Interview: Krista Idowu
On Social Media, Activism and Our Attention
I am glad to bring you this interview with Krista Idowu. From her bio, Krista, also known as “The Love Activist,” is a “screenwriter, producer, and blogger who creates emotionally intelligent and heart-provoking content to help people see others, themselves, and the Most High through the lens of grace and love. She and her husband, Elijah, have the shared mission of challenging misconceptions of God and Christianity through biblical soundness, living and walking in His presence and power, and re-presenting God's love to others by intentionally bearing the image of Christ. They are the co-founders of Decolonized Christianity and members of Ikon Community Church where Krista is part of the Community Development Team. They have a two-year-old warrior princess named Nifemi ‘Oni.’”
You can follow Krista on her Instagram, and follow her work at https://theloveactivist.wordpress.com/.
This interview is the first of its kind for us here at the newsletter, but something I hope to do more often, which is to use this space to expand on organic conversations and ideas (in addition to interviews about new books and current events). In this case, Krista responded to the following tweet:
Krista replied: “This is a word! It’s actually destructive to community.” She continued: “This thought crosses my mind often. I think our access to so many opinions has caused many extroverts to become introverts. It makes us lose our tolerance for people in real life and not see humans as imagers of God, but sources of annoyance and anxiety.”
How interesting! What an interesting conversation to explore! I’m grateful Krista agreed to have an interview about just this topic.
Michael: One place to start is here: Many people argue social media has been a democratizing force in the public square. Is that true, in your view? And if so, has that been a good thing?
Krista: I agree that social media has been a democratizing force. It has given individuals a voice in a novel way. Look at the George Floyd situation and others like it. The public now has a source of power that only the government and media once had. However, this power is limited. Algorithms, shadowbanning, social media censorship, and other methods silence divergent views. This online moderation can help protect against bullying and harassment. Yet, it can give us a false perception of freedom of expression since it promotes one point of view while censoring another.
From an individualistic viewpoint, social media has been a positive democratizing force. However, from a collectivistic perspective, I would argue that it has the potential to be negative. Social media can be like standing in a town hall where everyone has a megaphone, which leads to the dissemination of misinformation and muting of facts. It leads to unnecessary tension and confrontations. Someone can post, “the sky is blue,” and commenters will argue about what shade of blue it is, if it’s blue in the first place, and if the sky is just a holographic dome. Unlike town hall meetings, the “public square” of social media lends itself to lacking human decency. Similar to the barrier that causes us to respond to drivers as less human and with less courtesy than shoppers in a grocery store, there is a barrier between the screens of social media users that filters out empathy and compassion.
Thus, a cacophony of voices disseminating fiction, fact, and aberrational opinions with an inclination towards the absence of empathy and compassion can lead to physical, emotional, and spiritual exhaustion. That proverbial “ear fatigue” can cause us to tune out everything, even truth, for the sake of maintaining our sanity. Social media has given nearly everyone a platform at the price of the distillation of truth and the cultivation of community.
Michael: Really good points. This has been the dilemma. Social media has empowered individuals, but disempowered society in critical ways. What a paradox ("having God trapped in a box, all this time professing to be spiritual”…excuse the lyrical aside). We’re also seeing how the skills that make one good at social media, are not necessarily the skills that make one a good or ethical activist. If the best activism is rooted in community, social media seems to offer profound shortcuts to that, allowing people to sort of gain credibility as representatives of a cause or community, when they might not actually have real roots or relevance there. How do we sort through these kinds of dynamics?
Krista: Lol...wow! No salt, no chaser! Let's go there! Social media allows people to project themselves as avatars, characters, personalities, and brands. One could brand herself as a makeup artist (MUA), comedian, general influencer, or activist. I can't criticize it too much because I have branded myself as "The Love Activist"...lol. The danger in social media activism is when so-called activists prioritize individualistic, branded activism over collectivistic community engagement. This problem has become even more confounded with the pandemic, as much of our community engagement is now strictly virtual. However, when social media activists desire to represent the community and cause more than making a name for themselves, they explore creative ways to establish roots within the community, even if virtually.
One of my kingdom friends, Kyle Bumgarner, the founder of Orthodoxical, has done an excellent job at this. As one who stands for orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and social justice, he has intentionally built relationships with a community of like-minds, especially BIPOC, women, and other marginalized groups. He DMed me on Instagram, scheduled a heart-to-heart Facetime meeting, checked in with me during tense racial moments in America, and interviewed me on his podcast. Although it made me feel special, I realized that he did the same with many other leaders, influencers, and fellow believers in this space. Instead of just posting clever, presumptuous, out-of-touch quotes on social media as unrooted social media activists do, he connects with his targeted community to gain insight into our nuanced realities. His empathetic and profound posts are a testament to the (virtual) community roots that he has established before representing us.
Social media activists can use his approach to establish community credibility during these unprecedented times. Even though some of us might not literally get our hands dirty, we can be creative in being rooted in the community and causes that we represent. We can transcend projected, branded activism through intentionally building relationships, hosting online forums, interviewing like-minds (as you are doing right now...lol), and participating in and promoting action-oriented ways to support our causes and community.
Michael: This is so helpful. My last question for you is about how we can can maintain our integrity, and use the influence we have for good, while also not neglecting forbearance, hope and love? How do we not lose sight of our humanity, and the humanity of others, while we increasingly view our online spaces as platforms for advancing a cause or accomplishing certain objectives?
Krista: Great question! I would say that we have to love people and fight oppressive systems. In interpersonal conflict resolution, we call it “attacking the problem rather than the person.” We mustn’t demonize or dehumanize one group of people while attempting to restore the dignity of another group. It’s counterproductive. To humanize people with opposing views, we must listen with an intent to understand instead of listening only to respond. Ya’akov/James instructed us to “be quick to listen but slow to speak, slow to get angry; for a person’s anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness!” (1:19-20 CJB). When we listen and understand another person’s position, it allows us to respond to them from a place of grace, meekness, humility, and honesty.
I’m not suggesting that we become passive or docile. Meekness is not synonymous with weakness. Yeshua gives us a perfect example of this delicate balance of remaining meek while strongly fighting for righteousness and justice. His alignment with the heart and spirit of our Father enabled Him to respond with love and compassion to oppressors of His people (He healed a Roman centurion’s servant). On the other hand, He strongly rebuked “family,” Jewish leaders who claimed to bear the name of YHWH yet misrepresented Him (the Pharisees).
Now, this example doesn’t give us an excuse to insult or use derogatory terms against people with whom we disagree. One thing to note is that when He used harsh words of rebuke, He addressed groups of people (His people) rather than individuals. He attacked the system, the problem, rather than the person. He interacted with individuals—Romans, Pharisees, tax collectors, sinners, and His disciples—from a place of love, humility, grace, and compassion. Following His example will enable us to make effective social change while protecting the dignity and humanity of all people.