Everyone is a content creator these days due to helpful platforms like YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Substack, etc. But what makes a creator of content? Which comes first, the creator or the content? Ministry leaders have been providing content for centuries; what is different about providing content in this digital landscape?
There are different types of content and different types of creators.
Some content creators are primarily responding to the world of things happening around us. They provide perspective, understanding, and guidance. Lord knows we need all of that. And that feeds the algorithms. It gets views, clicks, likes, and the wide array of comments. The algorithm rewards outrage and activity.
Plenty of people are doing the work of digital content in that area.
That seems to be leaning into the content first.
There are those who lead with creator.
Creating often starts with what does not exist rather than what is already in the ether needing a thoughtful response. Creators create. The creating happens outside of the algorithm. The created needs to be born into the world regardless of whether the algorithm will assist it.
And perhaps this is one of the challenges of ministry in a digital landscape. Reaction has a built-in audience. Creation requires something else. Creators say something that needs to be said and make something that needs to be made even when there is no guarantee that anyone will notice. Soulful content creation isn’t measured by what it generates, like engagement, reach, or potential to go viral. It is measured by what it costs the creator to make and whether it still feels true once the algorithm has had its say.
That raises a different question about what we are actually doing when we create. Are we creating for the algorithm? Or are we creating something that happens to live inside the algorithm?
This conversation has real edges worth naming. A lot of content lives somewhere in between, responding and building at the same time.
It also assumes a kind of freedom many ministry leaders simply don’t have. The ability to create outside the algorithm sounds good in theory, but it overlooks how much visibility, funding, and even a basic sense of being heard often depend on that same algorithm. Soulful creation doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It happens inside real constraints, and pretending otherwise risks romanticizing content creation.
But I think there is another limitation that may be even more important.
We can talk about the algorithm as though it is simply an external force that we have to navigate. Something that rewards outrage. Something that wants activity. Something that measures engagement. But what if the deeper danger isn’t simply that the algorithm rewards the wrong things? What if, over time, the algorithm teaches us what to want?
We don’t have to consciously chase going viral for the algorithm to begin shaping our imagination. We notice what gets attention. We begin anticipating what will perform. We learn which ideas generate comments and which ones disappear. We start trimming the strange, unfinished, difficult thing because we can already imagine how it will land.
Eventually, we may not need the algorithm to tell us what to make. And this feels particularly important for ministry. Ministry isn’t supposed to merely capture attention. Often, ministry is about cultivating attention. Those are not the same thing.
The platform asks: Will they stop scrolling?
The minister might need to ask: What is worth stopping for?
The platform asks: What generates engagement?
The minister might need to ask: What generates transformation?
The challenge, then, may not be to escape the algorithm. That is probably impossible for anyone doing meaningful work in this space. The challenge may be to become fluent enough in the digital environment that the algorithm no longer determines what we create.
So we stand at the precipice of a lot of questions:
Where is the line between creating and feeding the algorithm?
The algorithm rewards outrage and reactivity. How does a ministry leader keep their soul intact while working in that environment?
What does an intact soul look like in this context? A soul that is not moved by the algorithmic cycle.
Can something be soulful if it was designed with engagement in mind?
What happens when we begin creating for the imagined response rather than from something we actually need to say?
How do we know when the algorithm has become part of our creative imagination?
What would we create if we knew no one would see it? What would we create if we knew it would go viral?
What forms of ministry require slowness, obscurity, repetition, or failure—things the algorithm has little reason to reward?
What are we learning about soulful content creation in a distracted world?
And perhaps the question underneath all of them:
What would it mean to create something the algorithm cannot measure, but the community can feel?
For more insights check out:
Mycal Brickhouse, “Humbly sustaining the weary with a word, post or reel”
https://thrivingcongregations.org/fandl_feed_article/humbly-sustaining-the-weary-with-a-word-post-or-reel/
A short piece for ministry leaders that uses Isaiah 50:4 to argue posts deserve the same prayer and care as sermons.
April Owens, “Simone Weil Against Distraction” (The Hedgehog Review)
https://hedgehogreview.com/web-features/thr/posts/simone-weil-against-distraction
Owens explains Weil’s idea that attention, at its highest, is a form of prayer. It’s a theological anchor for “What is worth stopping for?”
99% Invisible, “The Score” (podcast)
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/673-the-score
Philosopher C. Thi Nguyen explains “value capture,” where simple numbers slowly replace what we actually care about. It’s your “the algorithm teaches us what to want,” with a name.