Long before anyone had heard of going viral or getting ratioed, an 18th-century Anglican bishop delivered a sermon that reads like a diagnostic manual for our social media age. In “Upon the Government of the Tongue,” Joseph Butler identified what he called “talkativeness”—a compulsive disposition to keep speaking without regard for whether our words do good or harm. Three centuries later, Butler’s insights feel prophetic.

Butler (1692–1752), who served a half dozen years as bishop of Durham, was one of Britain’s most influential moral philosophers. He shaped the thinking of such intellectual giants as David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, and Edmund Burke. His book Analogy of Religion and his Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel (of which this sermon was the fourth) established him as a towering figure in moral philosophy who offered a sophisticated understanding of human nature that anticipated modern psychology.

What Butler understood—and what we’re still learning—is that our everyday speech habits reveal the true state of our souls.

Ancient Disease in Digital Form

The text for Butler’s sermon comes from James 1:26: “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.” The core problem, the bishop understood, wasn’t so much deliberate lying or malicious slander but something more subtle and pervasive: “talkativeness; a disposition to be talking, abstracted from the consideration of what is to be said; with very little or no regard to, or thought of doing, either good, or harm.”

This could be a clinical description of compulsive social media use. Butler understood that those “addicted to this folly” might initially “choose to confine themselves to trifles and indifferent subjects,” but inevitably, “when subjects of this kind are exhausted, they will go on to defamation, scandal, divulging of secrets . . . any thing rather than be silent.”

Sound familiar? Butler was describing the exact progression we see daily on social media platforms: harmless posts devolving into gossip, then scandal, then full-blown character assassination. And all of it driven not by malice (at least not primarily) but by the compulsive need to keep the content flowing.

Mechanics of Digital Talkativeness

Butler’s analysis of why talkativeness is so destructive explains our online situation. He observed that chronic talkers are “plainly hurried on, in the heat of their talk, to say quite different things from what they first intended, and which they afterwards wish unsaid.” Replace “talk” with “posting” and you have an apt description of the tweet-and-delete cycle.

Our everyday speech habits reveal the true state of our souls.

Even more prescient was Butler’s insight into attention-seeking behavior: “If these people expect to be heard and regarded . . . they will invent to engage your attention; and, when they have heard the least imperfect hint of an affair, they will, out of their own head, add the circumstances of time and place, and other matters, to make out their story.” This is essentially a description of how rumors go viral on social media. Users add dramatic details to half-heard stories to increase their interest or outrage to maximize engagement.

Butler’s metaphors for uncontrolled speech are also fitting for our viral age: “It is like a torrent, which must and will flow; but the least thing imaginable will first of all give it either this or another direction . . . or like a fire, the nature of which, when in a heap of combustible matter, is to spread and lay waste all around.” If he were writing today, he might simply say, “It’s like a viral post—once it gains momentum, it spreads beyond all control or intention.”

Algorithm of Ancient Wisdom

Butler identified three crucial areas where Christians must exercise restraint, and these provide helpful guidance for our social media discipleship.

1. Discipline of Digital Silence

Butler emphasized that “there is time to speak and a time to keep silence” (Eccl. 3:7), noting that excessive talkers “do not at all speak from their having any thing to say, as every sentence shows, but only from their inclination to be talking.” Their conversation “is merely an exercise of the tongue; no other human faculty has any share in it.”

This perfectly captures the mindless scrolling and compulsive posting that characterizes so much social media use. Butler’s counsel, applied to our always-on culture, is that sometimes the most Christlike response to an inflammatory post is no response at all. As he put it, quoting Proverbs 10:19, “When words are many, transgression is not lacking.”

2. Elevating Our Digital Discourse

Butler acknowledged that lighthearted conversation serves legitimate purposes since it “unites men closer in alliances; and friendships” and “tends to promote humanity, good nature, and civility.” But he insisted such conversation must be truly harmless and not consume time that belongs to our duties (fellow pastors, take note).

