worship renewal

Six Architectural Settings and Worship Renewal

by

The assembled body of Christ is a primary visual symbol. The way people are seated affects the ways they relate to each other in worship and has much to do with their experience of community. There are six different architectural settings for worship currently in use. Each setting is briefly described and illustrated below with comments on its relationship to worship renewal.

Configuration is the heart of the seating issue. Here again, we are guided in particular by Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, #68. The arrangement must support all liturgies (Sunday Eucharist as well as funerals and weddings but other liturgies as well). It must also support singing, provide for emergency egress, and may need to be as functional with dozens as with hundreds. Configurations are here put into six categories. Each has its own characteristics and personality. All of the diagrams below have an identical scale and seating capacity (approximately 780 people for 18-inch seat spacing and 670 people for 21-inch spacing).

1. Gothic Plans are normally long and narrow with transepts and often with columns. Formality and hierarchical order dominate, with the climax occurring far from most of the seating. This configuration, especially when the capacity is large, is simply not able to function in support of the vision of liturgy articulated by Vatican II and the following reforms. It may support strong participation through song but can do little to uphold a strong and ongoing sense of assembly action.

2. Processional is an efficient pattern in rectangular spaces. Its regimented order is common in our present spaces. Processionally oriented actions fare well here, but not communal actions. From the similarity to theaters and other settings, we tend to think of ourselves as an audience in this setting.

3. Antiphonal, reminiscent of monastic seating, uses the processional aisle as the center of liturgical action as well, allowing for a large, flexible area. With the action in the midst of the assembly, proximity and interaction are good, but the line of view may suffer with larger capacities; bending the pattern lessens this problem. This plan fits readily into many spaces and can handle large capacities.

4. Juxtaposed lacks a shared focus, which increases the challenge of executing effective liturgical movement and ministerial actions. The multiple orientations tend to fragment the gathered community.

5. Central evokes theater-in-the-round. Its geometry suggests a highly interactive, close-up, participatory worship process, while creating distinct seating “neighborhoods.” This plan, perhaps more than others, needs a great awareness of choreography and acoustics.

6. Radial is amphitheater shaped, usually with a flat floor. Chairs are more easily accommodated in radial layouts and provide greater flexibility for the size of the assembly and for seasonal variations. Radial seating supports processions and community interaction. Capacities above eight hundred introduce awkward “rear-guard” areas, which are better used only for occasional overflow seating.

Conclusions. Liturgical practices and goals should have the greatest weight in determining the approach to seating. If seasonally responsive arrangements are intended, the extent and purpose of such flexibility ought to be carefully defined and the various configurations well investigated. Flexibility requires more versatile sound and lighting systems, which increase design complexity and associated costs.

In renovation, an existing structure’s size and shape act as constraining “form givers” to the seating pattern; this will often result in a hybrid configuration. In fact, older Gothic and processional forms are often adapted very well to the antiphonal, radial, and other patterns. In new construction, the need to attach to an existing building and/or site limitations sometimes inhibit the seating solution. More often, the seating pattern should be a priority so that it can give form to the architecture of the building, not only shaping its floor plan but also influencing the three-dimensional form.

The Problem of Worship Renewal in Present Worship Space

by

Many existing church structures present problems for current efforts at worship renewal. In particular, these structures may fail to emphasize the primary symbols of Word, font, and Table or altar. They may also significantly restrict movement around these primary symbols and leave little room for the congregation to gather for worship. This article outlines some of these problems and is therefore instructive for congregations who may be designing new spaces for worship or renovating old ones.

A generation ago the debate about architectural style revolved around theological perspectives. On the one side of the debate were those who argued that the only appropriate architectural style was the “center-pulpit church.” On the other side of the debate were advocates of a “split-chancel church.” The former would have looked like many church buildings that were built in the late 1800s, whose prominent feature was supposed to be a dominant, central pulpit that emphasized the essential role of the reading of Scripture by the clergy and the preaching of the sermon. The latter building would have appeared much like any Anglican church of the day, with a long choir and a visible Table at the end of the sanctuary, and with a smaller pulpit to one side of the chancel with a lectern or reading desk for the Scriptures at the opposite side. The advocates of this style believed that it gave a balanced emphasis to Word and sacraments. By placing such a “balance” within an almost medieval structure, the advocates of such a style were often derided by the other party as being more “high-churchy.”

