Decline of Malls and the Church

The Gruen Effect, episode 163 of the podcast 99% Invisible, shares the story of an architect who desired to build third places for those living in suburban areas. The idea morphed over time and became what we now call the "shopping mall". The shopping mall was a shell of what Victor Gruen imagined and since their peak in the 1990's shopping malls have been in decline. The last new indoor shopping mall was built in 2006. 

This does not mean that Americans are less consumeristic and thus the mall is no longer financially stable. People shop and spend but now there is a massive trend not only to move away from the indoor shopping mall but to move toward "lifestyle centers".

These are areas where people live, work and shop all in the same area. In the area I live there you can see Southlake Town Square or West 7th as a lifestyle center. 

When I heard this story, I could not help but think about the Church. Specifically how the Church has had the mall mentality and how there needs to be a shift. The Church could/should shift to lifestyle centers mentality. Church is not someplace you attend, but something you live. Religion is not something that is separate from your life but interwoven into it.

As Churchill once said, "We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." Christianity has shaped the faith around buildings (like malls) and we now come to think that our faith is separate from our lives. So what would it look like for Christianity to move away from the mall mentality of doing Church? What sort of ways would a lifestyle center sort of Church shape Christians in the next 100 years?

Are Church buildings an impediment to growth?

“We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.”

— Winston Churchill

My brother-in-law is an architect and since he began his studies some years ago, I was reminded of the quote to the left by Churchill. 

Taking this quote at face value and I see how this is very true for the Church. For instance, if you build a sanctuary that has pews all facing one direction and set up like a lecture, then when you enter the space you will expect to be lectured to. This passive form of participating shapes the way we understand how we are to "be the church". Church becomes a practice of cognitive work that hinges on the ability of the preacher to hold your attention for any period of time. We walk out of worship critiquing before we reflect on what we just experienced. We say things like, "good sermon" or "why don't we sing more songs like that?" or "I don't like this part of worship". And why should clergy expect any different?

When we build a building that feels like a movie theater, then we are going to have a congregation expecting a good show each week.

We have built Protestant church buildings in a way that shape us. Architecture is a powerful sermon, and that same sermon is preached every hour of every day of every year. So I give a little slack to the people who argue about the color of the carpet in the sanctuary. Carpet color may sound like a silly argument, but as Churchill points out, the shape of the building shapes us. 

My clergy peers and I talk about how to change the church and what the future of the church will look and feel like. We are talking in the same way previous generations talked about changing the Church. We talk about programs. We talk about sermon styles. We talk about pub ministries and young adult ministries. We talk about relevance and authenticity.  Could it be that perhaps what has been traditionally seen as one of the greatest assets of the Church, our buildings, are our among our greatest liabilities? 

It is hard to out preach brick and mortar.