The observations are fresh, but Lakewood is in central Houston, not the exurbs, or even the suburbs. Makes some cultural difference.

Exactly, Lakewood is in an urban area. It makes no sense to equate Osteen's church with the "exurbs" unless the article includes some data about who watches Osteen on TV. Assumptions made by Slate writers or editors, perhaps?

Lakewood is flyover country. You can write an infinite number of articles dissecting the mores, psychology, politics, and intelligence of Lakewood in general and Osteen's congregation in particular, just by making assumptions.

Who cares if the assumptions are valid or too broad? These aren't poeople that matter, right?

Good point. Osteen would truly have "made it" if his church was in Manhatten.

well he does mention parking and being off a highway, and it's clearly a huge congregation, so it seems reasonable to assume that at least some people are driving to this place from somewhere else.  Just because a basketball stadium is in the middle of the city doesn't mean everyone at the stadium lives downtown.  It could well be all exurb people driving in.  And even if not, the only time he actually writes the word exurb is in this sentence:
"Every Sunday, he broadcasts a running string of similar homespun nuggets of wisdom—usually rife with metaphors of automotive and financial trials that resonate with his exurban flock's daily routines—while beaming incandescently before an audience of millions on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and various other cable services"
where it's clear that he's talking about the flock that watches him on tv.

Wpeotih:

well he does mention parking and being off a highway, and it's clearly a huge congregation, so it seems reasonable to assume that at least some people are driving to this place from somewhere else.

It's not reasonable to assume those people are from "the exurbs." Everyone in Houston drives.* Some people might even be driving in from their downtown lofts--for all we know. People might be sitting in high-rise apartments watching Joel Osteen.

*except for small children and people who don't have at least $1K for a beat-up car.

there could even be moon-men that look like giant carebears listening to the transmissions from outer space! how dare the author label his followers as being from the exurbs without considering this possiblity.  from now on at the very
least i demand neilsen rankings broken down into demographics in the middle of every article that dares to suggest what kind of people might watch something.

anyway, i sort of agree with the point that it *might* make a difference in the analysis, but in this case I don't think it does because the author talks about the message not the audience.  one point of the article is that his examples and beliefs seem to fit well with the kind of stuff an exurb resident would have to deal with.  stuff like flipping houses and commuting, etc.  in this case it could be said to be an exurb-influenced philosophy. this is true regardless of who listens.  after all, the message doesn't change based on who listens.  i know lots of people that live in cities that listen to country music, but that doesn't mean we're going to stop calling it country music does it?  especially not if it is still about living in the country.  likewise a preacher that constantly makes references to life in the exurbs can appropriately be called an exurban preacher and analyzed as such no matter where he physically stands while he talks.