INTRODUCTION

Stop. Imagine a space where no one feels welcome, yet masks are donned, plastered with colors of acceptance. Everyone holds their breath, afraid to speak, behind an impenetrable wall of thinking: “What if they find out who I really am - what I really believe?”  I ask you, reader: Is this space a rehearsal room or a fellowship hall? Which space might exude a spirit of inclusivity, wholeheartedness, and love? Is it the theatre or the Christian church? Or dare to ask and even more scandalous question. Do these two go together?

Theatre and the Christian church have a long-standing, contentious yet codependent relationship. Even today, there is strife between the two with little to no space for dialogue. Christian theatre companies have retreated into private corners of society, cautioning against popular culture, while many mainstream theatre spaces have built palisades to protect their own communities. These divides leave little room for interfaith or interdisciplinary dialogue. Nevertheless, we press on. It is important for Theatre and Christian theology to maintain a symbiotic relationship - if for nothing else - to serve as a flagship for public discourse and social change. This is the very tumultuous topic we will engage with by first revisiting the past to, as the old adage goes, learn from our history so we are not doomed to repeat it. Second, we will briefly visit the current relationship betwixt theatre and Christian theology. Finally,  as we engage in this research, we will use apologetics to explore the compatibilities of how the Christian church can learn from theatre spaces—both produced work and pedagogically. Likewise, we will pose how theatre in its magic might pull from the sacred ritual and holiness of Christian theological practices. How the two might, to coyly paraphrase Todd Johnson and Dale Savidge: be practically in dialogue (Johnson, Todd E., and Dale Savidge). Furthermore, let us evaluate how the two need each other. It is with every intention that this work will offer a historically informed and socially transformative framework capable of repairing centuries of antagonism and fostering more compassionate public discourse.

One cannot begin the evaluation of these schismatized worlds without first acknowledging the hurt they have caused. We will curse ourselves with constantly throwing punches at the other side of the aisle out of a place of real pain from our own lived experiences if we don’t slow down, breathe, and try to create ecumenical dialogue between the two. This research will investigate the tactics of theatre and its productions and the overall goal of Christianity: “to make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28.19, NIV). However, the pain caused by the Christian church to persons in the theatre world cannot be sidestepped.

So, with all the best intentions, please know, reader, that if you have been harmed by people talking about the work that I am doing – if your very personhood has been shamed – allow me the grace to apologize for anyone who has ever told you that your existence was in any way a mistake. I hope we can partner together to create a dialogue that makes both of us stronger. I, and Jesus, am for you – and my heart breaks for the moments that my dearest friends have navigated, with grace, comments that should never have been thought, much less said. Let’s talk about this thing we both love, shall we? From this theatre practitioner to whom it may concern, my hope is that this exploration will act as a bridge, not a fence, in our ever-growing challenge of loving dialogue. I hope this research – with its literature reviews, frameworks, and applied ethics – begins to crack open a window and allow fresh air to flow more freely in our spaces.


WHAT IS THEATRE, AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Theatre, in its genesis, could be defined in any myriad of ways. From the Greek and Roman plays to contemporary movie theaters, even, if one were to dive deeply into performance theory , a baby being born. Theatre and performance theories have permeated our world since the day it was created—it itself being theatre.

Can you imagine it? What a way to start a show. Nothing. Not even the concept of dark. Then…BANG! Flashes of light, substances flying onto the stage. Water flows across the proscenium apron with rapids and splashes, licking the first three rows like a SeaWorld show. Birds swoop in from the back of the house with a mighty caw. An elephant emerges stage right, dropped against an impossibly seamless scrim of brilliant light. Giant sycamore trees pop out of invisible trap doors like exuberant beach umbrellas. The whole stage breathes.

That is theatre. 

For our purposes, in performance theory and aesthetics, we can distill theatre down to a performer and someone who witnesses performance – not to be confused with drama as purely text. More specifically for this exploration, Webster defines theatre as the “public performance of plays”(“Theatre,” Merriam-Webster).  Granted, to many of us, theatre is so much more. It is belonging. It is representation. It is magic. But allow us, for the day, to define theatre in its most elementary way: the “public performance of plays” and the reception of those plays. 

