Listen to this article (13:27 min)

Ethical Apologetics Column

This article was published exclusively online in the Christian Research Journal, Volume 49, number 01 (2026).

When you support the Journal, you join the team and help provide the resources at equip.org that minister to people worldwide. These resources include our ever-growing database of more than 2,500 articles and Bible Answers, as well as our free Postmodern Realities podcast.

Another way you can support our online articles is by leaving us a tip. A tip is just a small amount, like $3, $5, or $10, which is the cost of a latte, lunch out, or coffee drink. To leave a tip, click here.

A pastor recently asked me my opinion on a Christian public speaker. He expressed reservations about the way the speaker in question tends toward being provocative and, in his opinion, ungracious. I told him that under normal circumstances I avoid talking about other speakers, but this individual had come up in conversations several times lately. Rather than run the person in question down, I suggested we look at some general cultural considerations which can encourage people to experiment with questionable communication strategies. In more straightforward language, the way the internet works may encourage people in ministry to act like jerks.

Ideal Interests Versus Algorithmic Interests. First, we need to distinguish between two different concepts of interests. A person may have subject matters that interest them in the ideal sense. God, justice, fairness, equality, opportunity, and so forth all could be subjects of interests, as could things like military history, college football, and book clubs. These kinds of interests are presumably healthy and often idealized. Ask a person what they are interested in, and they will think of what the best version of themselves considers their interests, the ideal them.

Our computers, phones, and internet devices determine our interests in a different way. These de facto interests aren’t what the ideal version of ourselves would pursue, but the things which catch our attention in the flood of internet content pouring into our lives. Social media algorithms prioritize impressions and interactions over quality of content. The sensitivity of the algorithms registers more than a user’s likes and shares. If we pause on a reel or video while scrolling, it is noted. If we look in the comment threads, it is noted. My own social media feed contains predictable prompts in science, history, geography, and faith because I intentionally follow accounts in these areas. It also contains less obvious prompts like the cleaning and trimming of horse hooves and making weapons out of scrap metal, things I never demonstrated a conscious interest in but apparently lingered on a post long enough when scrolling that the algorithm took note and fed me similar content. And here’s the thing, it is right. I will stop scrolling and watch rusted spring metal forged into a Damascus steel dagger. That determination was made in a moment, or repeated moments, where I was shown something unfamiliar to me within a flood of content and responded with measurable interest, enough to distinguish in seconds how I react to spring metal and knives versus clips from reality shows, which one of my kids gets but I never see. This means Christian content creators, just like all content creators, need to capture the attention of doomscrollers¹ immediately if they want to build an online platform. Content must stand out from the flood of reels, YouTube videos, and TikTok material published in a social media industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Confrontation Effect. What is the best strategy for engagement? It appears to be making people angry. A 2024 paper argues that, although the traditional belief is people seek out material online consistent with their own views (confirmation bias or congeniality bias), engagement may be more often driven by seeing someone who disagrees with the viewer’s most deeply held beliefs about the world.² In short, we scroll past things that affirm our beliefs, though we may linger to watch, but we stop and comment when someone says something that triggers our desire to alert the world how stupid they are. They call this the confrontation effect.

Pay attention to how often reels engaging an idea begin with someone who represents the opposing view of the account posting the content acting like a crazy person, making the most extreme claims. Man-on-the-street interviews and TikTok’s often start with a brief insert of the most intense moment of the conversation before returning to the more unassuming beginning of the dialogue. After the sensational start, the reels and TikToks proceed to show more measured discussions of the issues at hand. The first moment triggers the confrontation effect, the emotion which drives engagement with content. A brief review of the comment sections with these posts demonstrates how often responses rage against the person with whom they disagree, often something which only represented a small fraction of the total reel, rather than affirm the position of the content creator with whom they presumably agree. Engagement is driven by the desire to confront enemies.

I don’t wish to imply that all accounts using these tactics intentionally try to rage bait or drive conflict. The path to this type of content can be entirely outcome driven. A good content creator focuses on producing multiple posts a day. They measure the interactions they get from each post and notice that one outperforms the others. They emulate the formula for another post and it does similarly well. Rather than continue to produce posts which underperform, they earnestly believe they can best serve their mission by focusing their energy and resources on posts that reach a larger audience. They even make certain the post, taken as a whole, has important information for the viewer. With the best of intentions, a well-meaning Christian seeking to serve a noble mission is suddenly creating content which feeds the anger of their audience and further escalates the desire for confrontation. Unfortunately, not everyone involved in this escalation is operating with the best intentions.

Conflict Entrepreneurs. The furious critical responses that political and moral confrontation invites, both from the opposition and those supposedly on the same side, encourage a certain type of personality to engage. Most reasonable people choose not to suffer the slings and arrows accompanying public political dissent. The personal attacks can be intense. Former U.S. Senator from Nebraska and President of University of Florida Ben Sasse argued in his book Them: Why We Hate Each Other and How to Heal that this explains why a conservative campus group, for example, engaging in a toxic campus environment turns to public provocateurs.³ People desire a street fighter who speaks clearly and without any appearance of compromise. Reasonable speakers seeking to fairly represent their opposition can be punished for sounding like the other side. Nuance or thoughtfulness which entertains the idea there is common ground cannot be tolerated. The us vs. them dynamic creates polarized camps locked in a perceived zero-sum game.

