In the ancient world, you stood – the gods sat. ~.^ Gods get to be comfy, not us.

I go to the aforementioned parish of the Holy Cross when I’m at home, and at school in DC to a pewless Russian-style cathedral. I prefer it. When I’m in an Orthodox church with pews, I prefer to stay near the end (or volunteer to join the choir) to be able to stand without appearing obtrusive.
I like open floors.

As a Roman Catholic with a sincere interest in Orthodoxy, I’m inclined to agree with you wholeheartedly. The first Orthodox service I ever attended was at the well-know Antiochian parish of Holy Cross, and it was unlike anything I had ever experienced. I’d never felt more involved in what was happening around me during the service, and I was merely there as a guest! Having been accustomed to “perching” on pews my entire life, this “active” role in worship was so new to me. And we wonder why the youth are so disillusioned with modern Catholicism…

I attend Eastern Rite Catholic services, and I’ve noticed that some have pews, some don’t. I know most of the Orthodox churches around here, except for St. Nicholas Cathedral have pews (but I think this is mainly due to the fact that Orthodox missions usually bought Protestant churches rather than building from scratch and never took them out).
It is much harder to worship the way that Eastern Christians do if there are pews in the church. This is most keenly felt, I believe, during the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts.

At my parish we have pews, yet we stand for the entire service except the sermon. In some ways this is the worst of both worlds, since the pews immobilize one while standing, so I’d rather not have them if we are going to stand anyway.
Sitting during the sermon however is appropiate since one is being taught, and students traditionally have alawys been seated for instruction. How did they do this in Dallas, Rod? I’ve been in some pewless churches in my travels where everyone just sits on the floor for the sermon (except some elderly folk and maybe pregnant women who use benches along the wall). That has a very childlike feel to it, though it does depend on people not having tracked in mud and wetness from the outside.

What is the basis for standing? Is it inspired by scripture, or habit? Did the tradition start out of necessity or some higher, scriptural purpose?

Peter,
In the Greco-Romanm world standing was a mark of respect; one sat only with equals or loved ones. In church of course we are in the presence of Christ so we stand for him.
Kneeling, or full prostration (proskynesis in Greek) was generally reserved for gods– rulers like Alexander who insisted on it were widely derided for their pretense. Interestingly enough one of the less known canons of the Council of Nicaea forbids kneeling during the regular Liturgy (it is allowed at other services), though even in many Orthodox churches this is not well observed.

At my Antiochian parish in Franklin, TN we have chairs, sort of lined up like pews, but they can be easily moved. We usually stand except for the Epistle reading, the homily, and certain other designated times (the chanting of the “Sitting Psalms”).
We frequently reconfigure the chairs, like last night for forgiveness Vespers (we formed a giant “forgiveness” circle the parishioners walked around). And we push the chairs back during Great Lent for full prostrations. Having pews would make such actions difficult.
The Greek Orthodox Church in Nashville, where we will have our regional Triumph of Orthodoxy Vespers this Sunday, got rid of its pews a couple of years ago. So maybe the Greeks are also seeing the value of keeping traditional Orthodox worship rather than attempting to accomodate. We will never be Seeker-friendly anyway!
One thing that attracted me to liturgical worship, first as an Anglo-Catholic and now as Orthodox, is the way we worship with our whole being, bodies and souls.
There is a quotation from Nicholas Ferrar, the founder of the Little Gidding Community, that expresses this well (I’m quoting from memory, so this may not be exact):
“God will be worshiped in spirit and in truth, in body and soul, in outward gesture and inward thought. This is the right, good old way you are in. Keep in it.”
The last two sentences are a paraphrase of Jeremiah 6:16.

Peter, I do believe as well that standing during formal worship was the tradition in the Jewish temple, and it was retained by the early church. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
Jon, at the Dallas cathedral, people generally stand for the sermon, though they’re summoned forward.