One might be tempted to ask why theatre matters, and Thornton Wilder said it best in his 1957 Paris Review Interview: ​ “​I regard the theater as the greatest of all art-forms, the most immediate way in which a human being can share with another the sense of what it is to be a human being”(Wilder). So if we are using theatre as a mode to express true humanness, which is the main addressing point of the Christian Bible shouldn’t the two go together? If there is one thing we can all seemingly agree on, it is the love and power of theatre. Reader, I hope that as we dig into this topic, we can all agree that there is good work to be done and that there is much love to be resurrected. So, let us begin.


THE LONG, COMPLICATED HISTORY: CHURCH VS. THEATRE 

As long as there has been theatre, there have been antagonists of theatre. Edmund Morgan writes that “hostility to the theatre is as old as the theatre itself”. And, while Plato banished theatre from his ideal republic, the early Church Fathers such as Tertullian denounced it completely. From the age of the late great Tertullian, there has been Christian animosity toward the theatre. His scathing incitement, De Spectaculis: On the Shows is ample evidence of that. Turtullian denounced theatre as merely “spiritual agitation” (chapter 15) And it’s not as if the theatre was welcoming Christians with open arms. Any series of writers took their fair share at swings against the church. From the early modern writings of Shakespeare to Chistopher Marlow in Doctor Faustus or Julius Caesar to Molière’s Tartuffe.

Granted, the theatre Tertullian wrote about was the mass murder and hyper-sexualization of Christians in the colosseum. He recounts in chapter 19: “At any rate, gladiators not chargeable with crime are offered in sale for the games, that they may become the victims of the public pleasure.” While theatre can be burlesque, pornographic vulgarity, and sensationalism, the absolutism of Tertullian began a trend of distaste that lasted well into the redemption of theatre during the mystery cycles and sacred plays. Even in the modern world, contemporary lectures still mention how “actors were a sketchy bunch”.

While it seems bold to argue against one of the most prolific early Church fathers, one cannot help but wonder about the lack of perspective he may have had given the theatre of Jesus Christ’s own Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6.9–13, NIV) – or when He used cutting-edge technical theatre to speak to crowds by amplifying His voice using the organic acoustics of water (Luke 5:1–3). While more technical definitions of theatre may allow us to acquiesce to Tertullian’s ridicule, we have to resist and recognize that theatre has evolved into more than mass murder for entertainment, and consequently acknowledge that measuring modern theatre against an ancient standard does a disservice to both.  It requires much undoing of thought – and a healthy dose of conjecture – to detangle the centuries-old rivalry between theatre and Christian theology. 


LITERATURE REVIEW AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT 

Another loud voice is William Prynne, who wrote Histrio-Mastix in 1633 (Prynne) . Prynne argued that plays “engaged a man too deeply” and thus were not restful, as the Sabbath commands (Exodus 20:8). One wonders how he would respond to the overwhelming entertainment culture of our day—ads, screens, social media. Theatre has become not merely entertainment, but a rest from overstimulation. Prynne continued to denounce theatre for cross-dressing and for women’s bodies “tempting toward whoredom,” which reveals more about him than theatre. This Puritan religiosity differs drastically from modern relational Christian theology yet it by no menas failed to set a precedent for American theatre. Prynne’s accusation that actors promote lechery is ironic given the dramatic “putting on” of identities all over Scripture—the unmasking “Surely this is the Son of God,”(Mark 15:39) or God’s disguises: a burning bush (Exodus 3:1–6), and a mysterious hidden presence. We cannot fully blame Prynne; the Bible was not widely accessible until the 1800s. Yet still, one wonders whether the church’s jealousy of incarnate storytelling has shaped its history of rejection.

Mystery plays rejected from the church found homes outside in traveling theatre. Yet communication between church and theatre remained lacking. Christians often kept what they liked and left the rest to rot, claiming in 1625 that the theatre is anti-church and pagan (Stubbes).