Applied to social media, this means asking, Does this meme build up or tear down? Does this joke honor human dignity? Am I posting something meaningful or just feeding the algorithm’s demand for content? Am I simply seeking attention “without regard” (to paraphrase Butler) “for whether our words do good or harm”?

3. Speaking of Others with Gospel Grace

Butler’s most penetrating insights concerned what he called the most dangerous area: “discourse of the affairs of others, and giving of characters.” He noted how “various interests, competitions, and little misunderstandings which arise among men” make us “not unprejudiced and impartial” when discussing others.

Here Butler offered a transformative principle: “When you say somewhat good of a man which he does not deserve there is no wrong done him in particular; whereas, when you say evil of a man which he does not deserve, here is a direct formal injury, a real piece of injustice done him.” In practical terms, this means to be slow to share that critical article, be quick to celebrate others’ achievements, and be relentless in assuming the best about those with whom you disagree.

Heart Behind the Hashtag

Butler understood that the fundamental issue isn’t technology but human nature. His description of chronic talkers could be pulled from a psychology textbook on social media addiction: “There is such a thing as a disposition to be talking for its own sake; from which persons often say any thing, good or bad, of others, merely as a subject of discourse.”

This “disposition to be talking for its own sake” is precisely what drives the compulsive sharing, commenting, and posting that characterizes problematic social media use. Butler recognized that such behavior reveals “great viciousness of mind, great indifference to truth and falsity, and to the reputation, welfare, and good of others.”

Sometimes the most Christlike response to an inflammatory post is no response at all.

The bishop’s ultimate point was that speech reveals the heart. In our digital age, our online presence has become one of the primary ways we bear witness to the gospel’s transforming power. When Christians are known for thoughtful posts rather than hot takes, for encouragement rather than outrage, for bridge-building rather than bomb-throwing, we demonstrate that the gospel actually changes people.

But when we indulge in what Butler called talkativeness—posting compulsively, sharing without thinking, adding to digital controversies simply because we feel compelled to speak—we reveal we’re no different from the world around us. We become like “a sword in the hand of a madman,” striking at random; “it can scarce possibly do any good, and, for the most part, does a world of mischief.” Our digital witness becomes not a testimony to transformation but evidence that our religion is, as the apostle James warned, “worthless.”

Ancient Medicine for Digital Disease

Butler’s sermon reminds us that the challenge isn’t new; the only thing that has changed is the forums in which we communicate. The heart that struggles with talkativeness in person will struggle with compulsive posting online. But the same gospel grace that can transform our face-to-face relationships can—and should—redeem our digital ones too.

In our digital age, our online presence has become one of the primary ways we bear witness to the gospel’s transforming power.

As Butler concluded, if people would simply “observe the obvious occasions of silence” and “subdue the inclination to tale-bearing, and that eager desire to engage attention, which is an original disease in some minds; they would be in little danger of offending with their tongue, and would, in a moral and religious sense, have due government over it.”

The 18th-century Anglican couldn’t have imagined Instagram or TikTok, but he understood the human heart. And the human heart, amplified through the fastest communication technology in history, needs the restraining grace of the gospel more than ever.

Perhaps it’s time we take his ancient counsel seriously and resist the compulsion to be always talking, always posting, always adding to the digital noise. After all, as Butler understood, the test of true religion isn’t what we say on Sunday but what we post on Monday.

Addendum: Butler’s sermon is worth reading in its entirety. But the 18th-century language can be a barrier to understanding. To help with clarity, I’ve posted the full sermon below “translated” into more modern English.

Sermon IV: On Controlling Our Speech

Text: “If anyone thinks he is religious but does not bridle his tongue, but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.” (James 1:26)

The meaning of this verse becomes clearer with a more literal translation: “If anyone among you seems to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” This shows that the phrase “but deceives his own heart” refers specifically to failing to control one’s tongue, not to merely appearing religious.

