Pulpit or No Pulpit?

On Tuesday we looked at the use of the pulpit in a church service.  At the end I asked this question: Should pulpits be discarded?  Or do they carry a symbolism that ought to be preserved within our churches?  My friend David responded with this comment:

My opinion, for what its worth, is that we should not abandon the pulpit. There is a great amount of symbolism wrapped up in its very presence in our churches. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of people in our churches are ignorant of why it is there. They probably just think that it is an over-large fancy lectern, rather than symbolizing the centrality of the preached Word in the formation and sustaining of a true church.

David’s comment will serve as the outline for this post. 

The symbolism of the Pulpit

“There is a great amount of symbolism wrapped up in its very presence in our churches”

What is that symbolism and where did it come from?  David is correct that it symbolizes the centrality of the preached Word in the formation and sustaining of a true church”.  At least that is what it symbolized after the Reformation period. 

The term pulpit was used in the early church by Cyprian.  But the “pulpit” that he mentions was not used necessarily for preaching.  It was more of a raised platform that was more apt to symbolize the difference between clergy and laity than the task of preaching. 

During the Middles Ages the pulpit was moved away from center and often elevated.  The more liturgical elements of worship took center stage.  They also slowly became more ornate.  But this all changed during the Reformation.  With the renewed emphasis on the Word of God the pulpit once again took center stage. 

The Wittenburg Door points out the symbolism behind the pulpit.  It is central, raised, and solid.  The article continues:

Overall, the pulpit represents what the church service is to be primarily about—God’s people coming together to worship Him, and, as mentioned, God addressing His people through the preached word.

But is this what the average person thinks when he/she views a pulpit?  Apparently David doesn’t think so…

“Unfortunately, I think that a lot of people in our churches are ignorant of why it is there. They probably just think that it is an over-large fancy lectern,”

What happens when the symbol no longer signifies?

If the point of the pulpit is to be a symbol—and the symbol is no longer known or important—what is the point of having it? 

Consider the holy kiss.  4 times in the New Testament we are encouraged to “Greet one another with a holy kiss”.  Yet we now settle for a handshake or a hug.  Is this because we are not following the Bible?  Or is it because the holy kiss was a cultural symbol that is no longer used? 

Because kissing means something different in our culture we preserve this injunction by handshakes and hugs rather than kissing.  Why?  Because the symbolism has changed.  So if the symbolism of the pulpit has changed or been lost do we still need to preserve it? 

Perhaps we should teach on what the pulpit is and the symbolism behind it.  Undoubtedly we need to do everything we can to preserve the centrality and sufficiency of the Word to present the all-sufficient Christ.  But will this preserve the symbol?  Is it even necessary to preserve the symbol?  Is it possible that there are other ways—those more in touch with our culture—to convey the centrality of the Word? 

I’m not saying burn your pulpit.  I’m simply saying don’t burn those that use a music stand.  We should labor to preserve the centrality of the Word.  But I find it unnecessary to fight for something that is not found in Scripture.  In fact I think that may be closer to Reformational principles than ensuring that our churches have pulpits. 

But then again, I could be wrong…

Spurgeon’s Opinion of Pulpits

"Pulpits have much to answer for in having made men awkward. What horrible inventions they are…the old-fashioned pulpit has been a greater curse to the churches than is at first sight evident!”
What could have been their design and intent it would be hard to conjecture. A deep wooden pulpit of the old sort might well remind a minister of his mortality, for it is nothing but a coffin set on end: but on what rational ground do we bury our pastors alive? Many of these erections resemble barrels, others are of the fashion of egg cups and wine glasses; a third class were evidently modeled after corn bins upon four legs; and yet a fourth variety can only be likened to swallows' nests stuck upon the walls. Some of them are so high as to turn the heads of the occupants when they dare to peer into the awful depths below them, and they give those who look up to the elevated preacher for any length of time a crick in the neck. I have felt like a man at the mast-head while perched aloft in these "towers of the flock." These abominations are in themselves evils, and create evils.

 Source: The Spurgeon Archive

Is the Pulpit Necessary?

If you want to watch an awkward display of uncoolness, just give me a handheld microphone in one hand and something else in the other. 

