A good mate of mine, whom you may have read from time to time, Stephen Garner is one of this hemisphere’s lead scholar in the field of religion, culture and technology. Based in Auckland, he’s recently written a piece for the NZ Herald, which offers readers a primer in researchers’ questions and concerns in approaching online religion and culture. He offers a good introduction into the age-old question about whether religion can stay authentic while virtual at the same time.

I think this excerpt is probably the crux of his article:

The very real spiritual needs being met online for some believers, and the claims they make about the nature of community they find, raise some interesting questions as to just what an authentic religious community looks like.
Can it be found online, or does it need to have a face-to-face flesh and blood element to it?

Though this is a question that theologians and social researchers alike consider most salient in the whole virtual religion topic, I wonder if it’s really a valid question. To me it sets up religion online and in the real world as either-or cases, as if people who go online for religion find something different or discontinuous or not complementary than they would at temple or prayer group. I think the reality, on the other hand, is that people’s experience of religious community is layered, where virtual church and local congregation are environments in which the entire concept of identity and belonging are explored.

I don’t think this is new. The writings of Paul in his epistles were mediations of a Christian identity that were negotiated in distant and far away lands, but always in the context of the houses they were read. The renewal of Papal authority in the counter-reformation was mediated by the publication of the catechism, but only made real in the teaching and homilies of the parish priest. And televangelism made more sense when coupled with the brochures and publications of its movements, and talked about in prayer and study groups.

Likewise, I think the experience of online religion can only be authentic when seen in context of other spheres of religious life. And the converse is true also. Rather than wondering whether religion in a chat room or the blogosphere in real, I think people consider the reality of religion as a whole in virtual contexts. So maybe the question should be: what validity do offline religious constructs give to the Internet, and how does online experience shape the nature of religious identity, belongong and participation?