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 tend to perceive Lutheran churches not having crucifixes as an American thing as my abiding memory of Lutheran churches in northern Germany (Hamburg - Lübeck) when I was a teenager was that they nearly all had crucifixes. In this 'burg in Virginia the ELCA has the risen Christ type crucifix, and LCMS has a plan cross.
I have discovered that the local Lutherans must have been very keen on not being cold. We fired up the church steam heating plant when the inside temperature finally dropped into the low-60s a week or two ago. To put it mildly, it has been plenty warm enough ever since.
Last year I assumed that the Lutherans kept the heat cranked because of the school, but apparently the school has a separate hot air system, whilst the church has the steam plant. However, I have figured out that the boiler house is under the chancel which has a massive concrete slab as its roof/floor. This is warmed by the heat coming off the steam plant with the result that the chancel floor is a 24' by 30' heater! Also, with the air vents into the crawl space under the nave, there effectively a hypocaust under the front pews! So, we are well down in the fall, and I am still too bloody hot in church! The chancel has been hovering at between 69F and 74F, the nave between 65F and 71F, and the offices between 71F and 77F!
The only part of the complex that seems to get cold is the relatively modern (1992) Parish Hall, which has gotten down into the 50sF a time or two overnight, but not enough to trigger the frost setting on the heating system. Even the school seems to be staying around 63F because I have left the doors open between the two sides of the building. It will be interesting to see what happens when it gets really cold.
Please note: this is with all the radiators turned off!
This is a very strong contrast to my previous church, which was a relatively modern building in terms of construction methods, and was generally a meat safe all winter, and too hot all summer.
Ah well, you see - Lutherans originated in Germany, much of which is a long way from the Sea, and therefore subject to colder winters, and warmer summers, than are found in more temperate climes.
Still, with your system, it sounds as if it is (a) efficient, and, therefore, (b) hopefully not too expensive to run. Presumably you can turn the heat down a bit, if it really does get too warm for comfort?
I think it will cost about $800-1000 a month to run, which was my best guess on the basis that we would not be heating the school building. The most expensive month last year for the Lutherans was December which was about $3000, but they used to heat the school to 70-72F all the time - even at night! For a comparison, the "blown dust" system in my former church, which was a quarter of the square footage of this place, could range up to $500 a month in the colder months and it was only operative Sunday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
I already have it turned down as far as it will go! After this it is opening the windows time. We finally had a really cold night last night (28F) so I am going to go across and have a look at the numbers a bit later on to see whether I will need to turn the nave radiators on tomorrow. I think I would describe the system as being effective rather than efficient.
$800-1000 a month sounds a bit pricey. I'm not sure how much it costs us to heat Our Place - a huge Edwardian church, but in use (albeit only for short periods) every day.
We found last winter that it was actually more cost-efficient to have the heating on, at a fairly low level, all the time, and boosting it up a bit on Sundays. We have a modern gas-fired boiler, with the usual radiators, and some electric 'blowers' which can be turned on at will to push the warm air around the building.
Back to the Lutherans - I wonder how they heat their buildings in northern parts, such as Scandinavia, where there are many mediaeval churches still in use?
My preference is to leave the heat on at a low level, then boost on Sundays. It stops everything getting stone cold, and it also better for the organ in that it keeps the temperature and humidity fairly constant. I am told a hot air system would be cheaper for occasional use, but more expensive on a day to day basis. Hot air systems really not to be recommended for churches they do horrible things to pipe organs. They are fine in the parish hall, etc., though. The plan is to move weekday services into the hall if it gets really cold in the church as it has an independent blown air system which is heated by a steam coil off the main boiler.
I seem to think the older systems in northern Sweden are usually steam or hot water, and if possible, kept on low all the time. They also are not shy about wearing their coats in church. Americans seem to want to sit in shirtsleeves in church! Well, my living room is kept at 68F, so they may have to suffer a little for their faith at St Oddballs. I wonder if the Swedes ever used their tiled stoves in churches, they were certainly widespread in homes, and the mass of masonry that they involved made very economical use of fire wood whilst giving off heat over a considerable period. The ubiquitous cast iron stove can be seen in older photographs. They are not all that efficient, but they put out a lot of heat quickly, thus committing the cardinal sin common to most church heating systems - heating the air and leaving the building cold!
The numbers today were 68F in the chancel; 64F in the nave; 69 in the Library; 71 in my office, and 61 in the parish hall, so even if I do decide to turn the heat on it can wait for the morning.
