Picturing the Swedish Free Church: Visual Practices of Local Congregations on Social Media

Abstract

The increasing use of social media by religious organizations has opened new spaces for the construction of institutional identity. While there is a growing body of research on how churches use social media platforms, the visual practices of these institutions remain understudied. This article examines the visual social media practices of local Free Churches in Sweden, focusing on their visual self-representation and the logics behind the construction of these public narratives. The study shows that these visual practices are often shaped by practical constraints and legal–ethical cautiousness, rather than by media logic. Hence, rather than evidencing a mode of communication strongly influenced by “the agency of media” these visual practices reflect what I term bounded mediation. The study further demonstrates that this bounded mediation leads local Free Churches to depict themselves on social media in ways that simplify, and sometimes distort, their theological identity. The analysis is based on data from nine local Free Churches’ Instagram accounts and interviews with individuals responsible for managing social media in 24 congregations across Sweden. Theoretically, the study draws on mediatization theory and Stuart Hall’s theory of representation.

1. Introduction

The increasing use of social media by religious organizations has opened new spaces for the construction and negotiation of institutional identity (see e.g., H. Campbell 2010; Cheong et al. 2012; Sircar and Rowley 2020; Klaver 2021; Johnsen 2023). Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok function not merely as tools for communication but as arenas where narratives about religious institutions, such as churches, and their identities are actively produced. While there is a growing number of studies exploring how churches in the Nordic region use social media platforms (see e.g., Hutchings 2017; Knudsen and Nielsen 2019; Hodøl 2021; Åhman and Thorén 2021; Kokkonen 2022; Kuhlin 2025), the visual practices of these institutions remain understudied. Considering that the digital media sphere has become increasingly image-centric (Stöckl et al. 2019), studying how religious organizations navigate this visual turn is important for understanding contemporary religious communication and public self-representation.

In this article, I examine the visual social media practices of local Free Churches in Sweden, focusing on their visual self-representation and the logics behind the construction of these public narratives. Theoretically, the study draws on mediatization theory (Hjarvard 2013; Lundby 2014; Lövheim and Hjarvard 2019) and Hall’s (1997) theory of representation, which provides a framework to understand how religious institutions adapt their communication to digital media environments and conceptual tools for analyzing the construction of their visual identities.

The study builds on data from nine local Free Churches’ Instagram accounts and interviews with individuals responsible for managing social media accounts in 24 local churches across Sweden. The two different types thus work in a complementary way and foreground different layers of these institutions’ visual social media practices. The data from Instagram highlights which images/videos are shared by local churches on social media, and the interviews provide insight into intentions, constraints, and dilemmas faced by the individuals producing this visual content. Specifically, the study is driven by two research questions: what narratives about the Free Church are constructed through the visual content shared by local churches on Instagram, and what underlying logics and considerations influence the choices social media managers make when selecting which images/videos to post? The local churches included in the study belong to the denominations Equmeniakyrkan (Uniting Church in Sweden),1 Trossamfundet Pingst (The Pentecostal Alliance of Independent Churches), and Evangeliska Frikyrkan (the Evangelical Free Church).2

2. The Social Media Use of Churches in the Nordic Region

Previous research on how churches in the Nordic region make use of social media has mainly focused on the majority churches, that is, the former state churches (see e.g., Moberg 2018; Kokkonen 2022; Gelfgren 2016; Johnsen 2023; Kühle and Larsen 2021; Åhman and Thorén 2021). These institutions have established positions in the Nordic countries, possess different organizational structures, and command significantly greater resources, particularly in terms of employed staff, than the Free Churches. The studies on the majority of churches tend to concentrate on the social media use at a national level, which means that local perspectives have largely been neglected in previous research. In terms of data, they mainly rely on material from websites, Facebook, and Twitter, supplemented by interviews and surveys. Consequently, there is a notable research gap concerning more image-centric platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok.

As for the limited research on local minority churches’ social media usage in the Nordic region (Hodøl 2021; Gelfgren 2016; Knudsen and Nielsen 2019; Kuhlin 2025), two partly contrasting perspectives emerge. On one hand, Hodøl (2021) and Knudsen and Nielsen (2019) have stressed that in Norway and Finland, respectively, local Free Churches tend to be slow adopters of social media, often struggling to leverage platforms’ affordances, especially in terms of the possibilities for two-way communication. They conclude that these churches mainly use social media for informational purposes, essentially functioning as “digital event calendars” or “digital billboards,” with limited interactivity beyond views, likes, and occasional comments. Unlike the majority churches that aim to reach a broad audience (Åhman and Thorén 2021; Kokkonen 2022; Johnsen 2023), the target audience for these local churches is primarily existing members. Knudsen and Nielsen (2019) suggest that this slower adoption may be due to resource constraints compared to the national-level operations of the majority churches and the more precarious position of minority churches as religious institutions, leading to more cautious online behavior.

