Editorial: Digital religion meets politics: pushing boundaries and opening-up new perspectives

New digital technologies are transforming the landscape of religion and religious practices.Religious influencer (Myers et al. 2023, Sheldon 2024), faith tweets (van den Berg 2019, Bathan andRamos 2021), digital chaplaincy (Winiger et al. 2025, Bezabih et al. 2025), or online religiously motivated hate speech (Ramponi et al. 2022) are popular examples in place. The rapidly growing scholarship, known as digital religion studies (cf. Campbell 2013, Campbell and Bellar 2022, Schlag and Radde-Antweiler 2024), explores the extent to which traditional religious practices are adapted to digital environments and how aspects of digital culture inform offline religious groups and institutions. While the young field profits from interdisciplinary collaborations and perspectives, the political dimension of this transformation is still underdeveloped. How do political actors refer to religion in digital times? Will governments respond to newly created religious online communities, and if so, with which governance tools? How do digital tools change forms of expression at the intersection of religious beliefs and political preferences? And how do processes of societal mobilization and politicization based on religious grounds change in an ever more digitalized world? This special issue unites scholars from various social science disciplines (e.g. religious studies, sociology, political science or theology) to respond to these questions and to push boundaries in the nascent scholarly terrain of digital religion and politics further. The participating scholars apply diverse methods (e.g., qualitative as well as quantitative research techniques, single case as well as country-comparative approaches), and explore a diverse set of social media channels (e.g. Twitter/X, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram) as well as different types of political and societal actors (e.g. political parties, parliamentarians, Christian Reddit communities, Muslim TikToker, young Instagram users, Christian activists) to enhance our knowledge about the intersection between religion, digitalization, and politics. This introductory essay tries to synthesize the contributions of the special issue and draw some overarching conclusions. The next section defines the intersection of digital religions and politics. Section three teases out the themes on which the contributions of this special issue converge, and identifies research desiderata. Section four concludes.Digital religion meets politics: merging two disciplinary perspectives Digital religion studies and the studies on religion and politics are so far somewhat disconnected scientific subfields, although an integrated perspective of both (trans-)disciplinary groups would be highly fruitful to better understand the role of religion in modern democracies faced with comprehensive digital changes.Digital religion studies explore the extent to which traditional religious practices are adapted to digital environments (Campbell and Evolvi 2020, p. 6;Campbell 2007, cf. also Neumaier 2022, Schlag and Radde-Antweiler 2024). The term "digital religion" was suggested as a comprehensive way to describe and investigate the intersection between religion and digital media (ibid.; Peterson 2020). Specifically, Campbell (2013, p. 1) describes digital religion as a "framework for articulating the evolution of religious practices online which are linked to online and offline context simultaneously". Utilising this new framework, interdisciplinary teams of sociologists, communication and religious studies scholars attempt to answer various questions including "Does technology shape religion (and vice versa)?", "How can scholars measure the impact of digital culture on religion?", and "How do religious leaders and believers approach the internet?" (Campbell and Evolvi 2020, p. 6).The scholarly community on religion and politics is also quite diverse, integrating different political science sub-disciplines (e.g. political theory, comparative politics, policy analysis) and exploring the relevance and constitution of religion in offline settings of the political system (e.g. party manifestos, parliamentary speeches, constitutions specifying state-church relationships, or the impact of religion on public policies) (van Kersbergen and Manow 2009, Foret 2015a, 2015b, Fox 2015, Engeli et al. 2012). Online settings such as political communication on social media received more attention only recently, and primarily in regard to radical rightwing parties and their references to religion (e.g. Bramlett and Burge 2021, Schwörer and Fernández-García 2023, Marchetti et al. 2022).Although both communities may certainly follow different aims and interests due to different disciplinary identities, a more integrated discourse and analyses enriches them equally. In the following synthesis and reflection of the contributions to this special issue, we discuss some findings of this integrated discourse.The contributions to this special issue raise some overarching points, linking back to two theoretical discussions in both disciplinary fields: (1) the growing individualization of religion in current societies (Davies 1994, 2002, Norris and Inglehart 2004) , and (2) the puzzle of politicization and polarization of religion and religious content (Anderson 2004;Engeli et al. 2013;Knill and Preidel 2014;Perry 2022). Next, we elaborate on some more specific findings and future research agendas in this interdisciplinary endavour. This includes methodological advances and challenges in analyzing religious content on digital platforms, market logics of these platforms, and how design differences between platforms shape the manner in which religion is discussed online.Overarching take-aways: individualization of religion and the puzzle of politicization and polarization Individualization of religion in the digital political sphereIn both scholarly communities the discourse on the individualization of religion is very vivid. This phenomenon guides most contributions to this special issue, either directly or indirectly.Changing dynamics of religious behavior, believing and belonging as well as identification of religious authority are observable in many countries. Shrinking numbers of (Christian) church members, reduced attendance rates of religious services as well as decreasing donations and church taxes are just some of many indicators of the pattern (Davies 1994, 2002, Norris and Inglehart 2004). New technologically mediated spaces offer a particular promising environment to explore this trend in a more fine-tuned way. Social media platforms, for instance, are accessible for elites and "ordinary" citizens and designed to communicate "private" stories, and hence, also experiences with religion considered as private issue in many social spheres.The political science community somewhat disregarded religion in the digital sphere, despite knowing that not only the electorate articulates religious preferences via social media channels but also politicians. For several years, Twitter/X has been the most common social media tool among politicians and professional communicators of politics (Castanho Silva and Proksch 2022). Even after Elon Musk's acquisition and the subsequent changes in content moderation policies and algorithmic dynamics -including amplification patterns (Nutakki et al., 2025) -Twitter continues to serve as a relevant tool for political actors (Braun et al. 2024). Facebook, Instagram and especially TikTok, however, have become popular more recently (Cervi et al 2023). For instance, the former German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, posted his first video on Tik-Tok about his briefcase in April 2024. Compared to Twitter/X, the latter platforms are known as outlets where "private stories", like favorite meals, are more "welcome" and less so political statements (cf. Braun et al. 2024). In other words, these platforms offer more room to talk about "private issues" like religious practices or experience.Additionally, the political science community so far conceptualizes religious profiles of political actors somewhat superficially. It is most common to distinguish between religious and secular political parties or actors (cf. Lipset's societal cleavages theory, but see also Ozzano's (2013) typologies on different religious parties). Some scholars stress religious and denominational divides between politicians, like parliamentary behavior of Christians vs. Muslims or Catholics vs. Evangelicals (Baumann et al 2015). However, such individual level data of religious profiles of members of parliament (MPs) are very rare, especially outside the US context (cf. Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) 2025; but see for German MPs Euchner andPreidel 2017, 2018). In other words, processes of individualization in religion are quite underexplored among political elites. At this point, the digital religion scholarship is particularly inspiring as it uncovers various dynamics, ranging from networked (online) communities, convergent practice to multisite reality, storied identity and shifting authority (cf. Campbell and Bellar 2023, p. 7).In this special issue, most contributions relate to this process of individualization in religion in the digital sphere, either explicitly or implicitly. Klevesath (2025), for instance, explores the growing pluralization of islam-related claims to authority in the digital sphere. Based on a qualitative case study on the interpretations of "Islam Ridda" (apostasy from Islam) and "Islam theft" on Google and YouTube, he discovers that on Google, Muslim and non-Muslim content is almost equally visibly present. On YouTube, by contrast, interpretations posted by Muslim preachers dominate. Klevesath (2025) argues that this finding might be related to the long tradition of oral transmission of Islamic authority and its use on the internet that cannot easily be matched by secular interpreters of Islamic commandments, illustrating that platforms shape processes of individualization of religion. Euchner et al. (2025) examine religious references during online campaigning for the elections to the European Parliament. Their study uses a mixed-methods approach to analyze European politicans' X (formerly Twitter) profiles, including more than 97,300 tweets and 853 candidates. Generally, religion is not very salient in this sphere. In line with the individualization idea, Euchner et al. observe large intra-party variation and hence, references to religion (e.g. religious practices, values etc.) by candidates from very different political parties. Mattes et al. (2025) build on a qualitative study with 41 young believers of different religious traditions and explore individual negotiations of belonging in digital spaces, as well as negotiations in relation to religious communities and political concepts.The authors argue that the digital spaces reinforce certain boundaries (e.g., among religious traditions) whereas they facilitate the blurring of others (e.g. confessional structures). This pattern seems to be guided by algorithms following the logic of attention economy that structure social media as well as by the conscious search for digital forms of inclusion. Young believers develop strategies to navigate complex discourses of being religious in a secular world and the role of the digital within it.The individualization of religion also has methodological consequences, that are to some extent caused by the prevalence of social media, but where social media also offers a remedy (see also below on the methodological