James is making a powerful point: Anyone who claims to be religious must at least believe she controls her speech. If someone puts on a religious appearance but doesn’t govern her tongue, she must be deceiving herself into thinking she does. And whoever deceives herself in this way—imagining she keeps her unruly tongue under control when she actually doesn’t—her religion is worthless, regardless of what else she does. Controlling our speech is such a fundamental requirement of virtue that without it, no one can be truly religious.

In addressing this topic, I will consider two questions: First, what general fault or disposition is James referring to when he speaks of “bridling the tongue”? Second, what does proper self-control look like in this area?

The Problem James Is Addressing

The fault James refers to isn’t primarily malicious slander, lying, or perjury—those are wicked in themselves and fall under other moral categories. Rather, James is pointing to talkativeness: a compulsive disposition to keep talking, without much thought about whether what we’re saying is good, necessary, or true.

Don’t dismiss this as trivial until you consider the harm it causes and its serious consequences. While people addicted to excessive talking might prefer to stick to harmless topics and only intend to be annoying, they can’t talk forever about nothing. When ordinary subjects run out, they inevitably move on to gossip, scandal, and revealing secrets—both their own and others’—anything rather than remain silent.

In the heat of conversation, they’re carried away to say things completely different from what they originally intended, things they later regret, or inappropriate things they said for no other reason than to keep their tongue busy. If they want to be heard and get attention (though some are content just to talk), they’ll make things up to capture your interest. When they catch even the smallest hint of a story, they’ll add their own details about time, place, and circumstances to make it sound believable—not because they care about being believed but simply as a means of being heard. Their goal is to monopolize your attention completely for the moment; they give little thought to what you might think afterward.

Furthermore, when people who indulge in this loose speech become even slightly offended with someone—as small irritations and misunderstandings inevitably occur—they allow themselves to attack and slander that person without any restraint, even when the offense is so minor they wouldn’t wish the person harm in any other way. In such cases, the scandal and abuse stem primarily from talkativeness and failure to control their tongue.

The slightest provocation will make this tendency break out in one direction or another. It’s like a rushing river that must flow somewhere—the smallest thing will direct it into this channel or that. Or like a fire in a pile of combustible material, whose nature is to spread and destroy everything around it; any of a thousand small accidents will cause it to first break out in one particular spot or another.

This unrestrained flow of words and careless speech causes countless problems in life. It breeds resentment in those who become its targets, plants seeds of conflict and division among others, and inflames minor offenses and misunderstandings that would otherwise fade away naturally. It often damages people’s reputations just as much as deep envy or malice would. At the very least, it destroys a crucial principle of fairness that society depends on: that praise and blame, good and bad reputations, should be given according to what people actually deserve.

A tongue used without restraint is like a sword in the hands of someone who’s lost his mind—it strikes randomly, can hardly do any good, and usually causes tremendous harm. It reveals not only great foolishness and a shallow spirit but also serious moral corruption: complete indifference to truth and falsehood and to other people’s reputations, welfare, and well-being.

No wonder James says of the tongue, “It is a fire, a world of unrighteousness . . . it sets on fire the course of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell” (James 3:6).

What Proper Control of the Tongue Looks Like

To understand the proper use of any natural ability, we must consider why it was given to us. The primary purpose of speech is clearly to communicate our thoughts to carry on the business of life—for work, learning, and daily affairs. But our good Creator designed us not only for necessities but also for enjoyment and satisfaction in the life he’s graciously given us. Our abilities serve secondary purposes too: They provide delight as well as necessity. Since they’re equally suited for both, he undoubtedly intended them for our gratification as well as for our survival and daily functioning.

The secondary use of speech is to please and entertain each other in conversation. This is completely acceptable and right. It brings people closer together in relationships and friendships, helps us empathize with each other’s joys and sorrows, and serves virtue in several ways by promoting good behavior. As long as we don’t spend too much time on it, and even considering it purely as enjoyment and pleasure, anyone who thinks God would be offended by such conversation, or that it’s inconsistent with strict virtue, has a strange understanding of God and religion.

