Split Pulpit When and Why?

jwithnell

jwithnell

Moderator
Staff member
Presbyterians historically saw the Word as central and placed the pulpit in the center to reflect that.

My mainline churches (built around 1900 and 1970) had two lecterns with the primary to the right from the congregation's perspective.

Do any of you know if Presbyterian churches made a conscientious decision to follow the sacerdotal design? If so, what prompted it?
 
First Pres Jackson (MS) was built with the pulpit on the north side and a lectern on the south. That was changed to a single central pulpit some time in the last 25 years during a major re-build of the sanctuary.

I recall being told years ago (and at this point, can't certify to accuracy) that the design used had originally been drawn for an Episcopal church.
 
Guido's Brother said:
If anyone knows of a book on such questions of the history of church architecture, I'd love to hear about it.
Click to expand...
Horton Davies massive work on worship and theology in England from 1534 to the 1990's includes reflections on architecture and much else besides. Originally six volumes, now published as three, the first few centuries are the most interesting. It is the best kind of church history, written by someone who whatever his personal sympathies enables you to see what motivated the puritans, the anglicans, the non-conformists and so on.

The classic Scottish reformed church layout was a high central pulpit over a central communion table, flanked by the font on one side and a reading lectern on the other side. The people were quite literally gathered around the Word and the Sacraments week after week. This was a conscious contrast to medieval designs with a central altar (for the sacrifice of the Mass) and a pulpit off to one side.

For example, here are the twinned parishes that my father used to attend in Dunkeld, Scotland. This is a one minute video of the classically reformed "Little Dunkeld" church, built in 1798 (for the purists, the organ is likely not original):

Contrast that with Dunkeld Cathedral (also Church of Scotland), which was "restored" to its Medieval arrangement in the early twentieth century:
http://www.pitlochry-scotland.co.uk/things-to-do/to-do/dunkeld-cathedral/#gallery-0/3/

For me below is one of the most revealing pictures of Dunkeld Cathedral, since it conveys the distance the average member experiences from the service - a radical contrast to Little Dunkeld, where the people are consciously brought near to the preaching.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dunkeld_Cathedral
 
Thanks for y'alls insights.

Rev. Duguid, those are fascinating examples. If you were to read just one of the Davies' work, would it be the first?

It looks like we are following the Scottish pattern at Bethel.
 
jwithnell said:
Thanks for y'alls insights.

Rev. Duguid, those are fascinating examples. If you were to read just one of the Davies' work, would it be the first?

It looks like we are following the Scottish pattern at Bethel.
Click to expand...
The gateway drug, especially for this audience, would probably be his paperback book on the worship of the English puritans. But if you read it, you may well get hooked onto the larger work, which is more wide ranging. I found volumes 1-4 (through to 1900; now bound together as volumes 1 and 2) of the larger work the most interesting. He also has a book looking at the American puritans as well.
 
I heard in a lecture that the two pulpits (or pulpit and lectern) was to show the difference between the word of God and the word of man. The Scripture is formally read at the lectern while the preacher preaches from the Pulpit. This is to show that the words of the preacher aren't God, so you shouldn't look to the preacher as God on earth (like in some fundamentalist/Jack Hyles style churches).
 
Re-opening for slightly different question but no need for a new thread with this old one. Is the location of the pulpit adiaphora governed by those things that affect indifference or must the pulpit be absolutely centered and high as possible without being absurd? We have one of those split two pulpits favored in Presbyterian architecture circa mid last century. We are not a big and wealthy church like 1st Prez Jackons Edward mentions above, who removed this design and centered and raised the pulpit when they redid the sanctuary; we're blessed to simply have a paid for building.
 
I think we have to recognize that the NT has very little to say about church buildings, so it would have to be classed as adiaphora. We can worship God as well in a grass hut in Africa as in a 17th Century Scottish stone building like the one in Little Dunkeld, above. However - and this is what always makes me a little uncomfortable with the elements/circumstances division - I think we can certainly have strong preferences which we hold for good theological reasons that fall short of being required. The time of the worship service is surely adiaphora, but I think I have good theological reasons for meeting at say 10 am rather than 2.30 am (unless perhaps my church is being actively persecuted, in which case 2.30 am might be attractive). Horton Davies similarly cites some who argued in favor of Gothic architecture, with its vertical emphasis, lifting up the eyes, over Greek revival styles that modeled churches after pagan temples. On the other hand, in Grove City, we met in a pre-fabricated gym under a huge painted American flag, and our worship was not significantly hindered....

Spaces are not mute: if we deliberately worship in a space that looks like a theater, we should not be surprised if the worship resembles entertainment. However, spaces are also not the only voice, and a new church that meets in a theater out of necessity need not necessarily conform to the language of its space. At the time of the Reformation, not all stained glass was immediately removed because of the vast cost of replacement. So too I don't think we need to call for an immediate renovation of the internal space of our building, but as we have opportunity, I think we should move towards a reformational design, with the people of God gathered around the Word and the sacraments, with a central pulpit, communion table, reading lectern with open Bible, and font.
 
