Book Reviewed: Waters, Ken (2025). Words that Shape Us: How America’s Most Influential Evangelical Magazines Craft the Narrative of Christian Culture (Pasco, WA: Integratio Press).
Reviewed By: Tamara J. Welter
Reviewer Affiliation: Baylor University
Total Pages: 213
ISBN: 978-1-959685-29-6
View on amazon (affiliate link)
American media operates differently than news organizations in many other places around the world. Because of ownership consolidation, a fairly small number of corporations control the major media brands that disseminate news in America. These commercially driven businesses are dependent on advertising, subscriptions, ratings, or clicks. This creates tension between informing and attracting audiences. Moreover, with fewer diverse voices and greater commentary mixed into the news presentation, the media is carried toward extremes in perspective. Some would argue this is reflective of a nation more divided; others would say it perpetuates the divide. Maybe it is both. At the same time, and perhaps in relationship with these changes, public trust in media is in decline; and people of faith are often at the front of the line for abandoning mainstream media. In this context, media outlets rooted in a faith perspective hold a unique opportunity to speak to the community of faith with some level of trust and, therefore, influence.
It is into this space that Ken Waters’ Words that Shape Us enters. This book explores the work of evangelical Christian media, analyzing content of selected evangelical publications in order to see how they shape evangelical discourse and whether they align with their represented voters. Waters argues that evangelical publications don’t just report on issues but actively construct narratives that influence how a significant segment of American population understands politics and morality. Through media theories (Agenda Setting, Framing, the Two-Step Flow, and Uses and Gratifications), Waters identifies and explains the influence evangelical media have on one segment of the Christian American population. He does this by focusing on a small set of influential evangelical magazines (Christian Post, Christianity Today, Sojourners, and World) and analyzing their language and framing through their coverage of major events and issues. His analysis of the publications also leads to his examination of the internal disagreements within evangelicalism. He treats the four outlets as agenda-setters within the evangelical world.
Waters’ overarching question is “How did the evangelical press, as represented by four of its influential editorially independent media outlets, report on the critical and controversial issues dividing American society?” (p. 10). Secondarily, Waters seeks to shed light on the state of the evangelical population itself and its potential future. Over the course of the book, he presents his own analysis of the publications’ content alongside various datasets (polls, surveys from represented media as well as research centers).
The main themes that emerge from Water’s research are that evangelical magazines (1) define the issues that matter (abortion, religious freedom, etc.), (2) frame these issues in moral and theological terms, and (3) seek to help create a shared understanding among their readers. Waters identifies divisions within the evangelical community, arguing that a gap is growing between elites and ordinary followers of Christ. He demonstrates that media function as political interpreters for their audiences and use subtle frames to shift attitudes on major issues. In his closing chapter Waters explains that a decline in Christian unity along with generational divides reflects differing visions for the future. Waters acknowledges his own bias which would not align with what has emerged as a more politically conservative evangelical perspective during the Trump era, although he also questions whether many who identify as evangelical Christians actually fit the definition (p. 6). This thread continues throughout his book.
Waters examines the positions of the Christian Post, Christianity Today, Sojourners, and World through the frame of particular events. After an introduction to evangelicalism and the Biblical lens (chapter 1), Waters tracks the four publications’ articles and editorials on the 2016 Presidential election (chapter 2), the 2020 election (chapter 8) and the 2024 election (chapter 12). In between, Waters considers these four media outlets’ treatment of issues like immigration and the border (chapters 3 and 4), Christian nationalism and racism (chapters 5 and 6), Covid-19 and science (chapter 7), abortion and Roe vs. Wade (chapter 10), and evangelicals and the LGBTQ+ question (chapter 11). He closes with a summary evaluation of evangelical publications’ coverage of political/cultural developments and a reflection on their future, as well as the future of evangelicalism itself.
Throughout the book, Waters explores three major questions in light of his analysis of the selected evangelical publications. The first addresses the voting advice of the evangelical press and the related behaviors of evangelical citizens. For each election, Waters considers the publications’ positions in comparison with the corresponding Evangelical vote, explaining that “at times, the publications assumed a prophetic role, raising criticism from the very believers they set out to inform. At other times, their writers and essayists supported the president [Trump] and his administration” (p. 143). For the first question, it is clear that the three elections are critical markers for Waters in his analysis. In relation to the 2016 presidential election, Waters identifies a schism within the evangelical movement, arguing that the influence of the publications held little sway compared to the communication power of right-wing media, conservative bloggers, and radio (p. 34).
Waters tracks the decisions of the four publications over time and through various societal issues. For example, he quotes Marvin Olasky (then editor of World magazine) saying he knew the magazine might offend Trump supporters but that it would remain critical of both Trump and Clinton during the 2016 election. “Ultimately,” Waters observes, “World found both candidates unacceptable, acknowledging that most readers would vote for Trump” (p. 31). Overall, Waters finds that “based on their commitment to enlightening readers about important biblical values, Christian publications warned against Trump because his actions and rhetoric did not conform to biblical values of love, forgiveness, honesty, fidelity, and justice for all races, genders, and ethnicities. Slightly more than 80% of self-identified White evangelicals voted for Trump anyway” (p. 33-34).
The second major question addressed by Waters is how the publications discussed living as a Christian in the modern world and how their recommendations contrasted with the attitudes of people who identified as evangelicals. Waters notes that “All four [publications] differed when presenting news and opinions on other important topics in the so-called culture wars,” however, they “differed in degree, not in their overall theological understanding” (p. 143). Waters notes that the same lack of impact discussed regarding political challenges appears in coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic as well: “Did attitudes and actions of evangelicals…change based on those articles and essays? Hopefully, but the evidence is slim” (p. 90). Waters also argues that the publications often framed immigration with a critical stance toward Trump’s lack of compassion, distancing themselves from right-wing media interpretation (p.55). Once again, Waters observes, “While their writers offered hundreds of suggestions, a middle ground between compassionate protection and the safety and economic well-being of the nation proved impossible” (p. 55).
The final major question Waters addresses is how observations from major evangelical media might foreshadow the future of the evangelical movement. Based on his analysis, he concludes that it is “complex and still unclear” (p. 145). The final chapter explores the future of evangelicalism in terms of various factors, from the educational divide to the changing audience, donors, and economy.
Waters’ Words that Shape Us provides a valuable focus on a seldom-studied area. However, greater transparency in his methodological approach could have strengthened the work, as key details like his analysis strategy, sample size, and criteria for selecting articles remain unclear. Even so, his careful examination of evangelical publications enables him to draw meaningful conclusions about four specific outlets and, more broadly, the demographic of educated, white evangelicals. Additional insights might be gained by expanding the scope to include denominational publications, Catholic outlets, and culturally specific media serving Asian, Latino and Black church communities, which would expand our understanding of the Christian population and its relationship with religious media. In his final chapter, Waters acknowledges the challenges facing evangelical publications amid shifting audiences and evolving technology. Future research could build on this by examining emerging platforms such as social media and independent newsletters. Nevertheless, Waters’ perspectives in Words That Shape Us offer a strong foundation for understanding of Christian media in relation to current events and evangelical audiences.