Author Amanda Ripley coined the term conflict entrepreneur in her 2021 book High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out. She defines a conflict entrepreneur as someone who exploits high-conflict, emotion-driven, win-at-all-costs engagement for their own gain by fueling fear and division. She writes, “They can be loving, persuasive, and charismatic….They become central to a group’s identity, and without them, it’s harder to feel like there’s an us”⁴ (emphasis in original). I suggest it is far easier than we may like to believe for well-meaning people to dabble in this practice, even convincing themselves the escalation of conflict serves some greater purpose. Deitrich Bonhoeffer warned of the capacity for self-deception when we don’t take the commandments of God at face value and convince ourselves that His intent in the commandments can be served by breaking them.⁵ Is spite of clear commands to seek peace and not to sow division, people driven to grow their platform and increase their online influence, all for the Kingdom of God, of course, seek to exacerbate negative emotions for engagement.

Some people do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Some people see the lay of the land and know how to profit from sowing division and inflaming anger. As Sasse wrote, “We cannot ignore the plain fact that there are also bad actors preparing to exploit, and already intentionally exploiting, these trends for their own gain”⁶ (emphasis in original).

Finding Foils. The final piece in the puzzle is conflict requires a foil, a bad guy to act as contrast against our hero. If none arises naturally for the day, because content must be produced at breakneck speed to keep up with the demands of the audience, then one will have to be found. The activist remains in action. David Letterman hosted the 1995 Academy Awards ceremony, and as he introduced celebrity activists Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins he added, “Pay attention — I’m sure they’re p***ed off about something.”⁷ Outrage sells, outrage works, so finding things to express outrage about can become a goal.

Many years ago, I posted a daily blog. As the audience grew, I felt the pressure to provide more content. One day, I realized I had spent an entire week waking up each morning and scouring the internet for something to react to. No one had asked any questions requiring answers. The stories I sought didn’t naturally come across my feed because their content generated unusual interest from the public. No, I sought out anything, even obscure unnoticed things that had no discernible impact on the world and drew them out to have a foil for the day, something to react to for the audience. I imagine other content creators had similar experiences. From that point on I committed to writing for nobler reasons. It is one thing to notice something dangerous receiving unusual attention and responding to inform the audience. It is another to seek outrage wherever it may be, to call it out of obscurity into the light in order to subject it to my witty response and elevate my platform.

Even worse, people turn their vitriol on their brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not publicly bicker with other pro-life individuals or other Christians. I have in the past, and I regret it. They may not be heroes, but they are rarely the enemy. When our greater efforts confronting the principalities and powers of this present darkness frustrate us, there can be a temptation to look to our allies and cobelligerents and blame them for the frustrations. It is easy to console ourselves that if only other Christians fought in the true spirit, as we presumably do, we would not struggle to make gains. Corruption and error within the church must be confronted, but sowing division beyond necessity is a grave offense. Our public correction serves the truth not ourselves. We must resist the urge to raise our platform by attacking the foundations of the platforms of others.

Jesus Flipped Tables. It is often argued in response that Jesus and John the Baptist called the Pharisees names, and Jesus ran the money changers out of the temple with a whip while turning over their tables. The argument suggests times may arise when similar responses are appropriate from us. The online aggression is righteous anger, justified by the immorality and ungodly behavior of the world. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal. David mocked Goliath. Sometimes, we just have to throw some tables around.

There are situations where the difference between good and evil is so clear and the enemy so insidious that righteous anger is the appropriate response. But consider other clear and unqualified commands and statements.

James 1:19–20. “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”
2 Timothy 2:22–25. “So flee youthful passions and pursue, faith, love, and peace, along with those call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.”
Romans 12:17–18. “Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.”⁸

These are just three examples. There are warnings in Proverbs about sowing discord, being quick to anger, and stirring up strife.⁹ It may be possible that in rare occasions we are permitted to operate in righteous anger, but repeated entreaties to be slow to anger and operate in peace appear to establish a baseline behavior incompatible with social media strategies which feed off stoking emotional responses to build an audience. It is also worth noting that Jesus operated with a confidence of His own righteousness and knowledge of the spiritual state of others I absolutely lack. My Lord and Savior is justified in flipping some tables and tossing some insults, but I probably better stick to living at peace with all men if I can.

This is a warning to us all. As I once heard author Matthew Anderson say in a panel on this subject, it just may be that the attributes which make us successful online and the attributes which contribute to us being the human being God desires us to be are at odds with one another. If the online world is largely motivated by anger, I need to be careful how I contribute to that. Rather than think so highly of myself, I ought to intentionally safeguard against engaging out of anger and riling up the emotions of others. Virtue matters more than platform.

The pastor and I talked about all of that regarding this other speaker. In the end, the most charitable understanding I could come to in our discussion was this. The world rewards and applauds flamethrowers. Yet, however satisfying one is, the flamethrower is far too imprecise a weapon in most tactical situations.

Jay Watts is the founder and president of Merely Human Ministries, Inc., an organization committed to equipping Christians and pro-life advocates to defend the intrinsic dignity of all human life.

NOTES

For more on doomscrolling, see Lisa Cooper, “A Christian Response to Scrolling and Doomscrolling,” Christian Research Journal, January 3, 2024, https://www.equip.org/articles/a-christian-response-to-scrolling-and-doomscrolling/.
Daniel Mochon and Janet Schwartz, “The Confrontation Effect: When Users Engage More with Ideology-Inconsistent Content Online,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 185, November 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104366.
Ben Sasse, Them: Why We Hate Each Other — And How to Heal (St. Martin’s Press, 2018) 155–56.
Amanda Ripley, High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out (Simon & Schuster, 2021), 114–15.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (Touchstone, 2018, originally published 1937), 80–81.
Sasse, Them, 246.
Claire Suddath, “Top 10 Worst Awards-Show Hosts: David Letterman, 1994 Oscars,” Time, March 1, 2011, https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2055924_2055923_2055945,00.html.
All Bible quotations are from the ESV.
See Proverbs 6:16–19, 14:29, 15:18, 16:32.