On Rich Soil: A Field Guide for the Digital Missionary

Introduction

​

Today, many people are turning to social media and other digital platforms as Catholic 

"influencers," hoping to spread the Good News. Responding to an age marked by religious 

disaffiliation, these individuals see digital tools as a means to fulfill Christ’s call to go and “make 

disciples of all nations.”[1] The ambition behind this endeavor is indeed a holy one, yet it is prone to manipulation and distortion given the realities of the digital environment. To see digital media and technology as simply capable of amplifying the Christian message neglects the pervasive ways in which our media environments assign roles to us and insist that we adhere to them. Though we may be able to name certain temptations that arise in using these tools, we often neglect the subtle and implicit ways they shape our occupation of them, unaware due to “our assumption that what we are dealing with is not an environment but merely a machine."[2] Making disciples is an essential task, but it is laborious work, and a vision that focuses more on breadth than depth promises more than it can deliver.

 

There is another image in Matthew’s Gospel that may prove more helpful to our discernment on how to evangelize in a digital age. In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus depicts the word of God as a seed, explaining that only when the seed lands upon "rich soil" and takes root can it truly be received, understood, and bear fruit.[3] Christ further explains that the seed may also land on rocky ground, spring up and wither, be choked by thorns, or be scattered on a path and plucked away by birds. He uses these images to characterize the barriers to reception and understanding, noting anxiety, the lure of riches, a passing joy that is quickly felt and hollow, or interference by “the evil one” as the source of these obstacles.[4] While the sower’s apparent farming practices have been the subject of debate, scripture scholars agree that “the focus of attention is not the sower... but the seeds and their respective yields.”[5] Returning to the wisdom of this parable in reflecting upon the state of the digital environment, we discover that the pursuit of success on digital platforms is rife with anxiety and the lure of riches; superficial pleasures drive engagement metrics; and the most successful content is often divisive, pejorative, or hostile. The question is not merely whether evangelization is happening online but how the structures and incentives of digital platforms are reshaping our vision of evangelization.

​

This subtle reshaping of our vision can be seen in the conversation around whether we “like” a 

particular Catholic “influencer” or not. Adopting this digital metric as the way we evaluate one’s 

effectiveness in sharing the Gospel feels too passive and, ultimately, inadequate. How can we 

find and cultivate the rich soil necessary for evangelization, then? This essay aims to understand 

how to be an effective messenger in the digital mission. It is intended to serve as a formative tool for the digital missionary, a “field guide” that equips them both spiritually and practically for their ministry within the digital media environment. The document is divided into two sections, with the first defining the Church’s understanding of the digital mission and who the digital missionary is called to be. It then describes how previous efforts have been inefficient, 

identifying topics of controversy and difficulty within the topic. The second section proposes 

potential pathways forward, examining the work of various scholars seeking to provide a 

practical, effective, theologically grounded, and pastorally mindful framework and approach. 

This field guide does not seek to provide a single answer but rather to consolidate and synthesize a particular ethos of best practices and dispositions. It seeks to encourage all to "never remain on the sidelines of this march of living hope."[6]

​

What is the Digital Mission?

​

The Church's historical understanding of the digital media environment has played a significant 

role in its struggle to minister effectively within this context. In preparing missionaries to be sent and proclaim the Gospel, the Church has long recognized proper formation and preparation as a necessity, giving careful attention to the culture and customs of the people and place to which they were being sent. This intention, however, has yet to be translated into our understanding of the digital mission, as evidenced by our insufficient knowledge of it. In 2009, Benedict XVI invited young people to go forth into the "digital continent" and take responsibility for evangelizing it.[7] While inspiring and well-intentioned, this invitation has fostered the perception of digital media as a place where the Church goes to evangelize. This misconception is problematic because digital media is not a place but an environment that influences and shapes the Church itself. It neglects the reality of our digital age, in which "all media work us over completely," profoundly affecting how we think, feel, and behave.[8] Contemporary evangelization efforts have thus been deprived of the social and personal awareness necessary to understand the unique complexities of the digital media environment. 

