For the first 1,300 + years of the church there was no seating in churches. (with the exception of stone benches along the back wall for the elderly or infirmed) The Protestant Reformation saw to it that the sermon would now be the primary focus of Christian worship and, well, folks are gonna need to sit for that kind of thing. So starting in the 16th century and really reving up in the 17th and 18th we saw fixed pews become a norm in Christian churches.
But with pews came with some pretty disturbing practices. Namely a pay-to-stay system by which wealthy members of the parish would purchase private pews and pew boxes and as long as they kept up their pew rents, had exclusive rights to them. As a bonus the wealthy were allowed to decorate their pew boxes (that locked!) to suit their tastes with ornate fabrics and cushions.[1] This was reserved seating, not general admission. As absurd as this now sounds, in many churches we still have a reserved seating system (The Olsons ALWAYS sit in the 3rd pew back on the left).
Pews, especially lovely carved vintage pews, can be really quite beautiful and an efficient way of seating a lot of people at once. No question about it. But here’s the problem my church is having in finding a new home. We can’t abide pews. And it’s more than simply an issue of taste.
See, House for All Sinners and Saints (for the most part) worships in the round, with the altar at the center. There is not a large space set aside in front for the special people in robes to which everyone faces. Our liturgy (liturgy meaning “the work of the people”) is led by about 15-18 people who decided to pick up the worship booklets when they came in that have jobs written on the front. So from where they sit in the round, they stand and either say the prayer of the day or the Gospel reading or the benediction or any other number of elements of the liturgy. The absolution, sermon (usually) and words of institution are mine…the rest is up for grabs.
Even the music at HFASS is created by the people who gather. We sing everything a cappella. In glorious 4 part harmony we sing the ancient liturgy and hymns of the church. There is no band or organ. All the music you hear in the liturgy (and make no mistake, it is glorious…except when it’s awkward, but mostly it’s glorious) comes out of the bodies of the people who show up.
There is a critical “why” to the reason we do things this way that extends far beyond taste. It’s missional. In a postmodern context people are increasingly leery of organized religion and it’s attendant obsession with hierarchy. We have peeked behind the curtain and seen only scared little men. So a shared, communitarian experience of liturgy in which we live as the Priesthood of all Believers is inviting in a way that the formality of the traditional church is not. (To be clear, this is not the same as saying that we no longer need clergy – I still hold the office of Word and Sacrament but I hold it on behalf of the whole community and with their permission). This population of urban, postmodern young-ish people have a deep critique of consumer culture and as such are far more interested in being producers than consumers. This goes for church as well. And being able to worship in the round creates an accountability of presence to each other and a shared experience which allows for the community to create the thing they are experiencing rather than consuming what others have produced for them.
I could go on for a few more pages about the reasons why we do what we do. But the point here is that fixed pews in churches prevent us, and I would argue, many Christian communities that are native to the post-Christian cultural context in which we find ourselves, from using that space.
So, what about the idea of replacing pews with chairs? (if need be, they can be wooden and equally uncomfortable as the pews they replace if that’s important). Because if everything in a sanctuary is movable then it can always be configured in the really traditional way …But Wait!…here’s the awesome thing….it can also have other uses too!!! There is nothing wrong with a traditional church set-up. But when everything is nailed to the floor the use of that beautiful, sacred space is now limited to 2 hours on Sunday mornings.
The House for All Sinners and Saints t-shirts don the church logo on the front: a piece of parchment with a nail at the top ala Martin Luther and the Wittenburg Church door (I have to get my Lutheran-ness in where I can since there are precious few Lutherans at HFASS) and on the back it says “radical Protestants; nailing sh*t to the church door since 1517”. So maybe the title of this blog post should have been “missional churches; un-nailing shi*t from the church floor since 2012”.
we just sold our bldg and donated our 60 pews to a small rural church in the arkansas delta. we are also searching for a new home and committed to avoiding anything that is “nailed down”. thanks, nadia!
