To believers, the question as to why
Christianity went from tiny sect to the largest religion on Earth has, of course, an easy answer: it's God's only and true religion.
Science, on the other hand, even if it's
social science, has to go further. Can we, then, explain Christianity's success without resorting to God? As it seems, network theory may help us here:
The early Christians were nothing more than a renegade Jewish sect. Regarded as eccentric and problematic, they were persecuted by both Jewish and Roman authorities. There is no historical evidence that their spiritual leader, Jesus of Nazareth, ever intended to have an impact beyond Judaism. His ideas were difficult and controversial enough for Jews, and reaching the gentiles seemed particularly hopeless. As a starter, those non-Jews who wanted to follow in his footsteps had to undergo circumcision, had to obey the laws of contemporary Judaism, and were excluded from the Temple —the spiritual center of early Jewish Christianity. Very few walked the path. Indeed, reaching them with the message was almost impossible. In a fragmented and earthbound society news and ideas traveled by foot, and the distances were long. Christianity, like many other religious movements in human history, seemed doomed to oblivion. Despite the odds, close to two billion people call themselves Christian today. How did that happen? How did the unorthodox beliefs of a small and disdained Jewish sect come to form the basis of the Western world's dominant religion?
Many credit the triumph of Christianity to the message offered by the historical figure we know today as Jesus of Nazareth. Today, marketing experts would describe his message as "sticky" —it resonated and was passed down by generations while other religious movements fizzled and died. But credit for the success of Christianity in fact goes to an orthodox and pious Jew who never met Jesus. While his Hebrew name was Saul, he is better knwon to us by his Roman name, Paul. Paul's life mission was to curb Christianity. He traveled from community to community persecuting Christians because they put Jesus, condemned by the authorities as a blasphemer, on the same level as God. He used scourging, ban, and excommunication to uphold the traditions and to force the deviants to adhere to Jewish law. Nevertheless, according to historical accounts, this fierce persecutor of Christians underwent a sudden conversion in the year 34 and became the fiercest supporter of the new faith, making it possible for a small Jewish sect to become the dominant religion in the Western world for the next 2,000 years.
How did Paul's efforts succeed? He understood that for Christianity to spread beyond Judaism, the high barriers to becoming a Christian had to be abolished. Circumcision and the strict food laws had to be relaxed. He took his message to the original disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem and received the mandate to continue evangelization without demanding circumcision.
But Paul understood that this was not enough: The message had to spread. So he used his firsthand knowledge of the social network of the first century's civilized world from Rome to Jerusalem to reach and convert as many people as he could. He walked nearly 10,000 miles in the next twelve years of his life. He did not wander randomly, however; he reached out to the biggest communities of his era, to the people and places in which the faith could germinate and spread most effectively. He was the first and by far the most effective salesperson of Christianity, using theology and social networks equally effectively. So should he, or Jesus, or the message be credited for Christianity's success? Could it happen again?
(Albert-Lászlo Barabási: pp. 3-4)
Sure, it goes against accepted knowledge.
For thousands of years, we've accepted the idea that powerful ideas are spread by powerful, charismatic leaders who convince the masses. Even in today's
liberal democracies, we feel attracted to that idea and continue repeating the mantra that social change can only be brought about by a majority of people, true, but only after a charismatic leader convinced them to make that choice. Yes, we know that democracy has proven time and over again stronger than any dictatorship, and yet we have not internalized that historical teaching.
Very deep inside, we still believe that a strong leader and a monolithic organization will always be stronger, more solid. Here is network theory, though, to dispel that old myth. Take, for instance,
a recent study done by Hai-Tao Zhang, a physicist at the University of Cambrige, about how a small band of like-minded birds can change the behavior of an entire flock. The conclusions are counter-intuitive, yet clear and undeniable.
This is a scientific discipline still in its infancy, but that could clearly shake the whole edifice of knowledge upon which we have built our institutions for many years.
