www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology pews, yet again

I agree with Incognitus that Ilya's post of today is very good. What I didn't get comes directly from his first post:

Best left to the Omniscient One who is better equipped to discern the diifference.

Earlier in this thread you stated:
Seems to be a clear linear reasoning from that post that pews are evil and pews are heretical. If that simple logic is extended, one might get the idea that churches with pews are heretical, and thus evil. Is it then evil then to desire pews in a church, or to not desire their removal? From the tone of your post it would seem we are all to burn for allowing pews in our temples.

While there is much focus on the good or evils of pews the fact remains that they are present in so many churches. I have stood in pewless churches many times and am used to it. As a cantor, I stand for the Liturgy. I sit only during the homily. The church I attend has had pews from the beginning. I tended to like being upstairs with the choir since there is more open space. I suppose that is partly why I am a cantor now.

If only there were such passion for iconostasi, and proper eastern altars in our temples! Many things about our churches are imperfect, but we shouldn't become fixated on the imperfections.

Steve Petach

Now, now. A bit of tolerance for Ilya's manifest enthusiasm will do no harm. Surely we all prefer enthusiasm (in a good cause) to apathy!
Strictly speaking, pews are not "evil"; they are simply benches in the wrong places, and often set at a most undesirable pitch, which can lead to serious discomfort and a feeling of being trapped. They interfere with our worship; therefore they should not be there in the first place.
Speaking with equal strictness, pews are not heretical - because a piece of wood is not sentient. Pews certainly are not orthodox, because no such item of furniture occurs in the orthodox tradition. "Heresy" derives from a Greekw word indicating preference, and in the ecclesiastical context indicates that one "prefers" something to orthodox doctrine and/or practice. But pews can unfortunately lead people to an incorrect understanding of orthodox worship - which indeed could be heretical in the dogmatic sense.
Incognitus

Incognitus,

The opening line of your most recent post reminded me of a most fond memory.

I had the joy of meeting Archbishop Gabriel Ganaka of Jos, Nigeria some years ago at an Evangelism conference. Bishop Gabriel apparently had caught some flak from his brother bishops because he was on friendly terms with charismatic Catholics. "But they are fanatics," another bishop said. His Lordship replied in his resonant voice "It is easier to control a fanatic than to wake the dead."


Amen!

Thanks for the memory.


Sharon

Dear Friends:

Since pews were introduced as a consequence of the Protestant Reformation, in their shift from a sacramental liturgy to a liturgy of the inspired word, then pews can be considered heretical.

If not explicitly heretical, they are surely the by-product of a Heresy.

But take it easy guys, this is a conversation and not a crusade.


defreitas

I don't know, Jose...I will add on to Illya's offer for analoys a free chain-saw tune up if used to remove pews...

I am actually more comfortable in a pewless church. I pray better, am less distracted and if I need to step out for a moment (some emergency like taking my kid to the bathroom), it is less disruptive for everyone.


What an excellent way to put it, Father! I agree 100% that "Form does follow Function" or it should , and where it doesn't, it doesn't "Function" very well!

In my opinion, like many issues in our Church, "to go backward is to go forward" and a lot of what appears at first glance at "modernization" is sometimes backward moving and reactionary.

And pews are a great example. Our forebearers (cf. the Churches in Eastern Church) did not have pews. When they came here, they changed and took on the innovation of pews (which may have seemed logical at the time, but now in retrospect [at least in my own opinion] was a mistake, but live and learn and hopefully, please God, no harm done).

So to go back to being pewless, from so many points of view and angles, is both modernizing (implementing Vatican II and the recent decretals of our Church authorities) and also a way to return to our authentic way of Byzantine style worship, e.g. making small reverences at the petitions of the various litanies, or at least at the one's where one feels moved to. Or if one feels very moved, to make that nice poklin where one touches the floor.

I know that my priest certainly prefers pewless. He says that people pray better. And he thinks that if people have a better prayer life, they are friendlier to welcome others and hopefully more christian in attitude and action. He also likes it because it is better for the various processions, for the veneration of the Gospel and stuff at Matins or Vigil. When he was at a pewed Church, seeing the people try to do (or unable to do [despite wanting to]) poklins at Presanctified, not to mention the Great Kanon, drove him a little crazy with heart-ache. He is a much happier camper and thinks he is serving us and the Divine Services better in the pewless parish.

I've prayed in both pewless and pewed Church. My vote, no doubt and without hesitation, is for a pewless Church. Better evangelisation. Easier to pray. Better experience of Church. I am less tired and bored. Better for the kids.

just my 3 pence.