take-aways): If religion is increasingly individualized, broadsweeping generalizations about religious behavior of whole groups become more and more tenuous. Thus, many studies in this special issue go down to the level of individuals (e.g. the studies of El Sayed and Hotait 2024 or Mattes et al. 2025) to make intra-group variation, e.g. among Muslim TikTokers visible. This variation is probably to some extent caused by social media -individuals have the opportunity to construct and communicate their specific identity.At the same time, social media data collection and coding techniques allow to empirically grasp this variation -a variation of religious outlooks and identities that was maybe to some extent present even before the times of social media, but that could not be expressed and researched, because the construction of religious identity was confined to private spaces and private conversations.In general, since more than a decade, severe polarization meaning the division of society into clashing "us" versus "them" identities has become an international problem which imperils democracies and provokes the rise of populism worldwide (Carrothers and Donohue 2019). In this respect, societal anger and an increasing rich-poor-gap play a role, but the main reasons for the divided democracies are and is the of a new between and et al. 2019, 2023). and either and the of or and the of in the of a with regard to the but also relevant for many suggested social and polarization as phenomenon at a polarization we see is the of a complex system of identities and political institutions. It and politicians and political and we see become the the political strategies of the be the this it would be to that the being includes the digital social media, and communication The and different identities of the present are not with and of new and digital the latter to the polarization of societies in a way as a of and political understand is has to be first that polarization as such is a phenomenon in modern where and politics offer political and the of values and primarily this that political and are main of be however, is a in which political differences into and the for an and for the of and for the of are is a of that social media and digital and communication platforms that than politics. for this is by in his in the of Social the describes and analyses how political communication via and social to and and to the polarization of out that is increasingly a of which citizens from and with contrast, and of in spaces a in to polarization and as well as the to the of political not because the by the internet hate whereas and are to 2017, regard to our of forms of religion, as well as in of the processes of digital and polarization just the of digital religion the trend of social and political division in society or it could also as a of a of religions also to be either to the or to have a in the of this it can be that religions are particularly well to and highly identities, in that they build of which distinguish between an of the believers and an of are different believers or from a perspective et al. In this respect, a digitalized religion would primarily be to have the of increasing or and The of digital individualization of religions on the have a to a certain On the other it is quite that religious identities not only but also to an identity of believers of different The latter would be an of religion, which could either be or by digital contributions exploring these processes for of religious references in online in and on political communication on The discovers that political parties in on religion but primarily to in other discourses religion is In by contrast, a role for which is in the discourse of political elites to use religious to to religious which Schwörer of Euchner et al. (2025) these findings by a role of religion in online political however, is variation, a of religion in and in to German or online candidates from political parties with religious are more to refer to religion than from more secular parties, traditional study Muslim content in and how they in their The first is the of and political and El Sayed and Hotait this use of among individuals this Muslim and them have the to be and or of or social not related to religion or politics. However, other such as or social are at the intersection of and politicization of religion is the of the El Sayed and Hotait term this and with a of that as an of with political statements as a political and religious In this the by 2025) is also particularly as it the and role of religion in identity and the which not from in social In line with and (2025) analyze the of Christian online on and politics as a In so, the authors the role that the of in the of identity in social (2025) the problem of religiously identity in digital and channels to the dimension of In this he different in which technologies such as digital religious platforms, on or religious can a particular on such as digital polarization or the religious of certain of democracies (e.g. or as of commandments, that are or international in to the of technologies to (2025) uncovers how in and identity in the digital and societal polarization into "us" and their they have the role in to the and The about identity is in social media in both to a extent in than in In the in political society due to institutions. in is and very political In other words, state-church as well as the of democracies may polarization pattern in the digital take-aways: methodological and and future research contributions to this special issue an variation of methodological including and the case of (2025) by to and quantitative as well as qualitative methods to analyze online our contributions that or data methods that on internet content are not the only way to explore the many contributions