I’m Protestant and have never seen this and am surprised to hear such conventions exist. In my church, we rise from the pews at times, such as during readings from scripture, but sit for the sermon and while singing hymns.
Having a few seats along the walls and expecting the able bodied to stand throughout a two hour service seems as if it forces awkward choices on families which include the aged and the infirm. It’s tough enough on old people to be reminded constantly that their best days are behind them physically and that they are “othered” and “lesser” in comparison to the hale and hearty and fortunate. Why add on another reminder?
I can’t imagine having to stand in one part of the church while an aged relative sits in another, far away from me. I would think most people would want to be right next to the loved one. Especially if it is an infirm and aged relative who relies on a younger family member to hold his or her arm in support and to assist him or her to rise from a seat or walk to it. If I were standing and he or she were sitting, I’d be distracted by thought such as “is he or she ok? What if he or she needs to step out or otherwise needs my help?” I can’t imagine having to choose between sitting next to an infirm and aged loved one in seats — thereby defying convention — or standing throughout a service. To me, that just seems like the type of cruel choice that people shouldn’t have to contemplate in a house of worship. The kinder choice is one which doesn’t single out anyone and keeps everyone on an equal footing and focused on the purpose of the service.
So, no thanks, I’d rather worship in a church which keeps us all together, regardless of age or infirmity or lack thereof.

Indy, there’s nothing to keep one from standing next to one’s infirm relative during the liturgy. When Julie was pregnant, and needed to sit down, sometimes I’d stand next to her in church, or would at least be nearby. It’s also okay for younger folks to sit down during the service. As we were getting used to worshiping as Orthodox Christians, I would often have to sit down, either in a chair or on the floor with the kids, and this was seen as normal. I don’t think it would occur to anybody to feel left out or thought of as inferior because they choose to sit down during liturgy. Do you really think that possibility is worth more concern than the possibility (the reality, actually) that pews interfere with the proper reception of the liturgical experience?
Theologically, pews make perfect sense in a Protestant church. They make less sense in a Catholic church, and no sense in an Orthodox church, where the worshipper is prevented by the pews from performing the prostrations that are a normal part of Orthodox worship.

Worshiping with the body is so restricted by pews and so meaningful and fulfilling for me that I cannot understand why some Orthodox parishes go the pew route. I worshiped at Christ the Savior in Chicago (right by Moody Bible Institute!) and we had no pews. When the diocese acquired the building, Archbishop Job of blessed memory had the pews removed before anyone saw the interior with them in place. It was great. Now I am at a parish in the NY metro area which has pews and, although I have staked out an end seat, it is troublesome to have the pews at all. Not only can one not make a prostration, the profound bow (touching the hand to the floor) is dangerous. Furthermore, I have seen many people try to make a prostration sideways between pews, thus facing the side wall or aisle instead of the Altar!

Boy, Indy, where do you guys store all the wheelchairs you must pass out with the bulletins so those wheelchair bound by neccessity don’t face such horrible persecutions as people sitting in non-mobile chairs, or children skipping, thereby providing yet another heartless rmeinder of their uselessness?

This is very interesting. As a raised Lut’ran who now attends Catholic services with my cradle Catholic wife (have not converted, though) it has never even occurred to me that pews were not the norm. The few Orthodox churches I’ve visited (Greek, I think) all had pews. It made me think of how I tend to be in services, which is that whenever I’m standing, I’m thinking about how soon it will be until I get to sit my lazy tokhes down again. Not a very worshipful attitude.

Yeah, I strongly prefer no pews. We have chairs, which we can move around and reduce in number for some services, like Presanctified Liturgy during Lent and for Pascha where we are very crowded. We only sit during the homily and during announcements at the end of church, but there is pretty much a chair for every rear end. I would prefer we had fewer chairs (more like Holy Cross and other places, where chairs really are only there for the infirm) but lots of folks at our parish feel strongly about having chairs for all. I guess the best thing about chairs (as opposed to pews) is that as the church gets more crowded you can just kind of gradually decrease the number of chairs. Over time people can get used to the idea of sitting on the floor during the homily or just standing throughout. Simply putting fewer chairs out is a lot less drastic than having to rip out pews, which seems like a much bigger alteration of worship space and therefore is probably more likely to upset people’s sense of continuity in prayer.

My parish (Antiochian) has movable chairs that are lined up like pews. Nearly everyone stands for the entire liturgy, though, other than for the reading of the epistles and the homily. They can be removed or rearranged when necessary which at least makes them better than traditional pews, but they’re still very disruptive to worship for the reasons already mentioned above and I wish we would just get rid of them. They were removed for last night’s vespers service and the freedom of that bare floor was sooo nice.