It is no surprise theatre’s “vice” is more appealing than the church’s virtue—because church hurt and judgment remain rampant. It is no wonder souls find more peace in theatre and new media than in pews. May we as Christians wake up to the crusade we have waged and remember WWJD—He would love first. The church, too, could be loved more by theatre. Creativity and heart honor worship. The non-denominational church has lost its ceremony, its sacramental performance, its embodied incarnational essence. Francis Chan reminds us the modern church has forgotten one-third of the Trinity in Forgotten God, losing the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Theatre and theology cannot come into harmony if Christian factions continue to deny personhood and being as they have been raised to under the leadership of thinkers like Pyrne and Turtullian. We see churches now as presentations of goodness or trends, forgetting the depth of human virtue and vice. As J.M. Buckley wrote in Christians and the Theatre, “theatre must portray both vice and virtue or it misrepresents human nature.”


MODERN DEVISION

It is no wonder we see theatre and Christian lifestyle pitch tents in separate camps: Christian theatre companies in their isolated, holier-than-thou sacred spaces, hole  up in their unique corners of the world for fear of how the “secular world might attempt to indoctrinate their children.” Meanwhile, mainstream theatre spaces are open and accepting yet somehow still flirting with intolerance. It is easy to say that the two are like oil and water - but doing so would ignore the emulsion made from public discourse and social change. Which is to say that the axis the two balance on in a modern age is the social and political landscape.

Take the 2025 political climate as an example, when one mentions “Christians,” there stands a red elephant in the room. There are few more potent modern examples of the need for cleaner public discourse than the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. Everyone in the world seemed to have an opinion in September of 2025 when he was shot and killed on a public university campus. Those opinions barred for a moment, we can zoom out and see the dangerous disease the American culture has contracted of becoming intolerant while waving flags of tolerance - shooting and killing a contentious yet non-violent man should be a wake-up call to our need for a better solution.  

Theatre and theology together may hold the key to a shifted culture, equipped with tools like Liz Lerman's Critical Response feedback, and the kindness and acceptance of theatre spaces. We have the potential to harness the power of applied theatre to begin greater public discourse - the theatre and its adversary, the church, must lead the charge. For evidence of this need, one must look no further than the personalized algorithms of social media to find deep wounds and misconceptions on all sides. The two share yet another common thread: that the divine is incarnate within us, which Johnson and Savage (specialists on theatre and theology in dialogue) name as the binding point between theatre and theology. The two are mutual teachers of truth, beauty, and empathy. Like two semi trucks hauling the same equipment. The artwork on the outsides may look different like a proscenium versus a pulpit but they are both long lasting because of their ver essences: to transform.


CREATING A BRIDGE

Arthur Miller said “the individual was at one with his society, and thus drama is written for them,” giving rise to our thesis that social plays and applied theatre may be the bridge. The goal of this research was never to position one over the other but rather to see how two heartbreakingly similar fields that, in their genesis, desire inclusion, freedom, and love. And how they might make each other stronger, as is evidenced by the overlap in the language of purpose statements in both theatres and Christian churches in the San Diego area, with overlapping operative words in their mission statements like: transformative, impact, and inclusive. 

I was hopeful that it would prove purpose only in logic, but as the work learned to walk, it seemed to invite practice. As if the research were whispering, “lace up your shoes with holes in the toes and let’s go walk this out together,” or as the Christian Bible would say: “Go therefore.”(Matthew 28:19) 

It was intriguing that one of the first things the aforementioned Dr. Savidge (co-writer of Performing the Sacred: Theatre and Theology in Dialogue) mentioned in a recent interview was that he was “worried I would be disappointed” he wasn’t working in a church. Little did he know I prayed for the opposite. Too long has the American church held itself in ivory towers and multimillion-dollar facilities, producing short films and sermon series without addressing how we put our faith into practice.

I would argue that theatre holds the key to this ivory incarceration and could set people free to come and go from the institution of a church as they please, opening up freedom for a life of dialogue and greater social reform. We could see a world united by subjects grossly divided. Augusto Boal says in his book Theatre of the Oppressed : “It is not the place of the theatre to show the correct path, but only to offer the means by which all possible paths may be examined.” Equipped with the magic only thetare can possess we could launch forward into a new era of dialogue.


WHAT WE CAN TEACH EACH OTHER

If you are anything like my dear mother, this might not make much sense to you. How does sitting in a theatre, watching people perform, clapping at their supposed brilliance, bring us any closer to stitching together an ever-widening gap between two seemingly polarizing worlds?

“Well,” I said to her, “it doesn’t.”