​

Recent developments in the Church's reflection upon the digital mission offer a more 

comprehensive approach to this complicated context. In bringing together representatives of the Church from around the world, the Synod on Synodality identified the mission in the digital 

environment as critical, treating it extensively and delegating further investigation to one of the 

ten study groups formed. Observing the fundamental changes that digital media have affected in our learning processes, ways of thinking, and relationships, the Synod asserted that the culture of digital media "is not so much a distinct area of mission as a crucial dimension."[9] In doing so, the assembly first identified the Church's need to recognize that it, too, is under the influence of digital media before seeking to evangelize something it did not fully understand. The Synod expressed a need to become more familiar with the dynamics of the digital media environment so that the Church might better identify the barriers and opportunities arising from it.[10]

​

Who is the Digital Missionary?

​

While all Christians are called to share and partake in the Church's evangelical mission, the 

digital missionary ministers in the digital media environment, engaging it through more formal, 

intentional means. The Church has long understood evangelization to be a responsibility shared by all, with missionaries being a group who devote themselves to a particular life of ministry andservice within the Church.[11] The digital missionary, then, is committed to engaging the digital media environment to give witness to the faith by fostering bonds of belonging and promoting "encounter and dialogue."[12 ]While the digital missionary may engage in activities akin to those of a social media influencer, a distinction must be made, and the understanding of this ministry ought not to be reduced to the concept of a Catholic "influencer." In engaging people through a variety of media (e.g., podcasts, social media platforms, messaging applications), the digital missionary strives for depth over breadth. Digital missionaries pursue this ministry not for their own self-promotion but "to share the joy of the Gospel with those in the existential peripheries of the internet."[13]

​

Difficulty & Controversy: Insufficient Responses

​

Another misconception inhibiting the Church's evangelization efforts lies in misunderstanding 

who has left the Church, why they left, and what is preventing them from returning. In general, 

the leading Catholic voices engaged in evangelization (particularly online) have adopted a more apologetic than evangelical approach, relying heavily on logic-based, catechetical modes of argumentation. In explaining their perspective on the current state of evangelization, many state that their work is, in part, an "indictment" of the catechetical and educational strategies that have informed the Church's approach over the last fifty years.[14] For these voices, the failure to adequately address the growth in religious disaffiliation is largely due to the poor formation of Catholics, leaving them ill-equipped to respond to questions and issues raised by others. They further suggest that this lack of preparedness has prevented the Church from countering the arguments that have convinced young people to adopt an atheistic worldview. Holding this belief, they propose that a focus on the compatibility of religion and science must be "priority number one," expressing that "we must argue them back to our position."[15] The suggestion of this priority, however, appears ineffective in its focus on atheists, seeming to neglect that not all religiously disaffiliated are atheists, with agnostics and nothing in particulars making up the majority of this population in actuality. Despite good intentions, the desire for a more consistent, practical approach to evangelization remains unsatisfied.

​

Ryan P. Burge, a social scientist and Baptist pastor, is the leading expert on data on religious 

disaffiliation in America, and his analysis of this data is essential to better understanding who 

makes up this population and what factors led them here. When looking at the research collected on the growth in religious disaffiliation, it is essential to note that most surveys provide three options that fit within this category: atheists, agnostics, and nothing in particulars. Thus, there is a broad spectrum of religious beliefs among the disaffiliated. Yet, Burge asserts that some aspects of religious behavior and belonging are still shared among the "nothing in particulars" worth noting.[16] First, these “nones” are generally skeptical of societal institutions, do not trust them, and, in turn, are rather socially isolated.[17]Despite this absence of belonging, surveys show that while 30% of Americans are disaffiliated, only 16% of them do not believe in the existence of God; furthermore, 32% of the nones say religion is “somewhat” or “very important” in their lives.[18] While the reality of religious disaffiliation maintains a particular difficulty, these details within the data present a promising opportunity for the Church.

​

Burge believes that focusing on the nones will bear the most fruit if the Church truly wishes to 

evangelize effectively and strategically. While the conversion rates of atheists and agnostics are 

particularly low, the data also show evidence that, on the other hand, one in six nones will 

convert back to a Christian tradition over four years.[19] Seeing this data as "too little, too late" 

would be unhelpful pessimism and negligence of a vital reality. The data here reaffirms an 

observation Paul VI called attention to in his presentation of the New Evangelization: that the 

disaffiliated have not entirely abandoned religion and that their interior attitudes "manifest a 

thirst for God."[20] It must be understood that the goal of evangelization, especially in the digital media environment, is not to convince amorphous statistics about religion's legitimacy. 

