Most churches (=congregations) in the US are 200 people or fewer, so yes, finding staff is a huge problem. And ADA compliance is expensive woohoo! when your building was put up in 1926 in a town that gets regular flooding (and thus has steps up the wazoo).
But there's also the fact that renting out your space means you lose a certain amount of control--you can no longer host last-minute stuff for church members (who really ought to get their shit together when it comes to scheduling in advance) and you are more likely to run into issues with the renters than you do with your own people. We had an Eritrean independence day celebration that turned into an orgy-with-alcohol and brought the police out! And we couldn't do anything to stop it, as our vacancy pastor at the time had permitted the building use and kicking everybody out was going to require a platoon of bouncers.
What a wonderful thread. There were not many Lutherans where I grew up and lived most of my life, and I think, apart from Germany, I only visited one parish in South Australia. Fascinating to read of this.
The local LCMS's addiction to the Praise Band was perhaps best shown by the three paragraphs they devoted to the audio visual provision in their new sanctuary as opposed to the one brief sentence they expended assuring the traditionalist there would be a pipe organ... eventually.
One feature I do not recall ever running into in a small to medium sized Lutheran church is a side altar for midweek Eucharistic liturgies even though, for example, the 1941 Lutheran Hymnal makes at least as much provision for Holydays as the U.S. 1928 BCP.
@Lamb Chopped - are there any worthwhile orgies without alcohol? Such things are one of the hazards of renting space which is why I have tended to avoid doing it in the past.
Where I’ve lived, Lutheran churches have been virtually indistinguishable from Congregational churches. Large, white monstrosities with just a pulpit and some pews, and an altar tacked at the top.
Where I’ve lived, Lutheran churches have been virtually indistinguishable from Congregational churches. Large, white monstrosities with just a pulpit and some pews, and an altar tacked at the top.
Around here the older urban congregations, if they have not moved to the 'burbs tend occupy fairly decent essays in Gothic Revival architecture, once they had got over 'the Akron plan.' In the main these are very similar to Episcopal Churches except that (a) they won't have choir stalls in the chancel, and (b) the altar is usually stone. Rural congregations seem to have churches that are similar to those of the Presbyterians and Episcopalians, but unlike the presbys it will be altar front and centre not the pulpit, and it is almost an article of faith that the pulpit is at the Gospel side of the communion rail, and the lectern at the epistle side.
Are you suggesting that it’s not Writ in The Book that the pulpit shall be on the Gospel side, with the lectern on the Epistle side? This is as clear to the faith as the resurrection!
There’s a Lutheran church near me which I’ve driven by quite a bit, but haven’t actually gone in. A church friend goes sometime when he wants some variety and says that they’re quite High, with Marian elements and all. But, of course, the building is classic brick congregational style with a white roof. I live in the New England area, though, so that’s practically de facto church appearance.
Gospel side is normal, but not invariable. Trinity Lutheran in St Louis (Walther's old congregation) has the pulpit on the Epistle side. The nave pulpit in Lincoln Cathedral is on the south side, and in my home parish the two churches went through a period when one church had the pulpit Epistle side and the other had it Gospel side, then swapped before both ended up on the Gospel side! Down here in Virginia, we still have a few Episcopal churches with central pulpits like the Presbyterians.
I am very confused. After googling, I take it that the Gospel side is the lefthand side as you face the altar. In that case, every LCMS church I've attended has the lectern on the Gospel side (where we read, like, the Gospel!) and the pulpit on the epistle side. Is this weird, then? I actually can't think of one that reverses the sides, though I've never heard anybody say it HAS to be that way.
Well, Episcopal churches with a central pulpit? Sheesh, I know some people who’d decry that as almost heresy. But they also think it’s heretical to omit the Gloria.
