In recent years, the Marin Foundation has gained increasing attention as a Christian group attempting to reconcile with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual (LGBT) community. As one means of fostering reconciliation, the “I’m Sorry” campaign within the Marin Foundation encourages individuals to post online video confessionals, stating what they are sorry for and how they intend to make things better for the LGBT community. This study examines these online video confessionals as a unique site of identity negotiation for Christian individuals attempting to reconcile with the LGBT community. Rhetorical analysis of the videos revealed that the individuals drew from a specific repertoire of apology and suggestions for future action, which fell in line with Kenneth Burke’s notion of scapegoating and mortification. As a result, the “story of self” articulated by the individuals failed to be coherent with both the stated goals of the foundation and the main tenets of Evangelical Christian identity.
AmmermanN. T. (2003) Religious identities and religious institutions. In: DillonM. (ed.) Handbook of the sociology of religion, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–224.
2.
Arnold, M. F. (2001). Examining the experiences of female allies of gay men and lesbians (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International. (61, 3064).
3.
BebbingtonD. W. (1989) Evangelicalism in modern Britain: A history from the 1730s to the 1980s, London, England: Unwin Hyman.
4.
BorerM. I.SchaferT. S. (2011) Culture war confessionals: Conflicting accounts of Christianity, violence, and mixed martial arts. Journal of Media and Religion10: 165–184.
5.
BorgmanA. L. (2009) LGB allies and Christian identity: A qualitative exploration of resolving conflicts and integrating identities. Journal of Counseling Psychology56(4): 508–520.
6.
BurkeK. (1937) Attitudes toward history, 3rd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
7.
BurkeK. (1939) The rhetoric of Hitler’s battle. The Southern Review5: 1–21.
8.
BurkeK. (1961) The rhetoric of religion: Studies in logology, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9.
CampbellH. (2012) Understanding the relationship between religion online and offline in a networked society. Journal of the American Academy of Religion80(1): 64–93.
10.
CheongP. H.HalavaisA.KwonK. (2008) The chronicles of me: Understanding blogging as religious practice. Journal of Media and Religion7: 107–131.
11.
GoffmanE. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life, New York, NY: Doubleday.
12.
HellandC. (2000) Online-religion/religion-online and virtual communitas. In: HaddenJ. K.CowanD. E. (eds) Religion on the Internet: Research prospects and promises, New York, NY: JAI Press, pp. 205–223.
13.
KaareB. H.LundbyK. (2008) Mediatized lives: Autobiography and assumed authenticity in digital story telling. In: LundbyK. (ed.) Digital storytelling, mediatized stories: Self-representations in new media, New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc, pp. 105–122.
14.
KaareB. H. (2012) The self and the institution. Nordicom Review33(2): 17–26.
15.
LeachJ. (2000) Rhetorical analysis. In: BauerM. W.GaskellG. (eds) Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 207–226.
16.
LeffM.SachsA. (1990) Words the most like things: Iconicity and the rhetorical text. Western Journal of Speech Communication54(3): 252–273.
17.
LevyD. L.LoJ. R. (2013) Transgender, transsexual, and gender queer individuals with a Christian upbringing: The process of resolving conflict between gender identity and faith. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought32(1): 60–83.
18.
LivingstoneS. (2002) Young people and new media, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
19.
LivingstoneS. (2008) Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society10: 393–411.
20.
LövheimM. (2004) Young people, religious identity, and the internet. In: DawsonL.CowanD. (eds) Religion online: Finding faith on the internet, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 59–73.
21.
LövheimM. (2013) Identity. In: CampbellH. (ed.) Digital religion: Understanding religious practice in new media worlds, London, England: Routledge, pp. 41–56.
22.
LundbyK. (2008) Introduction. In: LundbyK. (ed.) Digital storytelling, mediatized stories: Self-representations in new media, New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc, pp. 1–20.
23.
MadduxK. (2001) Christianity, homosexuality, and the plain sense of scripture. Journal of the Northwest Communication Association30: 94–120.
OganC. L. (2006) Confession, revelation and storytelling: Patterns of use on a popular Turkish website. New Media & Society8(5): 801–823.
27.
PolettiA. (2011) Intimate economies: PostSecret and the affect of confession. Biography: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly34(1): 25–36.
28.
RametS. (2005) Fighting for the Christian nation: The Christian right and American politics. Journal of Human Rights4: 431–442.
29.
RhodesJ. (2010) Choosing sides: An exploration of role conflict among Evangelical Democrats. Sociology of Religion72(1): 28–49.
30.
Robertson, P. (Performer). (2013). July 28 [Television series episode]. In S. Ross (Executive producer), 700 Club. Virginia Beach, VA: Christian Broadcasting Network.
31.
RodriguezE. M. (2010) At the intersection of church and gay: A review of the psychological research on gay and lesbian Christians. Journal of Homosexuality57(1): 5–38.
WaltonG. (2006) Fag church: Men who integrate gay and Christian identities. Journal of Homosexuality51(2): 1–17.
34.
WilcoxM. (2003) Coming out in Christianity: Religion, identity, and community, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
35.
WoodN.WardS. (2010) Stigma, secrets, and the human condition: Seeking to remedy alienation in PostSecret’s digitally mediated environment. Symbolic Interaction33(4): 578–602.
36.
WrightM. H. (1994) Burkeian and Freudian theories of identification. Communication Quarterly42(3): 301–310.
37.
YipA. (2002) The persistence of faith among nonheterosexual Christians: Evidence for the neosecularization thesis of religious transformation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion41(2): 199–212.
