Vivienda y servicios básicos

If religion, and evangelicalism in particular, are stigmatized in Canada as discussed in chapter 3, then religious “personality cults” are subject to even greater suspicion. The term “cult” already prejudices

the matter, but like the notion of “celebrity worship” (Laderman 2009), any situation where a single leader takes an idealized role that leaves their followers passive or dependent provokes severe criticism.¹³¹ While scholars use the term “cult of personality” to describe the manufactured media image of political leaders (Corsi 2008; Plamper 2012), it has also been popularly applied to religious leaders who are celebrities in their own communities and who are better known than those communities: new religious movement leaders such as Jimmy Jones or David Koresh and megachurch leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Rick Warren and Joel Osteen. The term has also been used to describe the enduring role of the charismatic African-American church pastor in the midst of their congregation (Royster 2013:17), leaders of some Buddhist groups in Canada, such as Daisaku Ikeda, the leader of Soka Gakkai International (Shiu 2010:93), as well as Fo Guang Shan’s leader, Master Hsing Yun (Verchery 2010:233). While the meaning of the term shifts within these different religious contexts, the public suspicion around a cult of personality carries social stigma that can propel impression management.

A number of participants and staff at TMH are aware of weaknesses in Cavey’s charisma and are attuned to the limits of his leadership abilities. Some lay leaders demonstrate a high degree of reflexivity and ambivalence about Cavey’s central role. Their concern is understandable, and emerging churches characteristically suspicious of celebrity pastors pursue egalitarian or “flat”

leadership structures while ironically being dependent on charismatic leaders and invisible oligarchies (Jones 2011; Marti and Ganiel 2014:117). They are drawing on a growing popular disillusionment with charismatic leadership. For example, Jim Collins’ bestselling books on organizational management argue that if a company wants to survive longer than a few decades, it cannot rely on a charismatic leader. In fact, he says creating a cult of personality “is the last thing you should do”

(Collins and Porras 2002:135). Charismatic leaders are a risk on various fronts; they can get obsessed with one idea and ignore the brutal facts (Collins 2001:70); employees may come to rely so much on the charisma, they lose their own sense of entrepreneurialism, and focus more on what the leader wants than what circumstances suggest (2001:72); and “larger-than-life heroes” can leave a management void that sets their successors up for failure (2001:26). While charismatic leaders may lead great companies that last, two traits are more important than any charisma, insists Collins:

humility and resolve.¹³² In sum, charismatic leadership can be a liability, and leadership at TMH are

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

131 Schultze (2013) specifically distinguishes his use of the word personality cult from the popular notion of “a close-knit group that recruits unwitting members, employs mind control, and promotes false beliefs.” He gives the term his own particular sociological definition, as “a group of devoted followers of a particular person whom the group believes has a special relationship with God and is thereby worthy of following” (2013:145). He focuses on evangelists known primarily through radio, television and other media.

132 Collins’ notion of charisma seems limited to a trait theory, and many of his examples of charisma are negative, describing either self-aggrandizing or narcissistic behaviours. He is more positive when describing the antics of Sam

reflexive and savvy enough to know that not everything at The Meeting House depends on Cavey for its life, direction, and future.

Melton (1991) says that lingering prejudices of “cults” and their charismatic leaders lay behind the assumption that a succession process after the passing of a founder will inevitably involve serious disruption and even the dissolution of the new religious movement. Many new religious movements, he insists, are actually variations on the old religious traditions and have formed transnational networks led by a designated hierarchy within an international headquarters. The establishment of a bureaucratic structure ensures continuity: “once the founder articulates the group’s teachings and practices, they exist independently of him/her and can and do develop a life of their own” (1991:8).

Melton agrees that new religions come and go, but longevity has little to do with the founder’s passing. The more salient factors are public response to the founder’s ideas and the competence of followers in organizing the group after the founder’s retirement or death. Melton concludes quite simply:

What does happen when the founder dies? Generally, the same thing that happens in other types of organizations, that is, very simply, power passes to new leadership with more or less smoothness depending upon the extent and thoroughness of the preparation that has been made ahead of time (1991:8).

A founder’s passing may be sad, but it generally does not entail the subsequent death of the community. Power struggles may ensue, especially if intellectual property or other assets have not been properly designated. But new legal requirements of corporate structures have given more stability to new religious groups, says Melton, and there have been many “orderly transfers of power,”

in recent history, including the succession of L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology), Victor Paul Wierwille (the Way), and Herbert W. Armstrong (Worldwide Church of God) (1991:10).

Although he does not name the process as the routinization of charisma, Melton offers a re-narration of a new religious movement’s development that echoes Weber. Contrary to the mythology and rhetoric of “totalizing” NRMs where the leader is in permanent, absolute control, Melton describes a shift from the centrifugal influence of charisma to the centripetal unfolding of bureaucratic structures. The first generation of followers are self-selected because they are drawn to the leader and his or her vision. As the community grows, it needs to experiment and adapt to new situations.

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

Walton, the charismatic founder of Wal-Mart, who he insists uses his personality to forward the company rather than the other way around. He quotes Walton, who remarked, “underneath that personality, I have always had the soul of an operator, somebody who wants to make things work well…” (Collins 2002:36). The “big hairy audacious goals”

(BHAGS) of the company are really the driving mechanism of growth and success, which live on past the tenure of the CEO (Collins 2002:105). It is visionary companies that become great and last, not necessarily visionary leaders.

I suggest a similar evaluation pertains to megachurches.

Followers give feedback to the leader and the leader trouble-shoots with respect to the teachings and follower’s needs. Versatility decreases as the movement expands geographically, and branch campuses are set up with intermediaries to oversee community life. “The lines of authority and communication become more impersonal,” says Melton, and administration passes to second and third echelon leadership (1991:11). If given enough time, the pattern of self-correcting and fine-tuning will continue through the death of the founder, and on to a second generation of followers. Trice and Beyer (1986) explain that with an administrative apparatus in place, oral and written traditions, rites and ceremonies to transfer charisma to others, and a successor committed to the founder’s mission and continued identification with that mission, charisma can be effectively routinized. Historically speaking, the careers of megachurch pastors such as Aimee Semple McPherson, Daddy Grace, and Frank Norris mushroomed into new denominations rather than fizzled out, and other megachurch pastors such as William B. Riley, Dan Malone, Charles Spurgeon and Jerry Falwell began their own university to ensure a long and culturally expansive legacy. Charisma, as Weber said, becomes routinized by followers, and this ensures the continuity of the group beyond the life of the leader.

In what follows I will describe four aspects of Meeting House culture and its relationship with Cavey which condition his charismatic authority. The first examines the nature of his personality, the second his minor role in executive decisions, the third elaborates on his team approach to leadership, and the final section summarizes the reflexively constituted ambivalence of attendees towards Cavey’s central role in the life and vision of the church. Cavey’s charisma and executive powers are already qualified in many ways, and the routinization of his charisma has already begun.