While the findings of Gelfgren (2016) and my own research (Kuhlin 2025) do not contradict these observations as such, both studies question the technological determinism that seems to influence these conclusions, specifically, the assumption that usage diverging from the platforms’ intended design constitutes “failure”. Instead, both studies propose that alternative engagement patterns reflect negotiated approaches influenced by, among other things, these institutions’ goals and core values. Gelfgren’s (2016) study of Laestadian churches demonstrates a conservative approach to digital media, showing their intentionally limited use to maintain a clear separation between offline and online spheres. His interviews also highlight the challenges of operating online Laestadian churches face due to negative press surrounding the movement. My own previous study (Kuhlin 2025) on local Free Churches in Sweden demonstrates how these institutions translate core values—such as congregational commitment, personal piety, and biblical authority—to social media, thus bridging offline and online identities. It should also be mentioned that even if my study confirmed Hodøl (2021) and Knudsen and Nielsen’s (2019) findings that a larger share of social media posts is informational or invitational, I also identified a substantial minority of posts that fell into the three categories: encouraging religious action, circulating religious content, and sharing images/videos from events. This suggests that local Free Churches in Sweden may have broader objectives for their social media usage than their counterparts in Norway and Finland. An alternative explanation is that the COVID-19 pandemic may have prompted these churches to develop more active social media strategies.

3. The Use of Instagram by Churches

While there are a substantial number of studies on churches’ usage of Facebook and X/Twitter, that is, more text-based social media platforms (see e.g., Lee 2017; Lim 2017; Sircar and Rowley 2020; Åhman and Thorén 2021; Kokkonen 2022), image-centric platforms like Instagram have received considerably less attention.3 Moreover, existing studies on these platforms often neglect to analyze the visual content itself, instead focusing on churches’ broader platform usage patterns.

For example, Spigler (2024) examined Facebook and Instagram usage across 35 local Protestant churches in the United States, identifying four distinct social media church typologies: the bulletin board church, the photo album church, the Bible study church, and the holistic church. Delp (2019) analyzed the Instagram account of Hillsong Australia and found that posts primarily fell into two categories: “promotion” (e.g., events or products) and “entertainment”. However, the latter category should not be interpreted as content meant for diversion, but rather consisted mainly of “close shots on people on stage” (p. 18), a photographic approach that also appears frequently in the data for the present study.

Morehouse and Saffer (2021) took an alternative approach, employing a quantitative content analysis to examine engagement strategies on Instagram among megachurches across five countries. Their findings revealed that both the strategies used and engagement received varied according to geographical location, suggesting potential cultural influences on follower engagement. Another study by Cruz et al. (2024) of a local church in Lima found that the pandemic increased Instagram activity and that live broadcasts and Reels (short videos) significantly enhanced engagement metrics. From my own study (Kuhlin 2025), it is worth noting that Stories (ephemeral content that disappears after 24 h) were the predominant content format, accounting for more than half of all content shared by these congregations. None of the other studies mentioned here included Stories in their data, which means they might have missed insights into how churches use the platform. Consequently, the current study distinguishes itself from previous research on churches’ Instagram use through its enhanced focus on the actual visual social media practices of these institutions.

4. Introducing the Swedish Free Churches

The Free Churches in Sweden primarily emerged from revival movements during the 19th and early 20th centuries (Cedersjö 2001). These Christian communities developed at a time when the Church of Sweden maintained a dominant religious position as the state church and almost monopolized the Swedish religious landscape. The revivalist leaders who emerged at the time emphasized personal faith experiences and a direct relationship with Jesus. Further they stressed congregational independence and proposed that church membership should comprise committed “believers” who joined by conscious choice, rather than membership through child baptism (pp. 41–42). The label “free” in “Free Churches” thus carries dual meaning; it reflects both an independence from the state and the voluntary nature of membership.

Although the Swedish Free Churches do not represent a uniform Christian tradition, they bear a family resemblance through what can be argued to be a common theological foundation and shared sense of identity. Cedersjö (2001) suggests that this foundation consists of (1) an emphasis on having a personal faith and relationship with God, (2) a Jesus-centered orientation (which also entails following Jesus in action), (3) an understanding of the church as a community of believers (stressing participation and fellowship), and (4) a strong commitment to the Bible as the authoritative guide for both church and individual believers (pp. 53–58).

Klintenberg (2015) adopts a different approach to describing the identity of the Free Churches, framing it in contrast to the “folk church”, exemplified in the Swedish context by the Church of Sweden. Klintenberg highlights fifteen ways in which these two Christian traditions diverge, which may be summarized as follows.4 First, Klintenberg emphasizes that within the Free Church tradition, the church is not primarily a building or a place where religious rituals take place, but is instead manifested through its members and the community they form together. Hence, the church “is” where its members are (pp. 27, 43). Second, being a Christian, or, as is more commonly used in this context, a “believer”, is understood as a way of life. This stands in contrast to the folk church tradition, where greater emphasis is placed on belonging to an institution that carries tradition, and where participation in rituals such as communion is seen as important (pp. 35, 69, 91, 122). Organizational structures also differ. The folk church, or in this case, the Church of Sweden, maintains a hierarchical organization with various decision-making bodies, while local Free Churches operate with greater independence from the national organizations (pp. 57, 73). Finally, as its name suggests, the folk church positions itself as a church for all people, welcoming everyone (regardless of faith or lack thereof) and offering services such as baptisms, confirmations, weddings, and funerals. It holds a more established position within mainstream society. In contrast, the Free Churches have historically functioned as counter-cultural movements, often occupying positions at the religious margins (pp. 105, 113). In the Section 9, I will return to how the visual representation of the Free Churches on Instagram aligns with or contradicts these identity markers.

