Televangelism is the generic term that refers to a loose alliance of conservative Protestant Evangelicals (see Evangelical Christianity) and Pentecostals who practise their ministry through television programmes and TV channels. The advent of satellite and cable TV has made the production of evangelistic programmes comparatively inexpensive to produce and air. However, the phenomenon remains part of what media scholars call ‘narrow-casting’ rather than broadcasting. Televangelism is largely a product found within a conservative Protestant ghetto: it has little impact beyond its followers.
Although Televangelism is a phenomenon that is mostly associated with North America, it is important to recognize that it now enjoys a modest global profile. Few countries in the world will be without access to a range of ‘God Channels’, even if the access is through cable and satellite rather than public broadcasting.
The history of Televangelism belongs to a wider social and cultural chronicle, and several preliminary points need making before describing the phenomenon in more detail. First, the roots of Televangelism belong to a broader historical milieu of radio preaching and other attempts by Evangelicals to reach the public through mass media. Arguably, TV evangelism belongs to the same tradition that prints tracts by the million (and this perhaps stretches back to the Reformation), to those who now run influential web sites. Second, Televangelism has developed in direct proportion to the rise of Evangelicalism and the ‘new right’ (see New Christian Right) in the USA; as the political, social, and economic power of Evangelicals has grown, so has the range of programmes and volume of channels. Third, because of the decline of mainline denominations—which is also reflected in the amount of time given to religion in public sector broadcasting— Evangelicals have shown more willingness to invest both time and money in their own brand of television. Fourth, Televangelism continues to elicit support from its (loyal) followers, who perceive this as a primary means of competing with secular alternatives in the media. Fifth, despite the narrow but ultimately intense support for Televangelism, research continually shows that few outside the churches or religion are persuaded or converted by the offerings of televangelists. Sixth, Televangelism nonetheless continues to thrive as a brand of ‘narrow-casting’ within the world of television, but has yet to show that it can sustain interest in the highly competitive world of ‘default’ viewing— programmes people watch, normally in public sector broadcasting, when they have not consciously chosen to view anything else. Seventh, Televangelism is now an established American religious ‘tradition’, and this has prompted a number of mainline denominations to launch their own programmes on the airwaves, albeit with limited success.
The reputation of North American Televangelism suffered considerably in the 1990s, following a series of high profile financial and personal scandals that engulfed some of its ‘household names’. Oral Roberts was widely ridiculed for locking himself away in his purpose built prayer tower (located in Oklahoma—a bizarre structure that resembles a cocktail shaker crossed with a Sputnik), declaring that unless his followers gave more money to underwrite his television ministry, ‘God would call him home’. He had prayed and fasted for some weeks, but was able to stop when a local business man and racehorse owner donated several million dollars. Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker had their reputations ruined by well-publicized stories of sexual impropriety, but both have since been rehabilitated as televangelists.
Despite the garish portrayal of televangelism in the secular media, it is important to recognize that the phenomenon operates on a number of levels. First, there are established programmes that have been running for decades—such as Old Fashioned
Revival Hour and Old Time Gospel Hour—which have, in their heyday, drawn audiences of more than 20 million. These programmes are ‘folksy’ in their allure, and clearly appeal to a constituency that enjoys the singing of hymns and a traditional talk or sermon that calls on the viewer to be ‘born again’. The timbre of the programme for the target audience is one of reassurance—armchair revival, with slippers.
Second, there are those programmes that are simply a televised extension of an existing ministry. The programmes are uncomplicated in format or in technical production, and will often be a televised service or rally. Televangelists such as Benny Hinn, who are skilful ‘live performers’, and whose ministry depends to some extent on creating a ‘divine dramaturgy’, tend to suit this medium better than those programmes that might utilize a studio audience. Either way, these programmes are unlikely to be seen by many, beyond those who support such ministries already. Increasingly, these programmes are available through satellite, cable and video.
