POBLACIÓN POR AÑO TASA DE

In this section I report on my observations while attending five Home Churches for eleven weeks each. I elaborate on three levels of engagement with the dramatic web, what I am calling on-script performances, off-script performances, and “failed script” narratives.¹²⁸ The first on-script performance I relate took place in a Home Church connected to the Oakville site led by an overseer and her spouse; it was attended by some MH staff and others who were quite committed to the Sunday services and regular Home Church participation. It demonstrates the permission that Home Churches have in structuring their meetings and their freedom to practice a “sacrament” that is normally the privilege of clergy in mainline churches.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

128 The language of “script” relates to the dramaturgical metaphor and is used by social scientists such as Davidman and Greil (2007), who describe religious defectors as “characters in search of a new script.” See also Harding (2001).

We were huddling together in the living room discussing Bruxy Cavey’s latest teaching on prayer. It was a Wednesday evening, March 13, 2012, and there were fifteen people present, white professionals of both genders mostly in their thirties. One of the leaders announced we would have

“communion” together and invited everyone to go in the kitchen, help themselves to a wine or juice, and enjoy it with some pita bread and snacks. They added that no one had to do it if they did not feel comfortable with the ritual. Those from traditional Christian backgrounds would have noticed there was no Scripture reading, no prayer, and no theological introduction to the ritual. They said this was more a “celebratory” style of communion. Less formal. Less religious.

I poured myself a glass of wine and one of the leaders said “Cheers” to me, then “To Jesus,”

and many of participants clinked glasses. There were also home baked cookies there, so I took one along with some pita bread.

I asked if they always did communion like this. One leader replied they have done it many times before in Home Church, but usually they read some of the intent of the ceremony beforehand.

“Things are always different around here,” she said.

I was at another Home Church in a different town that had a whole meal together, marked by the celebration of communion before the meal with bread and wine. As Cavey contends, Home Church is not an optional program in their church, such as a small group Bible study, but the heart of their ecclesiology. This scene testifies to the possibilities for forming local communities of diverse Meeting Housers, as most members came from different ecclesiastical and geographical backgrounds, although all members were white, white-collar workers in their thirties.

The focus of a typical evening was usually Cavey’s teaching from the previous Sunday, and we usually reviewed questions that Cavey had prepared for Home Churches—some of which were on the Sunday bulletin, and some of which were only given to the Home Church leaders by email from Cavey. After an hour or so discussion, we divided into gendered groups and spent time sharing and praying about our personal joys and struggles. The group of men I was with usually consisted of about four or five young men, and our times together resembled Cavey’s description of what a Huddle should be.

Here men shared about their disagreements with their wives, their struggles with supervisors at work, and their problems with time or anger management. The level of disclosure was quite intense for a group of males, and I found it both embracing and uncomfortable. Some newcomers never came back, as the group developed a depth of intimacy that made it awkward to join in without being determined to do so over the long-term. Nevertheless, I considered the group to be genuinely motivated to live out Cavey’s vision for focusing on building intimate relationships through their weekly gatherings in people’s homes.

There are special gatherings of the Home Churches that break from the discussion of Cavey’s sermon and focus on a different agenda. I attended progressive dinners, helped out at the local Salvation Army food bank, played football and soccer with the young men, and went bowling. One particular night in January 2011 was a “games night” for a Home Church connected to the Kitchener site. Modest amounts of beer and wine flowed along with cheese, crackers, chocolates, chips and dip.

We were at the Home Church leaders’ house with about ten people, mostly all under age 35, playing the Mattel® party game Apples to Apples. Everyone begins with seven cards, each with a descriptive noun or activity on it. The “judge” flips over a random adjective card, and each player has to put down their noun card that they believe best corresponds to that adjective. The judge then determines the noun card that best fits their adjective card, and the person who originally presented that card wins the round and becomes the next judge.

Joanne, a biology major who now works for the Ontario Conservation Authority, was the judge and turned over the adjective card “selfish.” With ten nouns to choose from, she gradually eliminated all of them but two: “George W. Bush” and “Saddam Hussein.” She hesitated a moment and then made her decision: “selfish” was best paired with George Bush, the 43^rd President of the United States.

Here again, the scene follows Cavey’s script quite closely. Attendees are spending their leisure time “doing life together” and enjoying food and drink. Even the way people play the game mirrors Cavey’s convictions, in this case the shunning of right-wing evangelical politicians and showing some degree of leniency towards enemies, although in an inconsequential way. These moments of Home Church life, where people share sacraments without clergy and where a game night flows naturally alongside Cavey’s own politics, demonstrate that the dramatic web of TMH is more than a shared narrative; it is a shared dramatization, a story in action. These Home Church leaders have been cultivated by Cavey’s teaching for over a decade, and they are firmly caught in the dramatic web.