5. Theoretical Framework

This study involves a combination of two theories, namely, mediatization theory (Hjarvard 2013; Lundby 2014; Lövheim and Hjarvard 2019) and Hall’s (1997) representation theory. While mediatization theory provides a departure point for how to understand how media, including digital media, is changing how religious organizations operate in society and their communicative practices, Hall’s representation theory will provide tools for analyzing what narrative about the church that is constructed through their visual practices.

Mediatization theory has become a central framework in the study of digital religion (H. A. Campbell 2017; Lövheim and Hjarvard 2019). The theory suggests that the rise of media, especially digital media, has transformed how religion circulates in society, providing structural environments within which religion is negotiated (Hjarvard 2011, pp. 121–23; Lövheim and Hjarvard 2019, pp. 210–12). This means that media to a large extent now set “the rules for religious actors wanting to communicate with wider society” (Lövheim 2011, p. 156). As a result, the mediation of religion is increasingly governed by what is conceptional as media logic, defined by Hjarvard (2011) as “the institutional and technological modus operandi of the media, including the way media distribute material and symbolic resources and operate with formal and informal rules” (p. 122). This logic often manifests through formats and conventions associated with entertainment, spectacle, and emotional appeal (Klinger and Svensson 2015; Lindgren 2022, pp. 133–55). In addition, it is argued that media have increasingly taken over the roles once held by religious institutions in shaping and conveying religious narratives to the public (Lövheim 2011, p. 158; Lövheim and Hjarvard 2019, p. 216). For religious institutions, this shift means a loss of control over how they are represented, while also forcing them to adapt their communication to align with these dominant media norms in order to remain visible and influential.

While mediatization theory in its early form emphasized religious institutions as reactive to this process (Hjarvard 2008, 2013), later theoretical work has highlighted the importance of viewing religious institutions as active agents in interaction with media (Lövheim 2011, pp. 160–62; Lövheim and Hjarvard 2019, pp. 220–21). A similar argument is proposed by Hall et al. (2024) in their book Minority Churches as Media Settlers, in which they call for more actor-centered mediatization research (pp. 209–13). This perspective is important, as the use of mediatization theory risks falling into a media-deterministic view that overlooks the agency of religious actors. As the findings of this study will show, local churches’ visual communication practices on social media platforms are shaped primarily by practical constraints and legal–ethical cautiousness, while media logic exerts only a limited influence on how these institutions present themselves online.

When examining the images and videos produced by these local churches’ visual practices, specifically the content they post to represent their community, I will use Hall’s (1997) representation theory as an analytical framework. Hall presents three approaches to representation (pp. 10–11)—reflective, intentional, and constructionist—and here I will focus on the latter. Inspired by Ferdinand de Saussure, Hall argues that language functions as a social system where meanings are not fixed or permanent (p. 16). Instead, we actively construct meaning by employing representational systems made up of various signs (such as words, images, and symbols) shared within a culture. This construction process happens at the intersection of material reality and symbolic interpretation, which leads to a critical distinction. According to Hall, we must distinguish between the material world and the symbolic practices through which representation operates (p. 11). The material objects themselves do not inherently contain meaning. Rather, social actors (in this case, the local churches) use these representational systems to communicate and construct meanings about their identity and values to their followers through them. While the process of meaning-making through visual imagery has historically served as an important medium for churches to communicate theological meaning (e.g., through art, iconography, stained glass windows, and architectural elements), the Free Churches in Sweden are part of a tradition in which the “word” has served as the prime way of communicating. It is therefore particularly interesting to see how they choose, frame, and visually self-represent themselves in contemporary digital spaces. By analyzing their visual choices through Hall’s framework, I will highlight how they circulate narratives about themselves rather than simply documenting reality.

6. The Study’s Data

The study draws on two forms of data: images collected from nine local Free Churches’ Instagram accounts and interviews with individuals in 24 local churches across Sweden who are responsible for managing their social media accounts. In combining these two sets of data, the study highlights both the narratives about the church constructed through visual representations and the intentional (or unintentional) processes guiding these churches’ visual social media practices. As such, it allows for a multifaceted understanding of how these religious institutions make use of images and videos on social media.