The truth is, this kind of conversation, even when it has no particular beneficial purpose, still serves a general good one: It’s social and friendly, and it promotes humanity, kindness, and civility.

Just as speech can be properly used for business or conversation, it can also be misused in both areas. Regarding business, dishonesty in conducting affairs doesn’t properly belong to our current topic, though I might mention the endless flood of words that often complicates business when far fewer would serve the purpose better—but that’s a matter for those who understand such things.

Controlling the tongue, as a subject in itself, relates mainly to conversation—the kind of talk that fills our time during friendly gatherings and social visits. The danger is that people might entertain themselves and others at the expense of wisdom and virtue, and to the harm or offense of their neighbors. If they avoid these pitfalls, they can be as free, relaxed, and open as they want.

The guidelines for avoiding these dangers and making conversation both innocent and pleasant fall into these categories: knowing when to be silent, talking about neutral topics, and discussing other people’s characters—which unfortunately makes up too large a part of conversation.

1. The Wisdom of Silence

The wise man observed that there is “a time to speak and a time to keep silent” (Eccl. 3:7). Yet we meet people who seem never to have learned the second lesson. These excessive talkers don’t speak because they have something important to say—every sentence proves otherwise—but simply because they feel compelled to talk. Their conversation is merely exercise for the tongue; no other human faculty participates.

It’s strange that such people don’t realize that unless they truly have superior ability and are extraordinarily well-equipped for conversation, if they are entertaining, it’s at their own expense. Do they never wonder whether constantly displaying so much of themselves works to their advantage? “Oh, that you would hold your peace, and it would be your wisdom!” (Job 13:5).

Remember, there are people who prefer fewer words—inoffensive folks who deserve consideration, even though their calm, quiet temperaments may not suit your taste. When you’re with people who are your superiors in age, knowledge, or experience, when important and useful subjects are being discussed that you can’t meaningfully contribute to—these are times for silence, when you should listen and pay attention, at least when it’s your turn.

This excessive talking is truly an unfortunate habit. These people essentially cut themselves off from all the benefits of conversation except hearing themselves talk. Their purpose in joining company isn’t to be informed, to hear, or to learn, but to showcase themselves—or rather, to exercise their ability to talk without any real purpose at all.

If we think of conversation as entertainment, as a way to relax the mind and take a break from life’s cares, business, and sorrows, then by its very nature it must involve mutual exchange. This is implicit in what we mean by conversation or being in company. Listening to one person’s continuous monologue often becomes more painful than the very cares and business we came to escape from. Someone who forces this on us commits a double offense: arbitrarily demanding silence from everyone else while also forcing them to endure this painful attention.

I know these things tend to be dismissed as too trivial for serious discussion, but in reality, we’re morally and virtuously obligated to observe proper social behavior. The greatest evils in life often grow from things considered too unimportant to worry about. This matter absolutely must be addressed, because if people won’t maintain proper self-control regarding appropriate times and seasons for silence, they’ll certainly—whether they intend to or not—progress to scandal, slander, and betraying secrets.

If we need further persuasion to learn this lesson of silence, consider how insignificant excessive talkers make themselves. Even when they occasionally say something worth hearing, it gets lost in the flood of worthless chatter they pour out.

The occasions for silence are obvious and should be easily recognized by everyone: when someone has nothing to say, or nothing better left unsaid—better either for the particular people present, or because it would interrupt the conversation itself or more pleasant conversation, or finally, better for the speaker himself.

I’ll end this section with two observations from the wise man. One powerfully exposes the ridiculous aspect of this uncontrolled tongue: “When a fool walks along the way, his sense fails him, and he tells everyone that he is a fool” (Eccl. 10:3). The other shows its great danger and wickedness: “When words are many, transgression is not lacking” (Prov. 10:19).

2. Talking About Neutral Subjects

After discussing proper control regarding when to remain silent, there’s little more needed than to caution people to make sure their subjects are truly neutral and not to spend too much time in this kind of conversation.

