Chris Wyatt gets agitated when he talks about his critics. Wyatt is the CEO of GodTube.com (a Christian video-sharing site that drew 10 million visitors in 2007), and ironically, his most vocal critics also are his fellow Christians. Often they get just as agitated when they talk about GodTube. What GodTube’s proponents call a Christian community consuming edifying media and engaging in spiritual conversations, its detractors dismiss as a bubble. The agitation and passionate debate from both sides betrays a centuries-old tension bubbling beneath the surface of contemporary Christianity.
Shortly before he was arrested and ultimately crucified, Jesus prayed for his disciples. “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one,” he said. “They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world” (John 17:15-18). In that prayer is found the tension Christ-followers have wrestled with since the Ascension. We are in the world, but we are not of it. While present on earth, our citizenship is in heaven. Surrounded by sin that so easily entangles, we are charged to be holy.
For many Christians, the “in but not of” principle is their rationale for avoiding popular culture (perhaps focusing primarily on the “not of”). Their abstinence from culture and construction of a parallel culture is inspired by their desire to follow Christ and his teachings. That same principle motivates others (perhaps focusing primarily on the “in”) to dive into culture head-first, also in order to follow Christ and his teachings. In either case, culture is regarded as a strange beast that demands a response from the Christian.
Culture, it often seems, is antithetical to the Christian life. Populated and propagated by sin-marred people, cultures around the world and throughout history have gotten it wrong (“it” referring to the biblically ordered utopia we desperately long for). Cultures worship the wrong things, eat the wrong things, say the wrong things, value the wrong things, denigrate the wrong things, believe the wrong things, and so on. In secular culture, the Christian often finds himself or herself confronted with (or contaminated by?) nauseating acts of and idols to violence, sexual immorality, greed, and the rest.
Determined to live the Christian life, however, Christians have long sought to change their culture. (Examples include forcibly converting conquered pagans and posting the Ten Commandments in public high schools full of miscreants.) Unfortunately, attempts at changing culture as a whole are frequently unsuccessful and therefore readily give way to the conscious or unconscious development of a subculture that is more conducive to walking the straight and narrow.
Whether or not this practice is healthy, dangerous, or something in between seems difficult to answer with any certainty. For every pro there exists a con; for every devotee there exists a critic. Yet, what can be said with certainty is that the trend—our parallel universe—is not going anywhere (except perhaps up) anytime soon.
For the purposes of this article, the Christian subculture or parallel universe is characterized by the places and products Christians have created for themselves, which both resemble and reject popular culture. These products and places typically take something found in contemporary society, remove the immoral or secular elements, and replace them with a Christian worldview. The result is a culture within a culture, whose products and places are similar to those found in the mainstream, but different. They are parallel.
Perhaps the most radical example of a Christian parallel universe is that of the Amish, who have created insulated, strictly governed, and nearly self-sufficient communities. Again, the example is radical. Nonetheless, the Amish represent a community, motivated by faith, who have taken the measures they feel necessary in order to preserve their integrity and their way of life.
Unfortunately (or not) for the Amish, geographic isolation never really caught on among the Christian masses. In fact, in the late 20th- and early 21st-century, many popular elements of the Christian subculture were geared more toward integration than isolation. If the cool (lost) kids were listening to punk, hardcore, or hip hop music, the Christian could stop by the local Christian bookstore, consult the “Recommended If You Like …” chart, and acquire Christian punk, hardcore, or hip hop music. The beats, tempos, and melodies were generally pretty close, but the lyrics were clean and the attitudes were less rebellious.
In his book Body Piercing Saved My Life: Inside the Phenomenon of Christian Rock, music journalist Andrew Beaujon recalls his early experiences with Christian music. “I was in high school and ‘saved’ friends tried to get me to come to a Christian youth group called Young Life by dangling ski trips and the work of groups like Stryper and Petra, whom they assured me were ‘just as good’ as the hard rock groups I liked. At the time, I was hardly a discerning listener, but even then I remember thinking the Christian bands were OK at best. Why settle for a copy when you can have the original?”
Obviously, music isn’t the sole medium through which our subculture manifests itself. If a neighbor was in possession of a T-shirt or bumper sticker bearing a pretentious logo or a clever slogan, the Christian could once again visit the local Christian bookstore and find a bumper sticker or T-shirt that featured a redemptive Christian reinterpretation of the intellectual property it aped. There is a long list of items we can procure if we are so inclined, including Christian fiction, Christian school supplies, Christian jewelry, Christian cartoons, Christian teddy bears, and Christian breath mints.
And why not? All of it allows the present-day Christian to listen to music or have fresh breath just like the rest of world, while simultaneously living the Christian life. The Christian subculture serves its purpose through these things. In our parallel universe—where everything is the same, but different—the Christian can live and work and play and worship and keep the bad stuff out. We can do almost everything the world can do, but without the accompanying moral compromise. We can navigate the trials and tribulations of the world while remaining the people of God, holy and set apart.