The Instagram data was collected over a three-month period (1 February–30 April 2024) from the main accounts of nine local Free Churches, with equal representation from the three denominations, Uniting Church in Sweden, the Pentecostal Alliance of Independent Churches, and the Evangelical Free Church. To ensure consistency within the dataset and enable a possible analysis of local characteristics, the study selected churches from three medium-sized Swedish cities: Umeå, Västerås, and Jönköping. The selection included one local congregation from each denomination in every city. As the study focuses on churches that have incorporated Instagram into their communication practices, an additional inclusion criterion concerns the level of Instagram activity. For this purpose, a church was considered active if it regularly published at least eight posts per month, a threshold that also guaranteed an adequate amount of material for analysis. The data set encompasses various content formats: single-image posts, multi-image carousels, videos (including Reels), and Stories. In total, the dataset contains 952 individual posts featuring 1533 images/videos, the difference resulting from carousel posts that include multiple images within a single entry. However, for analytical purposes, this study focuses specifically on photographic images featuring church events and activities, which were 555 images/videos. This means that visual elements such as stock photos, portraits, illustrations, logos, and emojis were excluded. While these elements contribute to the churches’ broader visual presence on Instagram, this study focuses on examining shared photography of church events and activities to explore how these visual representations construct narratives about these churches as religious communities. The analysis consisted of a visual content analysis (Rose 2016; Bouvier and Rasmussen 2022) of all 555 images and videos combined. Each image/video was treated as a unit of analysis and coded according to a codebook that had been developed and refined through iterative testing on a subset of the dataset. It focused, among other things, on the setting, the activity depicted, and material objects. It also included the people represented, noting their apparent age group, gender, and ethnicity.

The interview data consists of interviews with individuals responsible for managing social media accounts from 24 different local Free Churches, with equal representation from the three denominations. Among the 24 research participants, seven were volunteers, nine were pastors, and eight had social media responsibilities as part of their formal job descriptions. Of the participants, 10 were men and 14 were women, with ages ranging from 28 to 73. Their educational background and professional experiences varied widely, from formal training in communication to hands-on experience in media or photography. However, many individuals had acquired their social media knowledge and skills through self-directed learning rather than any formal training. Those with the most formal education were typically employed in designated communication roles. In contrast, pastors often lacked formal training in communication, technical skills, or creative disciplines. As for the volunteers, they typically had some hands-on experience related to media or self-identified as being “creative”. The interviews were fully transcribed, and the software NVivo 15 was used for coding. The coding process employed thematic analysis (Alvinius et al. 2023), with codes developed in alignment with the study’s research questions. The study has been reviewed and approved by the Swedish Ethical Board. The number is 2023-07413-01. The next section presents findings from the Instagram data analysis, followed by those from the interviews. These findings will then be brought together in the Section 9.

7. Visual Practices on Instagram

7.1. Church Events and Activities Featured

The visual content analysis of the 555 photos/videos combined revealed that they featured primarily three distinctive facets of church life. First, the Sunday service emerged as the dominant event through which these churches visually represented themselves, comprising around two-thirds of the photos/videos. The photos/videos predominantly featured worship scenes (capturing people leading worship or engaged in worship) and images of people speaking on stage (typically shown with a microphone and a lectern or behind a pulpit). Some churches added variety to these stage-based images by including scenes related to child ministry, such as people in playful costumes or children singing. Interestingly, representations of communion, child blessings, or baptism were few across these Instagram accounts, with the exception of one church. These religious rituals did not appear to be central to the visual depiction of the religious experience of going to a Sunday service. Accordingly, the photos/videos construct a narrative that positions the Sunday service as the church’s most significant event, and the core of this religious experience is congregational singing and listening to other people talking.

The second largest category of photos/videos portrayed community life within the church, comprising around 15% of the photographs. These images captured various social interactions, including people talking, laughing, mingling, drinking coffee, and eating together. Together, they highlighted the social dimension of church experience, presenting it as a warm and interconnected space where relationships and fellowship are fostered. Consequently, the church was depicted foremost as a community, centering on the people who gather, rather than a physical location. Indeed, there were almost no pictures showcasing the church buildings, leaving an unclear sense of the physical context where these gatherings of worship and community life took place.

The third largest category, comprising around 10% of the photos/videos, consisted of images from children’s or youth activities, though it should be noted that these images were primarily sourced from three congregations. Nevertheless, within these churches, the photographic representation gave the impression that children and youth are integral to church life. When taken together with the pictures from Sunday services that included scenes related to children, these churches positioned younger members not as peripheral, but as central to the church as an intergenerational space.

7.2. The People Represented

The analysis of the 555 photos/videos from these nine local churches broadly conveyed the church as a rather diverse community, an inclusive space that appears to span different stages of life and demonstrate gender balance. However, a closer examination reveals notable disparities in how different groups are represented, especially with respect to the positioning and visibility of elderly individuals, youth, and those who were coded as non-white.

