties.

Critical Conceptual Frameworks
The problern is not finding a critical conceptual framework; it is getting people to agree to one. Communication is the subject ofat least fifty research disciplines, all ofwhich have their own interests-interpersonal or mass communication, long-term or short-term effects, and so on -and all of which operate undcr a variety of administrative and financial pressure. Although the different disciplines sometimes intluence each other, there is no universal communication theory. What there are, are numerous definitions and schemas, and salespeople for those.
Writing about the philosophical approaches to communication, Paul Soukup concludes that "one's choice of communicative situation largely determines which philosophical tradition will be most helpful".2 2 He observes for instance that mass media situations would be better studied through phenomenology, semiotics or critical theory. And that interpersonal dialogue should be approached from personalist philosophy or speech act theory.
Soukup's suggestion seems reasonable enough, cspecially since-as he observes-the various philosophies of communication have common sources or have at least cross-pollenated each other. But in passing it might be asked how much the choice of communicative situation really intluences the choice of philosophical tradition. Salespeople for critical theory apply it to every communicative situation, mass and 1 or interpersonaL Salespeople for personalist philosophy do the same.
Critical theory is of importance here because some of its salespeople are trying to get the churches to buy it. When Harnelink calls for a critical conceptual framework, he probably has critical theory in mind. His own approach to public communication is certainly ". .. from a dialectic materialistic (and ideology-critical) analysis of the concrete social parameters (and ideological limitations) which essentially determines ... structure and function".2-1 Wh ich is fine for an individual's option. But is it reasonahle to expect church groups to take that option too?
First of all, huying critical theory is taking sides on a discussion ahout ideology and popular culture that has heen going on for a half century; one can expect criticism from other salespeople.2 4 Second, huying critical theory would he acceptahle to some political messianisms present in the churches hut not to others. Third, huying critical theory would prohahly he "explained" in ways that would make agreement even less likely. 2 5 Again, this is not to condemn critical theory as an individual's option. Discovering critical theory must he (something) like what Thomas Aquinas experienced when he discovered Aristotle. It is to suggest the difficulties the churches will have in accepting it as a critical conceptual framework.
For a variety of reasons, personalist philosophy meets less resistance. it is already hetter known to the churches, partly hecause it was introduced in a communicative way not only hy Martin Buher in Ich und Du ( 1923), hutalso hy Franz Rosenzweig in Stern der Erlösung (1921) and Gahriel Marcel in his Journal metaphysique (1920s). Their thought, and discussion of dialogue, has so influenced the churches that "dialogue" has almost hecome a cliche for them.
Choosing personalist philosophy avoids other risks run hy choosing critical theory. It does not stand on one side of a research schism, it does not find favour with one political messianism ahove others, and its familiarity means that "explanations" are not as much of a prohlem.
Two trends in personalism seem fruitful and should he summarized here.