As popular Web 2.0 innovations such as YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook have changed the way the culture at large uses the Internet in the last few years, the Christian subculture has followed. Christian versions of these well-trafficked and exceedingly valuable sites are now available for those who want to interact with like-minded peers and devour like-minded media without the threat of different-minded pollutants, both human and digital. Thus, the Christian parallel universe has made its way into cyberspace—where real estate is cheap and revenue models are abundant.
Recommended if you like YouTube: GodTube.com. Given the site’s staggering success at drawing a crowd and its close approximation of the YouTube name, look, and features set, GodTube is easily the flagship for the online Christian subculture. Other sites, such as Xianz.com and MyPraize.com bill themselves as Christian alternatives to MySpace, but their popularity pales in comparison to that of GodTube. In fact, GodTube recently launched the beta version of its own social network. It became the biggest Christian social network in the blink of an eye, according to Wyatt, registering more than 250,000 users in its first 45 days. Those are impressive numbers and are indicative of a rapidly expanding empire, the roots of which can be traced back to some foreboding statistics.
As a student at Dallas Theological Seminary, Chris Wyatt read an article, which suggested current trends in church attendance would result in a 50 percent decline in attendance from 2000 to 2025. “It clicked in my head and I thought, ‘Wait a minute. I know exactly what that is. That’s because churches are having difficulty reaching the teens, 20-somthings, and 30-somethings.’” Wyatt says that is when God laid it on his heart to start GodTube, a site he describes as “the Christian answer to YouTube.”
Launched in early 2007 with the tagline “Broadcast Him,” GodTube.com now hosts more than 50,000 videos. Christian music videos, Sunday sermons, youth dramas, and small children reciting Scripture are among the site’s most viewed and highest rated content, all of which can be viewed by patrons who know they needn’t worry about coming across something objectionable. “Where we excel,” Wyatt says, “is we’re family-friendly and kid-safe. And what I mean by that is every single minute of every video is watched by human eyes.”
Therein lies the essential reason for GodTube’s existence: The rest of the Internet is not family-friendly and is not kid-safe. After all, GodTube isn’t creating Christian content and flooding the world with it (at least not yet), the site is simply a hub for content created by others. That content could easily be uploaded by Christian producers and accessed by Christian audiences on YouTube or a bevy of other irreligious sites, but that’s not good enough for Wyatt. “YouTube is a great company. We love those guys, and it is a place to put Christian material if you’re fishing, but we certainly don’t believe a lot of the material there is consistent with biblical principles.
“And even more so, what we found out is this: While you may be watching a Christian video on YouTube, you’re going to get a banner ad that is inappropriate. So you, or your child or your wife, may be watching a pastor and there could be a Girls Gone Wild banner.” Or, when your YouTube video ends, the site’s recommendation algorithm might suggest you watch a video it thinks is related, but is in fact filled with false doctrine, blasphemy, offensive language, or other undesirable material. With YouTube and its ilk, one never knows what lurks behind the next click. Many Christians are uncomfortable with this kind of uncertainty online, and thus they’ve flocked to GodTube by the millions. In exchange for the peace of mind that comes with content filtration provided by theology students employed by Wyatt, fans of GodTube have rewarded the site by uploading, watching, and sharing videos at an incredible pace.
Advertisers, says Wyatt, are also willing to reward GodTube for its reigned-in content. Whereas YouTube posts any video uploaded by its users and later reviews and removes content reported as objectionable by viewers, GodTube insists every video uploaded to its servers is watched and approved by its team before it is made public. From a business standpoint, it would appear that GodTube’s approach requires significantly more resources than YouTube’s, but Wyatt says his model is actually more cost-effective in the long run. “Advertisers don’t want their content next to objectionable material.
“For example,” he continues, “YouTube and MySpace get really low CPMs (cost per thousand) on their ads and advertisers are completely shying away because they’re afraid their material will be associated with hate speech, neo-Nazism, or subjects like that.” On the other hand, users and advertisers know exactly what they will find at GodTube. Users know they will find video after video that affirms their Christian worldview. Advertisers know they will find Christian user after Christian user to whom to market products that affirm their Christian worldview. And yet not everyone is happy with that arrangement. For all its devotees, GodTube also possesses its share of critics. They argue GodTube, like the rest of our parallel universe, presents ideological and practical problems.
Among the criticisms leveled at GodTube and the subculture it represents is the Recommended If You Like model itself. Critics say when Christians resort to producing Christian versions of pop culture elements the result is imitative rather than innovative. “I hate the Christian charts that say if you like Limp Bizkit you will like Pillar,” says Craig Gross, the founder of XXXchurch.com and the author of Starving Jesus. “We are always going to be known for creating second-rate stuff because a lot of what we do in the Christian world is in response to what the real world is doing. Why didn’t a Christian think of MySpace and invite everyone to join?”
Matthew Paul Turner, COLLIDE columnist and author of The Christian Culture Survival Guide, echoes Gross’ sentiments. “Anytime we take something the world at large created and put it into our little box—we add Jesus to it—it’s almost indicative of what Christianity has come to as a whole. It’s a need to retreat from anything that is remotely secular. What would happen if a Christian decided to come up with a brand new idea and put it online? But we don’t do that; we steal other people’s ideas.”