LC, in the Episcopal church we read the Gospel in the center of the church. Those of us serving as acolytes form a little procession to the center of the church, or thereabouts, the Gospel is read and then all traipse back. In a traditional Solemn Mass the Gospel would be read from the Gospel side of the altar, naturally, but few churches do a full Solemn Mass anymore. We do on the major Holidays, but we’re weird. And even then we usually only read the Last Gospel from the Gospel side of the altar.
I didn’t know Virginia withstood the onslaught of the Oxford Movement. I guess it makes a certain degree of sense, but still. I think there’s one Presbyterian church in my neighborhood that has a center pulpit, but even that’s quite unusual. Even the old traditional Black churches up here don’t have that, at least the ones I’ve been to.
I didn’t know Virginia withstood the onslaught of the Oxford Movement. I guess it makes a certain degree of sense, but still. I think there’s one Presbyterian church in my neighborhood that has a center pulpit, but even that’s quite unusual. Even the old traditional Black churches up here don’t have that, at least the ones I’ve been to.
Partially withstood. The last 19th century bishop, Whittle, bemoaned the appearance of altars, surpliced choirs, and various minor points of popery, as he perceived them. The Rev James Latané, who was Rector of Trinity, Staunton, then of St Matthew's, Wheeling, WV, left the PECUSA for the REC where he led the anti-surplice campaign against Cheney and the Chicago Synod.
Surplices are quite dangerous. Once you allow surplices, then there’s candles, and it’s all downhill from there.
Sometimes I get a kick out of reading old tracts against various points of “ritualism” or “popery.” What a world.
Surplices was basically a Virginia versus the rest thing. Most Evangelical Episcopalians of that period (mid-19th century) would have worn the surplice for the reading of the liturgy, then exchanged it for the black preaching gown after the Gospel, but not down here in the Old Dominion. The Diocese of Virginia, or as they would have said Protestant Episcopal Church in the Commonwealth of Virginia, all but died 1802-1812 thanks to disendowment. The diocese was rebuilt against the background of the Second Great Awakening there was a tendency to minimize the differences with the Presbyterians and the Methodists to the point where the main difference was 'the paper wall' which in this case was the BCP. They were quite ecumenical in their Antebellum way, but the Virginia Evangelical Episcopalians were liturgical, and that was the main point of division between them and most the other tribes.
I think there’s one Presbyterian church in my neighborhood that has a center pulpit, but even that’s quite unusual.
Presbyterian churches can be a mixed bag, depending on which tribe of Presbyterians, region of the country and when the church was built or renovated. Generally speaking, and assuming concerns for historical integrity aren’t at play, for PC(USA) churches around here, it’s probably fairly safe to assume:
If the church was built prior to WW2, it will have a central pulpit with the table in front of it at the congregation’s level. The choir will either be in a loft behind the pulpit, to the side of the pulpit or in a gallery in the back. The font will be somewhere to the side.
If the church was built or renovated between WW2 and sometime in the 80s, it will have a divided chancel with pulpit and lectern, and with the table toward the back of the chancel. The choir will be in stalls that face each other across the chancel, to the side if there’s not room for stalls in the chancel, or in a gallery in the back. The font will be somewhere to the side unless in recent years it has been moved, perhaps (as at our place) to the front of the center aisle, just before the chancel steps.
If the church was built or renovated from sometime in the 80s or later, the table will likely be in the center of the chancel with a pulpit to one side and no lectern. The font may be on the other side of the chancel or in some other prominent place. It’s quite possible that the pulpit, table and font are all easily moved. If the choir is in the chancel, it is behind the table, facing the congregation.
Well, I take that back—I’ll veer away from the Lutherans for one more post. There is actually a large Catholic church not too far from us that was built in the 1980s and that has what I think can be called a central pulpit/ambo. The pews are in a U shape; the choir is in the bend of the U, and congregation sits in the arms of the U, facing each other much like in a monastic-style choir. The altar is in the center of that space, and the ambo is at the top of the U, on the same central axis as the altar.
Picture here. (The ambo can be seen behind the celebrant.)
The first picture is quite strange. And the second of the Australian church is equally strange, but appears to be purposefully done.