Regarding coat-wearing, as I grew up in a USA suburban RC parish, one of the main differences I noticed between Protestants and RCs was that Protestants hung up their coats on the way in, and we RCs kept ours on. It wasn't even very cold in our church; we just saw no reason to take off our coats, I guess. But I can understand why those attending Mass in Cologne Cathedral, for example (no heating!) stay bundled up, and choir members tend to have woolen scarves wrapped around their necks.
Funny you should mention the coat thing; St Oddballs has some very extensive coat racks at the rear of the building, in 'the Slype,' and in the cupboard under the stairs. I have never counted up how many hooks but it must be a good hundred, and the building seats about 160. They are a bit irrelevant to me as I rarely wear a coat - which I blame on growing up on the east coast of England. The cold here is nowhere near as bad a 35F and the wind straight off the North Sea. I am one of those guys seen shovelling snow in shorts...
The heating plant is a period piece. It is natural gas, but as to its vintage I would suspect no later than 1960. I assume it replaced something coal fired, but how on earth they got it down there I do not know. I assume it arrived in kit form with no part large than 6'4" tall by 2'6" wide (length would not be much of an issue) which is about the biggest you could horn through the door into the boiler house. It chucks out an enormous amount of heat much of which is transferred through the ceiling and walls into other parts of the building. The pipework and radiators actually seem to be irrelevant unless it is really, really cold.
I must admit much of my fascination is down to the fact that nearly every church heating system I have run into has been either somewhat ineffective, or has set up such enormous convection currents that you had a howling draft knifing across your ankles whilst your top-half was debatably warm not freezing.
I assume Augustana was original Augustana Synod, certainly one of the links on the page suggested it. They tended to be the most High Church of the various Lutheran tribes over here, and they had really quite a splendid Mass before they gave it up in favour of the "Service Book and Hymnal" in the late 1950s - not that there anything wrong with the SBH.
The Lutherans who had our building were ad orientem when they celebrated their Traditional (really, Blended) Service, but versus populum when Calvin's coffee table came out for the "Contemporary" - i.e. the 5 to 10 years out of date - service, though they trooped past the freestanding table to receive at the rails. Both services alternated between being dry and being communion services which seems to be pretty common for LCMS. Their new building, as well as being as ugly as homemade sin, is set up for v.p. celebration.
Versus populum is a wild horses issues for me, so I have happily reverted to the consistent use of the stone altar. We have also put back some of the pews removed to accommodate the praise band and "singists." If anyone wants a band there is a perfectly good western gallery for them which would militate against any tendency towards performance.
The Lutherans who had our building were ad orientem when they celebrated their Traditional (really, Blended) Service, but versus populum when Calvin's coffee table came out for the "Contemporary" - i.e. the 5 to 10 years out of date - service . . . .
I know it’s meant tongue-in-cheek, but it really does come across as smug, and it gets tiresome.
A bit hard to tell from the photo on the site that Hookers Trick linked but it looks that they do. And welcome back to Hooker's Trick, long time, no see.
The Lutherans who had our building were ad orientem when they celebrated their Traditional (really, Blended) Service, but versus populum when Calvin's coffee table came out for the "Contemporary" - i.e. the 5 to 10 years out of date - service . . . .
I know it’s meant tongue-in-cheek, but it really does come across as smug, and it gets tiresome.
Reading it again this morning, it is a bit catty. Sorry. I also tend to forget that my own preferences when it comes to liturgy - ad orientem and surplice and stole for Communion - are only about 125 years old, and would have been regarded as being a bit "off" back in 1894.
That's interesting. I had thought all the mainline Protestants had imbibed the versus populum Kool-Aid, with the exception of a few Anglo-Catholics.
Well, some of us were versus populum from the get-go of the Reformation, before there was Kool-Aid. And, of course, if the Kool-Aid has been going around, the Catholics have partaken, too.
Which makes me realize I don't know the Orthodox practice. I know that the priest is behind the iconostasis, but in which direction does he face?
The Lutherans who had our building were ad orientem when they celebrated their Traditional (really, Blended) Service, but versus populum when Calvin's coffee table came out for the "Contemporary" - i.e. the 5 to 10 years out of date - service . . . .
I know it’s meant tongue-in-cheek, but it really does come across as smug, and it gets tiresome.
Reading it again this morning, it is a bit catty. Sorry. I also tend to forget that my own preferences when it comes to liturgy - ad orientem and surplice and stole for Communion - are only about 125 years old, and would have been regarded as being a bit "off" back in 1894.
