Bruxy Cavey and The Meeting House Megachurch: A Dramaturgical Model of Charismatic Leadership Performing “Evangelicalism for People Not Into Evangelicalism” by Peter Schuurman A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Religious Studies Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2016 © Peter Schuurman 2016 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ! ii ! Abstract Megachurch pastors—as local and international celebrities—have been a growing phenomenon since the 1960s, when megachurches began to proliferate across North America. Why are these leaders and their large congregations so popular in an age of increasing “religious nones”? Commentators in both popular and academic literature often resort to characterizing the leadership with stereotypes of manipulative opportunists along the lines of Sinclair Lewis’ Elmer Gantry (1927) or narrow characterizations of savvy entrepreneurs who thrive in a competitive religious economy. Similarly, writers assume megachurch attendees are a passive audience, or even dupes. This dissertation challenges the Elmer Gantry stereotype and the religious economic perspectives by examining one particular megachurch pastor named Bruxy Cavey in the context of his “irreligious” megachurch community called The Meeting House. It argues that charismatic leadership, not calculated management and branding techniques, best explains the rapid growth of this megachurch as well as the deep commitments many people make to it. While the concept of “charisma” is often used equivocally, in the tradition of Max Weber I contend that charismatic authority is best understood not only as an extraordinary individual quality but as a form of cultural authority that arises when traditional and institutional forms have lost their plausibility and people experience uncertainty, dissatisfaction, or distress. People attribute exemplary powers to someone who offers them a way out, and intellectually and emotionally bond with the visionary and their vision. This charismatic authority I portray as a dramatic production, what I call a “dramatic web” that draws followers into its scene and script, offering some resolution to their worries. The complex, compelling nature of this drama is best understood in the context of Wendy Griswold’s “cultural diamond,” which proposes four elements in the analysis of a cultural object: the cultural object itself, its creators, its receivers, and the social world that encapsulates them all. I investigate the four elements as part of a “charismatic diamond”: the cultural object is the “dramatic web” of Cavey’s church, marketed as “a church for people who aren’t into church”; the creators are Cavey and his staff, who employ a variety of media to generate and disseminate the drama; the social world is a Canadian culture ambivalent about religion and which stigmatizes right- wing evangelicals; the receivers are various concentric circles of audience who participate in the subculture of the church to varying degrees. ! iii ! Following the dramaturgical themes of Erving Goffman, I investigate the “dramatic web” of The Meeting House in two parts—as a deconstructive, satirical project displayed on Sunday mornings and then as a re-constructive, romantic adventure that is exemplified in weekday Home Churches. For the first, I show Cavey deliberately takes “role distance” from the stereotype of a right-wing evangelical pastor, using satire to deconstruct the mores of North American evangelical culture and create an “alienating effect” in his audience. The negatively oriented opening acts create a space in which a new script can be constructed, and I demonstrate next Cavey’s two core romantic narratives that champion “relationship, not religion”—a script that is to be enacted through their weekday Home Churches. Not all attendees are caught up in this dramatic web to the same degree, however, as attendees select elements from it for their own purposes, some embracing and identifying with the whole script, while others take pieces from it to arrange into a more eclectic religious life. The final chapter explores moments of “dramaturgical trouble,” including the question of what happens when Cavey retires, dies, or is deposed. In other words, how might this religious performance come to an end? I offer a typology of possible endings and their sequels—three scenarios of charismatic succession I developed from Weber’s writing on the routinization of charisma. The dissertation concludes by suggesting that, contrary to predictions of the megachurches demise, if megachurches indeed are a compelling drama co-produced by leader and follower that brings meaning, purpose, and joy to followers’ lives in the midst of cultural tension, megachurches are not just a passing fad or vulnerable personality cult, but a viable and likely enduring North American religious institution. ! iv ! Acknowledgements I would first like to thank the members of The Meeting House who opened their doors to me, answered my questions, and fed me well. I have a deep appreciation for Tim Day, who gave me permission to explore the church network and ask questions, and Bruxy Cavey, who was gracious enough to find time for a graduate student in his weekly schedule on multiple occasions. Other key leaders and dozens of other members of the church, such as site pastor Phil Shamas who was my first insider contact—they all were friendly and helpful to me in my research. I hope what follows is a constructively critical engagement with their passion and practise. Learning is a social endeavour, and I am glad I decided against a distance Ph.D. in favour of one done in residence. I am grateful to my supervisor, Doug Cowan, who challenged me to greater depths of scholarly relevance, precision, and erudition; to Jeff Wilson, who was available and helpful, modeled first-rate ethnographic scholarship and underscored the foundational nature of historical research; Paul Freston, who gave me the bigger picture, an open door, and periodic references and lunches; and Jeremy Bergen, who was my gracious Anabaptist theological guide. Lorne Dawson was generous with his time and advice, especially early in my doctoral career. Michel Desjardins offered his home and French tutoring to a number of us graduates and modeled the posture of a critical scholar who honours his research subjects. I want to recognize a broader network of academic support. James Bielo was a pleasure to have in collegial dialogue, and he demonstrated in his writing a great example of ethnographic work on evangelical groups. It was also a delight to have my long-time mentor, Bill VanGroningen, think along with me for another season. The megachurch experts Scott Thumma and Warren Bird were only an email away and were helpful with responses to my questions about the broader megachurch landscape. Jim Wellman took me out for lunch, gave me a copy of his book on the charisma of Rob Bell, and inspired me to capture some of the “collective effervescence” that buoys up a megachurch. At the end of my first year Gerardo Marti lead a scholarly seminar on congregations and social change that gave me a good grounding in congregational research. Peter Erb, Mary Kooy, James Bielo, Norm Klassen, and Paul Joosse were also encouraging and helpful scholarly voices along the way. I would like to acknowledge the Ontario Graduate Scholarship program, as their two grants helped sustain and encourage me through two cycles of the seasons in the program. Additionally, I am grateful for the grant that allowed me to participate in Calvin College’s Summer Seminar in ! v ! Christian Scholarship entitled “Congregations and Social Change: Adaptations and Innovations in Religious Communities” for four weeks in the summer of 2011. I am deeply grateful to my small Ph.D. cohort of Denis Bekkering and Leah McKeen; these two exceptional colleagues kept me in touch with the program and its schedules, and helped me get into shape for its comprehensive exams. Other supportive colleagues include David Feltmate, Siobhan Chandler, Katie Riddell, Jonathan Vandersteen, and members of the “evangelicalism research group” (including David Haskell, Mark Chapman, Adam Stewart, Suzanne Armstrong and Brian Carwana). Brian was well-studied in Caveyism, keen on sharpening my analysis of The Meeting House, and has provided lots of fodder that has gone into this dissertation. Scott Wall has sent me hints and badgered me with significant questions. I am also grateful for friends who attended TMH with me: Mark Hofstee, Paul Adema, Robb Thomas and Dirk Schouten, who also graciously edited my final draft. Esther Schletz saved me countless hours as my always-dependable and easily- recommendable transcriber. My Jesuit mentor, Eric Jensen, was both a guide and a grace, warning me of the perils of academic ambition. Brian Bork was a supportive campus minister, always available for a meal and conversation, not to mention offering me venues to test some ideas. My friends Glen, Jamie, and Mark—the men who encouraged me as I leapt into this PhD program—have been a stable, critical reference point in the midst of many transitions, and their Cavey-banter offered light-hearted and critical perspective. Mark Wallace and James Vanderlaan, as the international vehicles of my colourful library, I am in your debt. My own church small group (Jim and Nicole, Rich and Nadine, Paul and Freda, Lisa and Jeff, Dirk and Mary-Ann) offered encouragement as well as a megachurch pastor video-study in the midst of a long and intense program. In sum, if there is any leadership demonstrated in my dissertational assertions, it is a co-production of many people; there are no self- made scholars. My family was forever a welcome and healthy distraction.