A possible solution to our social media woes.

Photo by Sara Kurfeß on Unsplash

By now you have probably heard of or maybe even read Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes’ May 9th New York Times Opinion piece in which he argues that It’s Time to Break Up Facebook. In the article, Hughes lays out his case against the Silicon Valley behemoth he helped to create, citing Mark Zuckerberg’s nearly unlimited power — “Mark’s influence is staggering, far beyond that of anyone else in the private sector or in government,” — and the tactics Facebook has used over the last 5–7 years of buying up emerging competitors, like in the case of Instagram and WhatsApp, or copying them, in the case of SnapChat, and the stifling effects these tactics have had on the social media economy. In short, Facebook is a monopoly, one that controls “more than 80 percent of the world’s social networking revenue,” and one that according to Hughes, should be broken up.

Being that the 2020 democratic primary marathon has begun in earnest, there has been no shortage of candidates eager to comment on Hughe’s article and join the call to break up Facebook. Perhaps most notable among this contingent would be Bernie Sanders, who when asked by Politico if he would support such a break up, replied, “The answer is yes of course.”

Interestingly, Hughes’ article and the ensuing frenzy to respond by democratic presidential hopefuls, has drowned out the voice of another politician and critic, not only of Facebook, but of social media in general. Josh Hawley, the 39 year old Republican Senator from Missouri, in a speech at the Hoover Institute on May 2nd (later posted on First Things) declared war on Big Tech. “My thesis,” stated Hawley, “is that it [social media] does not represent a source of strength for America’s tomorrow, but is rather a source of peril.” Hawley took the issue a step farther, arguing, “what social media shareholders are investing in: [is] the addiction of users.”

Hughes’ article and Hawley’s speech stand in stark contrast to one another. One, though it questions Facebook’s monopolistic character, finds no fault with social media in general. In fact one of the reasons Hughes bemoans Facebook’s dominance is because it has hindered other social media startups from even making it out of the gate. In that way Hughes’ vision isn’t one with less social media, but more. He writes,

“Imagine a competitive market in which they could choose among one network that offered higher privacy standards, another that cost a fee to join but had little advertising and another that would allow users to customize and tweak their feeds as they saw fit.”

Hawley, on the other hand, hones in on the detrimental effects social media has, especially on teenage users. He cites a Washington Post article that claims there is a correlation between a surge in teen suicides and the introduction of the iPhone. Hawley also mentions depression and loneliness and the possible connection between the two and social media use. However, with his speech, though he positioned himself to be the lead in the war on Big Tech, Hawley offered little by way of solutions, suggesting only a few questions we might want to ask ourselves about what role we want social media to play in our economy. (Hawley has since issued a letter with 15 more policy related questions).

Unfortunately, both of these solutions appear to be unsatisfactory, one because it would actually increase the prevalence of social media, and the other because it provides only questions. Instead, in order to meet a challenge of this magnitude, bolder solutions are required. There seems to be a growing consensus that something needs to be done, but very few people know just what that is.

As a Christian, though I am no fan of monopolies and would rather not have my data mined and sold to the highest bidder, those issues and others like them are not nearly as important to me as the mental health of social media users, especially children and teenagers. If the correlations between suicide and social media use and depression and social media use are as troubling as Hawley and others claim, then ultimately this is a matter of life and death.

Unfortunately, of all the possible solutions presented by stakeholders and pundits, very few dare to suggest that people simply stop using social media. Hughes referenced an effort by some to free themselves from Facebook’s grip, but revealed that it had limited success.

And we all know that the church is not immune to social media and its detrimental effects. Christians, from the most prominent pastor to your average Joe and Jane Christian have been swept up in the sea of social media, with almost no resistance to speak of. This might be a missed opportunity. It is no secret that the church is in the midst of PR crisis of sorts and young people are leaving the faith in droves. Articulating a clear response to our social media woes on the front end is just what the church needs to do at this time in order to gain credibility and just what our culture needs from the institution that is meant to be its preserving salt.

In order to have the willpower to do something like get rid of Facebook or other social media accounts, which for many, Christians and non Christians alike, seems impossible, perhaps new language is required. I would suggest that there is at least one place in the Christian tradition where we can find the language we need to articulate a compelling case against social media use.