While all age groups appear in the images and often together in community life photos, certain trends emerge regarding their participation in specific roles. Notably, elderly individuals are largely absent from on-stage settings, except when singing in choirs. They are mostly depicted sitting, talking, or listening. This predominantly passive representation does not reflect the critical role elderly members play in these churches: they not only constitute a substantial part of the congregations but also serve as needed volunteers in the day-to-day operations. Similarly, youth were underrepresented in on-stage settings. Most images portray them “having fun”, which created an impression that they were primarily present in church for entertainment.

Men and women (including boys and girls) appeared almost equally in the photos/videos and were often pictured together. However, a discrepancy emerged in images depicting individuals speaking on stage, where men were overrepresented. In contrast, when it comes to leading worship, men and women were equally represented. This gave the impression that women have a strong presence in the musical aspects of church life, but do not have the same level of access to spoken leadership roles.

Overall, the photos/videos collectively revealed a pronounced overrepresentation of white individuals. Approximately one-third of the photos/videos included individuals who would not be coded as white, but these individuals were most often a singular presence within a predominantly white group. Furthermore, these photos/videos originate almost exclusively from two specific congregations. From the perspective of these Instagram accounts, the rest of the churches appear as almost exclusively white communities. Even more striking is the severely limited stage representation of non-white individuals. Across the entire dataset, only five individuals of color could be found speaking from the stage, and these were all from a single congregation. This pronounced lack of representation raises critical questions about access to leadership opportunities and the inclusivity of different ethnic groups within these church communities.

8. Producing and Posting Visual Content

The article will now turn to the interviews with the individuals who had leading roles in managing social media accounts across the 24 local congregations included in the study. As outlined in the research design section, these individuals had different roles in the congregations; some were volunteers (7), others were pastors (9), and some held formal communication duties as part of their job descriptions (8). I will briefly touch upon how these individuals worked within the churches in producing and posting content for social media channels, and thereafter focus the analysis on questions related to the visual practices in the churches.

When examining the organizational structures for social media management across these congregations, no single pattern emerges; rather, it varies from one congregation to another. Some of the individuals interviewed worked largely independently, while others collaborated through informal networks of staff and ordinary members. Still others worked within formalized structures, such as communications groups or media councils, which consisted of a mix of employees and ordinary members. It was common that ordinary members were involved in the content creation process, not least in taking photos for the feed. Hence, even though most congregations had an employee (either a pastor, administrator, or communicator) who was responsible for social media, most of them partly relied on the engagement of ordinary members in their work. Some of the employed interviewees expressed that it was easy to find and engage members in the congregation, while others struggled to do the same. However, there was a larger general agreement that relying on ordinary members brought instability to social media work, as these volunteers’ available time could vary, or they might “resign” due to moving away, or shifting their focus to different activities.

However, while many expressed that they collaborated or were in contact with others to produce the content for social media channels, the posting process for the church’s main Instagram accounts was often tied to a few or even a single person. This built-in gatekeeping structure served several purposes, among them maintaining aesthetic uniformity across the feed, cultivating a cohesive public identity, and ensuring accountability for content. This was especially related to photos, which I will soon return to.

Notably, the interviews revealed that there were differences in practices among local churches as to posting photos/videos from church life and events on social media. This confirmed the pattern found in my previous study on the use of Instagram by local Free Churches (Kuhlin 2025). While some participants reported relying mostly on stock photos, others mainly shared images of individuals in staged or “on-stage” settings, whereas a few employed a more diverse range of visual content.

Most research participants expressed a positive attitude toward including photos/videos from church life and events in their social media feeds. They saw it as a way to offer a window into the life of the church; a possibility to showcase their community, activities, and ministry. They also noted that this type of visual content increased engagement with their posts, in terms of more likes and longer viewing times. At the same time, the research participants also highlighted the many challenges involved in working with photos/videos, which often meant that they did so for less than they would have wanted. I will now discuss the most common aspects that influenced the exclusion or inclusion of photos in these local churches’ social media feeds.

8.1. Practical Constraints

A common reason given for the limited use of photos/videos was lack of time. Managing social media accounts was described as a demanding task, and since most participants handled it either as a small part of their job description or as volunteers in their free time, it was difficult to dedicate the necessary effort. The full process—attending events and activities, taking quality photos or filming, securing permissions to post images/videos of other people, selecting and editing images/videos, and finally posting them—was simply too time-consuming for many. As Karin, who worked part-time as a church communicator, explained when asked about the main challenges of managing social media: “Well, the challenge is definitely that it takes so much time, I’d say, and that there’s quite little understanding of just how much time it actually takes.” Her comment points not only to the substantial time investment involved in maintaining an active social media presence but also to the lack of awareness within the church community of the extent of that work.

As a result, priority was often given to informational and invitational posts, or text-based content like Bible verses or prayer requests, usually together with generic stock photos. Focusing on photos from Sunday services, particularly of people on stage preaching or leading worship, was often described as the easiest way to work around the time constraints. These moments were predictable; someone was almost always present who could take photos, permission policies were clearer, and the best camera angles were already well known.

