JesusHacks

Practical Lessons for Intentionally Living Like Jesus

Main navigation

Stop Making Christian Debate Articles Go Viral

by ·

Years ago, I was consumed by the idea of making my articles centered on controversial Christian questions go viral. I thought this was how I was going to save the world—by creating conversation for non-Christians to have.

But soon after I started on this path, I discovered I wasn’t making a difference.

People were more interested in my opinion on the matter rather than who the discussion was pointing to. People gathered around my articles, but it was only because I stirred the pot—not because they were interested in the depth of what I was talking about.

The people who flocked to my controversial articles had one thing in common—they believed coming to a consensus about an issue was equal to solving it.

As Andy Crouch in his book, Culture Making, noted,

“The academic fallacy is that once you have understood something—analyzed and critiqued it—you have changed it.”

The same applies for how we approach hot-button Christian issues. We err when we believe we’re making a difference by simply stirring the pot about an issue. We instead make a difference when we choose to move past the paralysis of simply thinking and discussing an issue, to actually taking action about it.

So then, what are we actually doing when we make controversial Christian articles go viral if we’re not solving the issue? Are we simply sharing them because we are roused by the discussion, or because we believe we’re taking action about it?

What I’ve learned is, sometimes it’s best to not touch controversial Christian articles. Why? Because sometimes, it could do more harm than good.

Before you hit share on that next controversial Christian article, consider these questions to assess whether sharing the article will make a positive impact:

1. How would non-believers view our arguing over this point?

Imagine if you’re a non-believer and you see tons of Christians piling up on the comments of a controversial Christian article someone shared. How would you react? Would you see people battling on a point as something you want to jump into? Probably not. In fact, if you do get involved, it would probably be to watch people get heated up, not because you wanted to know the answer.

By making these types of articles go viral, we are stating that our faith is largely about opinion and arguing debatable points. We would be putting forth the false picture that the Church is more fragmentary than it is unified on the truth of Christ.

Before you share that viral article, think: is this representative of what Christianity is? Would this benefit my non-Christian friends? More times than not, you would find it doesn’t.

Let’s stop making Christianity a spectacle for non-believers to critique. 

2. Do I believe this issue could be solved with a blog post?

Most controversial Christian issues are intricate. We can’t solve the Christian stance on gay marriage or gun violence with a single blog post. Yet, we still put out these types of articles.

When we keep putting out articles about issues that can’t be solved via articles, all we are doing is perpetuating the chatter about the topic. We’re not actually solving it.

Instead of continuing the noise, we need to reverse engineer the discussion. Rather than sharing articles about issues that can’t be solved via articles, we need to be sharing articles reflecting the goodness of God, the things we know are true and life-changing. We need to tip the scale toward the positive elements of our faith, not the negative, unsolvable ones.

Let’s work to change those percentages. 

3. Am I causing people to adopt a posture of critique, or a posture of change?

Typically when we talk about all the controversial matters of the faith, we turn people into critics instead of changers. We tell people to focus on their opinions, and in turn, they announce their opinions in the comments section. We don’t actually promote people to do something actionable about the problem.

So is it worth sharing then? Does Christianity need more critics, people who think they know better?

4. What does sharing this article say about me?

We are people who love seeing a good spectacle unfold. Sometimes, we share viral controversial articles because we want to see what people think, not because we believe it’s utterly important to solve an issue. But this shows we are more concerned about the spectacle of the matter than we are about the truth of Jesus Christ.

Ask yourself this question to assess what’s your heart in sharing a viral article. If it’s to rile people up, that’s not a good enough motive to spark something.

5. Do I really believe people need to talk even more about this issue?

Reality check: you are not the first one to ask these controversial Christian questions or create a space in which people can discuss these things. These issues are being debated all over the Internet. If anything, we need to be talking about these issues less.

It’s time we create a space for the articles that do make a difference, not the ones that just circle around unsolvable debates. Tons of spaces on the Internet are doing that already. Let’s do something different for a change.

