“How Might Worship in a Movie Theater in the Middle of Town Be Beneficial to the Future of the Church?”

I have been asked to contribute to the “Nontraditional Church: Trends for the Future” symposium at Patheos. One of the jumping-in points that Patheos offered for consideration is: “How might worship in a movie theater in the middle of town be beneficial to the future of the church?”

A worship service in the middle of town, more specifically, an urban center, might be beneficial to the future of the church if the people are truly connected to the urban community. This could be an improvement on what appeared to many to be the white church retreat to the suburbs and exurbs in past decades to escape cities, which were viewed as dens of wickedness (and quite possibly to escape people not like them). Back in 2005, Jeff Sharlet wrote in Harper’s Magazine: “the exurban position is one of strategic retreat, where believers are to ‘plant’ their churches as strategic outposts encircling the enemy.”[1] However, given the disturbing reality of gentrification for many minority communities in cities like Portland, Oregon, where I work (See W. Kamau Bell’s CNN piece on Portland and gentrification, especially his interview with Pastor Donald Frazier and members of his church, at the following link: https://youtu.be/p8hqfe5qUBI {12:25-17:40}), worship in the middle of town for a white hipster congregation may foster the gentrifying forces that are pushing minority communities out (See my blog post titled “The Gentrified Church—Paved with Good Intentions?”) So, one should ask about the demographics of the church itself, and about the church’s larger aims for use of that space in the middle of the town or city.

Another item to consider is the venue of a movie theater itself. Movie theaters are entertainment centers. Do churches wish to entertain people? Gretchen Buggeln’s point on designing churches like shopping malls or strip malls bears consideration here as well: “Can a church built in the idiom of a secular consumer society effectively counter that culture’s influences?”[2] While pursuing entertainment can certainly be a very good endeavor, and films provide us incredible inroads to understanding and engaging our culture well, as Robert K. Johnston’s important work shows,[3] should a church use a medium often associated with entertainment to frame its ambiance and sense of sacred space? If a church community makes use of such space, it needs to reflect carefully on how it might counter conscious or sub-conscious associations people would make that churches and Christianity exist to entertain and amuse them, especially in ways that lead them to escape life through amusement rather than face its many challenges. It is important that churches using movie theater spaces draw viewers into the divine comedy and tragedy, using laughter as well as tears in cathartic ways to capture their imaginations and involve them in Jesus’ story of redemption.

Furthermore, productions in theaters tend to separate those up front from those in the seats, as performers from spectators. Do churches wish to convey such separation? Of course, one could look to Interactive theatre for ideas on how to break through the divide, as this form of theater involves audience participation in various ways. The aim here is to break through the “fourth wall” that separates performers from their audiences in verbal and physical ways. Certainly, there is a long history of viewing the entire creation as the theater of redemption, and that God is acting out the divine drama in which all humanity participates. The key here is to be intentional in making it possible for everyone gathered to participate. What kind of dramatic presentation is your church enacting?

Auditorium churches have a long history, going back to the nineteenth century, as Buggeln’s article connotes. So, in one sense, auditorium or theater-like churches are not new. Still, there was a revolt against them for greater formality and ritual followed by yet another revolt or alternative trend that sought to foster greater intimacy and a sense of gathering and participation. Then came the move toward shopping mall-looking churches. Take for example Buggeln’s reference to a 1996 Los Angeles Times article, which includes a quotation from a megachurch pastor in California: “‘What we were aiming for was the feeling of a mall. A place that’s familiar, a real gregarious place.’” Buggeln adds, “Hence the snack bars, polished stone lobbies, large clear windows and central information kiosks found in many of these complexes.”[4]

As I reflect longer on the opening question, I wonder if the wording “beneficial to” is appropriate: “beneficial to” in what way(s)? “Beneficial” might come across as consumeristic—catering to impulses of people and churches to get what they want, when they want it, and at the least cost to themselves. Perhaps “sound (or wise) for,” or even “appropriate for,” would be better wording to use here: “How might worship in a movie theater in the middle of town be sound or appropriate for the future of the church?”

Here it behooves us to think of our ancient faith, as we consider the future. Here I call to mind the late Robert Webber’s Ancient-Future Faith.[5] As Webber argues, Evangelicalism would benefit greatly by revisiting ancient Christian thought forms to free itself from modernist trappings. The ancient church approached a pagan and pluralistic culture not unlike our own contemporary society in a counter-cultural manner, according to Webber; the only way to engage post-modern culture well is not to water down the faith (as if it were entertainment), but to frame the church as a counter-cultural community shaped by the history of Israel and Jesus.

Would such consideration of our communal story shaped by the history of Israel and Jesus lead us to construct sacred spaces that have people facing one another where the platform and stage imagery gives way to a table at the center, or where the outline of the structure looks more like a cross? Of course, Christians have constructed churches along such lines in the past. But how intentional are we today in our use of space? How often do pragmatic and utilitarian factors related to “benefit” shape our thinking rather than biblical theology and questions pertaining to what our use of ‘sacred space’ conveys?

Space matters, as I argued in a Leadership Journal article several years ago. I close with the question that the article “Walls do Talk” asks: “In the Bible, locations and structures mean something. What is your facility saying?”[6]

This post is part of a Patheos symposium on “Nontraditional Church: Trends for the Future” sponsored by Regal Theatre Church.

_______________

[1]Jeff Sharlet, “Inside America’s Most Powerful Megachurch,” Harper’s Magazine, vol. 310, no. 1860 (May 2005): 50.

[2]Gretchen T. Buggeln, “Sacred Spaces: Designing America’s Churches,” Christian Century, June 15, 2004, p. 25.

[3]Robert K. Johnston, Reel Spirituality: Theology and Film in Dialogue, Engaging Culture series, 2^nd edition (Baker Academic, 2006).

[4]Buggeln, page 23.

[5]Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Baker Books, 1999).

[6]Paul Louis Metzger, “Walls do Talk: In the Bible, locations and structures mean something. What is your facility saying?” Leadership Journal (Fall 2009): 20-23.