I don't know about Kool-Aid, but I would say that versus populum has become the preference with the mainliners that used to be ad orientem, but it is by no means universal. Lutherans are a split decision, and the reasons tend to be entirely local as to whether they face "east" or "west." Often it is down to whether there is room into introduce a freestanding Table into the building without having to tear everything apart. I think the local ELCA is VP, but I am not 100% sure, as I have only been in their building once, and that was not for a Eucharist.
Quite a few of the UCC (ex-German Reformed) congregations around here, and down into NC are still facing the Table, but if they have rebuilt since about 1960 they have adapted the new building to VP. The old GRCs being AO seems to be a local peculiarity that is due to many of them being Union congregations in the early days, so when they or the Lutherans moved out, they tended to keep Lutheran style architecture, but without the Communion rails.
TEC is almost all VP around here, and this often achieved by pulling the Table forwards about 2'6" so the celebrant can squeeze behind, which always looks a bit pinched to me.
The Presbyterians and RCA are historically VP. I don't know much about the local Methodists but their newer buildings are VP, and I have not been in any of their older ones.
That's interesting. I had thought all the mainline Protestants had imbibed the versus populum Kool-Aid, with the exception of a few Anglo-Catholics.
Well, some of us were versus populum from the get-go of the Reformation, before there was Kool-Aid. And, of course, if the Kool-Aid has been going around, the Catholics have partaken, too.
Right, I had thought it was because of Vatican II influence that mainline Protestants started adopting the practice en masse.
Which makes me realize I don't know the Orthodox practice. I know that the priest is behind the iconostasis, but in which direction does he face?
East, usually. The altar is free-standing though and is occasionally circumambulated.
@SirPalomides - actually versus populum was doing the rounds in Liturgical Movement circles in the 1930s and 40s - mainly in France and Germany, but occasionally in the USA. The first Episcopal Church that was built for VP celebration was Trinity Church, Boston in the 1870s, but there I think the influence was Phillips Brooks.
Some of the Roman basilicas are historically VP, but that is a matter of architecture more than anything else; their main entrances are to the east. There is not a word about VP in the Vatican II documents, the actual change in the Roman Church came through over zealous implementation of the Post-Council documents such as the General Instruction on the Rite of Mass (if I remember correctly what GIRM stands for).
I am not an expert on Byzantine rite ceremonies (mainly Orthodox) but as Sir P has said the altar is freestanding and is circumambulated ( I like today's ,for me, new word !)
If you either go or just look at photographs of the main Roman basilicas such as St Peter's, St John Lateran, St Mary Major and many others you will see that the altar is freestanding .
The Second Vatican Council more or less mandated the use of freestanding altars but did not say whether the eucharist should be celebrated ad orientem or versus populum.
I first came across Mass celebrated versus populum in a church in Paris as far back as 1961,even although it would have been celebrated like that for centuries in the Roman basilicas and other older churches in Rome.
Although in Byzantine rite churches the altar is usually behind the iconostasis you can easily see the priest walking round the altar during the celebration.
Some people will remember the psalm which used to be recited at the washing of hands in the Roman rite 'Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas et circumdabo altare tuum,Domine'
(I shall wash my hands amongst the innocent and walk round your altar,Lord). If the altar is greeted with incense in the modern Roman rite, the priest is expected to walk round the altar.
Yeah I should clarify I'm talking about Byzantine Orthodox altars. In some of the "Oriental Orthodox" traditions- Syriac and Armenian- the altar is usually against the eastern wall. I believe the Coptic church has freestanding altars- I'm not sure if that has anything to do with Byzantine influence. I don't know how the Ethiopian church arranges its altars.
St Quack's is 'I can't believe it's not Roman', but we can't physically get behind the high altar without a very tight squeeze. It can't move forward as there isn't room on the steps, and no space for a movable one, so we're definitely AO.
Thanks to all for the info on Orthodox practice with regard to orientation at the altar. I definitely need to remedy my relative lack of first-hand experience with Orthodox liturgy.
Quite a few of the UCC (ex-German Reformed) congregations around here, and down into NC are still facing the Table, but if they have rebuilt since about 1960 they have adapted the new building to VP. The old GRCs being AO seems to be a local peculiarity that is due to many of them being Union congregations in the early days, so when they or the Lutherans moved out, they tended to keep Lutheran style architecture, but without the Communion rails.
Interesting. I’ve never encountered a Reformed church of any variety with an AO arrangement of the Table. That’s certainly counter to the general Reformed ethos dating back to the Reformation, but I’d suspect your theory is correct.
TEC is almost all VP around here, and this often achieved by pulling the Table forwards about 2'6" so the celebrant can squeeze behind, which always looks a bit pinched to me.