Today that debate is totally out of date. With the acceptance of new service books that give expression to the fruits of almost a century of biblical and liturgical research, none of the old buildings and their architectural styles give adequate expression to the new realities. The dominant role of the clergy in worship is no longer acceptable. Choirs are no longer seen as “religious performers” in some Victorian concert hall, providing entertainment to the congregation as a means of alleviating the weariness associated with long pastoral prayers and even longer sermons contained within worship that gave practically no active role to the people. Consequently, there is a growing awareness that our church buildings give inadequate expression to the new forms of worship. While some of them are capable of interior modification to address these realities, many congregations will look to new buildings as their congregations grow. Others will look to new buildings as older congregations that are growing smaller are amalgamated and relocated on new sites. Properly addressed, this can be an exciting and stimulating time in the life of a congregation.

What’s Wrong with the Old Architectural Style?

Most church buildings are characterized by flaws that prevent free worship. Generally, there is practically no movement space at the front of the sanctuary. Many churches have relatively small Communion tables that have been crowded under the pulpit and must be moved out for celebrations of the sacrament in order to allow the minister to sit behind it facing the people. This leaves barely enough room for the servers to move from their seats to receive the elements at the Table for distribution to the people. On those occasions when the people come forward to receive the Communion at the Table, movement past the Table by the people is awkward. This same lack of movement space at the front of the church is very noticeable at weddings. Here, in many churches the Table must literally be moved from its central position and placed to one side, blocking a side aisle, in order to enable the prie-dieu to be located in front of the bride and groom and to allow space for the minister to stand there as well. As it is, the entire first pew on either side of the main aisle must be left empty.

The same lack of space is also very evident in celebrations of baptism. The baptismal font, in churches that do not have a pool, should be one of the most prominent items of liturgical furnishing. Yet, because it occupies too much of that small space that may be needed for other purposes, it is placed to one side, along a sidewall, while at other times it is removed entirely from the front of the church. At baptisms, it is placed within this small space to one side of the Table, and those being baptized are crowded around it with the feet of people in the front pew again being a hazard.

This lack of movement space becomes very apparent whenever a funeral is held. The church is the proper place for funerals, especially for people whose lives have been closely associated with the worship of God, and even more especially where that association has taken place in this building. However, the lack of space to place the coffin and the lack of space to move about it, together with the numbers of steps that must be climbed to get into the church building in the first place, often discourage people from having the funerals of loved ones take place here. Because of the limitations of space, the Table must be moved in order to accommodate the coffin, and the candles that visualize the light of the world, who is the Christ who gives us hope at such times of sadness, are also crowded onto the rails surrounding the Pulpit rather than being able to stand significantly at the head of the coffin.

Such lack of movement space is not just a logistics problem for people. Much more importantly, it is a hindrance to the setting forth of those pieces of liturgical furnishings that symbolize the very core of our faith. Like so many church structures that are based to some extent on the Victorian concert hall model, the pulpit and the pipe organ are the dominant visual elements. For many churches, this has had the effect of singling out the sermon in the Liturgy as the central element of worship. The somewhat hidden Communion table indicates a poor understanding of the centrality of the sacrament alongside the preaching of the Word. In many church buildings, the pulpit area is also extremely confined. While there are the customary three chairs behind it, space is often so small that it becomes almost a gymnastic feat to move more than one person around from chair to chair. Consequently, the very structure discourages the use of lay readers, thus once again centering out the Minister as the official “worshiper” on behalf of everyone else. The large pulpit Bible solemnly set on this pulpit thus becomes disengaged from the people and appears to be the domain of the minister. All of that is simply bad theology and communicates a message that is contrary to the message that is being given verbally from that same pulpit by the minister!

Like most older buildings, the seating in the sanctuary is represented by fixed pews set in rows one behind the other on both sides of a central aisle. It is almost impossible to establish a sense of “community” in a building where, for the most part, you are looking at the back of someone’s head. This form of seating arrangement carries with it all the theology of the Middle Ages, where the laity in the nave of the church was physically separated from the significant actions of the clergy in the choir area at the front of the building. We need to remember that earlier tradition did not place seating in the church at all, much like the Eastern Orthodox practice, and people were able to turn around, move, and mingle; to rub shoulders with each other in such a way as to make no mistake that this was a community of the faithful gathered together to offer their worship and devotion to God.