Evangelization is a compassionate response to human beings' profound existential needs, 

necessitating humility and patience as we accompany them, a disposition that must be reflected in our ministry online.

​

More Recent Complications

 

Recent investigations into current efforts have revealed that many engaged in the digital mission are not presenting a meaningful witness to the Gospel, raising concerns about the formation of digital missionaries and their place within the Church. While many Catholic voices on social media and across the internet more broadly speak of "evangelizing the culture" online, their behavior reflects an inability to recognize how online digital culture has influenced (and even compromised) their own witness. With the realities of monetization, sponsorships, and other factors of the digital media environment, Catholic "influencers" are prone to adapt their 

messages accordingly. Bishop Joaquim Giovani Mol Guimarães of Brazil says this inhibits one's 

ability to be a missionary, explaining that "there is often a malevolent manipulation and 

deformation of Christianity when ‘influencers’ are governed by the laws of the media market.”[21]This issue reemphasizes the need to distinguish between being a digital missionary and being a Catholic "influencer," as communication market standards define "influencers." In contrast, the missionary is defined by their witness and commitment to Christ, the Gospel, and the Church. The final report of the Synod on Synodality echoed this concern for the deterioration of the digital missionary's ministry, noting the need to ensure the Christian faith and message " is present online in reliable ways that do not ideologically distort its content."[22]

​

The complications within the digital mission demonstrate the need to clarify how digital 

missionaries ought to understand themselves and their mission, with formation being an apparent necessity. While some Catholic voices are doing good work in the digital mission, their 

credibility and effect are hindered by the division, scandal, and harm dealt by unformed and 

isolated Catholic "influencers." Despite their lack of formal standing and preparation, many of 

these individuals are still perceived as voices of authority within the digital media environment. 

Their platforms and followings become prone to ideological and monetary corruption as they 

remain untied to any diocesan or ecclesial structure or oversight, "speaking for themselves, 

creating an ecclesial bubble and almost a parallel version of church teaching."[23] This dynamic 

only serves to deepen and expand the distrust and discomfort many “nones” feel towards the 

Church, fostering a digital Catholic space where faith-related issues are discussed but done so in a manner that is superficial, polarized, or even hate-filled.[24] Without intentional formation and a network of collaborative prayer and ministry within the Church, missionaries are unable to cultivate rich soil for the seed of evangelization. Instead, "influencers" prevail, fostering a digital atmosphere of rocky ground and thorns.

​

Pathways Forward: Christocentric Communication

​

Digital missionaries need to avoid the dangers of digital media while resisting the temptation to see the digital mission as too challenging and to abandon it altogether. This balance can be 

guided through a theology of communication centered on Christ. Noah Bradon believes the 

difficulties posed by the culture of digital media are not insurmountable, arguing that the Church is called to participate in the redemption of digital communications as capable tools for holiness. Keeping the depth of this intention in mind and approaching it in a spirit of prayer, we are better able to avoid shallow measurements of the “success” in the digital mission. Those engaged in this mission and ministry should recognize that while digital media expedites the production of and access to content, it simultaneously “discourages vulnerability, sacrificing depth to breadth, community to information.” [25] Bradon argues that likes and follows cannot undergird our vision of this success, proposing that “no conversion metric is more important than the conversion of hearts, the salvation of souls.”[26] Building on this principle, digital missionaries are better prepared to develop effective, tactical approaches to digital evangelization without having their mission hijacked by the pitfalls of the digital media environment.

​

Recovering Indirect Methods

​

Evangelization is an act of witness and proclamation, a necessarily communicative act; thus, a 

profound understanding of our chosen modes of communication in this mission must be pursued. Benson P. Fraser believes that dogma, proposition, and argument, or "direct" communication, are legitimate approaches to sharing the faith. He argues that story, narrative, and symbol are equally legitimate and equally Christian methods of truth-telling. Fraser defines these latter methods as forms of “indirect” communication that “moves the hearer from abstract belief to action, habit, and incarnational embodiment.”[27] His argument is not that indirect modes are superior but that we have overprivileged direct approaches, seeing logic-focused debates as the sole pathway to sharing the truth of the Gospel, neglecting and forgetting the prominence these indirect methods hold in the Christian tradition. Fraser believes that while current efforts may be informative and scholarly, they lack passion, are being perceived as predictable or stereotypical, and thus risk becoming irrelevant to the receiver.[28] Considering this proposal in light of the digital mission underscores that direct communication methods dominate the current climate of Catholic evangelization.