Nevertheless, some churches had developed strategies to navigate the time constraints, with the most common approaches being the use of volunteers to take photos/videos or maintaining an image bank. However, each of these strategies came with its own set of drawbacks. Using volunteers often resulted in photos that didn’t align with the church’s image policies, varied in quality, and required additional effort to verify permissions for public posting. Image banks, while to a certain extent helpful, quickly became outdated as people moved away, aged, or as church spaces changed. Also, one did not want to use the same photos repeatedly. Overall, most churches lacked a practical structure or plan for how to consistently and thoughtfully incorporate photos/videos that reflected the breadth of their activities into their social media channels.

8.2. GDPR

Another main issue when it came to posting photos/videos from church events and activities was the regulations around GDPR. Under Swedish law, religious communities must comply with GDPR, as well as exercise heightened care as they are processing sensitive personal data, namely, information that reveals individuals’ religious beliefs. While religious communities can process such data for legitimate internal activities under Article 9(2)(d) of GDPR without explicit consent, this exception is limited to data concerning members or former members and applies only when the data isn’t disclosed outside the organization (e.g., in internal newsletters or members-only platforms).5 However, publishing photographs on public social media platforms constitutes sharing data outside the community, which generally requires explicit consent from each individual depicted, as it discloses sensitive personal data beyond the religious community itself.

While all research participants demonstrated awareness of GDPR, many expressed uncertainties regarding the interpretation of these regulations, both when taking photos and publishing them on social media. However, in most churches, the following two basic principles were applied. First, they operated under an understanding that adults appearing “on stage” had implicitly consented to being photographed as they had chosen to be “public figures” in the congregation. One reasoned that people standing on stage, whether they were employees or ordinary members, knew that photos were taken and shared in social media channels (especially in the case when the services were also live-streamed). Second, they applied heightened protection for children and often youth, either by obtaining written parental consent for social media appearances or by excluding minors from such public channels entirely. A common workaround was also photographing congregants from behind to prevent identification, thereby publishing without first asking for consent. In some churches, notification systems had been implemented, such as posting signs or having photographers wear identification badges, informing attendees that photography was occurring and providing opportunities to opt out.

Practices regarding the use of close-up photographs varied among the churches. Several participants emphasized the importance of exercising caution when publishing identifiable images of individuals, particularly in light of GDPR regulations and growing concerns about privacy. As explained by Victor, a pastor in one of the churches:

Yes, of course it is. It’s something we’ve had to think about quite a lot in recent years, especially because of what we talked about earlier—GDPR and the sensitivity around publishing pictures of people without their consent—so we’re quite careful about that. But there are always these difficult boundaries to draw. We’re quite particular about checking with people first if we post close-up photos where they’re clearly identifiable. However, if it’s wide shots of large gatherings, then we don’t ask for permission. But, as I said, if it’s close-ups where you can clearly see people’s faces, then we always check with them first to make sure it’s okay.

(Victor, 9 September 2024)

Victor’s account captures the complicated balance many churches sought between visibility and ethical caution. Some churches consistently obtained permission before capturing images, while others sought consent only after selecting photos for publication. A few relied on informal community knowledge, noting that they knew which members of the congregation could be featured without explicit permission each time. For crowd photography featuring faces during events such as markets or concerts, explicit consent was generally not obtained, as it was considered impractical to ask everyone for permission. Some participants also noted that such public events often included attendees from various religious or non-religious backgrounds, meaning that appearing in a photo could not necessarily be taken as an indication of a specific faith affiliation.

In a few churches, decisions had been made to either cease publishing images from church events entirely or to avoid showing faces in order to maintain strict GDPR compliance. The dampening effect on creativity due to GDPR compliance was mentioned by several research participants. The persistent concern about potentially violating regulations or infringing on someone’s personal integrity created hesitation. As several participants noted, not everyone wishes to appear on social media or leave digital footprints. Additionally, many congregations included individuals with protected identities or converts who had not disclosed their religious transition to family members and friends, making these communities particularly conscious about who appeared in photographs.

8.3. Selective Visibility

During each interview, I presented participants with findings from the Instagram data analysis, highlighting certain elements, such as images of social ministry, and typical religious rituals (like communion, baptism, and funerals) were seldom displayed. I asked whether this reflected their congregation’s practices and invited their reflections. Most interviewees agreed that it did to a large extent and offered various explanations.

First, many research participants admitted that the focus on stage-centered content was not always a conscious decision but rather a result of established patterns. As mentioned above, the Sunday services offered a recurring pre-planned event that was easy to capture visually and symbolically representative of the church’s public life. Additionally, many churches operated multiple social media accounts, each tailored to different target groups (such as children, youths, young adults) or specific work, such as scouts or secondhand shops. This fragmentation sometimes created a situation where the main church account became primarily focused on information dissemination and event promotion. While specialized activities had their own dedicated channels, the central account defaulted to documenting the most visible and regular church gathering, the Sunday service.