Third, there are specific programmes and channels that broadcast almost continually, with a simple cycle or spiral of appeals: for converts (who may be casual viewers); for money from donors to carry on broadcasting, so there can be more converts; for more converts; for more money, so the televangelists can broadcast at more sociable hours so they can reach a wider public, and make more converts; and so on. Such programmes and channels have developed a range of unusual (or even notorious) practices that have elevated the television itself to a level of apotheosis, or at least conferred a sacramental status upon it. Instances have included viewers being encouraged to hold up handkerchiefs, hands, wallets, and other items that may need blessing, up against their own television screen, with the televangelist then praying a ‘personal’ prayer for each respondent. In this theological construction of reality, viewers are being invited to believe that divine power flows from the televangelist, through the TV set, and finally into the viewers’ homes and personal life.
This is perhaps not quite as absurd as it may sound to some, when one considers the recent but explosive growth of interactive television. A number of the better-funded and more sophisticated channels that offer televangelism are now able to interact ‘live’ on TV with prayer partners, supporters, donors, and viewers. The possibility of viewer-televangelist conversations and ‘real time’ ministry have now become an actuality. With the advent of digital TV, viewers can ‘phone, text or e-mail prayer requests during a broadcast, and then invite others to join in these prayers. Instead of being a lone spectator witnessing a religious programme in isolation, the viewer can now become part of a larger network of active worshippers, and indeed participate ‘live’ within an act of worship or large evangelistic rally. Active spiritual communion is now possible beyond the constraints of the spatial; and all of this is enabled by the gift of technology. The television has been co-opted into armoury of the Lord; it has become a divine instrument for defending the saints and attacking all kinds of foes, and rebuking all manner of evil. The age of the interactive armchair churchgoer has truly arrived. The only difference now is that there is no collection plate. But there will be a free-phone credit card hotline to which believers can pledge.
Televangelism, then, has travelled a long way since its genesis. From being an expensive status symbol for the very few well-funded expansive international itinerant ministries, it has developed into a medium of communication that is now within the grasp of most moderate sized mega churches. These churches can afford to make and air programmes that have a dedicated regional appeal. They can in turn syndicate their distinctive style of televangelism through established Christian TV channels the world over, that will then ensure their audience is global as much as much as it is local. As TV religion enters the third millennium, it is adopting a mercurial role as an agent of globalization and interactive ministry.
The impact of these changes upon ‘traditional’ televangelists has yet to be assessed. But it appears that the big names of televangelism over the last thirty years are slowly being crowded out of a market that has not expanded in quite the way that many anticipated. Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, and Jerry Falwell still vie for the position of principal eminence grise in the televangelism firmament, but in truth the phenomenon is now prey to one of its own parents— choice. With more channels and media output to choose from, all religious broadcasters need to work harder and harder just to retain their market share. Were it not for the comparative fall in production costs, a number of televangelism networks would now be out of business.
The future of televangelism appears to be less and less with household name ‘holy rollers’, and more with bespoke productions that provide a better fit for their target audiences. The days when developing nations imported the offerings of American televangelists wholesale are more or less gone. At the beginning of the third millennium, African and Asian televangelists—such as Dnakararn in India—now produce their own material for their own contexts. At the same time, there continues to be a certain degree of public unease surrounding televangelists. Typically, and especially in America, most are allied to right-wing political concerns, and are wedded to agendas such as the ‘moral majority’ and other conservative or neotraditional moralistic crusades. Whilst this undoubtedly pleases many of the traditional supporters of televangelism, it can cause problems for the wider public. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, Jerry Falwell appeared on a TV show hosted by Pat Robertson. Falwell suggested that the reason for ‘God allowing the attacks’—’lifting the veil of protection’ is how he described it—was that America was being punished for her sins: ‘letting the abortionists and homosexuals’ into government, and driving moral standards down. Such comments have done little to enhance the reputation of televangelists in the eyes of most. But in the eyes of their followers, they can say or do little that is not compelling and convincing. Ironically, it is their courting of theological and political controversy, coupled to an extreme social conservatism, that continues to keep them in the public eye, and thereby maintains their solid if small support base.