The world does not need another play or musical that celebrates one worldview over another. Jesus Christ Superstar is not necessarily teaching anyone much of anything. It is a form of passive theatre. Entertainment. While entertainment and spectacle have their place in a world full of guarantees, like death and taxes, it is as necessary as breathing. Additionally, we can thank it for the opportunity to verbally dialogue and apply some forms of rhetorical discourse [a la an appologectic ROAR: Recognize the message, Offer discernment (affirm the good and reject the bad), Argue for a healthier approach, and Reinforce through discussion, discipleship, and prayer (Mama Bear Apologetics)]. Moreover, what we have to work with is applied theatre, the use of theatre practices outside of the canon of entertaining shows to affect social change. 


SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

Before we can start at the beginning (a very good place to start—if you are unfamiliar with The Sound of Music, I fear that reference may be lost on you), we must first understand our “why”. Why does this oddly specific research matter? Since 2020, we have seen an explosion of not only gross economic divides but also social and cultural divides, pushing a two-party system—what George Washington warned against—deeper into its perpetual echo chambers. His warning rings painfully true: 

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends… they are likely in the course of time to become potent engines… by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people.”

We have begun to fulfill his dismantling prophecy. So how do we begin to undo what we have done? The unsung hero actually sings. Theatre an art form notoriously known for being all about collaboration and connection. Applied theatre tactics could bring warmth and love to the theatre and theology spheres.

If both secular and sacred theatre are, in their final nature, merely performance, one can’t help but wonder why we don’t pull back the metaphysical curtains and walk backstage for a post-show donut. But then one would have to ask: Why can’t we all just get along?

My heart hurts for these two worlds, wishing they wouldn’t be so divisive—with the yearning heart of a mother who longs for her children to empathize with each other, take accountability, and blaze a new path forward. 


APPLICATION

While the beginnings of this research is only a dip in the pool of possibilities ,it seems foolish and inconsiderate to identify a problem without so much as a lantern to light our way to a solution. 

Dr. Dale Savage pointed me to Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed, which puts theoretical work on its feet and at it’s core the very partnership of theatre and theology. A few key components to consider are: forum styles of theatre, collective problem solving and devising methods of storytelling. “These forms of art can offer diverse communication channels for local people to tell and contest their stories of exclusion beyond the limits settled by power dynamics”(Olvera-Hernandez) Even the European union has begun using applied theatre methods to grapple with larger issues. (Österlind) The first step with theatre and Christian thought might even be a forum style theatre production called “chruch hurt” where we “should address a specific problem, and the individuals related to this problem should be present as participants in the organization” (Tuğçe Gözde Pelister). Maybe by our boldness we could see a new generation of conflict-capable people, truly tolerant and conversational.


CONCLUSION

It’s difficult, in a scholarly sense, to not cry out “it has to work - it just has to!” But in an age of increasing divisiveness, it feels near impossible to see any other way forward. Theatre and theology are mutual teachers of truth, beauty, and empathy. Their long rivalry obscures their deep kinship. Applied theatre and sacred ritual invite us into shared humanity.

If we choose dialogue, we may find not only better theatre or better theology—but a better public square. But as I toil over writing this paper, I'm grateful that I have, to a degree, stressed myself out about the research so much as a person who has one foot firmly planted in both worlds, wanting so desperately for there to be a connection not only within the research, but in myself, so to speak. I know I'm not the only one to say that I have felt the weight of centuries' worth of turmoil and antagonism between these two universes. And I'm convinced that there must be a way. And I'm reminded of my freshman year English teacher who said that the teeter-totter that balances life and death their juxtoposition is simply love. And I can't help but wonder if love is the answer. While that might not be a Pulitzer Prize-winning argument, maybe it is. Perhaps it is passion that operates as the common thread between these two ideologies.  Now, in my research, some have argued that it is ritual, or that it is incarnation, incarnating stories in the same way that the Holy Spirit incarnates Christian lives. And while these are valid, they do not, however, put into practice the active blending of theodrama. The operative word being active. And not to be dramatic, but there will come a day when I die. And everyone who is actively reading and working on this paper alongside of me will also die.That makes this paper very important. And this research is so important. In hopes that in the archives of the internet and the dusty catalogs of somewhere, this research will still be found. Meanwhile, we run with perseverance the race of blending these two together while we still have time.