I don’t like pews either. I want a worship space that can be arranged in different ways to suit different worship services, prayer gatherings, and community events.
I am willing to bet that whole congregations would like it too, but haven’t been given the idea.
The historical aspect doesn’t bother me because I don’t think many people know about it.
Dude… I totally want that T-Shirt! It would probably shock the heck out of my conservative, SW Texas congregation, but this Oregon Girl… TOTALLY DOESN’T CARE!
I actually know a church that has pews … but they’re not nailed down and are designed to be movable, as is all the furniture in the sanctuary. (St. James Lutheran in Gettysburg, PA.) So sometimes you will come in and it will look very traditional, and sometimes you will come in and it will be in the round, and it really can vary. Of course, pews are harder to move than chairs, so it changes less frequently than HFASS probably does, and pews don’t stack/fold to clear space like chairs do, but that might be a good compromise for churches that are already established and for whom even just unbolting the pews from the floor is a huge drama.
I like your alternate title.
Thanks for the history lesson on pews, it made my inner “religious geek” happy.
I want some movable pews and some chairs. Pews are just so darn efficient some days! Our chancel is now very flexible (except for the 5000# stone table).
However, Nadia, I’m sure you meant to write that “The Olsons ALWAYS sit in the 3rd pew FROM THE back on the left.”
Nadia,
This is not intended to be snarky, because I love all of this, but why reserve anything for clergy at all, even if it’s just a few things? Why eliminate hierarchy except for in one area? I don’t mean the sermon, as that’s more a matter of time and preparation, but communion? I’m not all that familiar with Lutheran theology, is it related to that?
Travis-
I am not Lutheran, but United Methodist clergy. Some sacramental actions can only be performed by ordained clergy in my tradition. I would imagine Nadia does as much as she can in sharing those roles…but there might be a few places it is traditional for the sacramental minister to be set aside.
This is a great opportunity for clergy to express both the role as separate and the place among. For many more liturgical traditions (I’m Episcopal), we have a special fancy chair for the bishop. Then we have another fancy one for the head pastor (the rector). And then we have all of this special seating for the table ministers and the choir and the readers and the acolytes so that all the special people are treated as special. This is simply custom that encourages too much division (IMHO). The preferred method by me is that the bishop’s seat (and the rector’s) are not more ornate, but a little different and placed within the circle, rather than in front of the people as on a stage.
Yes, Methodists have that, but why? It cracks me up that my deacon friend can perform a wedding ceremony but not consecrate elements of communion. Oh well. I’ve taken communion with a couple of friends many a time, none of us so-called ordained clergy, and Christ was every bit as much there. If it’s priesthood of all, it’s priesthood of all. But I think I’m in the minority on this.
I’ve served in a congregation where everything was moveable — and I moved them almost every season. It was also the space where Sunday school was held so chairs were moved, tables and partitions set up for the education time; and it was the space for fellowship meals: chairs moved, tables set up in a different formation from worship and education. (I just visited that church and all the moveable stuff stays pretty much in the same place. They’ve moved Sunday school to other places in the building (so they can have it during the same time as worship — a practice I dislike).
In doing a study on stewardship some years ago, I was surprised at how many times in the OT the people’s “stewardship” was eating a meal in the presence of the LORD. Eating together and worship were seen as a single act. We’ve tended to separate them into two different spaces — and made the worship space with fixed pews and impossible space to share a sit-down meal in the presence of the LORD.
In regards to the Olson’s pew — I find it true in nearly every household that every member has their normal seating place. Growing up, we knew were all five of us would sit around the dinner table. We knew where each one sat in front of the TV. We would give our “our” place for guests and adapt when others were present. But we’d revert back to the comfortable and familiar the next night. One couple in our fixed-pew church sat on the other side for one service. Their back to their spot. “It just didn’t feel right,” they said — and sometimes they are the only ones on that side of the nave — but it fells right to them.