A number of the older TEC places around here are AO, but my hunch is that is largely do to with the fact that the altars are actually attached to the east wall, and there usually isn’t room for another altar in front of it (though I have seen that done).
@Nick Tamen - the other things I can think of that might have been a factors were the fact that some of the churches were really Evangelical Churches which hooked up with the Reformed because they were too far from the nearest Evangelical Synod parishes, and the union with the Evangelical Synod in the 1930s, as that was a further quasi-Lutheran (actually "Prussian Union") influence on the German Reformed. Midwestern, and Mid-Atlantic DRK churches have the freestanding table in most cases.
Possibly. My recollection is that pretty much all of the congregations of the Evangelical and Reformed Church in North Carolina had been German Reformed congregations prior to the formation of the E&R Church; there just really weren’t Evangelical Synod congregations here. Perhaps that wasn’t the case in Virginia; I don’t know.
One rule with Congregational Churches is never say "never". I present a picture of Kings Weigh Chapel in 1965. Though it looks AO in the picture I suspect at the time it actually was not as the table had been moved forward. However, if the accounts I heard are correct then under W E Orchard that is exactly what happened in the early Twentieth Century.
Before anyone think but W E Orchard was a Congregationalists, he was not. He was a Presbyterian minister serving a Congregational Church.
Possibly. My recollection is that pretty much all of the congregations of the Evangelical and Reformed Church in North Carolina had been German Reformed congregations prior to the formation of the E&R Church; there just really weren’t Evangelical Synod congregations here. Perhaps that wasn’t the case in Virginia; I don’t know.
@Nick Tamen Yes, they were, so I am wondering whether it was Mercersburg theology rather than any cross fertilization from the ESNA that kept the eastward facing thing going. I have a couple of friends who are pastors of old DRKNA churches down there - I'll drop them an email and see if they can shed any light.
@Jengie Jon - Percy Dearmer had had his mits on King's Weigh House back in the 1920s, which may explain it. Plus, as you say, with Congregationalists, never say never. In my home town they had originally been Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion, and even 140 years after they had made the move into Congregationalism they were still using large chunks of the 1662 BCP.
@Nick Tamen Yes, they were, so I am wondering whether it was Mercersburg theology rather than any cross fertilization from the ESNA that kept the eastward facing thing going. I have a couple of friends who are pastors of old DRKNA churches down there - I'll drop them an email and see if they can shed any light.
I'll be interested to hear of any light they can shed.
@Jengie Jon - Percy Dearmer had had his mits on King's Weigh House back in the 1920s, which may explain it. Plus, as you say, with Congregationalists, never say never. In my home town they had originally been Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion, and even 140 years after they had made the move into Congregationalism they were still using large chunks of the 1662 BCP.
Actually, Percy Dreamer only got his mitts on it because W.E. Orchard was in charge.
@Gee D - I spent some time in the Free Church of England (FCE) which was original formed inside the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion, and the two denominations were yoked from 1863 to 1919. Eventually, the more Anglican-leaning folks precipitated out into the FCE, whilst the more obviously congregational types remained in the Connexion, but the process took a long time. The last congregation with dual membership dropped out of the FCE in 1919. Originally the Connexion were Calvinistic Methodists, and very strict about using the BCP which is why the FCE folks came from their ranks.
The FCE had a brief flirtation with Australia in the 1990s and it was not a happy episode. At this distance of time I do not remember the details, but things went bad.
However, we are getting a long way from Lutheran bricks and mortar...
Possibly. My recollection is that pretty much all of the congregations of the Evangelical and Reformed Church in North Carolina had been German Reformed congregations prior to the formation of the E&R Church; there just really weren’t Evangelical Synod congregations here. Perhaps that wasn’t the case in Virginia; I don’t know.
There were a handful of Evangelical Synod churches in Virginia. I would have to dig out the old E&R history book to figure out where they were, but my recollection is that they were the east side of the mountains. Here in that valley it was German Reformed with the oldest church buildings going up about 1740, and being shared with the Lutherans. The church St Oddballs' bought was built by a congregation that was originally Union, but the Reformed left about 1811 and made common cause with the local Presbyterians.
Quite a few of the UCC (ex-German Reformed) congregations around here, and down into NC are still facing the Table, but if they have rebuilt since about 1960 they have adapted the new building to VP.
Ambiguity alert! 'Facing the Table' is the norm both with ad orientem and versus populum. Innit?
Yes it is. However, I fell into the local vernacular which is "facing the altar" for ad orientem, and "facing the people" for versus populum. However, altar seems a bit out of place when discussing Reformed liturgical practice, so I substituted 'table.'
