In the term religion and popular culture there is another word we have not yet con- sidered, which may seem so innocuous that it might be overlooked. But the con- junction is not without its own contribution to the phrase. It is precisely in the connections between these two areas of study that the overlaps and interactions occur which make the study of their interrelationship so difficult to parse and yet so fundamentally illuminating to the nature of both religion and culture. If both of these terms have referents (albeit sets of referents that are in constant flux, and constantly understood in new ways through the ever-evolving definitions of the terms), then their interactions and overlaps can be studied as well.
There are a few ways in which we might classify those interactions. Bruce Forbes and Jeff Mahan’s edited volume Religion and Popular Culture in America (2005) orga- nizes the contributions to the book around four basic categories: religion in popular culture, popular culture in religion, popular culture as religion, and religion and popular culture in dialogue. Thefirst category, religion in popular culture, looks at the interpolation of religious content into the content of popular culture, such as depictions of religious figures in movies and television shows, religious imagery in music videos, and so forth. The second categoryflips this around; popular culture in religion looks at how religious communities have adapted the forms of popular cul- ture to their own settings, e.g., with Christian rock, Christian Internet, and even places of worship constructed according to a model of consumer culture. While these forms seem to have adapted popular culture into religion, rather than the reverse, it is arguable that the tail may be wagging the dog, or in other words that the cultural forms and products that have been adapted in order to increase the marketability of religious forms are actually determining those religious forms.
The more one looks at these two categories, furthermore, the harder it is to tell the difference between them. One can view the same phenomenon as both a popular representation of religious content, and as an example of how religious communities utilize popular culture. Are the films of Cecil B. DeMille, for example The Ten Commandments(1956), to be viewed as an example of the former, but Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004) as an example of the latter? Why? Because Gibson supposedly made his film for evangelistic rather than financial purposes? Did he? Can we say that DeMille did not make his films for evangelistic purposes? In mar- keting The Ten Commandments, DeMille installed tablets across the USA, which later became the subject of legal battles about the placement of religious content on public property (Plate 2009: 89–90). If these tablets are part of popular culture, are they an example of the interpolation of religion into popular culture by “secular”
DEFINITIONS
forces, or an example of “religion” making use of popular culture for its own pur- poses? It may depend more on the uses to which the artifact is put—marketing, or evangelizing in American “culture wars”—than on the original intentions of DeMille, and this also demonstrates one of the key lessons of the study of popular culture: we cannot determine the meaning of an object or practice apart from some context, and varying the context or reception will change the perceived meaning. The fact that the line between these first two categories is messy is an indication of the ill-defined line between religion and culture; and this is another lesson, that we cannot easily define where one leaves off and the other begins.
If the line between religion and culture is blurry, Forbes and Mahan’s third cate- gory gives credence to that fact, and also echoes the approaches of the editors of this volume, among others. I have argued (Lyden 2003) that popular films can function religiously for populations even when this is not recognized by those populations, as popular culture carries out functions analogous to religion by providing narratives as expressions of worldviews (myths), moral frameworks, and rituals that connect the consumers of popular culture with a set of beliefs and values. As such, films may express meaning or a sense of purpose, salvation, or ritual fulfillment in experiences of catharsis, liminality, or sacrifice. Eric Michael Mazur and Kate McCarthy’s edited volume God in the Details: American Religion in Popular Culture (2011) also utilizes this viewpoint, as the contributors write about the religious function of cultural phenomena ranging from barbecues to hip-hop. While they acknowledge that it may be problematic to conclude that popular culture“is” a religion, they point out that popular culture may provide “much that would ordinarily have been provided by religions, traditionally understood” (ibid.: 10). As David Chidester has pointed out, whether we define much of popular culture as religion, depends on how we define “religion” (Chidester 2005: 32). He notes that when we want to criticize or reject a cultural phenomenon, we often refuse to grant it the label of“religion,” preferring to label it as a “cult” (ibid.: 50). He also sees that the conflicts between religions and popular culture themselves blur the lines between them, making it“hard to tell where religion leaves off and popular culture begins” (ibid.: 32). Even if we define popular culture “as” religion, we still cannot escape the problematic questions about how we define these terms.
The last category of Forbes and Mahan is “religion and popular culture in dia- logue,” a category that is broad enough to allow for comparisons and exchanges, mutual influences, and even the possibility of mutual instruction. By engaging in the comparison, we learn more about both religion and popular culture. Sometimes this approach is embraced by religious groups as they seek to relate better to the larger culture by using examples from popular films or music as part of youth or adult education; this may help people see the relevance of (e.g.) Christian categories, but also makes people better critical consumers of culture. There may be a variety of purposes in play by those who practice this approach: to evangelize or domesticate popular culture, to critique or denounce it, tofind areas of agreement or disagreement, or to better understand our environment in relation to our values. This approach has been especially utilized as a form of Christian cultural or practical theology by scholars such as Clive Marsh (2004, 2007; Marsh and Roberts 2013), Chris Deacy (2002, 2005, 2011), Jolyon Mitchell (2010), Robert K. Johnston (2006), Craig Detweiler (2008; Detweiler and Taylor 2003), and Kelton Cobb (2005).
JOHN C. LYDEN
This last category has as its advantage an ability to engage in critique while also learning from its partner and not necessarily judging it before the conversation even begins. Religion gains a better understanding of popular culture, and vice versa, if both sides are willing to listen and learn. One problem with this approach is that it assumes that there are still two sides that can be defined. Once again we have to ask, where does one leave off and the other begin? If a person defines herself as a Christian, who also likes and is influenced by popular culture, is this an internal dialogue? Does the “Christian her” dialogue with the “pop culture her”? How would one define these two sides discretely? Is it not the case that one individual, or community, or a set of communities, constantly engages in a process of negotiation between conflicting or combining interests and values?