Can we all just take a moment to wonder why church architects haven’t kept up, really, with changes in design? I know that a few have, very few, but in all most modern churches are rather dreary little places. But of course, the days of church planting for most of the major denominations are well over in the West.
Can I ask exactly how it seems strange, other than not looking like a typical Catholic church? FWIW, having been in that church many times, I think it’s a beautiful space that serves the liturgy well. Of course, beauty’s in the eye and all.
I don’t mean to imply that it’s not attractive; strange things can certainly be attractive. I think it’s the openness of the space. I don’t have a good picture of the cathedral, but I’m just more used to something else. So I guess that’s all, a mere lack of familiarity.
Makes perfect sense. And fwiw, I’m not sure the picture really captures the feel of the place, but it was the best picture I could find where the placement of the ambo in relation to the rest of the space could be seen.
The first picture is quite strange. And the second of the Australian church is equally strange, but appears to be purposefully done.
Can we all just take a moment to wonder why church architects haven’t kept up, really, with changes in design? I know that a few have, very few, but in all most modern churches are rather dreary little places. But of course, the days of church planting for most of the major denominations are well over in the West.
What kind of changes in design were you thinking of? It sounds like you mean structural changes (as in, where stuff is) as opposed to the largely cosmetic. Do you? Because I'm not sure how we could improve on what we have now in any major ways.
I meant more cosmetic. I’m all for everything being in the same place it’s always been. I just don’t see a lot of new churches that are contemporary looking. Of course, I don’t see many churches that are new in general.
I’m all for everything being in the same place it’s always been.
To be honest, I’m not sure is there is such a thing as “the same place it’s always been.” That strikes me a bit like “the hymns we’ve always sung,” which often as not means “the hymns we sang when I was a child, and maybe the 50 years before that.”
The arrangement of furnishings in churches has changed over the last two millennia, sometimes drastically, sometimes less so. Such changes sometimes developed based on the nature of the space—parish church, cathedral, private chapel, monastic church, etc. Sometimes the changes were motivated by theological or liturgical developments, or even political ones.
After all, placing the altar against the eastern wall was at one point a change from how it had “always” been, as were pews.
It's a wild guess, but I suspect being "contemporary looking" means hiring an architect who wants $$$$$. And few congregations have $$, let alone $$$$$. (There's also the difficulty of being contemporary while at the same time differentiating oneself from office buildings--it's no good if people look at your building and haven't a clue what goes on in there.)
Just to show it does sometimes happen; Chapel of the Deaconess De Reuilly. Before anyone gets confused, though started as an active diaconal order in the late nineteenth century from my intermittent following, they are largely a Protestant contemplative order now at least in France.
Right, that is true. Furnishings have moved around quite a bit. I just meant I’m not persnickety enough to have any better idea for things. We also seem to be less concerned with the theology behind those movements. Few theologians are currently fighting about where the altar should be. At least I’m not familiar with any.
Although there is a guy I worship with who is adamant that the altar should be fixed against the wall. Two of the chapel altars we had that were free standing he pushed back against the wall. But that’s just one person. Although, maybe some clergy in the Episcopal church do get a bit testy about whether or not the altar should be fixed.
It's a wild guess, but I suspect being "contemporary looking" means hiring an architect who wants $$$$$. And few congregations have $$, let alone $$$$$. (There's also the difficulty of being contemporary while at the same time differentiating oneself from office buildings--it's no good if people look at your building and haven't a clue what goes on in there.)
Also quite true. But theoretically we could envision contemporary looking buildings that are less grand than they’ve been in the past. As much as I love my cathedral, it’s clearly from a bygone era. And the upkeep for the building is monstrous.
Just to show it does sometimes happen; Chapel of the Deaconess De Reuilly. Before anyone gets confused, though started as an active diaconal order in the late nineteenth century from my intermittent following, they are largely a Protestant contemplative order now at least in France.
