A wicked problem revisited – our witness in a season of violence and outrage

Several months ago, I wrestled with the question of whether churches should even be on social media. I called it a “wicked problem”—one complex, resistant to simple solutions, and likely to generate new problems even as we try to solve it.

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the deluge of online responses that followed, I was reminded of this topic, being struck not only by the tragedy of a life lost, but by how quickly the moment was consumed by partisanship. Within hours, grief and earnest concern had been drowned out by outrage, memes, and thinly veiled attempts to control the narrative for political gain.

Public voices, influencers, and so many others (including United Methodist pastors and lay folks in my timeline) felt compelled to offer their hot takes and beliefs about the shooter’s motives based on nothing more than internet speculation. While an investigation is ongoing, many of these early ‘theories,’ often presented as facts, have already been contradicted.

This is how social media ‘works’

Social media’s algorithms are set to reward quick, reactive engagement. Outrage is a powerful accelerant, and these platforms are engineered to amplify the most extreme voices because we respond to them. These characteristics of social media are antithetical to what is needed after an event like this. What could be a moment for collective lament and sober reflection instead becomes another battlefield with tribal loyalties taking center stage, leaving compassion and curiosity additional casualties of the timeline.

This isn’t new, of course. But when the assassination of a public figure becomes a trigger for division rather than an occasion for solidarity or contemplation, it exposes just how fragile and shallow our digital connections can be.

For those who are always online, reality itself can become clouded by the intense perspectives encountered on our virtual timelines. While many have raised serious concerns about social media’s impact on young people, adults are far from immune to the negative impacts of these platforms. In fact, multiple studies have shown that older adults are more likely to fall for and share false information than younger adults.

A theological concern

For Christians, the question is not just about civility and truth, but also about discipleship. Scripture calls us to mourn with those who mourn (Romans 12:15), to love even our enemies (Matthew 5:44), and to speak truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

Our Christian witness stands in tension with a digital culture that prizes the fastest take, the harshest clapback, or the snarkiest put-down. As disciples, we should question whether our online habits reflect our faith or the culture of the crowd?

Utah Governor Spencer Cox offered the following thoughts at a press briefing about Kirk’s death last Friday.

“Social media is a cancer on our society right now.” He continued, saying, “I would encourage people to log off, turn off, touch grass, hug a family member, go out and do good in your community.”

While Cox’s comments were shaped in part by his belief that the internet radicalized the killer, I wonder if the same might be true of the ongoing collective response that Kirk’s death has engendered. Are we allowing our social media use to distort our witness? Is it getting in the way of our call to discipleship, or do we imagine that Jesus would be clapping back at those we imagine as our enemies with the same fervor?

Setting the most recent situation aside, United Methodists might pause to consider the impact of social media on our denomination’s years of conflict over human sexuality. Even if one believes that some form of separation was inevitable, could it have been more amicable without the near-constant online hostility? Did our public fighting impress upon non-Methodists a sense that we had something different to offer the world, or could they be forgiven assuming we offer more of the same?

A different kind of digital witness

The church’s presence online does not need to mirror the outrage economy that drives much of the world today. Instead, if we choose to engage online, we should ask what we can offer that is different, even if that ‘different’ isn’t likely to trend on socials.

If you choose to engage online after or during moments of crisis, consider the following to offer a slower, deeper response:

• Pausing before posting. Ask yourself, “Do I really have something to say or am I just reacting?”
• Consider offering words of prayer or lament rather than instant commentary.
• If you are not an expert or directly involved, is there a different, trusted and responsible voice to share instead? In other words, speak to what you know and avoid unhelpful speculation.
• Audit your social media use: Does it invite community and compassion, or are you posting to win arguments for your “team?”

Remember, silence can sometimes be a faithful response, especially when it creates space for prayer and discernment rather than more noise. Still, faithful engagement is possible. Consider this Facebook post by Rev. Jenny Smith, who serves the Open Door Churches of Salem-Keizer in Oregon.

Embodied alternatives

One of the church’s gifts to the world is its capacity for embodied community. When social media creates division, we can gather in sanctuaries, around tables, or in circles of prayer. We can light candles, sit with one another in silence, talk with each other in respectful ways, and name aloud both our grief and hope. Even online, we can bring principles of love and respect to the places we inhabit. These practices do not trend, but they can be healing.

People and communities of faith do not need to engage with social media on its own terms. We can offer something social media platforms often cannot: depth, presence, and a witness to God’s reconciling love.

Social media is not going away, but neither is the church’s call to be salt and light in a fractured world. Our challenge is discerning how to engage faithfully in both physical and digital spaces.

When tragedy strikes, we have a choice. We can add to the outrage, or we can embody a different way. The world is watching. Our neighbors are listening. May God empower and inspire us to be what the world needs in these divided times.

Post Script

As I was finishing publication, news broke that ABC was pulling Jimmy Kimmel Live from its lineup due to comments made by the host about Kirk and the situation that had emerged after his death. I don’t know all of the details regarding this situation, but I find the push from some to suppress protected free speech, through lawsuits and other coercive measures, deeply concerning.

I want to be extraordinarily clear that I am not advocating for silence from the Church or the suppression of free speech. As a political matter, I am a supporter of free speech, and believe there are absolutely occasions where the Church ought to speak out, even if it may make others uncomfortable. I’m unsure where the sentiment originates, but I’ve heard it said that one can feel confident that speech is protected when they can speak their beliefs unhindered and encounter the same from another with whom they disagree.

Still, having the right to do something ought to be distinct from whether someone, as a moral matter, does something. I submit that, as Christians, we have a mandate to be more responsible with our words than our civic freedoms allow. As Jesus taught, we must be “wise as a serpent, and gentle as a dove.” Simply put, comedians and politicians are not our measure.

In a free society, we have long agreed that some limits to free speech are reasonable. For example, yelling “fire” in a crowded space is not protected. Still, as a country, we need to be very careful not to allow the parameters of free speech to be defined or limited by a narrow, or overly political, set of viewpoints.

---

Patrick Scriven serves as director of communications for the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church.