Other experiences I had in the Home Churches revealed attendees less caught up in the dramatic web, and the beliefs and practices seemed “off-script” from Cavey’s vision. These examples are not necessarily “off-script” because they demonstrate participants’ disagreement with Cavey’s theology. This is something Cavey recognizes and even invites, acknowledging that there is high turnover in his church and people come from a wide diversity of ecclesial and non-ecclesial backgrounds. As long as disagreement is done in a healthy way—not by harsh arguments or silent resistance—Cavey calls this part of being a “modern (church) family.” The off-script aspect is revealed as Home Churches ignore the directions and questions given by Cavey for the Home Church and embrace more conventional evangelical or charismatic practices and mores.

A third Home Church I observed was also linked to the Kitchener site and one particular evening they were serving “Scripture Tea”—with tags containing Bible verses. It was April 2011 and we were discussing the questions given about Cavey’s teaching from his “Licence to Sin: When Christians Push the Boundaries of God’s Grace” series on the first half of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. The group was a mix of university students and older couples, and no one was enamoured with Cavey’s interpretation of Paul’s command to “remain as you are” (7:20). Cavey said that

“staying single is best” for a young Christian, and should be the default status for believers rather than marriage.

“My single life was miserable,” said an accountant who married later in life.

“Ever since I’ve been married I’ve been sleeping much better,” added his wife. “My pets used to sleep in my bed.”

The conversation then left the direction given in the questions and people began to discuss faith and divorce, and how to help those struggling in their marriage to keep their vows. Then the question was asked how Home Church could help couples, and some tips were shared. Someone mentioned that Home Church can be a great place to meet a future spouse. We then circulated a card printed by DaySpring Christian card company (a subsidiary of Hallmark). A couple was struggling with cancer and a death in the family, and this was intended to encourage them.

A comparable “off-script” scene took place at another Home Church I attended in Guelph.

We were gathered together in the living room discussing Cavey’s latest Sunday message on “the spirituality of suffering.” It was a Monday evening, December 6^th, 2010, and there were fifteen people present, white professionals of both genders mostly in their thirties.

Rodney, in particular, was not following Cavey’s line of argument—that Christians who follow a cruciform Christ will find themselves close to those who suffer and inevitably bear some of that suffering.

“I just don’t get it,” said Rodney, referring to Cavey’s example of the Meeting House couple who gave up their middle-class life in Ontario to serve in Haiti for the indefinite future. “I’m not going to give up everything and go to Haiti,” he insisted.

Members of the group helpfully offered less extreme examples, such as befriending a neighbour who might be going through a difficult time by having them over for dinner. Rodney seemed open to that.

“Like not buying sweatshop clothes, or drinking fair-trade coffee,” he added. “That makes more sense.”

People were eager to distinguish Cavey’s message from some form of masochism. “Think of those televangelist preachers who teach the prosperity gospel,” said someone. “Bruxy is resisting that.

The point is don’t insulate yourself from the suffering of the world by pursuing a protected comfort and then get surprised by hurt. Share in the sufferings of others.” Cavey’s radical message becomes effectively filtered and re-shaped in Home Church.

I visited a fifth Home Church (connected to the Waterloo site) in October 2011, during a teaching series by Cavey entitled “Chosen and Choosing: How God’s Life Becomes Ours.” This series was a direct polemic against the five points of Calvinism, and each Sunday Cavey critiqued the Calvinist position while extolling the Arminian alternative. The group consisted of mostly older people, the majority being over 55 years old.¹²⁹ They began with a review of the dinner they served for the homeless the previous week and made plans for next month’s dinner. Then a short discussion of the Home Church’s involvement in the TMH’s annual “AIDS Care Kit” campaign followed. This was very much on-script.

One middle-aged women was slated to lead the discussion of Cavey’s teaching, and she had her outline for the evening printed out in front of her. It became immediately evident that all members of the group were ambivalent about this series. The women appeared disinterested: “Makes me uneasy,” said one. “This is the religion I wanted to get away from,” muttered another. “It makes me agitated,” admitted a fourth, while a fifth woman said, “I’m not following this at all.” These women contributed little to the discussion that evening, staying mostly quiet and appearing bored.

Two men said they do not have any strong feelings on the Calvin/Arminius debate, although the evening demonstrated they do have opinions. A former pastor in the group said quite openly he’s a Calvinist. A night-shift worker who was taking courses in Russian literature as a mature student said he used to be Arminian, but after studying the Bible with a learned mentor, he became ardently Calvinist.

“Bruxy is setting up more of a straw man here,” he authoritatively argued. “Calvinists do believe in free will. Bruxy is simply misrepresenting the other side.” He then launched into a summary of the difference between supra- and infra- lapsarianism (a debate about the logical order in which God makes his salvific decrees). The discussion leader for the evening and the Home Church leader both seemed uncertain how to proceed.

The leader then informed the group that I belong to a Calvinist church, and people asked me about my feelings on the series. I said that I would try not to be too defensive and keep an open mind, but I wished Cavey would give opportunity for a Calvinist theologian to respond in person. They nodded approvingly of the idea. I felt more conspicuous than usual that evening and tried to focus people’s attention elsewhere.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

129 This Home Church narrative is a composite of three evenings I attended over three weeks on the same series.

One mother then exclaimed that she sends her daughter to a sister church of my home congregation because of its wonderful girl’s program called “GEMS.” She was one of a number of group members who had allegiances to other congregations from other denominations.