...and in some churches both can be unappealing options!
St Oddballs is typical of older Lutheran churches in that the altar is against the wall. It is a bit unusual, at least for these parts, in that the altar is stone. This is a fairly massive construction and rests on two buttresses that project into the boiler room. Even if I wanted to, which I do not, moving the altar forwards properly would be a bear, and the Lutherans proved to me that inserting a wooden table is an unsatisfactory makeshift. The church also has a good quality tile floor which it would be a shame to spoil in the name of modernity.
The Lutheran congregation I attend was built in the early 70s. It was a time when there was an emphasis on the Supper being a family meal, so, while we have a portable altar that can be moved around, we prefer having the altar in the middle of the sanctuary with the congregation seated around it. We have no pulpit, but there is a lectern off the northeast corner altar. The preacher usually preaches without notes walking around the altar. S/he can use the lectern if they are uncomfortable without notes.
We recently replaced our heating system. We use to have an old hot water radiation system that was not all that efficient. We got a grant from our local utility to replace it. We now use a heat exchange system that allows for air conditioning in the summer. We keep the sanctuary around 18C when it is not occupied and bump it up to 20C for services. Anything hotter and our people complain. During the summer months, we keep it at study 24 because of the organ. We were told the low for our organ should be no lower than 18 but no higher than 24.
We just replaced our altar furnishings. When we first arrived, the congregation was using a Formica covered altar that was supposed to be temporary--which it was for over 30 years. We now have a natural wood altar and a baptismal font that are made from local wood. Much better,
We have discussed using ceiling fans to help circulate the air in the sanctuary. This will probably take another 30 years before we can make a commitment, though.
The old steam plant in the chancel basement seems to keep the church at about 15C during the week, and on Sundays I pop over about 7am and switch the radiators on to raise it to 18 or 19C for the services. As always, the steam system is a very blunt instrument, that is basically either on or off. The addition of thermostatically controlled valves has introduced an element of refinement, but it is only an element! Oh, it is also supposed to be programmable, but that seems to be a rumour put around by the manufacturer, as no-one, even the HVAC engineer in the congregation, has ever been able to get it to hold a programme. In summer the A/C is set to intervene at 24C on Sundays and 27C in the week. The organist, who is also a tech., seems happy with this. He is more concerned with humidity than with heat. The offices and the old school building are usually around 18C with the radiators off as the main pipe that runs under them is hot all the time. It has to be below -5C at night to make a different to that number. The new school building is on roasted dust forced air heating.
Replacing the steam system seems to have been an ongoing topic of conversation for years. The old congregation set it up so a forced air system could be installed, but that would have been highly detrimental to the organ, so it is a blessing that it never happened. Unless efficiencies have improved considerably in the last few years, heat pumps are a mixed blessing here; great from March to November, but they struggle in the winter if they depend on getting heat from the atmosphere. Thankfully for our toes, but not the parish budget, the old plant keeps boiling away, so the issue has not yet had to be faced in earnest.
@Nick Tamen Yes, they were, so I am wondering whether it was Mercersburg theology rather than any cross fertilization from the ESNA that kept the eastward facing thing going. I have a couple of friends who are pastors of old DRKNA churches down there - I'll drop them an email and see if they can shed any light.
I'll be interested to hear of any light they can shed.
So far all I have got boils down to the response that "it was the fashion" though one chap did seem to think that it was an outgrowth of the strong sacramentalism of the Mercersburg theological tradition, which was embraced fairly heartily by the NC congregations. Apparently, they wanted to make sure they were not confused for Presbyterians! Anyhow, the fashion seems to have lasted from about 1900 through to somewhere in the 1950s.
@Nick Tamen Yes, they were, so I am wondering whether it was Mercersburg theology rather than any cross fertilization from the ESNA that kept the eastward facing thing going. I have a couple of friends who are pastors of old DRKNA churches down there - I'll drop them an email and see if they can shed any light.
I'll be interested to hear of any light they can shed.
So far all I have got boils down to the response that "it was the fashion" though one chap did seem to think that it was an outgrowth of the strong sacramentalism of the Mercersburg theological tradition, which was embraced fairly heartily by the NC congregations. Apparently, they wanted to make sure they were not confused for Presbyterians! Anyhow, the fashion seems to have lasted from about 1900 through to somewhere in the 1950s.
I'll let you know if I get anymore.