Buher's I and Thou2h
As people know-either through osmosis or personal study-the I-Thou relationship is one where hoth parties are suhjects; neither is treated as an ohject. They are present to one another and respectful of one another. Neither is simply asender or a receiver; hoth fill hoth roles. Contrasted tothat is the I-it relationship where the parties arenot full partners, where there are suhject and ohject, an I and an it.
Schotars now dispute Buher's intention in distinguishing an I-Thou and an I-it. Rika Horwitz claims he was trying to ground religious belief.2 7 This might explain the sharpness of the distinction, which was first criticized hy Rosenzweig when Ich und Du was in galley proofs.n But others sec Buher's distinction in light of Tönnies' equally sharp line hctween Gemeinschafi, a community ( of I-Thou relationships), and Gese/lscha/i. an association ( of Iit relationships). Thus, Buber emerges as a social philosopher. 29 Horwith says that archives opened to scholars after Buber's death in 1965 dismantle the image of Buber as social philosopher. But some authors who have had access to those archivesstill prescnt him as such_Jo Buher studies have become a specialization in their own right. Quite a Iot has been said about the I-Thou 1 I-it distinction and what the philosopher intended with it. Butthereis room here to recall only one discussion, that which took place hetween Harvcy Cox and Martin Friedman on the possihility of middle ground between thc I-Thou and the I-it.
Cox began the discussion in The Secular City, 31 where he noted the desire of urban dwellers toseparate their private Jives from their public Jives. Their private rclationships might he I-Thou; their public ones are not I-Thou although thcy still can be human. This phenomenon led Cox to posit an I-you relationship: a relationship with hoth the humanity of the I-Thou and the anonymity of the 1-it. 1-you relationships were casual and everyday; they were the style of the city.
Friedman took issue with this, claiming that Cox had confused intimacy with courtesy. 1 2 Friedman's reading of Buber led him to see the phenomenon described by Cox in another way: the 1-Thou " ... permeates the world of 1-it, transforming it. Hence no 1-you relationship is needed in addition to the 1-Thou and the 1-it ... ". And Friedman got Cox to admit that before two hundred ministers at Union Theological Seminary. New York, in 1967.
The Cox-Friedman debate might Iook a little esoteric, or seem to be of significance only to interpersonal communication. But the application to mass communication is easily made. Some years ago, Albert van den Heuvel observed the difficulty of making 1-Thou relationships the goal of allhuman interaction. 11 The entire project seemed class-bound and anti-democratic to him, since traditionally "the masses had neither the time or the opportunity to communicate". V an den Heuvel, following Cox, remarks that "in our urban mass-societies communication is normally casual but therefore not less real". He infers that mass communication, while definitely not 1-Thou communication, can be 1-you communication.
The Cox-Friedman debate has not madenonsense of van den Heuvel's remarks. The former offers a means of rephrasing the latter. Mass communication is not 1-Thou; it is generally speaking 1-it. But there can be instances where the 1-Thou penetrates the 1-it, transforming it.
Giving away one of the conclusions to this paper, gospel guidelines pertain to 1-Thou communication but are applied to an 1-it world. As such, they could be seen as the penetration ofthe 1-Thou into the 1-it, and the possibility of changing it. Connection between gospel guidelines and this critical conceptual framework are, therefore, feasible.

The Personalist Criterion
Personalist approaches have in common a respect for the human person. In Buber's philosophy, that respect was seen in terms of an 1-Thou, dialogical relationship. This section now considers another articulation of that respect: the elaboration of a personalist criterion. Briefly, this is the assertion that human activity should be appraised according to the integral and adequate consideration it gives the person.l 4 This sort of personalism has been cited as one ofthe influences on the pastoral constitution ofthe Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes ( 1965). 15 Integral and adequate consideration includes deference to the person's social dimension: coexistence, co-operation, and co-participation. So far, this is quite similar to Buber with his emphasis on dialogue and hence community. But this style is better equipped to deal with some messy areas that demand harder thinking and recognition of the ambiguity of the human situation. Integral and adequate consideration of the person, for example, will take into account both the person's originality and his or her social context. Often the extent to which the former can be respected is severely limited by the latter. A marginal case would be when education is short changed by a government because the funds are needes to supply emergency food, clothing and shelter. That choice, like all choices made in the real world, is both for something and against something eise.
The personalist criterion is explained at some length in various places. The only thing that can be donein this paper is to apply the above summary to communication. The applications are to be found in two areas.
First, when the personalist critcrion includes the social dimension -co-existence, Cooperation, and co-participation-it implicitly rccognizes the roJe of communication. Words with the prefix "co-" are close etymologically to words with the prefix "com-", like communication; they indicate joint action. One-sided action, manipulation including media manipulation, could only be justified by proportionale reasons. Those acting one-sidedly usually have a reason, but it's not often good enough.
Second, the personalist criterion also provides a way into discussions about mass communication. The Western heritage of naturallaw contributes to a view of the individual in isolation, with isolated freedoms and rights, duties and responsibilities. That means that judgments are often made on human activity apart from the whole action and the whole context -"in the sense that what is done (actus externus) is denounced as in itself and intrinsically immoral".J 6 Naturallaw-passed through the enlightenment and the bourgeois revolutions-is the source of the concepts freedom of the press and right to information. The freedom and the right are often formulated with worthy objectives, but they are foreign to most placesY And often they are summoned in disregard for the social context. 3 X The difference here is that the personalist Iooks at the whole action and the whole context; free press advocates Iook at an "actus externus" and jump at the chance to pronounce on its immorality.
A Iot more could be said on either of these applications. 19 Hopefully this will suffice as a summary, and as a hint of another of this paper's conclusions. Theologically, Jesus Christ reveals what is meant by the integral and adequate consideration of the person; scripture shows that tobe respect for authenticity, freedom and responsibility. Connections between gospel guidelines and this critical conceptual framework, then, are also possible.