In John 4, when the Samaritan woman brought up a controversial matter, I love how Jesus deflected and reoriented the discussion back on Himself. We should be doing the same. Instead of circling around what can’t be solved with our sharing or commenting, let’s work to transform the conversation into something life-giving.

It’s time we cancel out the noise instead of add to it.

Photography by Maliha Manna

If you liked this article, check out:

5 Ways to Avoid the Gluttony of Facebook

Overcoming Negative Christian Stigmas (without Proving Them Right)

20 Times We Don’t Live like Jesus

 

  • Pingback: 8 Things Christians Need to Do More on Social Media | JesusHacks()

  • Jesus, Truly

    As long as what you are sharing is presenting a true biblical perspective, I see no issue in this. Whether the issue is gay marriage or gun control (the examples used in the article), if you are giving Jesus’ authoritative word on the matter, you are actually sharing light to a darkened world, whether people agree with it or not. As Christians, if we are committed to the great commission, then we can’t be worried about someone not agreeing with or liking our posts, or with what the world will think about us for boldly sharing our biblically-informed positions on the issues of our day. I agree it would be more effective to simply share Jesus with people, but bringing the perspective of God’s Word on issues can’t hurt either.

    The problems come when we are more focused on the issue than on Jesus. When we are so consumed with ending gay marriage that it becomes an idol and we lose sight of Jesus and His command to love others. It is at this point, where instead of glorifying God and His message, we bash those who disagree, that we run into the problem. Another issue mentioned in the piece, is when fellow believers are debating issues and it shows a lack of unity in Christ. I agree this is very bad form and not something to be desired for Christianity. But, the root of that problem is not that people are discussing controversial topics, but instead that some believers either lack an understanding of Scripture or lack the faith to submit to its authority and are presenting their own opinions, veiled in their professed Christianity.

    One question I am wrestling with is why do you want to avoid these issues? Is it to avoid offending non-believers? And/or to avoid bringing to light among believers their own lack of faith in the authority of Scripture?

    In Christ.

    • Thanks for the comment! I agree with you on the issue becoming an idol. As for discussing, I don’t believe discussing the issue is wrong. I just think there’s a better way to do it than the public of social media. We’re representing Christianity wrongly, sealing ourselves behind our worldview, when we share these articles to the public on social media. We’re only critiquing culture, not creating it. Discussion can lead to action, but it must be done in smarter ways than creating threads on social media. There must be a way to focus people on Christ first and foremost, not on arguing opinions.
      Once again, I appreciate your insight!

  • Kat

    Excellently put. I’d come to that conclusion this evening, and even went so far as to issue an apology (not for point of view) but for essentially beating a dead horse. This confirms that I’m doing the right thing. I wasn’t generating conversation nor solving it. I was only losing my own peace over it and that made me realize that I’d gotten my eyes away from where they belong. On Him.