Quite a lovely looking building, and basically what I had in mind by my use of “contemporary.” Leave it to the Protestants!
It's a wild guess, but I suspect being "contemporary looking" means hiring an architect who wants $$$$$. And few congregations have $$, let alone $$$$$. (There's also the difficulty of being contemporary while at the same time differentiating oneself from office buildings--it's no good if people look at your building and haven't a clue what goes on in there.)
It would not have been cheap, particularly given the high quality of the design and work. There would have been the insurance from the fire. My memory is not 100%, but the school which was where the new cathedral is now could have been burned also which would have increased the funds available.
I assume that by "strange" ECraigR, you mean that it's not what you're accustomed to? It certainly is not Gothic but is as appropriate for the place and time as Gothic was in W Europe in its day - or the start of Classic Revival as St Paul's London was in its.
@ECraigR - the whole fixed or not altar argument in our place was settled by the architect - the altar is a stone box 100" by 39" by 36" - so it ain't going anywhere, except maybe the basement boiler room! Our church is 1920s Gothic revival, and built of brick. Thankfully the economics of maintaining it are more in the realms of dealing with a rambling brick house that is nearly a century old than of maintain a cathedral like Albany, or DC.
Contemporary architecture tends to be either very expensive, or come as a kit of parts, or both. Most modern churches seem to be a steel framed Warehouse tarted up to look like a church - occasionally successfully. Of course many churches of the non-liturgical variety don't really want a church at all, but an auditorium with a stage in front and a profession sound and lighting set up. For those of us who are liturgical, we have to decide how much we want to go with modern norms, and how much with tradition, or alternatively decide how we blend the two.
Unfortunately, I am a lot better at thinking of which buildings don't come off than the ones that don't. The Taj Mahoney in Los Angeles is a very expensive failure, IMHO, as it lacks any sense of the numinous; on the other hand, the Mersey Funnel does, although personally I find it very disorientating. I am still trying to figure out what I think of the Abbey Church at Citeaux, which is very bare, very French, but in its way totally Cistercian in conception. However building such as these are rare exceptions to the Sacrament Shed, and Praise Barns forced on most of us who have to build anew by the unyielding laws of economics. Also, my complaints about architecture should probably not be taken too seriously as my taste in such matters was formed by what was around me when I was kid - Lincoln, Beverley, York, Byland, Revieulx, Fountains, etc.!
Yes, by strange I meant that I’m not accustomed to it. A simple lack of familiarity.
I’m not necessarily suggesting that all new churches should be hip and modern-looking, but that there’s little contemporary church architecture that’s oriented forward. Of course, all of the reasons cited above are powerful explainers of why this is.
Round these parts, evangelical churches often take over old cinemas. Usually they haven't been used as a cinema for some time, but I rather wish churches could take on unused/unwanted buildings but also keep their original function in some way.
Round these parts, evangelical churches often take over old cinemas. Usually they haven't been used as a cinema for some time, but I rather wish churches could take on unused/unwanted buildings but also keep their original function in some way.
That makes sense for Evangelical churches because in many cases their worship is performance orientated not participation orientated. If that sounds a bit harsh please remember that I have a certain number of 'praise and worship burnouts' in my congregation, and they are sharp critics of the whole modern Evo style.
One practical problem with taking over a cinema is that the self-folding-up chairs are a nightmare when you are in a worship tradition that spends the whole time standing up / sitting down /standing UP / sitting DOWN / STANDING UP ....
Round these parts, evangelical churches often take over old cinemas. Usually they haven't been used as a cinema for some time, but I rather wish churches could take on unused/unwanted buildings but also keep their original function in some way.
That makes sense for Evangelical churches because in many cases their worship is performance orientated not participation orientated. If that sounds a bit harsh please remember that I have a certain number of 'praise and worship burnouts' in my congregation, and they are sharp critics of the whole modern Evo style.
It doesn't sound harsh. I have no issue with it, I just wish they could function as cinemas as well as being a church.
