What makes a religion "organized?"

[Quintessence]

As we're all aware, the term "religion" covers a vast array of diverse traditions. With such heterogeneity, we may often use qualifiers in front of that term to specify which types of religion within the umbrella we speak of. One such qualifier is the word "organized." We sometimes say there is "organized religion" and "unorganized religion." While clearly these descriptors would lie among a gradient or continuum rather than a binary, what does that mean when we say a religion is organized? What elements are characteristic of an "organized religion" to you? What about an "unorganized religion?" Looking at the criteria you've created, what religions do you perceive as relatively organized versus relatively disorganized, and why?

 

[Deidre]

I tend to think of an organized religion as one that has a certain system of rituals, ''rules,'' traditions that require some type of adherence to them, in order to be considered part of that religion. An unorganized religion would be one that is more spiritual/free will based and doesn't seem to have a set construct like organized religions.

 

[Nietzsche]

Can't you ask the same of a political movement as well?

 

[Quintessence]

I tend to think of an organized religion as one that has a certain system of rituals, ''rules,'' traditions that require some type of adherence to them, in order to be considered part of that religion. An unorganized religion would be one that is more spiritual/free will based and doesn't seem to have a set construct like organized religions.

Interesting. What you describe here sounds to me like dogma/creed, not organization.

Can't you ask the same of a political movement as well?

Sure. Similar principles might apply. But I posted this in Comparative Religion, and am specifically interested in how folks conceptualize "organized" within a religious context.

 

[buddhist]

Organized religion has organizers - required, specially inspired intermediaries (prophet, priest, minister, etc.) - between the individual and what he or she strives for (deity, nibbana, etc.). Unorganized religion does not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As we're all aware, the term "religion" covers a vast array of diverse traditions. With such heterogeneity, we may often use qualifiers in front of that term to specify which types of religion within the umbrella we speak of. One such qualifier is the word "organized." We sometimes say there is "organized religion" and "unorganized religion." While clearly these descriptors would lie among a gradient or continuum rather than a binary, what does that mean when we say a religion is organized? What elements are characteristic of an "organized religion" to you? What about an "unorganized religion?" Looking at the criteria you've created, what religions do you perceive as relatively organized versus relatively disorganized, and why?

Nice thread.

When I think of organized religion, I think of politics. Id probably use structured religion. When I think of unorganized religion or plain religion, I think adopting and living a spiritual lifestyle which could be dogmatic or eclectic.

To govern, restrict, or "organize" religion is like puting chains on some one's freedom of expression. I find all religions I came across has both.

Organized or structured religion usually has cultural, language, historical, and (all I havent mentioned) connection which is the foundation (key) of their beliefs.

Id consider some forms of Buddhism, Catholicism, Muslim, Judaism, Indegenous religions, and the like organized. They have a written and/or oral traditions to which are foundations of their faith/spiritual life

Unoganized religion I see more "in the west". From my impression a lot of it (say UU) is finding freedom from organized religion by forming a diverse community of practices and less politics. Irs adopting a individual within a community point of view. Some religions are eclectic for that very nature.

I feel Catholicism (some Buddhism, Indegenous, Islam, Judaism, Hindu to an extent) are organized because they all have structure in how one behaves in their given culture. All of these religions build on the history and adopt overtime. The are conservative.

Unorganized religions such as some forms of paganisms, buddhisms, and some protestant non-denomoni can be eclectic, self oriented, people oriented. The sense of identity isnt based on a structure handed dowon to them like in Catholicism but one maybe from self explorations. On RF, I was told there are many types of beliefs under Hinduism; so, I would consider some types less focused on literalness and being exact in trying to conserve hstory (a part from cultural goals).

If I have more typos than usual, its because I bought a new portable keyboard for my nook that I realize is smaller than me!

 

[Quintessence]

Organized religion has organizers - required, specially inspired intermediaries (prophet, priest, minister, etc.) - between the individual and what he or she strives for (deity, nibbana, etc.). Unorganized religion does not.

Hmm. Some might say that organization of this type - leadership, basically - is required in some form or another for a religion to be a religion... or perhaps for a religion to get started. What do you think about that idea?

 

[buddhist]

Hmm. Some might say that organization of this type - leadership, basically - is required in some form or another for a religion to be a religion... or perhaps for a religion to get started. What do you think about that idea?

Is the leader is the deity, or specially appointed intermediaries who point to that deity? I'd differentiate between the two.

 

[Deidre]

Interesting. What you describe here sounds to me like dogma/creed, not organization.

But, I believe that is what it's come to signify...if a group shares dogma, rituals, traditions, a 'system' if you will of how they worship, etc...

Wait...Why are my answers in green? lol

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

For me, the first thing that there has to be to be an organized religion is more than one member. My religion is not organized because I'm a solitary practitioner. Not that religions with multiple members are necessarily organized, but it's a first step. After that, the members must be organized, that is, must hold different roles and duties as part of the religion.