Thank You for your insights into this. I am a “to whom shall we turn, Lord” Roman Catholic when it comes to belief & fidelity…and yet I constantly feel Like ‘a nobody’ in the Church. Your illustration of the liturgical differences in worshiping standing vs. sitting, kneeling, standing really ring true for me. It is so true that the whole feel in the Latin Liturgy is that of observer of a ‘performance’ from the ‘audience’ rather than one of being actively engaged and involved in the Liturgy in an integral and essential way. One can engage personally with God, sort of one to One, but not with a sense of solidarity with others, or in a way that signifies an exchange between God and His people. And it becomes a struggle to engage when forced into a position of passive ‘nobody’. It’s a tough one for me because over time it is hard not to feel unwanted by God when in the very place we should be able to go to find Him in a real way in communion with others through the liturgy and Eucharist, we must enter passively and accept our presence there in an entirely impersonal manner. It is no surprise to me that so many Catholics look elsewhere for real spiritual nourishment and a sense of belonging. Thank you for explaining so well what clearly illustrates in a very valid manner (to my mind and sensibilities, anyway) another reason why.
Still, I am left with my own conundrum on the matter of ecclesial fidelity. I suppose what is also at issue here for me is a saddness over the disunity, in both belief & worship, not just between Churches but also within Churches…and it seems the Orthodox Churches are no exception when it comes to liturgical practices. Division is so much the norm within all Churches that it is difficult to know where to turn to find refuge in God from this muddled world…seems to me we should all be united in Truth…and that that Truth is meant to be expressed and made real through Liturgy…which should inform & nourish our Faith.
Anyway, for all they may or may not be worth, these are my thoughts inspired by yours. Thanks!

In the ancient world, you stood – the gods sat. ~.^ Gods get to be comfy, not us.
In the ancient world you worshipped outside. The temple was simple the place for housing the god’s cult image, not a place for worshippers to assemble for rituals.

It made me think of how I tend to be in services, which is that whenever I’m standing, I’m thinking about how soon it will be until I get to sit my lazy tokhes down again. Not a very worshipful attitude.
That was my attitude in Orthodox liturgy … for about a month. Now the idea of sitting during liturgy gives me the heebie-jeebies!

Franklin Jennings, although not old myself, I happen to worship with a congregation which draws primarily the elderly. It failed to attract and keep younger worshipers and probably will die out eventually. I didn’t abandon it like most of my peers, however. My housebound relatives get a lot out of going there not only because of the religious service, but because the congregation represents the last remnants of their dwindling, soon to die out community. They get an incredible amount of sustenance from being able to see each other face to face on such occasions. As long as I am able to help my elderly relatives attend services there, I will continue to do so. This doesn’t necessarily suit my preferences – I miss being among my peers. But it is not about me, it’s about helping others, those who have suffered in ways I’m not going to describe and are suffering now. If it makes you feel better to joke about wheelchairs and church bulletins, so be it. I see I erred in raising issues which might make anyone used to a more “normal” congregation with a wider demograhpic feel uncomfortable. I have a strong non-conformist streak and sometimes fail to see how what I write comes across. My apologies.

As a Greek Orthodox Christian raised in Washington, D.C., I was brought up accepting pews in churches as natural. Until last year, every house of worship I visited (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish) had pews or seats. When I went to Greece for the first time last summer, I experienced the practice of standing for the whole liturgy, despite the presence of seats. However, not until I visited the ROCOR cathedral in DC (St. John the Baptist) to venerate the Kursk-Root Icon last December did I first experience pewless Orthodox worship. Ironically, the service was the equivalent of the Greek Akathist, which means “without sitting.” Rather than having the priests and deacons and altar boys on a solea in the front of the church (as is common at my church), they are in the center of the nave, surrounded by the faithful, who had to move out of the way for the Great Censing. Having experienced this, I strongly prefer pewless churches to pews. It seems to involve the faithful more in the services and makes it easier to kneel, prostrate, etc.

Given a choice I would prefer no pews.
Having been in Moscow for Pascha a number of years back the six hours that everyone stood seemed to go rather quickly.
As for the comments by Indy, the few places to sit were usually occupied by younger folks, the “old ladies” and elderly gentlemen all stood throughout.
This issue sometimes, sadly, becomes a defining point by some about “how Orthodox” a parish is.
Without pews you can, of course, fit many more people into the same space.
Without pews you can do the prostrations that happen throughout the year.
While growing up the men stood on the right the women on the left. Another custom that changed over time, as probably will this one.
If a parish buys an existing Church with pews, unless they are taken out before the first service, they will remain. We are known for resisting change, after all.