Despite the fact that Wyatt describes his site as a Christian alternative to YouTube, he asserts GodTube isn’t a copycat. “I’ve been building video sites for the better part of 12 years,” he says. “[YouTube’s] a great company, but they’re not the first one to do this by a long shot.” And as for the name? “We did use a play on the name, certainly. I take a little heat from that,” Wyatt admits, “but people get it.” In that sense, the “Tube” in GodTube wasn’t imitation for imitation’s sake, but a calculated branding decision that would provide a web-savvy market with an instantaneous understanding of what the site is all about.
In Wyatt’s view, the imitation necessary to build the GodTube brand was worthwhile in light of the site’s higher purpose: evangelism. “I think we are probably the best-kept secret in Christianity at this point. I think the majority of our users are probably non-believers,” Wyatt says. “The bottom line is GodTube.com uses Web 2.0 technologies to connect believers and non-believers around the world to fulfill the Great Commission. We’re an evangelical outreach, period.” But others remain unconvinced. The prevailing thought among GodTube’s critics is that the site serves primarily as a hub for Christians, while those with other beliefs would rarely visit the site or be affected by any of the content they find there.
Jim Henderson is the co-author of Jim and Casper Go to Church and the co-founder of Off The Map, an organization that explores effective evangelism in a present-day context. Based on his extensive experience interacting with people who don’t hold a Christian worldview, Henderson doesn’t have high expectations for how the rest of the world perceives a site such as GodTube. He wonders if the non-believer would consider the site “further proof that Christians live in a strange world of their own. [GodTube] is certainly not somewhere most of them would spend time.” He concludes, “It’s irrelevant to them in the same way a sports site would be boring and irrelevant to a person uninterested in sports.”
Author and consultant Phil Cooke sides with Henderson: “If teenagers want to create a music video for Jesus and put it on GodTube, I could not be more thrilled. But do you really believe a non-believer is going to go to GodTube and start searching videos?” Cooke asks. “GodTube is great; I’m glad it’s doing well. However, let’s not for a minute believe that the vast non-believing audience out there is going to search GodTube for anything except for something to make fun of.”
Wyatt, for his part, can’t understand this criticism. He contends the site is “the world’s largest evangelical outreach,” and points out that GodTube’s user base “rivals that of most denominations.”
“And they’re complaining about it,” he tells me, astonished.
Luckily, Wyatt and GodTube’s critics can agree on one thing: The site is safe. The problem, however, is that while Wyatt believes a safe place established on the anything-goes Internet is a vital and precious resource for Christians, others feel safety can be misleading, even dangerous.
Wyatt is proud that his users “can rest assured we’re family-friendly and kid-safe because everything is watched—every comment, every video, every photograph.” But GodTube’s emphasis on safety doesn’t stop there. “We actively scan our incoming members for sexual predators and violent criminals. So we’ve gone further than anybody else in terms of security, and that’s extremely important. To Wyatt, the threats posed by culture (particularly online culture) demand the construction of safe environments. But is that the right idea?
“Ultimately, [GodTube] is a much safer place to be than YouTube,” Gross admits. “But Christ never called us to be safe.” Henderson agrees. “Jesus didn’t seem to think it was dangerous to engage with people who didn’t share his beliefs. The idea that it is dangerous doesn’t seem to have come from Jesus. Unfortunately, that idea has discouraged Christians from continually engaging with the rest of the world in the way Jesus did, even though they claim to be his followers.”
In the eyes of Henderson, Gross, and others who criticize the “safe” approach, it seems as though a choice for safety is a choice for withdrawal, a choice for turning one’s back on a world where immorality and unbelief rule the day. Thus, the old formative pattern of the Christian subculture continues online. Henderson believes the subculture fosters behavior that is actually counterproductive to communicating the gospel to a culture in desperate need of transformation.
“When Christians spend most of their time among themselves, they become odd,” he observes. “They develop their own language and tell each other things about the rest of the world that they’d know weren’t true if they spent more time engaging with the rest of the world. And because they are removed from other people, they have no opportunity to dispel any wrong ideas the rest of the world has about Christians.”
Essentially, Henderson’s point is that protecting ourselves from a culture in desperate need of transformation is actually a massive barrier to communicating the gospel to a culture in desperate need of transformation. And that’s the goal after all, isn’t it? But what’s the best way to go about it? How can we be in the world but not of it? Often we may find ourselves in danger of being too “in,” caught up in the ways of the world. At other times, we may find ourselves in danger of being too “not of,” oblivious to the world around us.
Is it possible to strike the right balance, either online or off? If so, such a balance is likely delicate. And besides, it’s much easier to stand on one side or the other of a fence than to attempt to walk to along its railing. Balance, as it turns out, requires effort, discernment, and courage (not words one often interprets as enticing). And yet that may be where Christ is leading us—balancing along the dividing wall between this world and the next, arms outstretched in hopes of steadying our momentum, diligently placing one foot in front of the other.