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

If that's how it was perceived, I apologize.

That's not the way I meant it, but I can understand how people might see it as a slam.

--Tim Cuprisin

I too apologize for being way too defensive. Yes, I'm a convert. As with most converts I'm passionate about the Church. I think the passion is of God but the defensiveness is a risidual of the fall (we are naked after all and must hide it.)

It would be a delight to meet you all at our Church but remember we still have a few pews left. If you criticize my Church too much just remember what Tim said about cheeks and pews.

Dan Lauffer

dear Dan:

Congratulations to you, your Congregation, and your Priest for having removed most of the pews in your Church. I think that is a great accomplishment and a "great leap forward". I am sure it will reap great rewards.

I was just lamenting our pews at last night's Festal Vespers when a couple of kids were (just being kids) and playing on the pews [a noisy place to play because the wooden pew turns into a sounding board] and who almost fell off and knocked their heads. A floor with a nice carpet, is much safer and quieter.

I have a question. I recall you posting last year that your Temple's pews were removed. But then I had heard somewhere that sadly they had had to be put back.

Are they now out again? Or what is the story?

Happy Feast of the Meeting!

Herb

Dear Dan,

If you can stomach my unstable person, I just wanted to say that your being a former Methodist pastor is something that brings a lot to the Church that we wouldn't otherwise have.

The Methodists I know are similar to "us of the true Church" except that they seem to pray more, read scripture more and go all out in terms of evangelization, parish-building and charitable works.

No wonder converts from such a community make us "true Christians" feel uneasy! Who do such people think they are?

I don't think you should loose your views on pews.

There are two issues that, at least in Toronto, mitigate against the removal of pews in all our parishes.

The first is that one could not do this without the approval of the pastor - and these usually refuse to get rid of them.

I'm not in the business of opposing the will of bishops, pastors or my wife - but if you want to, I'll pray for you!

Then again there are the parishioners who just "won't stand" for pewless churches.

They're "too old, overweight, tired from a busy week's work, too modern etc."

Another unique excuse, in St Nicholas' UGC parish at least, is that the first floor is slanted forward and so without pews, the people would begin to fall flat on their faces.

But that would make full prostrations easier to make . . .

I think that to simply ban pews and hire Ilya to come by with his hammer one Saturday afternoon MIGHT not be a good idea, at least not right away.

It would be best to educate the parish about the true role of the body during the Liturgy and how the body prays during liturgical worship.

For example, I really don't think anyone in my parish, other than the Deacon and me, knows how to properly make the Sign of the Cross - and when.

(My wife gets upset with me, making the Sign of the Cross with such low bows and so frequently - she says it really makes me stand out like a sore thumb, but what else is new . . .)

The Latin Church adds a bow to the Sign of the Cross at the end of its fulfillment - but only during Lent.

But we do it after each and every time we make that sacred Sign (which the Assyrians, I believe, regard as a sacramental mystery in and of itself - Rony?).

And this should be a proper neck bow, done reverently and unhurriedly with either the words "In the Name of the Father . . ." or the Jesus Prayer used.

During the Liturgy, as the Old Believers do, we should use the Jesus Prayer at certain times in making the Sign of the Cross.

We make the Sign of the Cross in this way not ONLY when the Trinity is mentioned by the Priest, but also during each and EVERY "Lord have mercy" or "Grant this, O Lord" - the "Lord have mercy" being a short-form for the Jesus Prayer itself.

Prostrations at other times are also appropriate but never after Communion.

The point is that pews prevent one from fully expressing one's worship bodily as our Byzantine tradition intends.

The Old Believers set, perhaps, the best example for us here.

They come to church dressed in a loosely-fitting "rubashka" or embroidered shirt, which is often made of the cloth or "chrysmo" placed on them at their baptism - calling back the ancient Christian practice when the laity came to Church wearing their white baptismal robes each Lordsday.

They bring a pillow that they place in front of them on the floor in church to avoid soiling their right hand, anointed in baptism for the purpose of making the Sign of the Cross and for frequent prostrations.

In other words, they come to church ready "for work" which is what "liturgy" is all about - work.

The argument against pews is that they prevent us from fully executing our work.