​

In developing an approach and strategy to their messaging and content creation, a recovery of 

indirect modes of communication would greatly aid digital missionaries in reaching the nones. 

As noted in research by Ryan Burge, the nones differ from atheists in that their disaffiliation is 

not rooted in an intellectual decision; thus, direct modes of communication are unlikely to 

resonate with them or be sought out. For Fraser, a more indirect approach through stories or 

symbols might be more effective in serving as a point of entry for a none. Indirect 

communication is stimulating and helps to "reimagine our religious sensibilities and awakens us to the need to reconnect our ways of being in the world to our Christian beliefs."[29] Fraser 

reasserts that this is not simply the adoption of mere creativity but the recovery of uniquely 

Christian styles of transmitting the faith, calling to mind Jesus' use of parables, C.S. Lewis's use 

of myth, and Flannery O'Connor's storytelling. Today's digital missionaries are likely to find 

inspiration in these works, leading them to prayer and to consider how similar methods might be adopted and oriented towards a contemporary audience to spark curiosity and openness to the faith.

​

Living a “Public Faith” vs. a “Faith of Publicity”

​

In addressing the temptation to engage in ideological defenses and reduce complex situations to digestible quips on social media, Bryan Baise proposes a framework for Christian witness built on patience rather than posturing. For Baise, much of the Church's struggle with digital 

evangelization rests in Christian voices' lack of prudence and proclivity to overreact in the digital public square. These negative voices embody what he defines as a "faith of publicity," 

characterized by their quickness to separate, denounce, and condemn in a style clearly 

"catechized by a social media age."[30] Baise identifies the pervasiveness of anxiety within these 

voices' self-understanding of their mission, who are quickly provoked into responding to 

supposed ideological rivals, assuming a responsibility to say something on behalf of their faith. 

While assuming the good intentions of these voices, one must recognize this disposition's 

tendency to conflate disagreement with denunciation, condemnation with contempt, and clarity with simplicity. To avoid these shortcomings, Baise explains that those engaged in the digital mission must examine themselves, "ensuring the use of social media instead of social media's use of you.”[31]

​

Fostering a more proper and centered disposition toward the digital mission is essential to 

avoiding living a faith of publicity. The digital media environment thrives in promoting content 

in forms and manners that are rapid, simplified, and exacerbated. While such content production may be provocative, the digital missionary must recognize this dynamic and avoid the temptation to respond quickly and reduce or confuse the Christian message by presenting it in an equally narrow, polemical delivery. Baise proposes that fostering the virtues of attentiveness, patience, and kindness is essential to rejecting the impulse toward publicity and to developing a well-formed public faith. He suggests that we mistake persuasion for something to be won through our cleverness, but reminds us that this work is much more profound. Our persuasion of others toward Christianity will not be found in supposedly proving its legitimacy but in "enlarging their view of the world and the One who made it."[32] An approach that not only proclaims the teachings of Christ but offers them in His spirit must distinguish the digital missionary in the digital media environment. 

​

Conclusion

 

In the same message in which Pope Benedict XVI called on young people to evangelize the 

"digital continent," he offered a warning and a caution. Within that address, Benedict XVI spoke 

about how new digital technologies were bringing about fundamental shifts in human 

relationships and our patterns of communication. While celebrating the benefits and beauty of 

these gifts, he warned against the creeping temptation of consumerism at play in their 

development. He exhorted those present at his address to keep respect and human dignity in 

mind when using these tools, noting that their capacity and reach must not come at the expense of “the quality of the content that is put into circulation using these means.”[33] Digital 

missionaries ought to heed this caution and give themselves to embodying our current Holy 

Father’s call for us to be messengers who are “disarmed and disarming.”[34] It is in understanding the complexities of this digital environment that we seek to proclaim the Gospel, naming and resisting its temptations, and discerning together how best to navigate it, that we will be more aptly poised to cultivate that rich soil.