This article argues that the altar should serve as a focal point in the worship space. It discusses both the theological rationale for this idea and how it can be achieved through spatial arrangements and seating patterns. It is presented from a Roman Catholic perspective but introduces ideas that can inform discussions in many worshiping traditions.
Liturgy documents, rituals, and commentaries published since the Second Vatican Council clearly indicate that the altar table is to be a focal point in worship spaces and that it is to be central to the gathered assembly. These sources paint a striking picture of the whole assembly gathered about the altar table. Why then is the altar table in most Catholic places of worship still located at one end of the room?
One answer has to do with how a community understands the different roles required for the eucharistic liturgy. Another answer is found in the research that deals with the psychology of space, e.g., territoriality and seating factors. Both answers affect the location of the community table. The case studies depicted in this article show that it is possible to return the Table to the community.
Assembly as Celebrant
Does the worship space say that the assembly is the celebrant of the eucharistic liturgy? Or does it say that the priest presents the liturgy to the assembly? In a technical sense, liturgy is shaped by different roles and actions. A community that understands this principle can identify appropriate architectural settings for various liturgical ministries and movements. These spaces are then specifically designed according to the needs of each ministry.
For example, choirs and musicians are ideally arranged together in a flexible, elevated area in view of the rest of the assembly. Hard surfaces and finishes, adequate light, and acoustical equipment are essential to this ministry. The same consideration should be given to all other ministries including the assembly. (Here some readers will have different opinions regarding the ministerial nature of the assembly during the liturgical act. To be involved in a ministry requires a commitment and willingness to learn how to carry out the ministry in an exemplary fashion. One wonders if assemblies are ready for this kind of involvement.) Nevertheless, we must remember: Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the “sacrament of unity,” namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops.
Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church; they manifest it and have effects upon it; but they concern the individual members of the Church in different ways, according to their differing rank, office, and actual participation. (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 26)
Although many communities have worked hard to improve liturgical ministries, the arrangement of the worship setting, in many cases, works against the efforts of liturgy planners to involve the assembly. Long straight rows of seats, bolted to the floor, facing the priest who presides from an elevated platform at one end of the room, creates a divided environment for worship that renders the assembly passive. This type of setting does not foster the bonding of the assembly.
The place of worship can help the assembly in its liturgical role by gathering participants around focal points (e.g., the Table) and not dispersing them. The environmental needs of the assembly include:
- Ample, barrier-free spaces for gatherings and processions
- Unobstructed and well-spaced seats
- Good sightlines
- Good acoustics
- Comfortable temperature
- Appropriate color schemes
- Accessible focal points
This last factor means the assembly is arranged in such a manner that it has visual, acoustical, physical, and psychological accessibility to the major furnishings used for worship (font, ambo, Table).
If the Table is located in a space that says, “KEEP OUT!” the worshiper will sense “the Table does not belong to me” and “the Eucharist celebrated on that Table does not belong to me—it belongs to the priest who gives it to me.” This is perhaps why some people have resisted extraordinary eucharistic ministers. In their minds only the priest has the power to do the eucharistic act which traditionally took place in a special part (sanctuary) of the room where only the priest was once allowed. Here power and space are connected. Poor, powerless people do not own vast amounts of territory. People with power have lots of space.
Spatial Arrangements
In most worship places the architectural settings for the presider’s chair, the ambo, and the Table are still remote and distant from the assembly. These furnishings are usually found in the territory traditionally set aside for the ordained. Although the Roman Catholic church requires an ordained priest to preside at the eucharistic liturgy, the placement of the Table should not suggest that the Mass is an action delivered by the priest to the assembly.
However, the usually remote location of the Table should not surprise us. Robert Sommer, who has researched the behavioral basis of design, wrote, “Because social and spatial orders serve similar functions, it is not surprising to find spatial correlates of status levels and, conversely, social correlates of spatial positions.” (Personal Space [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969]). In this sense, one can see how certain Catholic ritual conventions have created spatial hierarchies that are difficult to change. Furthermore, Sommer says “the ancients placed great value on chairs and thrones in which their political and religious leaders sat.… The seating position is an important part of diplomatic protocol with people often seated according to a complicated formula of rank and status.”
The traditional hieratic arrangement of Catholic worship spaces (the sanctuary for the priests and the nave for the laity) can be analogous to the barnyard pecking order alluded to in Sommer’s work. In the barnyard, the top fowl (i.e., roosters) can roam where they please while the lower birds are restricted to small areas. Rails may have been taken down, but the distance factors in many houses of worship sustain the division and outline territories for different castes. There does not seem to be any significant or theological reason for maintaining a spatial pecking order in places of worship. In fact, the only reason for elevated platforms is to provide adequate sightlines.
Moving the Community Table, the ambo, and the presider’s chair into the midst of the assembly can help erase any semblance of division, territoriality, and ranking during the eucharistic liturgy. The centralized setting will affirm that all worshipers (priests and people) are the celebrants and that every person present has a particular role to carry out. It says that the Table belongs to all. Further, reducing the distance between the assembly and the Table (often by as much as 50 percent) will provide better sightlines, eliminating the need for very high and inaccessible platforms.
Seating Patterns
The arrangement of seats in a place of worship can affect the “performance” of the participants in the liturgy. Humphrey Osmond, in his classic 1950s study on airports, prisons, and hospitals (in C. Goshen, Psychiatric Architecture, 1959) made the distinction between sociofugal and sociopetal settings (see figure below). Quite simply, the sociofugal arrangement—straight rows of seats—discourages interaction among people and drives them to the edge of the room. We find such arrangements in airports, theaters, and churches. Ever notice how people will occupy the end of a pew while the middle of the row remains empty? These people are choosing the optimum seating location, suggesting they are probably not comfortable in that space. (The need for privacy, another important environmental factor, is not discussed in this article.)
Irwin Altman wrote that “strangers who expect to deal with one another are likely to seek an optimum interaction distance; deviations from this distance (much closer or much farther) are unsatisfactory. This is in relationships between strangers in which there is an explicit expectation of interaction” (The Environment and Social Behavior [Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1975]). Could it be that most Catholic worshipers are not comfortable with the expectations placed on them during the eucharistic liturgy? Perhaps, over a period of time, a more inviting spatial arrangement could foster a gentle understanding of the liturgical act?
A Sociofugal Setting
A sociopetal pattern, seats arranged in circular typesetting, encourages interaction, focuses people on the center of the room, and brings them together. We find this arrangement at the dining room table where family and guests eat and drink as friends. A worshiping community striving for energetic involvement in the liturgical event will discover that a more sociopetal arrangement of seats will begin to shape the participatory behavior of the assembly. However, communities with worshipers who do not like to look at each other while praying have to solve the societal problem before addressing the liturgical problem. Such shy people will naturally move to the optimum rows.
A Sociopetal Setting
Placing the Table in the midst of the worship setting will help the assembly bond over time and focus its undivided attention on the actions taking place at the Table. Restoring the Table to the worshipers is an important part of the renewal of the liturgy and can no longer be overlooked.