I believe the origin of pews was as a fundraising device. The churches sold or rented pews to rich families who could then sit down during the service and the church used the income for other purposes. I only faintly remember this to be true, so I’m happy to be corrected or would be grateful if someone could point us to an article that confirms my memory.
If this is the case, then making pews available for everyone would actually be progress from selling them.

Traditional Lutherans have pews in our churches, but during the liturgy we do quite a bit of standing. We do however sit to sing hymns and to listen to the sermon, which may be twenty to thirty minutes, they used to be 45 minutes to an hour long in the past centuries. We stand for most of the liturgy proper and for the reading of the Holy Gospel, and for the prayers, and for the liturgy of the Sacrament of the Altar.

I like the standing, but watching restless kids squirm around on the floor, grabbing their parents’ legs, looking up skirts (!) and pestering their siblings from below detracts from the service. Don’t know if this would be better in pews, but at least there would be less chance of inadvertantly stepping on someone.

I was struck by how much more connected I feel without pews than with; with pews, I feel segregated from the rest of the congregation. I also like the informality (at home in my Father’s house) of no pews and sitting on the ground for the sermon–informality in one respect only, though, because the Liturgy is highly formal and awesome.

“I see I erred in raising issues which might make anyone used to a more “normal” congregation with a wider demograhpic feel uncomfortable.
You didn’t really raise any issues, you went into a sanctimonious rant. Its still there, feel free to re-read it. And further, you have no idea where, or even if, I attend any kind of religious service.
But nothing’s as funny as listening to you blame everything but the one thing in your own control!

An interesting article from an Anglican written in 1844:
http://anglicanhistory.org/misc/freechurch/fowler_pews1844.html
I particularly liked this bit, where the author speaks of Catholics:
“…The services of that Church indeed make accommodation for sitting of much less consequence to her members than to ourselves. Chaunting and prayer, with short selections from the Scripture, form the chief [7/8] features of those services; and accordingly Roman Catholic congregations will be generally observed to be either standing or kneeling. Nor was the practice of preaching lengthy sermons, or rather (as it should now be called) of reading long essays, so much in vogue as it was afterwards under the reign of the Puritans, who carried it to a ludicrous extent, or as it is at present in a more moderate degree amongst ourselves. Under these circumstances, therefore, we should not expect to find general and luxurious accommodation for sitting in the early English churches, even if there were nothing but mere conjecture to rely upon.”
My present parish is a mission church, which does not have pews, only chairs; there are no kneelers, and the rows of chairs are too close together to permit most people to kneel during the Canon. Not having chairs might allow more people to kneel, but it’s hard to say as we’re using the space pretty efficiently already to accommodate a growing number of people.
But I am sensitive to Indy’s point, too. We have a couple of regular attendees in wheelchairs, several physically and/or mentally handicapped people who need to be able to sit during the Mass, and a great many elderly parishioners or parishioners with back and knee problems, etc.; I can’t imagine lining them up against the walls while the able bodied and healthy gather around the center.
The main difference I see between a Catholic parish and an Orthodox one in this regard (and I hope the Orthodox will correct me if I am mistaken) is that for a Catholic attendance at Mass on Sunday is mandatory; missing Mass without a good reason is a serious sin. Good reasons do include illness, but a person who is liable to experience back pain during long periods of standing isn’t necessarily ill; the elderly may have mobility issues but are not necessarily ill, and so on. So an Orthodox person who has a bad back, who is elderly, etc. may simply decide to attend Divine Liturgy less frequently, or he may show up midway through the second hour (if I understand this correctly) on the days he does attend, and so on.
In fact, I’m a bit confused about what the Orthodox generally do in regard to Divine Liturgy. I’ve heard some Orthodox point to its two-hour (plus?) duration as a unique and important character, but then other Orthodox, including a Greek Orthodox gentleman I met last year in my town, insist that almost nobody shows up for the first forty-five minutes, and that even after that people trickle in until the one hour, fifteen minute mark, so that a great many parishioners are really only present for the last forty-five minutes of an average Divine Liturgy.
Is that something which is only really true for the Greek Orthodox community, or for this gentleman’s specific parish? Is it not really accurate at all? The only reason I bring it up is that it is not that difficult for most people, including those with various physical issues, to stand for forty-five minutes; it’s quite another story if they are being asked to stand for the full two (plus) hours, and I could see the discussion of the need for pews depending at least a little on the actual duration of standing under discussion.

