I agree with you and causticus that formal organizations bring a lot of trouble with them, and might be wholly pernicious, or at best necessary evils, most of all when it comes to spiritual matters. Also, implicit in your answer, and explicit in Causticus's replies, is the thought that "organizations" carry certain risks and complications in today's world that they might share with the past or the future - specific bureaucratic challenges, contending with certain political ideologies, and so forth. That's worth taking very seriously.
My one quibble, though, is that I can think of at least two (semi) spiritual movements I admire for whom formal organizations have played some part in their persistence and success (I'm leaving aside the elephant in the room of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which maintained not only Christianity, but much of what we have left of classical culture through the last dark age). Those would be Revival Druidry and Free Masonry. In both cases, groves/lodges, and at some points, wider governing bodies have helped these movements to stick around longer than the lifetimes of those currently interested in them. Not the only way, of course (JMG has likely made more Druids single-handedly than AODA ever has), but I'm sure that it has helped sometimes, and maybe even more than the downsides harmed these movements.
The other strength (and weakness!) of more-or-less formal organizations is that they allow for discovery beyond "folks who know an existing member personally." If I'm a lonely rando Heathen, I can do a search online or look at local bulletin boards or whatever for groups that might welcome me, but it would be much harder for me to run into someone who happens to know that a handful of folks get together on the Holytides and have weekly Edda Study meetings. (This is, of course, a weakness, in so far as it also makes it easier for bad actors, bureaucrats, and so forth to find the group).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2023-06-28 09:01 pm (UTC)My one quibble, though, is that I can think of at least two (semi) spiritual movements I admire for whom formal organizations have played some part in their persistence and success (I'm leaving aside the elephant in the room of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which maintained not only Christianity, but much of what we have left of classical culture through the last dark age). Those would be Revival Druidry and Free Masonry. In both cases, groves/lodges, and at some points, wider governing bodies have helped these movements to stick around longer than the lifetimes of those currently interested in them. Not the only way, of course (JMG has likely made more Druids single-handedly than AODA ever has), but I'm sure that it has helped sometimes, and maybe even more than the downsides harmed these movements.
The other strength (and weakness!) of more-or-less formal organizations is that they allow for discovery beyond "folks who know an existing member personally." If I'm a lonely rando Heathen, I can do a search online or look at local bulletin boards or whatever for groups that might welcome me, but it would be much harder for me to run into someone who happens to know that a handful of folks get together on the Holytides and have weekly Edda Study meetings. (This is, of course, a weakness, in so far as it also makes it easier for bad actors, bureaucrats, and so forth to find the group).