It comes from Christian philosopher and author James K. A. Smith and his book Desiring the Kingdom. Smith’s thesis is that people are not primarily thinking or even believing creatures but rather are desiring animals. Our practices and habits shape our desires and aim our hearts at one version of the good life or another. Though we might think from a “Christian perspective,” because in many ways we follow the culture in our actions, our lives can end up pointing away from the Kingdom of God. To combat this, in the final chapter of his book Smith suggests that Christians need to make “baptismal renunciations” and exercise “select cultural abstention.” The idea is that, as Christians, there are some aspects of the culture that we simply cannot follow if we want to maintain a healthy relationship with Christ. Though Smith is writing primarily about Christian education, the idea can be applied to social media as well.

Some will undoubtedly look at this idea of “select cultural abstention” with much hesitation. Didn’t Paul warn against asceticism in his letter to the Colossians? Tony Reinke translated Paul’s warning from Colossians into our digital age in his book Competing Spectacles, “Do not watch!” “Do not stream!” “Do not surf!” But I would argue that “select cultural abstention” and asceticism are two different things.

As a matter of fact Christians already practice “select cultural abstention” in regards to pornography. We look around at the prevalence of pornography on the internet (part of our culture) and we do not affirm it, we select or choose to abstain from it. The objection here might be that pornography is far more morally objectionable than social media. Many would argue that the Bible is much stronger in its condemnation of a power structure like the porn industry than it would be of the social media economy. But is it? Both porn addiction and social media addiction have negative effects on the brains of users, and both involve putting “worthless things” (Psalm 119:37) before our eyes.

But even if we don’t consider pornography an apt comparison, there is another example of Christians exercising “select cultural abstention” worth considering: smoking.

50 plus years ago more than 40% of Americans smoked. Today that number is less than half that. Over that time conclusive results from numerous studies detailing tobacco’s role in causing cancer, and aggressive ad campaigns designed to change smoking’s image, have largely been the cause of this shift.

Smoking isn’t explicitly forbidden in scripture, the reason many Americans, both Christian and non Christian, choose not to smoke is because is it harmful to their bodies. Some believers might cite 1 Corinthians 6:9, “…do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own…” to explain why they don’t smoke. Why could we not quote this verse when it comes to social media?

Others might object to the idea of “select cultural abstention” on the grounds that they are free in Christ. They are not addicted and in fact use their platform to spread the gospel. To this point two objections of my own come to mind. The first is from Rod Dreher. In his book The Benedict Option, Dreher has this to say about the idea of using social media to share the gospel,

“social media acts like a gale force wind that prevents the seed of the gospel from taking root in the soil of one’s soul.”

The claim that social media in any way actually aids in authentic discipleship is dubious.

The other objection is from Romans 14.

“For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.”

Perhaps there are those who are not addicted to social media and feel they can engage in it without breaking their conscience. But there are believers who are addicted to social media and our use of it might be a stumbling block to them.

Of course a Christian-lead cultural shift away from social media would be costly. Smith recognized as much when he wrote about the idea of “select cultural abstention” in regards to Christian universities. In that case the cost would have been graduates being less prepared for the American economy and less likely to succeed in it; a steep cost indeed. Social media is an extremely powerful institution. People have invested much into it and those with thousands or millions of followers make their living and sell their books by being influencers and promoting their causes and products on social media. Giving that up will be costly. But as we know from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, discipleship is costly.

Today, social media usage has reached ubiquitous levels. According to Hughes’, 70% of American adults use at least one social media platform. But the studies highlighting the negative effects of social media are starting to come out and people are starting to speak up. Hughes’ and Hawley have begun, or in reality, continued a very important conversation our nation needs to have right now. Antitrust legislation and policy changes will never be sufficient to eradicate the negative effects of social media. There needs to be deep cultural change in order to free our nation from the perils inherent in social media. Christians can be on the front end of that change by exercising “select cultural abstention,” and forgoing their right to use Facebook, Instagram, etc. If they do, it will be to their own benefit and to the benefit of many.

John Thomas is a husband, father, writer, and cross cultural Christian worker. He lives and serves in ministry in Central Asia with his wife and two children.

His recent articles include: