The Internet and the Spread of Religion – Lil Osborne

Whenever I have been berated by a student for failing to teach “English religion” I’ve responded by asking just what is an English religion? The response has always been “Christianity”, allowing me to point out smugly that Christianity is no more English than Islam or Buddhism. That a Middle Eastern religion has become so well established in an alien land that natives truly believe it is indigenous should be no surprise. The Christianisation of the British Isles was a long and complex process through which native deities and Christian saints became fused, holy places merged and a synthesis of beliefs developed, doubtless some of the strongest threads in this seamless weaving together of traditions were acceptance of new ideas at the level of popular belief.

The Anglicisation of Christianity involved the creation of an English Christian identity based on an array of myths and legends about such diverse subjects as Glastonbury, Joseph of Arimathea and Saint George, who looked and acted curiously like the British god Llugh. These were accepted and endured because they filled a need in society.  The idea that Jesus accompanied his Joseph (possibly his great uncle) to England needed neither Biblical authority nor historical evidence.  Cornish miners sang “Jesus was a Tinner” not because it was the doctrine of the Church but because the idea that Jesus had shared their miserable, dangerous job was a way to make it bearable.

A more recent example of this process is the emergence of Nation of Islam in the USA. It is unlikely that, armed with the data from focus groups indicating that Americans of African heritage were the most likely converts, some ulama somewhere in the Middle East decided to launch a missionary campaign based on bow ties and the idea that God was Black. Rather, the Black Muslim ideology appealed to the spiritual needs of African Americans because it chimed with the political and social upheaval in 1960s USA.  That it wasn’t Islam as it was practiced elsewhere didn’t matter.

The point which I wish to underline is that historically religions have spread often mainly because some aspect of them has appealed to a societal or communal need.  It does not have to be an orthodox aspect, indeed, it would seem that half understood or vague notions of the new tradition are most easily ingested and may form a bridgehead for a second wave of more orthodox understanding, as the Pagan influenced Celtic Church discovered at the Synod of Whitby. However, this process leads to the gradual development of distinct versions of a tradition rooted in local culture and addressing local needs.  The Internet, along with other media, undermine this process; had Malcolm Little had access to the Internet he might have been spared his epiphany at Mekkah or he might never have embraced Islam at all.

The Internet presents an almost limitless source of information about religion and a spiritual seeker can avail themselves of a plethora of religious views, beliefs and arguments at the click of a mouse. The accuracy of some of this information is perhaps debatable and, arguably, the most attractive web sites will be the most popular, but response to both content and presentation will be dependent upon individual subjectivity. Whilst evidence suggests that personal contacts and networks are still the most common ways for individuals to change their religious allegiances, the Internet allows the creation of virtual religious communities or allows the migrant to retain links with a community they have physically left behind. No longer is the seeker bound by communal and geographical restrictions but they are freed to reshape their individual consciousness. At a time of religious pluralism, mass migration and globalisation, the Internet runs counter to the slow process of the welding together of culture and religion based on incomplete understanding of dogma and the pragmatic needs of the community. Religious individualisation has made belief a personal choice, an option which can be accepted, rejected or remodelled with disregard to communal values.

It seems possible that the Internet’s impact on the spread of religions will increase the individualisation of religousity at the expense of communal and cultural cohesion.  What is certain is that religious education and informed religious literacy will be more important than ever before in the age of the World Wide Web.

Lil Osborne

Spring 2012