What is "Yeezianity"?

"But for me, as a scholar of religion, I wonder how best to categorize Yeezianity. Is it a religion? Is it a meme? Is this just some ploy to get an entertainer’s attention and get a back stage invitation? With such a low threshold of membership, the posting of a picture, is the whole thing a joke? What is at stake for scholars of religion to call this new creation a religion? What is at stake if we don’t? In many cases we have allowed our subjects of study to determine the answer for us. If they call themselves a member of a religious tradition or call something a religion, we accept that. But is that abdicating our analytical responsibilities, especially in a case such as this? Moreover, with the scrutiny of those outside our discipline ever increasing, do we risk ridicule by accepting this as a religion, or do we defend it as such, explaining that it has beliefs, dogma, a messianic figure, and even a ritual. I know it is a well-worn and even trite conversation regarding the definition of religion. As the new semester started a couple of weeks ago, I once more trotted out the various definitions of Durkheim, Geertz, Frazier, Tillich, and the like. I noted Asad’s dismissal to a universal definition, and also noted J.Z. Smith’s assertion that religion can be defined in over fifty ways. It is a conversation we are all familiar with. But on the other hand, we all have an internal definition of religion, a Justice-Potter-Stewart-like gut feeling that when we look at something claiming to be a religion, we know what it is when we see it."
Read more here: source

Another article on Yeezianity and Humanism, here