  • Gellie

    Proof of the existence of God should go viral:
    There are two things in the universe: energy; and, information, which is the conformation of energy. This conformation, differentiation, of energy is in closed circuitry, that there be something to move out of the way and fill in behind, in the absolute density of the one substance, energy. Differentiation causes consciousness, so that, in turn, the matrix of energy is thereby differentiated and therefore energy is conscious, and better known as God.
    “For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to Whom be glory for ever Amen” – Romans 11:36. God was called “Him” perhaps due to the ancient Israelite assignment of authority to males, or, the fact that energy is seen as active. Such “positive” attributes were attributed to males due to the fact that such was the male viewpoint. Like polarities repel and cause “positive” (like the confrontation of solid “posited” objects) effects.
    In actuality, counterclockwise circuits are male, and clockwise circuits are female. These are the real polarities. Even the tiniest subatomic particles are made of closed circuits. The magnetic fluxes of the iron in the cytochromes of all male cells are counterclockwise, and in females, clockwise. Some of us can see the repulsion of like polarities as bright white light, from repelling the magnetic fluxes in the cytochromes of the cells of the optic nerves.
    Opposite polarities, circuits confluent to ours, are seen as peaceful darkness (“the thick darkness where God is”) in which we can experience moments of the satisfaction of all desires, known in the East as “nirvana’. Everything is running down, or stressed up by that which is running down; all pushing into ultimate confluency and peace.
    The consciousness of energy is infinite and eternal. If we were energy we would never sleep. We are only information, each a closed circuit, alpha code information. Energy creating eternally is a consequence of theophysiology. The infinitessimal point nothingness, . , is rastered by time into timespace, U, which being one, exerts its oneness in one direction, /, which stirs closed circuitry, O, which all going the same way, vO^XvO^, repels, X, forcing confluency, =, which allows undfferentiation, and it starts all over again.
    Critics have criticized that the exertion of the oneness is equal on both sides. The answer to that is that as this manifestation happens the value of pi is going from zero to higher values, thereby leaving one side of each circuit more pressured than the other, thus, the circuit circulates. Also, the friction of the circuitry is from the Planck’s volumes that compose everything. Nothing can be smaller than Planck’s volume. Without this friction there would be no consciousness.
    But, by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the exact same circuits never differentiate again. The smallest thing is Planck’s volume. The same Planck’s volumes never reassemble again into the same closed circuit, but each proceeds out toward infinity, by circuits through circuits of the infinite continuum.
    There is a psudo-scientist trying to prove a proposed law of the conservation of information to enforce Plato’s belief in “immortality of the soul”, but, fortunately, he has failed miserably. Those who have a wish for immortality actually seek to have continued satisfactions, but, all satisfactions are only moments of more undifferentiation. Pains are times of acute differentiation. All reliefs, pleasures, are moments of more undifferentiation of the closed circuit we call “I”.
    But, so many people cried for immortality that God incarnated as Jesus Christ to give directions on how to become immortal. But, actions bring reactions that return with equal worth. That which we cause is on the way back by the ultimate closed circuitry; which is called “karma” in the East.
    Fire world? The fifth dimension has been defined as that direction through variously bent timespaces. In the direction of timespaces with pi values less than 3.14159265…, globally bent timespace, there are faster and faster polarity cancellation rates. Fire is a very fast polarity cancellation rate. But there, undifferentiation with the opposite polarity is much more probable, undifferentiation back into nonexistence, “nirvana”. In the East, this world has been called “dharmaloka”, where “nirvana” is most easily attainable,
    We know that that with a fast velocity has a field of globally bent timespace around it. In mechanics, power is force times velocity; in electricity power is voltage times current, and, in thermodynamics power is temperature times entropy production rate. The entropy of the universe is the proportion of photons to nucleons, therefore, entropy is an extent of polarity cancellation, therefore, entropy production rate is polarity cancellation rate. The Philadelphia Experiment, which was actually accomplished, showed that there was no gravitational component with the electrical analogue.
    There is no gravitational component with the thermodynamic analogue, which is so easy that any free person can do it. Gravity itself bends timespace globally. Timespaces with pi values higher than 3.14159265… are miserable, and called “saddle” timespace due to its geometry being parabolichyperboloidal. As unbearable as it is, “saddle” timespace is not the place originally called “Hell”. Fire is impossible there. And, it has been called “bound astral light”; whereas, globally bent timespace is called “quickened astral light”.
    Now we know where it’s at; and can figure the reasons for all the lies to keep power and wealth in the hands of the authors of intimidating lies. Also, for every possibility there is a probability timeline sideways in time, which could be called the “sixth dimension”. If more that fifty percent of your brain believes anything possible, that strong thought will draw you to the probability timeline where it is reality.
    And, that which wakes up the brain makes your mind more powerful to draw you to the probability timelines where your thoughts are reality. With between thirty and forty percent brain use everything you write will become your reality. And, between forty and fifty percent brain use everything you say will become your reality.” If you have the faith of a mustard seed and say to this mountain move, it will be moved”. You go to the probability timeline where the mountain is elsewhere.