I think much of church architecture (Lutheran) has to do with the theological mode of the time. For instance: back in the 1800's we did not want to appear too "Catholic." Consequently, our sanctuaries were quite simplistic.
When my particular congregation built its current sanctuary the emphasis was on the Lord's Table, so our sanctuary is in the round--with the altar in the center. We have the baptismal font at the entrance to the sanctuary. Our people like the symbolic indication that we are a family coming together for the meal. We do not necessarily have a pulpit. There is a lectern on the north side from which the lessons are read, but nearly all the preaching is done walking around the altar.
I note someone mentioned that in the Mid-West Lutheran churches will have crucifixes. This is really pretty rare in my experience. Plain crosses--yes. But to have a figure of Jesus dying on the cross goes against our theology. We emphasize a plain cross as a way of saying Jesus is no longer there on a piece of wood, but in the here and now among and within us.
I note someone mentioned that in the Mid-West Lutheran churches will have crucifixes. This is really pretty rare in my experience. Plain crosses--yes. But to have a figure of Jesus dying on the cross goes against our theology. We emphasize a plain cross as a way of saying Jesus is no longer there on a piece of wood, but in the here and now among and within us.
I've heard this explanation from various Protestants, but I don't see how a crucifix with corpus would contradict such a theology- the same thing is believed, of course, by all Christians who use crucifixes. Including Martin Luther and his immediate successors who retained crucifixes in their churches.
This is actually a "speak for yourself" moment. I've seen LCMS churches (won't speak for ELCA) with and without crucifixes, some of them with the traditional corpus and some with the risen robed Christ. I've also seen plain crosses. Nothing to do with theology at all for us, but everything to do with what point in time/ aspect of God's redemption we want to focus on in that instant. So in Lent or at Communion we're very likely to have a lot of traditional crucifix imagery in both pictorial and 3-d forms; if it's Easter, the robed-Christ-standing-in-front-of-cross processional cross comes out (that's the version our host congregation happens to have, not an LCMS standard thing--our last parish had a standard crucifix for the processional cross, they're all different).
Basically, we appreciate ALL of the different forms, and use the one that seems most appropo at the moment.
I note someone mentioned that in the Mid-West Lutheran churches will have crucifixes. This is really pretty rare in my experience. Plain crosses--yes. But to have a figure of Jesus dying on the cross goes against our theology. We emphasize a plain cross as a way of saying Jesus is no longer there on a piece of wood, but in the here and now among and within us.
I've heard this explanation from various Protestants, but I don't see how a crucifix with corpus would contradict such a theology- the same thing is believed, of course, by all Christians who use crucifixes. Including Martin Luther and his immediate successors who retained crucifixes in their churches.
I don't know what's happening with the quotes, but it was Gramps49 who said what you're quoting, not me. The link goes to a totally unrelated post of mine.
Yes, it is, and it's the second time in the last day or two I've seen it. (Can't remember where the other one was or whose post it was, but it was also a quote attributed to me even though I didn't say what was being quoted.)
I've heard this explanation from various Protestants, but I don't see how a crucifix with corpus would contradict such a theology- the same thing is believed, of course, by all Christians who use crucifixes. Including Martin Luther and his immediate successors who retained crucifixes in their churches.
I suppose the differing opinions about a crucifix reflect different ideas about such a symbol's purpose: to remind us of Jesus' resurrection (empty cross) or remind us of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, which gave the resurrection its meaning and is at the center of our faith. That probably shows which one I favor.
Comments
But there's also the fact that renting out your space means you lose a certain amount of control--you can no longer host last-minute stuff for church members (who really ought to get their shit together when it comes to scheduling in advance) and you are more likely to run into issues with the renters than you do with your own people. We had an Eritrean independence day celebration that turned into an orgy-with-alcohol and brought the police out! And we couldn't do anything to stop it, as our vacancy pastor at the time had permitted the building use and kicking everybody out was going to require a platoon of bouncers.