Herb

Father Michael,

Father bless me a sinner! Please, don't take too great an offense but your paragraph here is a red herring. No one has ever suggested that a pewless church makes it Orthodox. That reminds me of the oft' repeated joke about going to a McDonald's makes one into a hamburger. It's a joke. But I think what you've said must also be.

"You're right on, and from a Greek Orthodox point of view to boot! God love you! You're correct; a pewless church does not a true Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Church make! I guess many see regression as forward movement. Go figure!"

Here are a few things I do know:

1. A ninety minute, 2 hour, or even 5 hour divine liturgy while people are standing doesn't hurt any able bodied person. Nor does it detract from thinking about God. Nor is the Russian prelates comment comparing thinking about God to resting ones posterior. To make such equations, if they are to be taken seriously, says more about our lack of "attentiveness" than anything else.

2. All traditional cultures that I've studied (I teach Comparative Religions) has as standard operating procedure the people standing. When Jesus gave the sermon on the mount people stood and he sat. When Confucius taught he sat and his students stood.

3. Pews limit the number of people who can come to liturgy. Of course the biggest reason more people don't come to liturgy is because they are not invited to come. They are not invited to come...I think we both know the answer to that.

4. Standing is attentive. Sitting is relaxing and passive. I much prefer standing, which I've done since coming to our BC parish, to sitting. I'm much more attentive and so are our fellow parishioners.

5. If Sts. Gregory Nanzianzen and John Chrysostom could preach to people for 3-4 hours while they are standing and have their Church grow, so can we.

Dan Lauffer

Tim,

I wish this weren't so, but I'm finding once again that I disagree with your completely. This issue is important. It isn't the most important issue, but it is important. Changes can happen. Recapturing our heritage can happen. Neither has to hurt anyone unless they are only concerned with themselves. Worhipping the flesh is a sin, you know.

dan lauffer

defreitas,

"I know that in most Roman and some Byzantine Parishes the �Pew-less� concept would be laughable because the poor quality of the services have made them generally unbearable."

I teach my theology classes about "kairos". This concept should be well known by all traditional Christians. "Chronos" is really irrelavent to Christians. I've been in Roman Catholic Churches which were so boring and unappealling that 5 minutes was too long. But I have never ever considered a four hour liturgy well done to be very long at all. I always stand in our Church and always wonder why we are done so quickly.

Out with pews.

Dan Lauffer

Ilya,

I have a great sympathy for your position. Perhaps you stated your opposition to pews using words that were slightly to inflammatory, but only slightly. A strong case could be made that pews are both "evil" and "heretical" without assuming that those who have been tricked by this evil are themselves evil.

My empathy for you arises from the fact that I was a United Methodist minister for 27 years and faced many of the same things that your father has faced. People can be very nasty. Thankfully no one tried to sell my home while I was living in it.

I firmly held my ground. I pray that I did so lovingly, as I'm sure your father has done. But I do wish other pastors had had some backbone about worship. It would have made my life a bit easier.

Dan Lauffer

Yes, that will really advance things. :rolleyes:

Please, if you would like to persuade people about the advantages of a pewless temple - advantages that I do not dispute - then please stick to the positives. If you try to present "strong" arguments that they are evil and/or heretical, or that our ancestors were "tricked", you will have blown the opportunity to make this progress.

People who know our church, know that the generations that built our temples here were not engaged in evil, that they were not in engaged in heresy, that they were not indifferent to their praxis, that they were not under Protestant influence, and that they were hardly susceptible to trickery. If your argument runs contrary to this knowledge, your words will be received with, at best, indifference. Don't mistake this attitude for apathy. It is simply polite toleration, of, what Alex called "Byzantine Silliness".

PS
We've mastered "tradition" and "heresy", now onto the verbs!

PPS
The new idea of "heretical", simplifies the work of the liturgical commission. The antiphon practice is clearly "heretical" (AFAIK picked up from the Arians); therefore it should not only be shortened but be removed altogether!

I second djs statement. Those great people who built our church with the little money they had did so with pure love in their hearts. If a new parish priest came to our church today and used language like that, I think that his house might also be put up for sale by parishoners (not the nationalists of course 'cause they are busy overthrowing some government or something )

Hritzko,

What language did the parish priest used that justified people putting his house up for sale? Did I miss something?

Dan L

In my parish, the suggestion of removing the pews would get laughed at. But the fact is, pews were invented by the protestants to keep order in the Church during long long sermons.

With no Liturgy, and nothing going on, but only sermons, the congregation could get fed up quickly.