I remember one occasion getting the opportunity to preach before a relatively large group of college students.  I was already somewhat nervous.  My anxiety turned to full blown hyperventilation when I discovered that I would have to use a handheld microphone.  I cannot preach with one.  I use my hands when I preach and I’m too dense to keep a microphone in one place.  I’d rather go all George Whitefield and preach with a bleeding throat and no microphone than be hindered.

Before the invention of the wireless handheld or the Britney Spears model our church uses, many pastors had to stay behind the pulpit because that was the only microphone.  But with the invention of all things technological pastors do not have to remain stationary.  Combine this with more pastors preaching without notes and an interesting thing has happened in many churches: the pulpit is gone. 

Obviously, it is not absolutely necessary to preach behind a pulpit.  You would be hard pressed to find Jesus using a pulpit, and it’d be a foolish argument to say that Jesus was not faithful in preaching.  But is it possible that the pulpit holds a great symbolic function in the church?  Is it possible that we should not be so quick to remove the pulpit? 

Consider what Steven Koster says:

“In Reformed churches, the tradition has been to put the Pulpit in the center because of the centrality of preaching and the Word as a means of grace. The Pulpit is not just a utility stand for the preacher to use to hold his notes, but a weighty visual anchor to point to the significance of the proclaimed Word itself (which is why some churches have favored massive pulpits). In fact, some churches have a big pulpit (with Bible) in the center that is used only for preaching, with a smaller lectern to the side used for other readings and worship leading.

But is such a big bulky pulpit practical?  Does it “scare away” seekers?  Consider this by Mike Schreiter:

Fewer people want to see a sermon delivered from behind a large, wooden pulpit. Dynamic preachers that want to engage congregations today need to capture attention with words, actions, and illustrations. Today, a preacher needs a wireless microphone and a video remote control more than he needs a designated place to stand.

So what do you think?  Should pulpits be discarded?  Or do they carry a symbolism that ought to be preserved within our churches? 

On Friday I will try to answer this question and also give a little history on where pulpits came from. 

Great Commission Resurgence and Church Buildings

On Tuesday I asked, where do churches come from?  To which I answered, “Elaborate and decorated church buildings came from the time of Constantine.  Functional church buildings came from a time prior—perhaps a century before.”  I promised that today I would try to draw out some implications of this.  Before we do this it may be wise to think about whether the early disciples would have built church buildings had they the opportunity. 

Would the Early Church Have Built If Given a Chance?

To answer that question we will have to engage in some speculation as to why they did not build church buildings.  Perhaps it was economic reasons.  Or maybe it was because of their relatively small number.  But that does not square well with history.  There were indeed a decent number of believers living in Jerusalem shortly after Pentecost.  Certainly, enough to necessitate a church building.  And some of these (see Joseph of Arimathea) were quite wealthy.  Yet, they chose to meet in the synagogues and houses instead of building a distinctly Christian building.  Why? 

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that they did not build a distinctly Christian building because they were not quite ready to “break with Judaism”.  It is only after persecution that they were spread and subtly began to see the chasm between Christianity and Judaism . 

But why did they not build exclusively Christian buildings (assuming they did not) in larger metropolitan areas where they were not yet persecuted?  Perhaps it was for financial reasons.  Perhaps it was for missional reasons or even social reasons.  I doubt they were fundamentally against functional buildings designed exclusively for Christian worship.  But, my guess is that the elaborate Constantine-type of buildings would have been appalling to the early disciples—but that is simply a guess. 

Two Beliefs Driving the Early Church

I say this because there were two beliefs that seem to have driven the early church: A detachment from “this world” and a strong belief that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament expectation. 

Because of their detachment from “this world” and belief that Jesus was coming any day building an elaborate dwelling place would seem foolish.  They would soon be living in the New Jerusalem and all of their resources would be given to announcing the coming Kingdom. 
Sojourners don’t build mansions. 

Secondly, their strong belief that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of Old Testament expectation would probably cause the early disciples to shy away from recreating the temple.  In the Old Testament you went to a building to meet with God.  But Jesus obliterated that.  The curtain is torn.  Jesus is our Immanuel.  Temple worship is offensive to Jesus’ mission of rescuing a blood-bought community of redeemed believers.  The temple was elaborate because it was a display of the greatness of the God that dwelled therein.  God doesn’t live there anymore.  The indwelling Spirit creating holiness and unity in diverse peoples is now the cosmic display of the manifold wisdom of God (see Eph. 3). 