What a wonderful thread. There were not many Lutherans where I grew up and lived most of my life, and I think, apart from Germany, I only visited one parish in South Australia. Fascinating to read of this.
Silly Climacus. A mixing desk is where the commingling occurs in Lutheran practice
@Lamb Chopped - are there any worthwhile orgies without alcohol? Such things are one of the hazards of renting space which is why I have tended to avoid doing it in the past.
Around here the older urban congregations, if they have not moved to the 'burbs tend occupy fairly decent essays in Gothic Revival architecture, once they had got over 'the Akron plan.' In the main these are very similar to Episcopal Churches except that (a) they won't have choir stalls in the chancel, and (b) the altar is usually stone. Rural congregations seem to have churches that are similar to those of the Presbyterians and Episcopalians, but unlike the presbys it will be altar front and centre not the pulpit, and it is almost an article of faith that the pulpit is at the Gospel side of the communion rail, and the lectern at the epistle side.
There’s a Lutheran church near me which I’ve driven by quite a bit, but haven’t actually gone in. A church friend goes sometime when he wants some variety and says that they’re quite High, with Marian elements and all. But, of course, the building is classic brick congregational style with a white roof. I live in the New England area, though, so that’s practically de facto church appearance.
LC, in the Episcopal church we read the Gospel in the center of the church. Those of us serving as acolytes form a little procession to the center of the church, or thereabouts, the Gospel is read and then all traipse back. In a traditional Solemn Mass the Gospel would be read from the Gospel side of the altar, naturally, but few churches do a full Solemn Mass anymore. We do on the major Holidays, but we’re weird. And even then we usually only read the Last Gospel from the Gospel side of the altar.
Partially withstood. The last 19th century bishop, Whittle, bemoaned the appearance of altars, surpliced choirs, and various minor points of popery, as he perceived them. The Rev James Latané, who was Rector of Trinity, Staunton, then of St Matthew's, Wheeling, WV, left the PECUSA for the REC where he led the anti-surplice campaign against Cheney and the Chicago Synod.
Sometimes I get a kick out of reading old tracts against various points of “ritualism” or “popery.” What a world.
Surplices was basically a Virginia versus the rest thing. Most Evangelical Episcopalians of that period (mid-19th century) would have worn the surplice for the reading of the liturgy, then exchanged it for the black preaching gown after the Gospel, but not down here in the Old Dominion. The Diocese of Virginia, or as they would have said Protestant Episcopal Church in the Commonwealth of Virginia, all but died 1802-1812 thanks to disendowment. The diocese was rebuilt against the background of the Second Great Awakening there was a tendency to minimize the differences with the Presbyterians and the Methodists to the point where the main difference was 'the paper wall' which in this case was the BCP. They were quite ecumenical in their Antebellum way, but the Virginia Evangelical Episcopalians were liturgical, and that was the main point of division between them and most the other tribes.
Okay, back to the Lutherans.
Picture here. (The ambo can be seen behind the celebrant.)
Can we all just take a moment to wonder why church architects haven’t kept up, really, with changes in design? I know that a few have, very few, but in all most modern churches are rather dreary little places. But of course, the days of church planting for most of the major denominations are well over in the West.
What kind of changes in design were you thinking of? It sounds like you mean structural changes (as in, where stuff is) as opposed to the largely cosmetic. Do you? Because I'm not sure how we could improve on what we have now in any major ways.
The arrangement of furnishings in churches has changed over the last two millennia, sometimes drastically, sometimes less so. Such changes sometimes developed based on the nature of the space—parish church, cathedral, private chapel, monastic church, etc. Sometimes the changes were motivated by theological or liturgical developments, or even political ones.
After all, placing the altar against the eastern wall was at one point a change from how it had “always” been, as were pews.
Although there is a guy I worship with who is adamant that the altar should be fixed against the wall. Two of the chapel altars we had that were free standing he pushed back against the wall. But that’s just one person. Although, maybe some clergy in the Episcopal church do get a bit testy about whether or not the altar should be fixed.