The familiar sitting arrangement also makes us more aware of when someone’s spot is empty: he is sick; she has died; they’re on vacation. It gives the community a sense of absence when a spot is empty. (The same is true in households.) I’ve also noticed that often when a spouse dies, the survivor sits in a different spot. One congregation had a “widow’s row” where the widows informally moved after their husbands’ deaths.
On one hand I like circles. There’s no hierarchy in a circle. Many oral cultures are built on circles: Native American’s tepees, sweet lodges, even the arrangements of communities in a circular shape; in contrast to our cube-shaped houses and saunas and grid of streets. We tend to hear in circles. We see in rectangles.
On the other hand, having soldiers or a marching band all facing the same direction, marching in step, gives a sense of unity of direction and purpose. Having worship leaders and the assembly all face the cross for prayers or creed can give a visual sense of being united together behind the cross of Christ.
Many of us inherit a structure that we won’t change; but we can find the most positive ways of talking about it and making use of it — whether bolted-down pews or free-spirited chairs.
You raise some good points, Brian. But, first, I don’t think that movable seats would work in the nave pictured above. I may be wrong but wasn’t the pew tax an offering? I think that many people tend to sit towards the back of the church because those were the empty seats when their family joined and they haven’t moved. The assigned seating, as you point out, has some advantages. What I would like to see is limited seating and have the pews on some sort of conveyor belt. You would fill from the front and as you need additional seatings, more pews would appear. Maybe they could pop up from the floor? I think that we need to find creative ways to use the spaces that we have. Movable furnishings can be a real blessing, though.
I also think that as the liturgy became more inclusive and the laity actually had a role, the pews emerged. Before that time, it was basically come and go as however you saw fit.
Nadia,
I love this! I am a raised Lutheran (and at heart) who attended mega-gatherings for years, only to find Jesus again around my friend’s dinner table where we meet in a circle weekly and celebrate true love and life. Community does not look at a leader but everyone equally.
Thanks for all you do in Denver.
Love it. Neither Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler in Chicago or First Baptist Church, Palo Alto have pews. I’m proud of that. Thrilled, really. Now if only we could get comfortable here in Palo about switching them around more often. We worship in the round, but the older traditions change slowly. It’s hard to change the long-standing traditions of a congregation used to pews…Formation is real and it’s physical.
For some time I have not read your blog and now I wonder why I have stayed away. I find your writings insightful and refreshing everytime. I love the way you take the Lutheran ways and make them new. It is a long way from Finland (where I work as a Lutheran pastor) but if I am ever in your part of the world I will come and visit your church. Keep doing things the way you are!
I never really understood what people at HFASS had against pews, but it sounds like the main problem is the inability to change. I probably didn’t get it because the church I grew up in had (and still has) moveable pews (and everything else in the sanctuary, except the organ) that got rearranged at least a few times a year. Also, our pews were cushioned and pretty comfortable. I slept on them on more than one occasion.
As for the reserved seating system that most churches have now – I don’t think that is anything like what happened in the 17th century and I don’t think it matters if there are pews or not. It’s just human nature. Even at HFASS where we change the seating arrangement at least every season, people sit in the same spots every time the set up is the same. Even when the set up changes, they follow a set pattern to find a seat. As long as people aren’t being denied a seat or being excluded from the community, I don’t see any problem with allowing habits to continue.