The Calvinist/Arminian debate then heated up in the group, as members argued whether Calvin denies the image of God in human beings and whether faith is a gift or a work. Suddenly, one of the men interrupted the discussion, breaking into spontaneous prayer and weeping for an acquaintance who had joined the Jehovah’s Witnesses. His prayer transitioned into expressions of gratitude to God for his wife, who saved him from so much “crap.” Group members whispered

“Thank you Jesus” and “Yes, Jesus” and “Hallelujah!” A few other people prayed too, including someone who prayed for another family member who had left the church. Reflection on Cavey’s teaching was left to the side as prayers drew the evening to a close.

Later that month, I attended the final Home Church gathering for this series, which Cavey designed as a wrap up for the last six Sunday teachings. This evening completely ignored the teaching and questions from Cavey. The leader read through the letter of 1 John instead, “as preparation for our next teaching series.” The conversation bounced from Christmas preparations to false prophets, world religions, and demons. I noted three books mentioned that evening: Stephen King’s Under the Dome, purported to be about a “horrible man” who thought he was called by God; David Augsberger’s Caring Enough to Confront: How to Understand and Express Your Deepest Feelings Toward Others (2009), which allegedly shows that we should be like Jesus, “soft on people but hard on the issues”; and Todd Burpo’s Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back (2010), which prompted stories from the group about people who had seen apparitions of dead relatives. Calvinism and Arminianism were never mentioned.

While the first two Home Church meetings I mentioned were operating closely to Cavey’s general script of “doing life together” and reflect his own creative flair and politics, these latter three Home Churches were less caught up in their pastor’s expectations for their group. These three groups were linked to regional sites—not the Oakville site—and thus there was some additional social distance from Cavey. They never see him teaching live, and he lives farther away from them. I noticed more regularly these groups were free to disagree with Cavey’s teaching and to stray from the slated questions. Mainstream evangelical language, merchandise, and charismatic practices contributed to the subculture of the groups. While Cavey invites differences of opinion and welcomes dialogue in the Home Churches, these groups seemed less cohesive than the other two, lacking “Huddle” groups, and appeared further from the “pure relationships” that Cavey envisioned. This is not to say they are illegitimate or deviant—they could just as well be making progress towards socialization in the language and practices of Cavey’s dramatic web. Time will tell.

The leader of one of the “off-script” Home Churches was also a worship leader at one of the regional sites. “They give us a list of 100 songs from which we can choose,” he told me. “But there are local favourites here, and I sometimes sneak in some of the more familiar Christian songs that people like around here.” At one point in 2014 the Oakville leadership tried to direct which four songs would be sung in all sites on a given Sunday. But a strong backlash from the regional sites reversed that initiative.

Some participants live closely by the script, others energetically engage it, and a significant number of people leave it altogether. In 2014, in-house surveys showed one third of attendees at Sunday teachings had joined in the last year. When the total number of attendees is relatively stable (since 2010), that means a significant number are exiting the back door as new potentials walk in the front door. Many may leave because of re-location to other cities, but many also leave because they have become dissatisfied, and they pull free of the dramatic web to find a new script by which to live.

I formally interviewed six ex-members of TMH and casually met many more. One young female teacher with a background in the Associated Gospel Church said she and her husband met while volunteering at TMH. They enjoyed Cavey’s teaching and the worship, but after a six-month stint overseas their feelings changed. When they returned to Ontario, she explained that TMH seemed

“too big and too impersonal,” adding:

We just didn't feel that we fit there anymore. And it became, I didn't want my church experience to be coming in, listening to the sermon and music, and leaving, without ever talking to anyone besides who I'm sitting beside, my husband and my family. I think church needs to be more about community. And I think the MH tries to push for House Churches, and that sort of thing, but it's way too easy to come in, have your own little secluded church experience, and then leave. So we weren't getting that community aspect that we wanted.

At this point she admits she had a falling out with a friend who attended the same site, and it contributed to their decision to find a new congregation. She insists, however, that although TMH offers Home Church, the experience for most attendees—at least the 55 percent that attend only on Sundays—is a sense of disconnection with the organization.

A single young man working in the financial services industry was deeply involved in TMH for nine years, leading in Home Churches and leading the worship at various sites. He came from a strict Plymouth Brethren background, had experienced some church conflicts, and “a lot of guilt and legalism… ‘You will never be good enough’ [messages].” He became disillusioned with his faith.

When he left for university, he had some friends invite him to TMH, and the energy, the music, the spirit of freedom seduced him back to regular church attendance. “They are showing movie clips and this kind of thing… The Matrix was up [on the screen] all the time… it was cool and hip…

a new thing for me... and lots of provocative quotes!” He would note the books that Cavey quoted from and eagerly purchased and read them; it re-awakened his faith.

a new thing for me... and lots of provocative quotes!” He would note the books that Cavey quoted from and eagerly purchased and read them; it re-awakened his faith.