When it came to social ministries, which formed an important and sometimes substantial part of these churches’ ministry, a common reason to explain the absence of such imagery was ethical concerns. Many highlighted the challenge of photographing these activities and events respectfully without exploiting or exposing individuals who were already in sensitive situations. At the same time, several expressed a wish to make this dimension of church life more visible. As Karin, an administrator and communicator in a local church, explained:

For me, church is not primarily about Sunday. It is important, but not the main thing. And we’ve talked a lot about this, because our congregation is very socially engaged, among other things we work with food ministry and distribution. The difficult part about that is that it’s hard to show, since it involves people in vulnerable situations. So sometimes we’ve staged photos. For example, when we made a film for a Christmas collection, we’ve had to act in it ourselves. That’s the way we’ve handled it, since we haven’t really wanted to “out” people. Also, I’ve found this difficult, the deacon and I have talked a lot about it, how it can easily come across as showing off, like, “look how caring we are towards those in need.” Social media is so much about showing off, and how can we show what we’re doing without coming across as bragging when we tell the story of our congregation?

(Karin, 24 October 2024)

Karin’s reflection illustrates the tension many churches face between the wish to communicate their social engagement and the ethical responsibility to protect those they serve. In addition, it reveals a broader ambivalence toward visibility on social media, where sharing charitable work can easily be perceived as self-congratulation. Several participants linked this hesitation to an attitude of humility in service, shaped by biblical teachings such as Matthew 6:3–4, which discourages displaying one’s good deeds publicly. Hence, this theological value of quiet service appeared to contribute to their reluctance to showcase social work on social media. Other reasons that also emerged during the interviews were that many churches were cautious about promoting their social work on social media because they already operated with limited resources in serving those in need. As such, they wanted to avoid attracting additional people that they might not have the capacity to support.

The seldom display of imagery of religious rituals like baptism, child blessings, communion, weddings, and funerals had different explanations. Weddings and funerals were generally considered private moments, despite being church-offered services. Several noted that, unlike the Church of Sweden, which builds its identity as a folk church offering rites of passage to the public, Free Churches view these ceremonies as primarily serving individual members rather than representing the church’s core activities. Regarding baptism and child blessings, rituals that typically occur during Sunday services, some pointed out that these were nevertheless perceived as “semi-private moments.” This made it especially important to take high-quality photos and secure explicit consent before posting on social media, making the process more challenging. The semi-private nature of these rituals also raised uncertainty about whether they should be seen as part of church life or more personal moments. As for communion, most churches had simply not considered featuring it on social media. Notably, the few churches that did share communion imagery seemed to do so intentionally, having identified communion as central to their congregational identity and purposefully integrating it into their public profile.

9. Discussion

In this study, the purpose has been to examine how local Free Churches in Sweden visually represent themselves on social media and understand what underlying logics and considerations social media managers make when selecting which photos/videos to post. Hence, it extends previous research by looking at concrete visual practices of local churches in the increasingly image-centric digital social media landscape. To get a more comprehensive understanding, I have used data from the platform Instagram, as well as interviewing social media managers in local churches. The theoretical departure point for the study has been mediatization theory in combination with Hall’s representation theory.

Before discussing these questions further, it is important to stress that it is commonplace that local Free Churches maintain a limited social media presence beyond Facebook. Furthermore, among those who use image-centric platforms like Instagram, there exists a subset of churches that deliberately choose not to post photos or videos depicting church events and activities. The findings discussed below are thus limited to churches that are actively engaged on image-centric platforms and share visual content from church life.

Discussions of mediatization theory have acknowledged that legal frameworks influence how media and religion interact, and that religious institutions should be viewed as active agents (Lövheim and Hjarvard 2019). However, much empirical research has continued to focus primarily on how religion is displayed and represented in media, overlooking the institutional and regulatory constraints under which religious organizations operate, constraints that, as this study demonstrates, strongly shape how religion appears in the media. There are, however, exceptions. An example is Stiernstedt’s (2021) study of the Free Churches and the emergence of Swedish community radio, which illustrates a complex understanding of how media, religion, and law intersect. Stiernstedt shows that media development, religious activism, and legal regulation were deeply intertwined in the creation of community radio, revealing that the Free Churches were not merely adapting to new media opportunities but actively shaping media policy and strategically using the legal and institutional frameworks that governed broadcasting. Also, Hall et al.’s (2024) study also foregrounds the active role of religious institutions in processes of mediatization. Their work extends mediatization research by conceptualizing the churches they study as media settlers, actors who actively inhabit, shape, and adapt to the digital media environments in which they operate. Their analysis demonstrates that mediatization is not a unidirectional process but rather involves continuous negotiation between religious agency, technological affordances, and broader cultural and institutional constraints.

Building on these more actor-centered perspectives, the findings of this study suggest that the visual practices of local Free Churches in Sweden are governed less by media logic than by practical and cautious logics shaped by ethical, institutional, and legal considerations. Their use of images and videos on social media reflects what I term bounded mediation, a mode of communication characterized by restraint and selectivity. This concept highlights how religious institutions mediate their presence within limits that recalibrate or resist dominant media-driven norms in digital environments. A similar approach to media use is observed in Gelfgren’s (2016) study of the Laestadian movement.

