Internet Monk is in the middle of a series: “The Evangelical Liturgy.” A recent post, well worth reading and pondering, discusses the sermon and its place in evangelical worship. These few paragraphs caught my eye:
Some of you are going to wince here, but getting rid of the pulpit was a bad idea. In fact, I can’t think of a single change in architecture that says more negative things about worship than the removal of the pulpit, or replacing it with a clear plastic podium. The desire to make worship into non-worship was facilitated more by the removal of the pulpit than anything else. All the “barrier between the pastor and the congregation” rhetoric is specious.
The pulpit speaks of the centrality and importance of the Word of God proclaimed, and it relativizes the preacher into a proper place: disciplined and called to stay behind the Word. Harness the personality to the Word. The preacher stalking the stage with an open Bible is a scene out of balance: the preacher and his personality are overly emphasized. The Word is literally being “used” by the preacher before our eyes.
…[M]any evangelical churches will never have a balanced and disciplined liturgy because the church must be the preacher’s stage.
Discuss:
- What do you think about the preacher and the pulpit?
- Is iMonk’s claim valid, or is he romanticizing an imaginary past?
October 12, 2009 at 11:27 am
I’ve been following this series, and while interesting I think there are some issues that should give those of us in liturgical traditions pause, as we are coming from a different context than Michael.
That being said, I think he may be on to something in the context of pop-evangelicalism where the performance has sometimes replaced content–whether it be in music or preaching. At the same time, a quick glance at history will demonstrate that it is just as easy to idolize a charismatic preacher in a pulpit as it is to idolize one that struts on stage (how could you not get the wrong idea about someone preaching from this thing?)
I also need to admit to a bias here, as I generally hate using most pulpits in contemporary churches–they’re simply too small and I move when I preach, particularly because I only use a manuscript about 1/4 of the time. Older, more robust pulpits can accommodate some movement without the preacher actually leaving the pulpit area (ironically perhaps, since they tend to surround the preacher).
The difference between the two is also ( I believe) matter of function… older pulpits were more about visibility in the proclamation of the word and were used in larger congregations where those in the back might have trouble seeing. (Some folks, like Paul Zahl, argue that the elevation of the pulput was a sign of elevating word over sacrament, but I don’t believe I agree–I think it began out of necessity and continued as a fad). Many older pulpits don’t necessarily have a podium built in, as the preacher wouldn’t have been reading from anything. In contrast, most modern pulpits are nothing but a place for the preacher to set their manuscript and do their best impression of a university lecturer.
Just a few random thoughts…