Moveable Chairs
There is an argument taking place in Milwaukee over the
renovation of a church. Something important is at stake
there that is worth noting. A July 14, 2001 New York
Times article by Gustav Niebuhr, states that local
Archbishop Weakland, “plans to update the interior
of the 148-year-old Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist.
The changes involve moving the altar forward into the
church and replacing the pews with movable
chairs...”
A local Catholic group in the city, a
chapter of Catholics United for the Faith, objects to the
change and now has received support from the Vatican.
Cardinal Medina, prefect of the Congregation of Divine
Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has
indicated that the changes “would fail to
adequately respect the hierarchical structure of the
church of God that the cathedral by its scheme is to
reflect.”
Now you might dismiss this as the latest in
a long history of religious disputes over details of
practice that we might consider unimportant, but this
time I think they are fighting over the right questions.
Here are some reasons why I think the participants in
this argument are on the right track and why the
disagreement is important to us all:
1. Those involved in this debate understand the power and
importance of physical space. They are willing to draw a
line and take a stand, in public, over the location of an
altar and the move-ability of the chairs. They treat the
design of a room important enough to appeal to top
management, located in the home office in Rome, to
support the design they believe in.
They understand that the shape and structure
of a room impacts not only the operational functioning of
what takes place in the room, but also touches their
actual faith in the institution and their capacity to
experience the presence of God.
2. The conflict is really about the role of leadership in
the church. The Milwaukee archbishop believes the altar,
the sacraments and the priests who serve the congregation
should be located near the center of the community of
followers who assemble to worship. Those who hold a more
traditional view of the institution believe the tasks of
the leaders should be performed at a distance from the
worshippers. So this is a disagreement about the role of
patriarchy in the church.
3. The change also impacts the relationship of the
parishioners with each other. The proposed change
replaces immobile pews with chairs. This opens the
congregation to some radical possibilities. Instead of
being forced to face forward, towards the leaders, the
possibility now exists for people to turn their chairs
and face each other. Where we once believed that we
needed to look to the altar and the priests to affirm and
deepen our experience of God, now, with chairs that move,
we are open to the possibility of finding God in the
people sitting next to us. No small matter.
The Right Question
What is hopeful about this disagreement is that there are
people in this institution that care enough about
architecture and its impact on leadership and membership
to fight. In most of our other institutions people
unconsciously accept the spaces they work in with
disturbing passivity. It is hard to imagine that
employees or members of most secular institutions would
be so upset about the design of their meeting space that
they would appeal to the highest authority about a design
they believed in.
Most of our other institutions are as
steeped in patriarchy as the church and architecture
reflects this. Government functions in hearing rooms,
offices and chambers that exalt elected officials and top
management. Businesses have reception areas, executive
suites and auditoriums that affirm the distance and
centrality of their leaders. Plus most conference rooms
are dominated by large tables that impose themselves on
those assembled as if the table was an altar to the
worship of order and control.
In education, school superintendents rule
supreme and higher education continues to build lecture
halls with chairs bolted to the floor and all eyes front
and center. Granted, the chairs in all these places have
become softer and more comfortable, and sometimes even
swivel to allow some lateral movement, but the physical
space we gather in remains leader-centric and is not
designed for participant interaction. If you doubt this,
look at how we arrange the room at large conferences.
This is a case where the convenors can place the chairs
any way they want, and yet when you walk into most rooms
where groups are assembled to learn, the chairs are most
often lined up in a row like little toy
soldiers.
In Praise of Milwaukee Activism
It is significant that we continue to work and assemble
in regal and patriarchal physical structures despite our
widespread belief in participation, citizen involvement
and democracy. Most of our leaders, employees and
citizens now espouse activism and high engagement and yet
we yield to autocratic physical space without even a
whimper. We seem unconscious of the fact that the
structure and arrangement of a room carries our
intentions and purpose as powerfully as any conversations
we might have within that space.
More disturbing still is the possibility
that when we move into patriarchal space, we like it,
despite our participative rhetoric. We may want the
leader to stay distant, in control and we may not want to
move our chairs to face those next to us. We may like a
monumental conference table and the way it keeps us apart
from each other, so we accept these structures willingly.
This is voting for a high control world with our
seats.
That is what is hopeful about the argument
in the archdiocese of Milwaukee. They recognize the
importance of place, and there exists energy and passion
to renovate the space in a more engaged and democratic
direction. They are mobilized where the rest of us remain
anesthetized.
I would also push the meaning of the
Milwaukee debate one step further. I have believed for
some time that the church in modern society was in
descent and that businesses had replaced them as
institutions that shape and determine our culture. In
effect, it has seemed that our office buildings had
become modern cathedrals. Now I have to question
this.
Perhaps caring about the physical structure
of a room or a building is a measure of how much we care
about the institution itself and how much ownership we
feel to recreate it. If those of us in business,
government and education are passive about our physical
environment, it might indicate that, for whatever
reasons, we have less passion, ownership or deep
investment in the well-being and future of our
organizations.
If we are looking for passion and
commitment, the Milwaukee debate over architecture may be
a sign that we should turn our attention to the faith
community, its leaders and members, as models of
institutions that can mobilize and motivate people.
Perhaps the office buildings that once loomed as
cathedrals are losing their vitality and becoming
spiritual and social warehouses.
If we think of elements in our cities that
are committed to building community, the passion in
Milwaukee comes as no surprise. In our troubled cities,
leaders of the faith community are at the center of
efforts for reconciliation in times of crisis. I imagine
they have much to teach us about care, commitment and
accountability. I know that I am heartened by the debate
over altars and chairs in the 148-year-old Cathedral of
Saint John the Evangelist and hope it spreads its spirit
with as much fervor as its name implies.
August 2001 News for a
Change Homepage
Issue Highlight —
Moveable Chairs
