It is unfortunate that Christian leaders today either misunderstand or underestimate the cultural power that online media such as Youtube and podcasts wield. Many see it merely through the eyes of an individual – that it is a helpful tool to learn or explore new ideas. Many thus fail to grasp the implications of this being a primary tool for learning about the world by hundreds of millions of people. Youtube is redefining how people make sense of the world around them, how they interact with new ideas, and is thus redefining how culture engages with truth itself. The cultural implications cannot be overstated.

               A deeper understanding of this platform reveals that Christian leaders ought not to view online media as a tool, but engage with it as a community – one that is ripe with seekers ready and eager to question the world around them, to wrestle with new ideas, and by doing so to effect the moral and political underpinnings of tomorrow’s culture. To the Church, the community of Youtube viewers and podcast listeners is a vast mission field with unrivaled potential. A conference can be attended by hundreds, but good content can influence millions. There is obviously no shortage of Christian content and channels available, but few are able to get viewership into the millions. The key to achieving this is knowing what sort of content will perform best online – knowing what “plays.” This is an environment in which, more than anywhere else, being right is far less important than saying it the right way.

Culture, Morality, and Media Intertwined

               As culture progresses further into a phase that can correctly be called “post-Christian”, we see the increasing pervasiveness of a secular system of beliefs, both moral and ontological. There is of course a wide variety of views within secular culture, but there nevertheless remains a corpus of what we might call “orthodox” foundational beliefs that are almost universally shared by those outside of the Church. In ontological terms, the materialist view of science is affirmed virtually without question. Though the evolutionary explanation of human life seems intuitively unsatisfying as an ultimate explanation of the moral depth of the human experience, moral positions are nevertheless chalked up to be nothing but evolutionary apparatus meant to facilitate survival of the species. Blatant contradictions within or between moral systems can easily be stomached by secular culture, as it is understood that each individual simply subscribes to “whatever works” or whatever is determined by their culture of origin. All positions are ostensibly equal under the umbrella of multiculturalism (or political correctness), which is the sole moral dictate of secularism that is understood to be universal.

               Because variations of this worldview are predominant in the most powerful institutions of culture – universities, the scientific community, and political elites, all of which hold social sway via the media – it is understood that one needs to think and speak in this secular language in order to access and operate within these halls of power. This is not conspiratorial, but is simply the way any culture organically functions. There needs to be some commonality of worldview for these institutions to function with some level of coherence. Secularism fits this billet.

               While every culture functions in accord with its dominant worldview beliefs, there are always minority positions that protest against the prevailing view. The Church is now in this minority position. This is a tough position to be in because, as stated, the means of cultural cohesion and cooperation (all of which culminate in the communication of the media) operate according to secular orthodoxy. Giving voice or influence to non-secular speakers would obviously undermine their own position of moral or intellectual authority, so this is seldom done. In this environment, the Church will remain culturally sidelined. But the key here is that this is not primarily a philosophical problem. It is primarily a cultural problem. The question of Christian influence on culture has less to do with the rational defensibility of our beliefs, and more to do with its facility with social communication – i.e. the media. So, the big question is: How is it possible to undermine the cultural bulwark of secularism? If it is true that culture and media are deeply intertwined, then it would follow that changes in media landscape are required for minority cultural positions to challenge predominant culture.

               Something like this can be seen in the period of the Reformation. Prior to the Reformation, the dominant cultural authority in Europe was the Catholic Church. Social communication and cohesion was accomplished by its ability to speak directly to the masses (e.g. at mass), which in turn solidified the position of moral and political authority of Church leaders. Cultural authority, then as today, relied on this reflexive characteristic of media. These authorities utilize media to bring the masses into their way of thinking, and in turn the only media channels that are “trustworthy” are those that reinforce these same authorities. What allowed the Reformation to succeed, in large part, was the arrival of an entirely novel form of media: the printing press. It is not that Martin Luther was the first person to seriously question the authority of the Catholic Church, but he was a spark that was fanned into flame by the pamphlets and books that could be widely distributed despite the efforts of Church authorities. The social cohesion and influence that the printing press provided allowed the minority position of the Protestants to reach critical mass such that the dominant cultural authority in many regions could be entirely overthrown. The combination of serious theological objections to Catholic doctrine and cooperation via new media was enough to shatter the unity of Christendom.