Consequently, one of the “musts” for a new building will be the need to provide seating in something like the half-round so that people can see each other. With a large central area devoted to the pulpit, Table, and font, and with the seating located around that focus, people will be able to recognize themselves as a community of people gathered together around those visual symbols of God’s presence among us rather than a group of individuals focusing on a religious lecture and entertained every now and then by a choir. In this proposed arrangement the choir would be seated in one section of the curved pews, able to be seen by the congregation so that the choristers could cue the people for their participation, but also very be evidently identified as part of the worshiping congregation rather than a body of entertainers. Such a seating arrangement requires careful thought relative to the placement of the pipe organ. Whatever the mechanics and sound demands of that placement require, the organ should not be seen as the most visible artifact in the building.

Such a plan would solve the problem of movement space at the front of the church, making many things possible, including much more lay participation than is possible now. Weddings would be vastly improved, and funeral caskets would be able to be placed and moved with much greater effect and dignity than is now possible. Such a seating layout also enables more people to be gathered together but kept within much closer proximity to each other than is ever possible with a long, narrow nave. With such seating, it would also be possible to leave gaps at aisles where wheelchairs could easily be placed, enabling handicapped people to be physically and visually a part of the congregation. With a church building built at ground level, without any steps anywhere approaching it or in it, the handicapped will be encouraged to attend the worship of God. That none do so now is caused by the congregation’s unwillingness to accept them. It is simply the fault of the building that does not accommodate them.

Another problem posed by many present buildings is the lack of gathering space. Many buildings have a narrow narthex at its main entrance. Imagine a Sunday congregation of between 100 and 120 on average moving from the sanctuary following the benediction into a narthex that measures ten feet by twenty feet, already filled with several tables and containers for food-bank donations, and you can readily appreciate that it is not a mingling space! It is, however, important to provide a sufficient space outside the sanctuary where people can congregate prior to worship and greet each other following worship without being jostled and pushed or made to feel that they have to move on for fear of blocking someone else’s approach or departure. Many new churches have an expansive narthex and a kitchenette where tea and coffee are prepared for fellowship times after worship. This large, bright, and cheery gathering place is an excellent companion space to that of the sanctuary.

The Structure and the Church Year

All of this concern for adequate architecture to enable adequate worship to take place impinges heavily on the subject of the church year and its expression. Beginning in Advent, a building without adequate visual space surrounding pulpit, Table, and font leaves little room for the use of such symbols as the Advent wreath with its candles. Where such visual symbols can be easily seen in a central location relative to the people, its use assists in focusing attention on the theme of each Sunday in Advent. The appearance of chrismon trees or Jesse trees should not be relegated merely to church-school classrooms. With sufficient room to accommodate their presence in the sanctuary, they can again add visual focus to children’s participation in the Advent season’s devotional acts each Sunday. As Christmas approaches, the need for suitable space in which to place the crèche is also important. Within many of our traditions, the use of a Christmas tree carries on customs that many Lutherans claim credit for beginning. In my present church structure, all of these make their appearance, leaving the front of the church totally crowded and less effective than they might otherwise be.

Each season of the church year carries with it potential for changes in color through banners, antependia, and drapes. In older buildings, these can only be used as the building permits. A new structure provides an architect and the people with the opportunity of reflecting on the good use of color to highlight the change of ecclesial seasons. Walls thus have more significance than just structures to keep the roof and the floor apart! This usefulness of the visual in the form of changing color needs to be given thought in the design of the structure.

Holy Week and the triduum cry out for adequate space for the special services that mark this highlight of the church year. Gathering space outside the sanctuary proper is essential for the formation of processions that often precede some of these rites. Open space around the pulpit, Table, and font becomes necessary for the adequate use of candles in the Tenebrae. In my congregation, the movement of elders in relation to the Great Entry of the elements in the form traditional to the Church of Scotland is a feature of our Maundy Thursday celebration of the sacrament. Clear space to enable the gathered congregation to see what is happening is essential to the effectiveness of the movement, something that is now lessened by the design of the present building. The special and particular needs of the high holy seasons have traditionally been overlooked completely in much of Protestant church architecture. With the renewal of concern and interest in matters liturgical among many Protestants, the time is now ripe for the appearance of buildings that give adequate expression to the full range of Christian worship.