And I've found that while people complain of backaches and cramps from all the standing - they wouldn't if they punctuated the time they are in church with frequent making of the Sign of the Cross, bows and prostrations.

I think Brian it was who said here once that prostations are a natural spinal stretch.

We should be adding a rule of prostrations to our home prayer life each day - they really are an exercise that condition our bodies to stand in glorification of the resurrection of OLGS Jesus Christ and our own as participants in His Divine Life.

But this must be somehow communicated to our people in the pews . . .

My aunt is very RC and believes that kneeling is the sign of greatest respect for God etc. Others have said to me that they are for pews because "all Catholics have them."

As Dr. John would say, "education, education, education!"

Assuming, of course, that the people are teachable . . .

So you were a Methodist pastor, were you?

Alex

Dear Incognitus,

I did not mean to offend the architecht by naming him. In fact, I like many of his designs, and I believe that in the churches I have seen (x2), functionality was sacrificed due to cost and zoning restrictions vs capacity demands.

The Soyuzivka church (Catskills, N.Y.) and Patriarchal Sobor (Kyiv, Ukraine) are pewless. Do you know what else these two churches have in common ? (hint: Patriarch Lubomyr (Husar) - he served at one, and will be serving at the other in a short time).

St-Georges (Lviv), St-Andrews (Kyiv), or St-Sophia new Cossack baroque exterior(Kyiv), were all very contraversial when they were built (ie: do not reflect 'true' Greek Orthodoxy). Today we consider them pearls of our church's architectural patrimony. All are pewless.

As you mentioned, St-Andrews and St-Georges are very difficult to access. In the old days churches were built on high ground so that they could be visible from a distance. Good for panoramic views but as you mentioned not so good if you are not in the best of health.

I think that when completed, and illuminated at night, the new Patriarchal Sobor will be the most facinating building on the Left bank and will attract many people for prayer. It will be have wheelchair accesses.

Maybe we should begin a fundraiser for Sobor 'stacking chairs', for people like me who like pews.

Now back to tradition. We have mentioned pewless churches as being part of the Byzantine tradition. I remember reading somewhere that a separate bell tower was also part of the Byzantine tradition. Hanging bells from a Byzantine church cupola was also a Latinization. Any comments about this ?

Dear Hritzko,

Sorry, that doesn't ring a bell . . .

I don't think our people in Ukraine are too, too concerned about "Latinizations."

They seem to have institutionalized a number of them as part of their overall "Greek-Catholic" identity. And our Basilian Fathers are only too happy to oblige in this department.

Alex

Dan,

I had imagined that your "defensiveness" came from hanging out with thin-skinned, stiff-necked Rusnaks (of whom I am the first). I "converted" from lurker to poster on this forum when someone made a disagreeable remark about my cradle parish; I felt obliged to register and defend her!

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am also a member of the parish Dan Lauffer belongs to, so I will try to explain what has transpired in the past year.

At Annunciation parish in Illinois many pews were restored after briefly being removed, however I think that it amounts to between 60% and 75% of the original number. The floor is an uncovered terrazzo and the pews are not mounted to the floor, but heavy enough to stay in place.

As you might imagine there was quite an uproar although father Tom did his best to explain the need for a change. There was also a very touching demonstration of support for father Tom�s efforts. It was clear that the number of those who preferred to adopt the changes was very significant and the number who were uncomfortable with the changes was also significant. We need each other for a strong healthy parish.

At the time the pews were returned the arrangement was changed to allow more open space so the parishioners and visitors who may wish to stand could have ample opportunity to stand near the front. Many people do stand near the front now, as Dan could attest. The standees (like myself now) no longer feel forced to do anything in the back of the temple and are an integral part of the worshipping community.

The congregation has been slowly attracting new members and repeat visitors from a surprising variety of backgrounds. Some of them chose to stand and some stake out a place in the pews. This has had the interesting result of requiring many long time members to stand occasionally due to lack of butt space on the pews, and some of the long time parishioners who originally preferred to sit have acquired the habit of standing too.

Now that the parish is arranged in such a manner and the tension has reduced, people are choosing to change without feeling pressured to do so. For instance when my back gives out I�ll sit, when I can stand I�ll do so. Some parishioners also choose to stand in place in the pews, especially when with pregnant wives or older relatives, it is a harmonious environment.