               We can see this same powerful combination at work today. Serious intellectual objections to the moral authority of cultural elites are being made on today’s new media, the internet. Prior to the internet, access to mass communication was buttoned up to a mere handful of broadcasting corporations and elite publications, which unfailingly reinforced the cultural authority of secularism. In order to be granted air time or a by-line, one first must rise through the ranks of secular institutions and acquire a professional pedigree worthy of attention – i.e. one must be an “orthodox” secularist. The same reflexive property of media was at work, just like in the period prior to the Reformation. Thus, serious challenges to this authority can only occur within a novel media environment. We can see the beginnings of this most clearly in the ascendance of Jordan Peterson and other members of the so-called “Intellectual Dark Web.” In this new medium, even figures without the credentials of secular culture, such as the Youtube shows and podcasts of Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan, are beginning to gain political relevance.

               Online media thus represents an immense opportunity for the culturally sidelined Church – an opportunity to be truly heard by millions, if we can speak to them in the right way. While there are obviously many Christian voices and resources to be found online, few seem to fully understand the implications and possibilities of this new platform. Few understand that millions of young people are making sense of their world through the ideas presented to them online, and that these millions believe there’s something not quite right with mainstream liberal secularism, even if they’re not quite sure what to turn to as an alternative. In order to make the best use of online media, the outreach efforts of the Church need to operate with an understanding of how it works and what sort of material best appeals to those “seekers” out there, trying to make sense of the world around them.

Operating Online: Keys to Understanding the New Media

               There are only a handful of distinguishing features of online communication that one needs to understand in order to operate with a degree of effectiveness. While secular orthodoxy seems to be firmly in control in the major cultural institutions today, one need only spend a little time online to see that this orthodoxy is under sustained attack by millions of skeptics, and that the marketplace of ideas online is more healthy and free than we may have been led to believe. To understand the dynamics of this new social tool, one should consider the following characteristics:

Culture via Click Economy

               The most striking characteristic of online media is the sheer variety and volume of content. The ideas and work of any individual can be accessed by any other individual, worldwide. The obvious obstacle that this creates for any content creator is, “How do I get noticed?” As millions upon millions of users pore over the abyss of viewpoints online, certain videos or articles are able to amass attention. Whatever content is able to strike people as important, noteworthy, and true will naturally get more views. This content becomes more influential in shaping the opinions of the general public. While this fact is obvious to anyone, the import of this feature is often missed: the ideas that shape individuals and our culture as a whole rise and fall on an economy of clicks, shares, and likes. Just as a child makes sense of her world by her attention being drawn to the most relevant aspects of her surroundings, society works much the same way as it directs its attention to certain online content by which to make sense of the world. The major questions are “what aspects of the world are most worthy of my attention?” and “what theories or ideas best explain why the world is the way that it is?” We pursue these questions because they are how we navigate our way toward truth, how we avoid danger or disaster, and how we can effectively accomplish our aims.

               Prior to the rise of the internet, the social institution that we created to engage in truth-seeking and sense-making about the world was the university system (of course universities still play this role, but their influence in this regard is arguably waning). A community of professors operating a network of reputable publications over time produced the new secular orthodoxy discussed above. That orthodoxy is jeopardized today because of many powerful objections being made against it. Of course these objections can only be fully and fairly articulated online.

               So, as the authority of the legacy university system is called into doubt, a more open field of possibility regarding truth faces millions of internet surfers. They go there to survey a vast array of ideas and possibilities, and gravitate towards content that seems to promise the most relevant or interesting ideas. The entire structure of the platform provides simultaneous competing ideas or narratives as options to the viewer. It is the viewer that gets to decide which ideas or narratives merit attention, and thus which ones move up in the click economy. For better or worse, the ideas that receive the most attention online are the most powerful (hence the increased use of ALL CAPS and exclamation points in titles and tweets). Given the openness of this environment, the lack of orthodoxy, and the volume and variety of ideas, we can best measure the stock that society places on any content by its performance in the click economy: Jordan Peterson has become an important figure because he gets an enormous number of views. But he also amasses those views because he is better than just about anyone else at saying important things very well.

               With this understanding, we ought to move on toward understanding how to create quality content that performs best in this economy.

Critical and Cynical

               As discussed above, because legacy media serves to undergird the authority of the dominant cultural paradigm, a novel form of media creates new communication platforms which will by default serve as the primary grounds of cooperation by those with minority viewpoints. Thus the prevailing tone and sentiment in many places online is one that is highly critical, to the point of cynicism, of today’s secular orthodoxy. A unifying theme that one finds across what is otherwise a vast and varied array of viewpoints is derision of political correctness (now mockingly called “wokeness”). The Youtube show The Rubin Report is one successful example of an outlet in which the sole unifying feature of participants is a willingness to openly discuss the merits of moral and political viewpoints that contradict today’s political mainstream. Dave Rubin has routinely engaged in candid conversations with sincere Christian believers, and these interviews have been seen by millions.