Basically without remodel the reading desk could be a slight speaking podium between the raised platform and the first pew; we do that in the evening service instead of the pastor taking the pulpit so it could be done. Actual communion table for use rather than the one holding the elements only would take convincing everyone else but me of that form.
 
iainduguid said:
Spaces are not mute: if we deliberately worship in a space that looks like a theater, we should not be surprised if the worship resembles entertainment. However, spaces are also not the only voice, and a new church that meets in a theater out of necessity need not necessarily conform to the language of its space.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that. We have been meeting in a community center for 20 years plus. Sometimes it is decorated for whatever worldly festival there is at that time. We note the incongruity of the setting and move on. Worship is not hindered.

Sometimes the maintenance people hide the lectern. More than once I've preached from a music stand or a card table. People hardly notice, if at all.
 
A little historical context on the furnishing of the reformation church in England might be in order.
In the Church of England, Archbishop Cranmer implemented a policy of gradual liturgical reform. The first edition of the Book of Common Prayer (1549) retained stone altars and the ad orientem position, while moving decisively in a reformed direction in other ways. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer uses altar and table interchangeably in the rubrics, but only uses the table in text read aloud to the assembly. In the Communion liturgy, the assembly were instructed to enter the chancel during the offertory to deposit their alms; those who intended to receive communion were to remain there kneeling near the table for the Communion proper, while those not intended or not prepared to communicate exited the service.
Rather than watching from a distance through the screen, the assembly gathered in the chancel near the table and presiding presbyter (there was no rail to separate them), a radical shift in the position of the laity relative to the table. The first Book of Common Prayer did not prescribe kneeling to receive communion, but permitted kneeling, standing, and sitting. Elevation of the consecrated elements was explicitly prohibited and the prescribed ceremonial was dramatically reduced. 1549 visitation articles ordered that “no minister do counterfeit the popish mass” — after listing a number of the ceremonies that accompanied the old service, it encapsulates the order by proscribing any other “ceremonies than are appointed in the King’s Book of Common Prayers.”
Communion in both kinds was now required. The new English text of the prayer of consecration aligned with the implicit meaning of the change in the relative positions of the assembly and table, emphasizing reception of the sacrament as the climax of the ritual.
In 1550 the Privy Council ordered the removal of stone altars, which were to be replaced with wooden tables. In the second Edwardine Book of Common Prayer (1552) rubrics prescribed that the table be placed either in the middle of the chancel or nave [the “north side” requirement implies a lengthwise orientation, with the two ends of the table pointing east-west, though the other orientation was not unknown]. Unlike in the first Prayer Book, the 1552 prescribed kneeling around the table. The rubric instructed the minister to preside from the north side of the table [the two ends of the table pointed east-west]. The assembly surrounded the table on all four sides [there was no rail, so they could gather quite close to it]. The minister’s position vis-a-vis the laity was incidental — some were behind him, some to either side of him, some faced him from across the table — the point was that they gathered together around the same table. The distribution was made to immediately follow the verba domini, the words of institution, and the rubric specified the bread was to be delivered “to the people in their hands,” so as to follow Christ’s instruction, take and eat. During the distribution, the laity remain kneeling around the table, while the presbyter brings the bread and the cup to each one of them.
Elizabeth ordered [in the Injunctions of 1559] that when the communion table was not in use for a service, it should be moved back against the back against the eastern wall of the chancel. Only when there was a Communion service was it to be moved into the midst of the chancel or nave, “as thereby the Minister might be more conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration, and the communicants also more conveniently and in more number communicate with the said Minister.”
A rubric in the Church of England 1662 Book of Common Prayer prescribes that the presbyter preside from the north side of the table. [This assumes that the chancel was at the East end of the Church, a near universal practice in antiquity]
The post Reformation Church of England had a pulpit was that elevated and on the north side. The Lectern had a open Bible on it. It was on the south side.
After the sermon the presbyter would come down from the stairs that led to the pulpit and proceed to the north side of the communion table and begin celebrating the service of Holy Communion facing south. This was the universal Anglican practice from the Restoration until the mid-nineteenth century, but north side presidency is little known among Anglicans today.
The history behind this rubric is the misconduct of William Laud [afterward Archbishop of Canterbury] followed the lead of Lancelot Andrewes when in 1616 he was the newly appointed Dean of the Cathedral of Gloucester, in defiance of the Rt. Rev. Miles Smith the Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of Gloucester. [Miles Smith was on the 1611 translation committee that had produced the Authorized Version] Dean William Laud ordered the communion table be moved from the nave where it had stood since the early years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth to the east end of the chancel. Thus Dean William Laud ordered the table restored to the position it had been under Queen Mary, and erecting a rail around it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top