People must be careful that their conversation topics are genuinely harmless—not offensive to virtue, religion, or good manners; not crude or dissolute (which always leaves bad impressions on the mind); not harmful or annoying to others; and that too much time isn’t spent this way, neglecting the duties and responsibilities that belong to their position in life.

While there’s no requirement that every sentence be weighty and important, since useful subjects can be just as entertaining as others, a wise person—even when wanting to relax from business—would choose conversation that turns toward something instructive.

3. Speaking About Others

The final area is controlling the tongue when discussing other people’s affairs and giving character assessments. These are essentially the same thing, and this can hardly be called a neutral subject because such discussions almost constantly drift into something wrong.

First, it would be much better if this didn’t dominate so much of our conversation, because it’s truly a dangerous topic. Consider the various interests, competitions, and minor misunderstandings that arise among people, and you’ll quickly see that you’re not unbiased and impartial—you’re not neutral enough to trust yourself with talking freely and carelessly about your neighbor’s character and concerns.

There’s constantly—though we often don’t notice it—some kind of rivalry among people regarding wit, beauty, learning, or fortune, and this will unconsciously influence them to speak negatively about others, even when there’s no deliberate malice or intention. Since it’s so difficult to enter this subject without causing offense, the first thing to observe is that people should learn to avoid it entirely—to overcome that strong inclination most have to discuss their neighbor’s concerns and behavior.

But since it’s impossible to completely exclude this subject from conversation, and since it’s necessary that people’s characters be known, the next important point is that what we say matters greatly. Therefore, we should be religiously careful and exact to say nothing, either good or bad, except what’s true.

I put it this way because it’s equally important to society that bad people’s characters be known as that good people’s characters be known. People prone to scandal and slander might misuse this observation, but truths that help guide our conduct shouldn’t be denied or hidden just because they might be misused.

However, this would be effectively prevented if we kept two things in mind.

First, though it’s equally harmful to society for people to have either good or bad reputations they don’t deserve, when you say something good about someone who doesn’t deserve it, no particular wrong is done to that person. But when you say something bad about someone who doesn’t deserve it, you’ve committed direct, formal injury—real injustice. This creates a significant difference and gives us, morally speaking, much greater freedom to speak well of others than to speak ill.

Second, a good person is friendly toward fellow human beings and loves mankind, so will naturally and often say all the good he can about everyone. But insofar as he’s good, he’ll never be inclined to speak evil of anyone unless there’s some other reason besides it merely being true. If accused of giving someone a bad character reference, he would hardly think it sufficient justification to say it was true unless he could also explain why he felt compelled to do so: perhaps righteous indignation against particularly great and scandalous instances of evil, or to prevent an innocent person from being deceived and betrayed when she places great trust and confidence in someone who doesn’t deserve it.

We must be fair to every aspect of a subject when considering it. If there’s someone who has a good reputation in the world but whom we know to be without integrity or honesty—really a bad person—it must be acknowledged that we would serve society by letting such a person’s true character be known. This is no more than what we see in our Savior himself, though he was extraordinarily mild and gentle. However, no words can express too strongly the caution that should be used in such cases.

Conclusion

If people would observe the obvious occasions for silence; if they would overcome the inclination to gossip and that eager desire for attention which is a fundamental problem in some minds; they would be in little danger of offending with their tongue and would, in a moral and religious sense, have proper control over it.

I’ll conclude with some teachings and reflections from the son of Sirach on this subject:

“Be swift to hear; and if you have understanding, answer your neighbor; if not, lay your hand upon your mouth. Honor and shame come through speech. A person with an evil tongue is dangerous in their city, and one who is rash in talk will be hated. A wise person will hold their tongue until they see the right opportunity, but a babbler and fool will pay no attention to timing. One who uses many words will be despised, and one who assumes authority in speech will be hated. A backbiting tongue has disturbed many; it has pulled down strong cities and overthrown the houses of great people. A person’s tongue can be their downfall; but if you love to listen, you will gain understanding.”