The article analyzes the potential of the scientific ideas of the representatives of the Toronto School of Communication Theory for the study of modern religious discourse, the feature of which is the mass character and use of technical means. The work of the school in the second half of the twentieth century, the ideas of its representatives Harold A. Innis, Eric A. Havelock, Dorothy D. Lee, Edmund S. Carpenter, who studied various aspects of communication tools were considered. Particular attention is paid to the philosopher and literary critic Herbert Marshall McLuhan. The main blocks in the scientist's portfolio are allocated, which can be effectively applied for the study of mass religious communication: the change of forms of communication determines the main characteristics of social interaction; mass media are actively influencing the creation of modern culture; the development of electronic media of mass communication leads to a change in society and modern man. A new plane for the analysis of religious mass media is the idea of dominating the means of communication over its content. Radio and television create and shape up-to-date religious communication, which is fundamentally different from the classical forms of religious communication. In general, the author concludes that the ideas of the Toronto School are undeniably relevant in the study of contemporary religious communication. Particularly important is the position on the totality of mass media in relation to the diverse phenomena of modern culture. The idea of domination of the medium of communication over its content is ambiguous, since religious discourse implies the concepts of canonical and sacred text. The conclusion is drawn about the influence of electronic mass media on the construction of social reality, the change in the ways in which information is transmitted in religion, and the modification of religion itself.
Emelin, V. А. Television: style and image of postmodern. Postmodern. Site about the culture and philosophy of the postmodern. [Retrieved from http://postmodern.in.ua/?p=1200. [Іn Russian].
Zemlyanova, L. M. (1999). Foreign communicationism on the threshold of the information society: Explanatory glossary of terms and concepts. Mos-cow: University Press. [Іn Russian].
McLuhan, M. (2015). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. A. Galushka, &V. I. Postnikova (Transl). Kyiv: Nika-Center. [Іn Ukrainian].
McLuhan, G. M. (2003). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. V. Nikolaev (Trans.). Moscow: CANON-press-C, Kuchkovo Pole. [Іn Russian].
Mischenko, N. D. (1999). Mass culture as a subject of philosophical analy-sis. Dissertation Abstracts International. Retrieved from http://library.nuft.edu.ua/ebook/file/mischenko%20Nd.pdf. [Іn Ukrainian].
Pocheptsov, G. Classical media theory: Havelock, Carpenter and the To-ronto school of communication as a whole. Media Sapiens. Retrieved from https://ms.detector.media/media_ law/government/ klassiches-kie_mediateorii_khevlok_karpenter_i_torontskaya_shkola_ kommu-nikatsii_v_tselom. [Іn Russian].
Havelock, E. A. (1986). The Muse Learns to Write. Reflections on orality and literacy from antiquity to the present. New Haven.
Innis, H. A. (1950). Empire and Communications. Oxford: At the Claren-don press. Retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.ca/ ebooks/innis-empire/innis-empire-00-h.html
Innis, H. (1953). The Bias of Communication. Toronto: University of To-ronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1970). Culture of Our Business. N. Y., Toronto.
McLuhan, M. (1967). The medium is the message. A bantam book. N. Y. – Toronto – London.
Riesman, D. (1964). La foule solitaire. Paris.
Smith, D. (1992). Creating understanding. A handbook for Christian communication acrosscultural landscapes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publ.
The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thinkers. (1983). London.