In doing so, the study challenges strands of mediatization theory that strongly emphasize the extent to which religious actors adapt to media norms. Instead, it supports a more actor-oriented and situated perspective, showing that social media practices are embedded in the day-to-day realities of church life, shaped as much by constraints and responsibilities as by opportunities for visibility and amplification. Recognizing this complexity enables a more nuanced understanding of how churches negotiate their public presence in an era of digital visibility.

However, what is more, the impact of this bounded mediation also shapes the visual narrative conveyed about the Free Church as a religious institution. The analysis revealed that the dominant portrayal is that of an intergenerational, predominantly white community centered around relationships, rather than a physical building, and for whom the Sunday service is the most important event of the week. The core of this event, as a form of a religious experience, being worshipping together and listening to people talking on stage.

This representation of the Free Church partly aligns with what researchers suggest defines these churches’ identity (Cedersjö 2001; Klintenberg 2015), while also creating some tension with that identity. In terms of alignment, these images/videos portray the church primarily as a communal body rather than emphasizing physical structures or sacred spaces. This visual representation reinforces the Free Church’s theological emphasis on the church as fundamentally constituted by its membership, rather than a building. Furthermore, the images/videos display a marked absence of hierarchical signifiers, with almost no visual distinction between ordained clergy and lay congregants. An exception is found in images from Equmenia churches, in which the pastors wear black clothing and deacons wear green clothing, respectively, along with a clerical collar. This general visual flattening reflects the Free Church tradition’s commitment to non-hierarchical community structure and the theological principle of the “priesthood of all believers.” However, the analysis also revealed a notable disparity in representation, namely, that women are depicted speaking from the stage less frequently than men, and non-white individuals are almost entirely absent from such representations. A finding that problematizes the extent to which these images represent the theological ideal of the priesthood of all believers. The large number of photos/videos depicting members worshipping in states of emotional engagement suggests a valorization of personal faith experience over ritualistic practice, which is in alignment with Free Church identity. These representations privilege expressions of subjective spiritual encounter rather than emphasizing sacramental elements such as communion.

Nevertheless, these visual representations also introduce a tension within the Free Church’s identity. As described, to be a believer within this tradition is understood as a way of life, emphasizing the expression of faith through everyday actions and community engagement (Cedersjö 2001; Klintenberg 2015). However, the photos/videos shared by the churches on Instagram tend to frame being Christian primarily as a matter of Sunday attendance and mingling with other members, reducing the breadth of Free Church practice to a single weekly event. This portrayal contrasts with these churches’ broader activities, which, as demonstrated in one of my previous studies (Kuhlin 2025), include a diverse range of events and activities for all age groups and regular involvement in social and community work. This disjunction between what these churches actually do and the visual representation suggests that a simplified narrative about the Free Churches is constructed on the platform, and one that stands in tension with the theological ideals that define these churches.

It is also noteworthy that the visual representation of Sunday services often more closely resembles a concert or TED-style public talk than a traditional religious gathering. This is largely due to the frequent absence of recognizable religious symbols and ritual elements, such as crosses, altars, clerical collars, or liturgical objects, that typically signify Christian sacred space. As a result, these representations do not communicate a sense of Christian distinctiveness or, for that matter, countercultural identity (Klintenberg 2015), but rather align visually with mainstream, secular cultural forms. In the Swedish context, characterized by widespread secularization, it is likely that this aesthetic fails to signal a religious setting. This raises questions about how individuals unfamiliar with Free Church expressions interpret these photos/videos: would they even recognize these events as religious, or understand that they are taking place within a church setting?

10. Conclusions

This study has examined the visual social media practices of local Free Churches in Sweden, with particular attention to their visual self-representation and the underlying logics shaping these public visual narratives. It contributes to existing research by focusing on minority churches in the Nordic region and their local-level use of social media, which has received limited scholarly attention. In addition, by focusing on the visual practices of these religious institutions, the study makes an important contribution to understanding contemporary religious communication and public self-representation after the visual turn within social media. The study demonstrates that the churches’ visual practices are often shaped by practical constraints and legal–ethical cautiousness, rather than by media logic and norms. In their work, social media managers prioritize manageable routines and privacy concerns. Hence, rather than evidencing a mode of communication strongly influenced by “the agency of media” (Lövheim and Hjarvard 2019, p. 209), these visual practices reflect what I term bounded mediation. Furthermore, the study suggests that this bounded mediation results in a simplified visual narrative that partially omits to communicate the theological identity of these churches. The visual emphasis on Sunday services and communal life risks overlooking other significant aspects of these churches’ identity and work, such as their commitment to faith as a way of life and their active social engagements. As a result, the distinctiveness of Free Church identity is partly invisible in their social media representation.