From Constantine to Church the Noun

Enter Constantine.  He was concerned with creating a “this world” type of empire.  Therefore, spending empire money on creating a place to worship was not foolish to him.  Secondly, he was converted (which could be argued that he was not) out of paganism.  The One that rescued Constantine was to be considered the superior God.  You displayed that by building elaborate temples to show this.

Fast forward some 18 centuries and we have church buildings that might shame Constantine.  Through the centuries the Church (now a noun) has labored to make all things bigger and better.  One church recently began 130 million dollar renovation plan.  Their justification for doing so?

As I look around downtown Dallas, I see spectacular temples of commerce, of culture and of government – many new, some restored to former glory, and all intended to stand for generations. The Kingdom of God needs a home to equal them – a spiritual oasis in the middle of downtown.”    (HT: Ken Eastburn)

Sound familiar? 

“The Kingdom of God needs a home to equal them”.  No, it doesn’t.  The Kingdom of God has within it a home that shames them, and it is not found in Dallas, Texas.  It’s one thing to look at a 130 million dollar renovation plan and consider it extreme, but the average church has 40-60% of its budget sucked up in building and maintenance. 

I am not against church buildings.  Let me rephrase that, I am not against functional church buildings.  I just do not buy the “Our God deserves the best” argument that I typically here to excuse elaborate expenses on church buildings.  I agree that our God is absolutely awesome and deserves the absolute best from us.  I just do not buy that “our absolute best” is a temple made with hands.  Rather, I think it is lives marked with single-minded devotion.  

Undoubtedly there are those leading churches with large buildings and those attending large churches that have a single-minded devotion.  Just like Constantine I doubt very seriously that these believers intend to do anything wrong.  And maybe they are not.  But my heart breaks that our church buildings are state of the art while children starve to death and a large part of the world lives in the darkness of no gospel knowledge. 

Maybe the Great Commission Resurgence should involve selling church property (like state of the art sound, lights, seats, etc.) to fund a missionary, support a family desiring to adopt, feed the hungry, or engage in other mercy ministries.  I have said it once before and will say it again, something is wrong with this:

Where did church buildings come from?

I speak often.  I have the opportunity to speak in a public setting at least 4 times per week.  Even so, I occasionally say something that I know I have never said before.  (E.g. That’s it!  Jesus is the astronaut!)  Likewise there is one thing that I am certain the apostle Peter and the early disciples never said, “Grab the kids, honey, we are going to church”. 

They never said this because to the early disciples you did not “go to church”.  The early Christians met in synagogues until they were booted out.  During this time they also met in homes and eventually these and the catacombs would be their only meeting place.  For the first couple of centuries to “go to church” would have been unheard of.  “Church” was not a noun.  Maybe a verb.  Maybe an adjective.  Maybe an adverb.  I am not so good at English usage.  But what I do know is that church (ekklesia) was the word used to describe the gathering of believers. 

I am typing this article from inside my church office which is housed inside the church building.  Obviously, things have changed.  But when?  When and where did church buildings come from? 

One school of thought is that represented by Felicity Dale:

The first time history indicates that believers met in buildings is in AD 321, when Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity but followed pagan tradition by building special temples for the Christians.  A paid, professional clergy class arose.  (Quoted from an Army of Ordinary People, p33). 

There are many, especially those who advocate a simple/small/house church movement love to vilify the birth of church buildings.  But is it that simple?  Actually it is most likely that buildings used exclusively for Christian worship began to crop up before Constantine.  The oldest known church building is the Dura-Europos, as Gonzalez explains:

“…as congregations grew, some houses were exclusively devoted to divine worship.  Thus, the oldest Christian church, found in the excavations of Dura-Europos and built before AD 256, seems to have been a private dwelling that was converted into a church.

It is possible that there were a few exclusive Christian buildings that predate the Dura-Europos, but that is not essential to our discussion here.  It is enough to say that during the third century (not fourth) Christians began creating/transforming buildings to be used exclusively for Christian worship. 

There is, however, some credence to what Felicity Dale is saying.  Church buildings were totally different from what they were in the century prior.  As Gonzalez points out, “The churches built in the time of Constantine and his successors contrasted with the simplicity of churches such as that of Dura-Europos” (Gonzalez, 126). 

So, to answer the original question: Elaborate and decorated church buildings came from the time of Constantine.  Functional church buildings came from a time prior—perhaps a century before. 

Now what are the implications of this…

Come back on Friday!