Also quite true. But theoretically we could envision contemporary looking buildings that are less grand than they’ve been in the past. As much as I love my cathedral, it’s clearly from a bygone era. And the upkeep for the building is monstrous.
Quite a lovely looking building, and basically what I had in mind by my use of “contemporary.” Leave it to the Protestants!
It would not have been cheap, particularly given the high quality of the design and work. There would have been the insurance from the fire. My memory is not 100%, but the school which was where the new cathedral is now could have been burned also which would have increased the funds available.
I assume that by "strange" ECraigR, you mean that it's not what you're accustomed to? It certainly is not Gothic but is as appropriate for the place and time as Gothic was in W Europe in its day - or the start of Classic Revival as St Paul's London was in its.
Contemporary architecture tends to be either very expensive, or come as a kit of parts, or both. Most modern churches seem to be a steel framed Warehouse tarted up to look like a church - occasionally successfully. Of course many churches of the non-liturgical variety don't really want a church at all, but an auditorium with a stage in front and a profession sound and lighting set up. For those of us who are liturgical, we have to decide how much we want to go with modern norms, and how much with tradition, or alternatively decide how we blend the two.
Unfortunately, I am a lot better at thinking of which buildings don't come off than the ones that don't. The Taj Mahoney in Los Angeles is a very expensive failure, IMHO, as it lacks any sense of the numinous; on the other hand, the Mersey Funnel does, although personally I find it very disorientating. I am still trying to figure out what I think of the Abbey Church at Citeaux, which is very bare, very French, but in its way totally Cistercian in conception. However building such as these are rare exceptions to the Sacrament Shed, and Praise Barns forced on most of us who have to build anew by the unyielding laws of economics. Also, my complaints about architecture should probably not be taken too seriously as my taste in such matters was formed by what was around me when I was kid - Lincoln, Beverley, York, Byland, Revieulx, Fountains, etc.!
I’m not necessarily suggesting that all new churches should be hip and modern-looking, but that there’s little contemporary church architecture that’s oriented forward. Of course, all of the reasons cited above are powerful explainers of why this is.
That makes sense for Evangelical churches because in many cases their worship is performance orientated not participation orientated. If that sounds a bit harsh please remember that I have a certain number of 'praise and worship burnouts' in my congregation, and they are sharp critics of the whole modern Evo style.
It doesn't sound harsh. I have no issue with it, I just wish they could function as cinemas as well as being a church.
When my particular congregation built its current sanctuary the emphasis was on the Lord's Table, so our sanctuary is in the round--with the altar in the center. We have the baptismal font at the entrance to the sanctuary. Our people like the symbolic indication that we are a family coming together for the meal. We do not necessarily have a pulpit. There is a lectern on the north side from which the lessons are read, but nearly all the preaching is done walking around the altar.
I note someone mentioned that in the Mid-West Lutheran churches will have crucifixes. This is really pretty rare in my experience. Plain crosses--yes. But to have a figure of Jesus dying on the cross goes against our theology. We emphasize a plain cross as a way of saying Jesus is no longer there on a piece of wood, but in the here and now among and within us.
I've heard this explanation from various Protestants, but I don't see how a crucifix with corpus would contradict such a theology- the same thing is believed, of course, by all Christians who use crucifixes. Including Martin Luther and his immediate successors who retained crucifixes in their churches.
Basically, we appreciate ALL of the different forms, and use the one that seems most appropo at the moment.
Yes, it is, and it's the second time in the last day or two I've seen it. (Can't remember where the other one was or whose post it was, but it was also a quote attributed to me even though I didn't say what was being quoted.)
I suppose the differing opinions about a crucifix reflect different ideas about such a symbol's purpose: to remind us of Jesus' resurrection (empty cross) or remind us of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, which gave the resurrection its meaning and is at the center of our faith. That probably shows which one I favor.