Thanks. The responses you've gotten so far don't surprise me (fan of the Mercersburg tradition that I am). Interestingly, during most of the period you describe (c 1900–1950s), Presbyterian churches in that region would indeed have almost all been pulpit-centered, with the table in front of the pulpit. But starting perhaps around the end of WWII, that really began to change; Presby churches built or remodeled from that time until the late 1900s generally seem to be table-centered with a divided chancel (pulpit and lectern). The trend for churches built or remodeled more recently seems to still be table-centered, but with only a pulpit, not a pulpit and lectern.
But none of those tables would be arranged for ad orientem presiding. There were/are some churches where the table was against the east wall for non-Communion services, but was/is always brought forward for Communion services.
It crossed my mind that the German Reformed could have been pulling them out for each celebration, but got sick of doing it, so let it settle into a comfy relationship with the 'east' wall. However, several of them are definitely "moveable in name only" category, if not actually built in Of course, being Anglican it brought to mind our peripatetic tables of the Elizabethan and Jacobean period.
Presbyterian architecture seems to be fairly consistent around here - either (a) central pulpit, or (b) table centred with a prominent lectern and pulpit. I find the closest church a little odd in that it was rebuilt in the 1980s after a fire, and the new building usually arranged in the traditional central pulpit with table before it manner. I guess the session, like church boards everywhere, went "change! We don't do change!" when any alternate arrangement was suggested.
Yeah, the “we don’t do change” trait can run strong. Also at play, though, can be concern about the historical and architectural integrity of the building, which I have some sympathy with.
There are exceptions, of course, but my experience is that most new buildings or remodels since, maybe, the 1980s are along the lines of this (with lectern) or this (without lectern). That said, another arrangement I’m seeing is a central pulpit with the table more to the center of the space instead of right in front of the pulpit, like this, or where pulpit and table(and perhaps seating) can be easily moved as occasion might warrant.
Discussions on some renovation at our (divided chancel) place are in the just-beginning stages. I’ll let you know how they progress.
Comments
I tend to perceive Lutheran churches not having crucifixes as an American thing as my abiding memory of Lutheran churches in northern Germany (Hamburg - Lübeck) when I was a teenager was that they nearly all had crucifixes. In this 'burg in Virginia the ELCA has the risen Christ type crucifix, and LCMS has a plan cross.
Last year I assumed that the Lutherans kept the heat cranked because of the school, but apparently the school has a separate hot air system, whilst the church has the steam plant. However, I have figured out that the boiler house is under the chancel which has a massive concrete slab as its roof/floor. This is warmed by the heat coming off the steam plant with the result that the chancel floor is a 24' by 30' heater! Also, with the air vents into the crawl space under the nave, there effectively a hypocaust under the front pews! So, we are well down in the fall, and I am still too bloody hot in church! The chancel has been hovering at between 69F and 74F, the nave between 65F and 71F, and the offices between 71F and 77F!
The only part of the complex that seems to get cold is the relatively modern (1992) Parish Hall, which has gotten down into the 50sF a time or two overnight, but not enough to trigger the frost setting on the heating system. Even the school seems to be staying around 63F because I have left the doors open between the two sides of the building. It will be interesting to see what happens when it gets really cold.
Please note: this is with all the radiators turned off!
This is a very strong contrast to my previous church, which was a relatively modern building in terms of construction methods, and was generally a meat safe all winter, and too hot all summer.
Still, with your system, it sounds as if it is (a) efficient, and, therefore, (b) hopefully not too expensive to run. Presumably you can turn the heat down a bit, if it really does get too warm for comfort?
I already have it turned down as far as it will go! After this it is opening the windows time. We finally had a really cold night last night (28F) so I am going to go across and have a look at the numbers a bit later on to see whether I will need to turn the nave radiators on tomorrow. I think I would describe the system as being effective rather than efficient.
We found last winter that it was actually more cost-efficient to have the heating on, at a fairly low level, all the time, and boosting it up a bit on Sundays. We have a modern gas-fired boiler, with the usual radiators, and some electric 'blowers' which can be turned on at will to push the warm air around the building.
Back to the Lutherans - I wonder how they heat their buildings in northern parts, such as Scandinavia, where there are many mediaeval churches still in use?
I seem to think the older systems in northern Sweden are usually steam or hot water, and if possible, kept on low all the time. They also are not shy about wearing their coats in church. Americans seem to want to sit in shirtsleeves in church! Well, my living room is kept at 68F, so they may have to suffer a little for their faith at St Oddballs. I wonder if the Swedes ever used their tiled stoves in churches, they were certainly widespread in homes, and the mass of masonry that they involved made very economical use of fire wood whilst giving off heat over a considerable period. The ubiquitous cast iron stove can be seen in older photographs. They are not all that efficient, but they put out a lot of heat quickly, thus committing the cardinal sin common to most church heating systems - heating the air and leaving the building cold!