I have no problem at all with people having regular places they sit. Actually Brian Stoffrogen made some really good points about this on my FB wall. He said it’s easier to notice when someone is missing when they aren’t in the regular place they sit…I agree. It’s only problematic when it feels like people own certain spots. Then it can be alienating to visitors and new people.
oops, I mean Brian commented here. I’m confused (nothing new)
Nadia, if you are looking for a new space (perhaps one that has many uses), my wife was suggesting you should read “The Sharing Solution: How to Save Money, Simplify Your Life, and Build Community” by Orsi & Doskow. Here’s her review:
This is a very well written and organized book about sharing and community building to best meet the triple bottom line of personal, environmental, and financial goals. Many chapters include sidebars about how businesses, nonprofits, community leaders, and developers can help encourage these practices. Of note are chapter 4 (meetings and mediation), Ch 6 (house sharing), Ch 7 (sharing household goods, purchases, & tasks), & Ch 8 (sharing food (coops, meal exchanges, potlucks). Also included is an extensive reference list and worksheets to get started.
My last congregation worshiped in the round, with seating provided by movable but interlocking chairs. Alas, some years before I took the call, it was decided that too many chairs were getting broken by moving them, so by my time there it was official policy not to move them to reconfigure the worship space. Unless, of course, the granddaughter of a charter member was getting married and just had to have the long aisle to process down and the mother of the bride kicked up a big enough fuss that the grandfather of the bride and all of his friends called the church to ask the pastors why they hated this beloved charter member and his granddaughter, when the pastors were bewildered to know that there was a furniture policy in the first place. Kyrie eleison.
when I lived in England my church was 800 years old and the pews were not original (go figure) and people would complain about the weirdest things. When they moved the altar forward a bit they need to change the altar rails and a few people were up in arms about our beloved old rails! Really? Those railings must have been at least made in the 20th century? How old could they possibly be? It just goes to show that even in the oldest of buildings people will cling to what they have come to know as “church”.
Old!? For crying out loud….
Nadia,
I never would imagine myself comparing your ideas to those of Winston Churchill, yet here goes . . . Parliament was once debating whether to change or update it’s rather stodgy seating arrangements. Churchill, on this occasion, sided with those who could defend the status quo tuchus. His comment went something like this: ‘ We shape our buildings to fit our needs, but after using them for centuries, our buildings SHAPE US. ‘
Thanks for helping us think about the shape we’re in as churches!
Nadia,
P.S. Of course, Stewart Brand has also weighed in upon this weighty matter:
http://www.recyclingandreuseofbuildings.com/Interiorarchitectureinahistoriccontext.pdf
I grew up in a pew-less church. Pew-less because it was a 1970s church plant, and they hadn’t had the money for the pews, and then they just never got put it. My Dad was their second pastor. Oh, was it WONDERFUL what we could do in there! (Under the third pastor, they put in pews. I remember Dad being devastated to hear that it had happened.)
As an associate pastor, I enjoyed driving my head of staff nuts by suggesting that we rip out sections of pews.
Figuring out how to get the pews out is on my bucket list of “things to do if I ever get to be a solo pastor.”
(That said, I think pews are beautiful, and if I had the right place in my house, I’d repurpose the right pew in a minute!)
Nothing can start a row quicker in the Baptist church I attended than suggesting we get rid of the rest of the pews! The church building is Victorian (foundation stone laid by Spurgeon) so it had pews from the start and the front had been re-modelled in the 60′s to make it more open. Then a (brave) minister suggested getting rid of the pews and the front 4 rows were replaced with chairs. This was meant to be the start of a process of gradual change but that minister moved on in 1981 and no more chairs have been added or pews removed.
A subsequent minister had a brilliant idea to get the (small) evening congregation to gather at the front – he put some old 6ft tall firescreen across the middle of the church. He only did this once as one couple still sat in their usual pew even though it was in the row directly behind the screens!
You almost sound like Mennonites–your four-part harmony. Except we’ve backslidden, some places. Big thumping organs, sway-sideways praise bands.
Pingback: Guest Blogger: David Henson, Is the Death of the Mainline Really Such a Bad Thing? | Bruce Reyes-Chow
Pingback: Small Sips Prefers to Call It "Denarding" » Pat Heelen
Pingback: Precipitating the Death of the Mainline
Pingback: Goldilocks Church: What Size Is “just right”? | Nadia Bolz-Weber