We must recognize that the parish is growing, the debts are still considerable and expansion of the building would be unwise at this time. In order for us to accommodate the new members we must provide the standing room, but the most touching thing is that the long time members are giving up their seats to make the newcomers feel welcome, I hear no complaints.

Michael.

Herb,

"I recall you posting last year that your Temple's pews were removed. But then I had heard somewhere that sadly they had had to be put back."

All except a few were removed some time back. After a week or so some more were put back. I think we can seat about 100 or so which means that about that many stand. I think we've reached a happy equilibrium.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Prof. Dan,

Are there Protestant traditions that have no pews, especially the ones that allow for movement around the temple etc.?

Near us is a "Free Methodist Church?"

Does that have something to do with pews?

Alex

Alex,

I'll take you thin skinned and all. I tried to send a PM but your mailbox remains full. I'm happy to see you back and if you need times away for whatever reason it's worth the wait in order to have your excellent presence.

Your analysis of the reasons why people resist standing seems to coincide with what I've found.

Here's a little psycho-babble...er...psychoanalysis for you all. Erik Erickson noted that for a healthy personality to develop one must first struggle through trust and distrust and then shame and autonomy. Sounds rather classically Judaeo/Christian. Adam and Eve had trust but threw it away and were then assaulted with shame. There shame is what drove them to hide from God. Whether we express our shame as nakedness (Adam and Eve) or the sense of being watched from behind (Freud, Erickson, et al) it seems the same. One basic reason for not standing comes from our sense of shame which originates from original sin. We overcome that aspect of original sin through allowing it to be killed. In other words, standing promotes our Theosis. Our ancient anscestors knew this. I think we do too, but are too ashamed to admit it.

It isn't just preference. If it were I'd hide forever. It is theosis we are talking about here. In that sense Gavshev's original hypothesis is correct. To rely upon pews when it is not necessary is akin to heresy.

Dan Lauffer

Professor Alex,

You always ask such interesting questions.

Some forms of Protestantism have not used pews. It's an interesting study in itself. However, like most things, those who don't use them don't always have the same reasons as we do.

The Shakers did like to shake. The two or three old ladies who survive (or have they all died out) now sit because they can't do anything else.

The nineteenth century camp meetings had less use for pews than the staid congregations of the NE. They weren't called "holy rollers" for nothing.

The Free Methodists and even before them the Wesleyan Methodist rebelled against pews, not on theological but on economic grounds. It was customary to have to pay for ones pews. Poor people hadn't the money and so they got to either stand in the back, which brought shame, or not go to Church. While Wesley railed against such prejudice and argued against paid pews the practice slowly crept back into American Methodism once the break in England was finalized. The Wesleyans and then the Frees broke with the Methodist Episcopal Church on two issues: First, abolition of slaves (free the slaves) which the Methodist in the South would never do and in the North finally agreed to. and, second, you guessed it, Free pews.

In the more contemporary charismatic and independent protestant Churches pews are rather a nusance. Theatre or folding chairs have taken their places but much of the time the people move about so much that it wouldn't surprise me that some group will come forward with the idea of eliminating the pews all together.

For full participation in worship pews are a hindrance. I tried on occasion as a Methodist pastor to get rid of them, or at least to get rid of many of them. People generally thought I was nuts.

But it's not just about personal preference. Someone tried to get me to "admit that". I ignored them. It is NOT about personal preference.

Dan L

Dear Professor Dan,

Well, I've always liked you.

And that IS about my personal preference!

Thanks for that positively FASCINATING review of the practice of pews in Protestantism!

Yes, the real "movers and shakers" there would have had an issue with running into pews!

What a great man of God John Wesley was!

Do you think people would mind if I wrote an akathist to him?

Alex

GO FOR IT!!

Dear Orthodox Catholic,
Thank you for giving us that piece of information about bowing during Liturgy. I've seen Deacon Tim and Mike do it, and have always wondered if I was supposed to be too......and the pillows sound cool! Well, that's for us teens to carry out in the next generation. Ninety more years to go till Vatican II is fully implemented!

Nathan Augustine