The heating plant is a period piece. It is natural gas, but as to its vintage I would suspect no later than 1960. I assume it replaced something coal fired, but how on earth they got it down there I do not know. I assume it arrived in kit form with no part large than 6'4" tall by 2'6" wide (length would not be much of an issue) which is about the biggest you could horn through the door into the boiler house. It chucks out an enormous amount of heat much of which is transferred through the ceiling and walls into other parts of the building. The pipework and radiators actually seem to be irrelevant unless it is really, really cold.
I must admit much of my fascination is down to the fact that nearly every church heating system I have run into has been either somewhat ineffective, or has set up such enormous convection currents that you had a howling draft knifing across your ankles whilst your top-half was debatably warm not freezing.
Augustana Lutheran in this fair city has a crucifix. And incense.
The Lutherans who had our building were ad orientem when they celebrated their Traditional (really, Blended) Service, but versus populum when Calvin's coffee table came out for the "Contemporary" - i.e. the 5 to 10 years out of date - service, though they trooped past the freestanding table to receive at the rails. Both services alternated between being dry and being communion services which seems to be pretty common for LCMS. Their new building, as well as being as ugly as homemade sin, is set up for v.p. celebration.
Versus populum is a wild horses issues for me, so I have happily reverted to the consistent use of the stone altar. We have also put back some of the pews removed to accommodate the praise band and "singists." If anyone wants a band there is a perfectly good western gallery for them which would militate against any tendency towards performance.
A bit hard to tell from the photo on the site that Hookers Trick linked but it looks that they do. And welcome back to Hooker's Trick, long time, no see.
Reading it again this morning, it is a bit catty. Sorry. I also tend to forget that my own preferences when it comes to liturgy - ad orientem and surplice and stole for Communion - are only about 125 years old, and would have been regarded as being a bit "off" back in 1894.
That's interesting. I had thought all the mainline Protestants had imbibed the versus populum Kool-Aid, with the exception of a few Anglo-Catholics.
Which makes me realize I don't know the Orthodox practice. I know that the priest is behind the iconostasis, but in which direction does he face?
Quite a few of the UCC (ex-German Reformed) congregations around here, and down into NC are still facing the Table, but if they have rebuilt since about 1960 they have adapted the new building to VP. The old GRCs being AO seems to be a local peculiarity that is due to many of them being Union congregations in the early days, so when they or the Lutherans moved out, they tended to keep Lutheran style architecture, but without the Communion rails.
TEC is almost all VP around here, and this often achieved by pulling the Table forwards about 2'6" so the celebrant can squeeze behind, which always looks a bit pinched to me.
The Presbyterians and RCA are historically VP. I don't know much about the local Methodists but their newer buildings are VP, and I have not been in any of their older ones.
Right, I had thought it was because of Vatican II influence that mainline Protestants started adopting the practice en masse.
East, usually. The altar is free-standing though and is occasionally circumambulated.
Some of the Roman basilicas are historically VP, but that is a matter of architecture more than anything else; their main entrances are to the east. There is not a word about VP in the Vatican II documents, the actual change in the Roman Church came through over zealous implementation of the Post-Council documents such as the General Instruction on the Rite of Mass (if I remember correctly what GIRM stands for).
If you either go or just look at photographs of the main Roman basilicas such as St Peter's, St John Lateran, St Mary Major and many others you will see that the altar is freestanding .
The Second Vatican Council more or less mandated the use of freestanding altars but did not say whether the eucharist should be celebrated ad orientem or versus populum.
I first came across Mass celebrated versus populum in a church in Paris as far back as 1961,even although it would have been celebrated like that for centuries in the Roman basilicas and other older churches in Rome.
Although in Byzantine rite churches the altar is usually behind the iconostasis you can easily see the priest walking round the altar during the celebration.
Some people will remember the psalm which used to be recited at the washing of hands in the Roman rite 'Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas et circumdabo altare tuum,Domine'
(I shall wash my hands amongst the innocent and walk round your altar,Lord). If the altar is greeted with incense in the modern Roman rite, the priest is expected to walk round the altar.
Interesting. I’ve never encountered a Reformed church of any variety with an AO arrangement of the Table. That’s certainly counter to the general Reformed ethos dating back to the Reformation, but I’d suspect your theory is correct.
A number of the older TEC places around here are AO, but my hunch is that is largely do to with the fact that the altars are actually attached to the east wall, and there usually isn’t room for another altar in front of it (though I have seen that done).