               This cynicism is also very often accompanied by humor. Mainstream secularism is not only criticized, it is ruthlessly mocked. A culture of mocking can be difficult to navigate, because mockery takes no position of its own. Irony can defeat sincerity but offers nothing to take its place. Nevertheless, humor is a valuable asset in and of itself in any online forum. Content that is able to parlay humor to make its point, while at the same time not taking itself too seriously, will fare that much better in the click economy.

Tone

               The cultural power of Youtube is premised in part by its departure from the orthodoxy of mainstream culture. In a sense, the idea of “orthodoxy” is itself anathema to the Youtube community (at least at this early stage). Seekers on Youtube do not want to have the world explained to them. Again, they are going there to survey the range of ideas or narratives that appear the most interesting or relevant to them. The power of any content that a viewer encounters online should be self-evident – it should be internal to the argument itself. If the viewer feels any kind of social or external pressure to buy into a given narrative, it begins to sound like orthodoxy, and the viewer will very likely lose interest.

               Where many Christian speakers go wrong here is by presenting the Christian worldview too bluntly: “Let me explain to you why nonbelievers are wrong…” By speaking in this way, they are insisting that the listener pays more attention to them. In a sense, they are trying to manufacture the urgency of their message – as if they have all the answers and therefore you should listen to them. It comes across as arrogant, or a violation of conversational etiquette.

               A more effective approach honors the intellect of the viewer and will present the idea or argument with an air of humility. The tone must be conciliatory, even while maintaining a firm position. The aim for a Christian channel is merely to question a claim or assumption held by secular orthodoxy and humbly offer a more coherent or satisfying alternative. By speaking in this way, a viewer that would otherwise greet a Christian idea with hostility might be eased into a more moderate or even favorable position.

Graphic Animation

               Of the Youtube content that focuses on ideas, one can divide most of the successful videos into two categories: short-form and long-form. Long-form videos are usually lectures or long interviews in which the viewer can deep-dive into a topic of interest. Again, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, and Ben Shapiro are good examples of very successful long-form content channels.

               The purpose of short-form content, on the other hand, is to expose the viewer to a jam-packed version of an idea that is likely new to them. Because this form is conceptually dense, successful short-form content is almost always supplemented with graphic visual aid of some sort to get the viewer on board with the overall message. These visual aids also serve to simply make the content more interesting – which is to say, more worthy of attention. By this fact alone, a video will perform better in the click economy, will reach more viewers, and will influence more individuals.

               The great advantage of short form content is that it can attract viewers that would otherwise not have much interest in the topic. An atheist will be much less likely to watch a 45-minute lecture by a Christian thinker than a 7-minute video that powerfully illustrates the problem of, say, morality without God. Ideally, good short-form content will lead a viewer toward deeper long-form content.

The Way Forward           

               To the extent that culture shifts away from today’s dominant secular orthodoxy, the impetus for that change will undoubtedly come from the ideas and discussions found online. Leaders of the Church need to be aware of this opportunity and strive toward the production of content that conveys the beauty and depth of Christian orthodoxy. Among the best examples of this can be seen in the work of The Bible Project. The combination of academic expertise, cool and casual dialogue, and quality art production makes these videos a powerful cultural force that is speaking to a new generation of viewers. Millions have had their view of Christianity and Biblical narrative completely reimagined by their work. This is a model worth striving for.

               Mainstream culture sees Christianity as something dusty and outdated – a religion that keeps wanting society to go backward to the time before the sexual revolution. This image makes an easy target for liberal pundits and professors. Many Christians have engaged in this bare-knuckled culture war with well-intended gallantry, but I argue that a better way forward is to focus efforts in the new media environment in which all ideas are given a fair hearing. Our target should not be “society” but the individual. Rather than lecture on the social ills of secularism, we can use online media to come to someone who perhaps is hurting and confused, in the intimacy of their home, and humbly offer them the comfort of the gospel. Here, in these private places, many who have been told by culture to dismiss Christianity can finally see it as something new and beautiful. When done well, we can show that our faith is just as alive and transformative today as it was 2,000 years ago.