Doubts about their Adequacy
This of coursewill so und naive to some. ln fact Buber's personalism was seen du ring his own life time as an excuse for withdrawing into a private garden. Wh ich was never a comment on Buber himself, only on those who abused his writings. As to the personalist criterion, people have been articulating that for a while and it has found its way into one of the major church documents of this century. But to what avail isthat if thingsarenot changed for the better'! Why, then, accept either style of personalism as a critical conceptual framework for dealing with mass communication'! All this fits into )arger discussions. How does one change things for the better? How do churches that are frequently in a minority position contribute to the search for democratic structures'! Admittedly, those discussions often take place in private gardens between bourgeois clerics and lawnchair marxists who have no intention of getting their hands dirty. But perhaps it is not too romantic to assume that those discussions go on in some difficult situations, where the clerics are not bourgeois, the marxism is not affected but the hands are dirty.
Few would feel the loss of discussions in private gardens. Hopefully there are ones going on in the fields. All this paper can do is to express that hope. And to make two responses to those who find the personalist perspective too cozy.

I. Building Awareness
One of the most frustrating things about discussing the mass media is getting people to realize that there is a problem. 40 North Americans have been passing off scornful remarks about television for years: "the vast wasteland", "chewing gum for the eyes", and "a medium in thesensethat it is neither rare nor weil done". But it has recently been said that "to get a North American tothink about television is like getting a fish tothink about water". Even people who arenot swimming in mass media have difficulty thinking about them; often they are seen as the panacea.41 Awareness is a modest aim; it is, however, a worthy one. Beginning with either style of personalism, which already has a foot in the door, offers some chance of awareness. That is already something of a success. Other ways into the mass media, which arenot as familiar, usually amount to preaching to the already converted.42 There is not necessariJy a rupture between theory and practice; there can be bridges between media awareness and action. Fallible approximations of what human communication should be serve, in a way, as incentives to achieve it on both the interpersonaland mass Ievels. As Cox once said; "the full realization of total human communication will probably never come. Still, even in this 'fallen age', we can occasionally experience it, and once we do we can never settle for pseudo-communication again". 4 .1

Sharpening Personalism's Political Edge
Those who find Buber's personalism helpless against unjust structures have recently been invited, by Venecio De Lima and Clifford Christians, to introduce that dialogical thinker to another: Paolo Freire. 44 They begin by observing that ". .. the non-directive, humane, communitarian character of (Buber's) theory give dialogue a romantic and naive appearance, especially to media scholars concerned that 'one-wayness' is just a euphemism for concentrations of power". Freire is much more direct. He introduces the concepts of "speaking the true word" and "naming the world", which take one more quickly from political awareness to the quest for human Iiberation.
The shift from Buber to Freire, from non-directive to directive, gives dialogue a political edge. No style of personalism has to remain non-directive and therefore politically impotent.

Summary and Transition
This, then is another possibility for dealing with the discrepancy between the churches' communication practice and the content of their preaching: adopting a critical conceptual framework with which present communication systems can be examiiled; and using the results in determining how to proceed with media work. Different critical conceptual frameworks have been introduced here. Critical theory was lauded but found unlikely as an option for the churches. Two styles of personalism were presented at greater length; they looked more likely, and some of their selling points were noted.
But again, this paper presents the adoption of a critical conceptual framework as a possibility among other possibilities. In addition to the problems mentioned in this section, there are · questions that such an approach would leave unanswered. For one thing, what happens once a critical conceptual framework is accepted and existing media systems are found wanting? Would the churches make strange bedfellows in order to achieve higher purposes? Would they refuse to participate, and in a sense abandon the conscientious Christians who work in those media systems? Would they do more on their own, thus combining awareness of the established media with support of alternative ones? Or what?
Clearly, the adoption of a critical conceptual framework cannot be the end ofthe difficulties. This paper makes no pretense of knowing the answers to the questions that would be raised and simply moves on to its own conclusions.