and or even new to study individual social media studies by El Sayed and Hotait and Schwörer the of large and data in the case of El content in the case of Schwörer but these data with coding and coding to the religious content of these and Euchner et quantitative as well as analyses to out the relevance and of discourse during the for the European in the by El Sayed and Hotait not only uses the content of the but on coding the that to communicate religious the identification and of religious content can still be with Mattes et al. (2025) media to the methodological of scholars of digital religion. In with the theoretical that religion has become more (see they their to their social media this Instagram) and on their profiles, the they and the they In this the individual religious profiles can be the is in how far this social media is by the algorithms of the see the Mattes et al. (2025) also a fruitful to the digital world of social media to the in which to use to on a that are for their religious in a digital is like a social of social and religious in the examples of the special issue that a political science perspective to the field of digital religion studies for methods that and and digital and methodological offer for future of analyses and data collection of the most aspects of future not only because online content is growing but also due to the increasing of How discourse and communication about religion change if is digital from our special issue also includes two theoretical studies by (2025) and (2025), which relevant for the new scientific field of It to be to extent these can be for future contributions to this special issue study different media Schwörer and (2025) The is in how far the of the studies are extent do these studies into the same social sphere, and to extent is that social by the algorithms of the would the of Schwörer have been the same he Twitter/X, would the of El Sayed and Hotait have been the same they Instagram and so the contributions of this special issue discuss their of and they on the of the platforms are the and For Schwörer to study as this a of and 2024). Euchner et al. (2025) examine discourse on Twitter/X, as the is the most online politicians of the European even after Elon Musk's acquisition and the subsequent changes in content moderation policies and algorithmic dynamics (cf. et al., 2025, Braun et al. 2024). On the the is groups are on or Twitter/X, and groups are not on this How communication change on the El Sayed and Hotait that the may allow to as their are also considered by the and are to may not have to these Mattes et al. (2025) the of Instagram that this is the that most of their in and (2025) their on by the relevance of this for online among young (2025) for due to the large of and the social media as well as the of the among church these reasons for specific platforms to study they also that it is not how the are they specific to the or do they about digital religion in is for comparative In the contributions of our special issue a of digital platforms, diverse on how religion is to in different digital The of the is most motivated by its for actors or relevance for political processes (e.g., candidates for the of the European young in of online in digital has been with regard to a market as the economy by that Schwörer uses to religion in The religious economy the that religion like a and and communities and to to environments by strategies to new believers and community In other words, if religious communities offer new digital services and spaces, might argue that they a market logic as they respond to new and for believers with other religious The digital such market logics in a religious communities of the state-church may follow this logic as social media are accessible and for and as digital platforms are to a market to make with that the social that are by the Schwörer uses the religious market to he more religious references in in than in to his the religious market in is less than in and not the use of religious in This market logic of the digital platforms is in the study of El Sayed and Hotait where they that the of content is with of not only social but also market and present aspects of their social and private and in as a has been the most of content is the use of the both as a and as well as a political and religious where the political and religious into the contributions to this special issue the of the research on digital religion and politics. While the contributions are highly diverse in their methods and theoretical they on some common they the individualization of religion that has become in the digital contributions down to the individual level of religious that has become to (and to due to and social Thus, our of religious identities, their and consequences, more but maybe also as it to to the contributions into the of political polarization and digital to the first point, individualization could in increasing as it to religious and political into and like parties and the contributions the methodological variation that can use to study digital religion. digital by but and are to into forms of religious as the contributions how studies of digital religion be (and can to the algorithmic and market logic of the Digital religion is expression of religious identities, but and by the and algorithmic logics of the research which has only been at by most contributions is the relation of digital religion to and more While the contributions by Schwörer and Euchner et al study parties and politicians, is research on how religious (e.g. or religiously to the digital that our have This is to some extent a of the research on individual forms of religious it seems that is a to study how the to this how they their and This is maybe the most way for digital religion the digital with the and their