 

[Covellite]

Maybe we should talk in terms of different levels of organized religions. Even an unorganized religion is in a certain way organized. Top level, middle level an low level organized religions terms could be the first (simple) step in understanding how to define organized religion.
The next step could be complexity of organization. Complex religions are mostly highly adaptive, dynamic in interactions and an emergence is highly present.
I would be quite sure that the best example of highly organized religion is the Roman Catholic Church - organized in a strict hierarchy, they have the Head of the church with clear authority, they are based in Vatican, clear declarations, long tradition, big number of members and stuff, even own state, bank and military and many other things what make that religion very stable and highly organized.
The low level organized religion are usually based on autocracy of charismatic person leadership and have a short shelf life, no matter how big they are. For example, The Cult of the Supreme Being was a form of deism established in France by Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution. It was intended to become the state religion of the new French Republic. With his death at the guillotine the cult disappeared from public view. (The word "cult" in French (culte) means "a form of worship", without any of its negative or exclusive implications in English)

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Organized religion has organizers - required, specially inspired intermediaries (prophet, priest, minister, etc.) - between the individual and what he or she strives for (deity, nibbana, etc.). Unorganized religion does not.

I agree with this distinction.

 

[Quintessence]

Is the leader is the deity, or specially appointed intermediaries who point to that deity? I'd differentiate between the two.

Okay, let's explore this a little further. How does that differentiation play a role in religions? Do you mean to say some sort of deity is a requirement for a leadership-based organized religion?

But, I believe that is what it's come to signify...if a group shares dogma, rituals, traditions, a 'system' if you will of how they worship, etc...

Wait...Why are my answers in green? lol

Because you quoted me. I am contagious!

I agree that in common parlance, "organized religion" seems to get wrapped up with the idea of dogmas and traditions rather than the actual infrastructure of groups. I find that interesting.

 

[Quintessence]

For me, the first thing that there has to be to be an organized religion is more than one member. My religion is not organized because I'm a solitary practitioner. Not that religions with multiple members are necessarily organized, but it's a first step. After that, the members must be organized, that is, must hold different roles and duties as part of the religion.

To expand on that, might we might say "organized religion" is necessarily a reference to community? I've heard some folks say that for something to be called a religion, it must have more than one member, and in that sense, all religions must be in some sense organized, even if loosely...

Maybe we should talk in terms of different levels of organized religions. Even an unorganized religion is in a certain way organized. Top level, middle level an low level organized religions terms could be the first (simple) step in understanding how to define organized religion.
The next step could be complexity of organization. Complex religions are mostly highly adaptive, dynamic in interactions and an emergence is highly present.
I would be quite sure that the best example of highly organized religion is the Roman Catholic Church - organized in a strict hierarchy, they have the Head of the church with clear authority, they are based in Vatican, clear declarations, long tradition, big number of members and stuff, even own state, bank and military and many other things what make that religion very stable and highly organized.
The low level organized religion are usually based on autocracy of charismatic person leadership and have a short shelf life, no matter how big they are. For example, The Cult of the Supreme Being was a form of deism established in France by Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution. It was intended to become the state religion of the new French Republic. With his death at the guillotine the cult disappeared from public view. (The word "cult" in French (culte) means "a form of worship", without any of its negative or exclusive implications in English)

Yeah, I think levels makes sense. It could be hierarchical like you say, or some other way of managing. Like in UU, even though there's a minister, they're not really "in charge" or "the authority" so much - there are other support staff that help run the fellowship, plus committees, and members vote on major decisions. It's more of a democratic, non-heirarchical system.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think its organized religion if you teach it to your children.

 

[Quintessence]

I think its organized religion if you teach it to your children.

Oh! Could you expand on that idea? What if one doesn't have children? Or has them, but does not raise them in one's own tradition?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Oh! Could you expand on that idea? What if one doesn't have children? Or has them, but does not raise them in one's own tradition?

This is just an idea, not something from an encyclopedia.

Organized religions copy the seed--> tree --> seed cycle. They train the children to train their own children in the same way, so the children will carry on the religion. Kind produces after kind. If you don't have that then you aren't organized.

So how does that differ from parenting? To some degree you have to teach your children, because there's no way not to. For example you have to teach them how to speak, so you are organizing their speech. If you teach them anything, then you are establishing a tradition of some kind; but that is not the same as an organized religion. An organized religion teaches the children to teach itself to their children and so forth. If you teach your children that they must teach their children to speak French, and their children must learn French and so on for all of eternity, then you are establishing an organized religion in your family -- it is the religion that they must speak French.

Now what if there appears a religion that continues to spread that does not require teaching itself to all future generations? Is it organized? If it requires you to propagate itself, then yes. You might not be passing it to your own children, but you are required to propagate your religion and to teach others to do the same. Therefore your religion is still organized.

 

[buddhist]

I agree with this distinction.

I agree with your agreement.

 

[buddhist]

Okay, let's explore this a little further. How does that differentiation play a role in religions? Do you mean to say some sort of deity is a requirement for a leadership-based organized religion?

Not at all. If there are required intermediaries between you and the highest goal, whatever that may be, in that religion, then I call that an organized religion. The highest goal can be a deity, its heaven, nibbana, union with Brahman, acquisition of magickal powers, etc.

If the religion does not require you to approach that highest goal through intermediaries, and instead allows you to approach it on your own, then I consider that an unorganized religion.

 

[Augustus]

I think it just means 'the big ones'.

People wouldn't consider the myriad animist belief systems 'organised', but at the local level they usually are. Given that many of these still exist in traditional societies that don't really have a great deal of interaction above the local level, they are as organised as they can be.

They often have the intermediaries, leaders, rituals, expectations, traditions, etc. of 'organised' religions.

Seems to me that the primary difference is size. Organised religion has some form of standardisation.coordination beyond the local level.