Before anyone think but W E Orchard was a Congregationalists, he was not. He was a Presbyterian minister serving a Congregational Church.
@Nick Tamen Yes, they were, so I am wondering whether it was Mercersburg theology rather than any cross fertilization from the ESNA that kept the eastward facing thing going. I have a couple of friends who are pastors of old DRKNA churches down there - I'll drop them an email and see if they can shed any light.
@Jengie Jon - Percy Dearmer had had his mits on King's Weigh House back in the 1920s, which may explain it. Plus, as you say, with Congregationalists, never say never. In my home town they had originally been Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion, and even 140 years after they had made the move into Congregationalism they were still using large chunks of the 1662 BCP.
Actually, Percy Dreamer only got his mitts on it because W.E. Orchard was in charge.
Holy bloody fruitcake Batboy. I'm a bit over the acronyms and other vomitous screeds of alphabet soup. Just sayin'.
/Hosting
However, we are getting a long way from Lutheran bricks and mortar...
There were a handful of Evangelical Synod churches in Virginia. I would have to dig out the old E&R history book to figure out where they were, but my recollection is that they were the east side of the mountains. Here in that valley it was German Reformed with the oldest church buildings going up about 1740, and being shared with the Lutherans. The church St Oddballs' bought was built by a congregation that was originally Union, but the Reformed left about 1811 and made common cause with the local Presbyterians.
Ambiguity alert! 'Facing the Table' is the norm both with ad orientem and versus populum. Innit?
...and in some churches both can be unappealing options!
St Oddballs is typical of older Lutheran churches in that the altar is against the wall. It is a bit unusual, at least for these parts, in that the altar is stone. This is a fairly massive construction and rests on two buttresses that project into the boiler room. Even if I wanted to, which I do not, moving the altar forwards properly would be a bear, and the Lutherans proved to me that inserting a wooden table is an unsatisfactory makeshift. The church also has a good quality tile floor which it would be a shame to spoil in the name of modernity.
We recently replaced our heating system. We use to have an old hot water radiation system that was not all that efficient. We got a grant from our local utility to replace it. We now use a heat exchange system that allows for air conditioning in the summer. We keep the sanctuary around 18C when it is not occupied and bump it up to 20C for services. Anything hotter and our people complain. During the summer months, we keep it at study 24 because of the organ. We were told the low for our organ should be no lower than 18 but no higher than 24.
We just replaced our altar furnishings. When we first arrived, the congregation was using a Formica covered altar that was supposed to be temporary--which it was for over 30 years. We now have a natural wood altar and a baptismal font that are made from local wood. Much better,
We have discussed using ceiling fans to help circulate the air in the sanctuary. This will probably take another 30 years before we can make a commitment, though.
Replacing the steam system seems to have been an ongoing topic of conversation for years. The old congregation set it up so a forced air system could be installed, but that would have been highly detrimental to the organ, so it is a blessing that it never happened. Unless efficiencies have improved considerably in the last few years, heat pumps are a mixed blessing here; great from March to November, but they struggle in the winter if they depend on getting heat from the atmosphere. Thankfully for our toes, but not the parish budget, the old plant keeps boiling away, so the issue has not yet had to be faced in earnest.
So far all I have got boils down to the response that "it was the fashion" though one chap did seem to think that it was an outgrowth of the strong sacramentalism of the Mercersburg theological tradition, which was embraced fairly heartily by the NC congregations. Apparently, they wanted to make sure they were not confused for Presbyterians! Anyhow, the fashion seems to have lasted from about 1900 through to somewhere in the 1950s.
I'll let you know if I get anymore.
But none of those tables would be arranged for ad orientem presiding. There were/are some churches where the table was against the east wall for non-Communion services, but was/is always brought forward for Communion services.
Presbyterian architecture seems to be fairly consistent around here - either (a) central pulpit, or (b) table centred with a prominent lectern and pulpit. I find the closest church a little odd in that it was rebuilt in the 1980s after a fire, and the new building usually arranged in the traditional central pulpit with table before it manner. I guess the session, like church boards everywhere, went "change! We don't do change!" when any alternate arrangement was suggested.
There are exceptions, of course, but my experience is that most new buildings or remodels since, maybe, the 1980s are along the lines of this (with lectern) or this (without lectern). That said, another arrangement I’m seeing is a central pulpit with the table more to the center of the space instead of right in front of the pulpit, like this, or where pulpit and table(and perhaps seating) can be easily moved as occasion might warrant.
Discussions on some renovation at our (divided chancel) place are in the just-beginning stages. I’ll let you know how they progress.