A sanctimonious rant? Really? There’s nothing wrong in my view in reminding people that often one’s world shrinks drastically when people get old. I thought I was trying to remind people that not all of our experiences fit into a picture postcard, Hallmark version of America. And that a debate which seems normal to many can sound totally unrealistic. Some of us do find ourselves in non-standard, non-traditional situations sometimes even when we yearn for what seems like the Hallmark version the rest of you seem to share. Except for those who die before their time, most of us are going to be old and feeble and unable to stand or walk long distances and dependent on the kindness of relatives or friends or strangers one day. If we’re lucky, we’ll have people around who are willing to help us stay in touch with “normal” life for as long as is possible. Including going to worship services. There is nothing I can relate to in my church going experience that even makes a discussion of whether standing or sitting is better even makes sense as an enhancement. Standing just isn’t feasible for people I know best and love the most. Under the circumstances, I consider myself lucky that I worship in a Protestant church where I can sit aside them and not worry about other issues.

When my wife and I were first inquirers, we lived in the Seattle area and attended the Antiochian convert parish. They have an open floor with benches around the sides. We tended to hang out in the back by one of the benches, but it was amazing to see how worship worked when people weren’t herded into neat little rows and put into a passive, spectator role. I remember that one of my first observations about Orthodox liturgical practice was that it seemed rather non-linear; rather than “Everybody does A, then everybody does B, then everybody does C…” it was more like, “Clergy does A while choir does B and congregation does C. At some point, clergy does D; at some other point DURING D, choir does E; at some point after E but still during D, the congregation does F…” Between clergy, congregation, and choir, everybody had their own set of tasks that intersected at times but were often occurring parallel to each other. It was a fascinating dynamic to see in action, and this was represented to me as normative. Suddenly rows of seating felt confining.
Shortly thereafter, we moved to Indiana, and I remember excitedly walking into the Antiochian convert parish here in Bloomington… and, without warning, seeing nice, neat, rows of chairs. To say it really confounded my expectations doesn’t begin to cover it, but when I visited parishes in Indianapolis, it was the same deal. The Serbian parish had pews, the Greek parish had pews, the Antiochian parish had pews. The two parishes that didn’t have the floor covered with rows of seating were the convert parish under the Romanian Episcopate of the OCA, and the former-EOC-turned-OCA (long story — they were latecomers) convert parish.
The priest at the Bloomington parish told me once, “I’d love to get rid of the chairs, but a number of people would go with them, my wife among them.” The bottom line seemed to be that out here, a lot of churches were started by ethnic communities trying to “fit in” and thus installing pews. At our parish, then, there are some cradles who have grown up with pews, as well as some people who converted later in life, who believe that having an open floor with chairs or benches around the sides will push them out of the center of the action. Over the years there have been various attempts to increase standing space by taking out a row or two in the back; these attempts have always been met with appreciation by those who stand and hostility by those who don’t. My understanding is that our bishop is telling new missions very clearly: no rows of seating, and start out that way so that nobody can say you’re taking them away later.
Last month our parish had an architect out to consult on a new building, and he’s a specialist in Orthodox architecture. He designs things with no pews, which he got grilled about by some people when he was here. He also pointed out that traditional Orthodox interiors also have a variety of spaces in the nave, not just an open floor where everybody stands in the middle. (For an example, see http://www.newworldbyzantine.com/projects/churches/holy_asc/ and look at images 7 and 8 especially.) Based on some comments, this definitely clashed with some residual Protestant notions about what participation means (everybody standing together front and center and doing everything), but since right now what we have is a space that’s effectively an adapted multipurpose office building and that’s what people have been used to for ten years or more, that’s maybe not altogether surprising.
I am less inclined to get involved in pew wars than I used to be, however. I had long been of the understanding that “churches in the old world don’t have rows of seating,” but when I went to Greece last summer, every church I went into had rows of chairs. When I asked somebody about it, they said that open floors are more of a monastery thing in Greece than a parish church thing; on the other hand, all of the churches more than 30 years old or so were clearly designed to NOT have seating. What I wonder is this — if seating has always been intended for the aged and infirm, perhaps that is now the dominant churchgoing demographic in Greece and must be accommodated accordingly? That wasn’t the case at the church I was going to in Athens, but they still had rows of seating, so I don’t know.
I will say this for the dubious: when you see it in action the way it’s supposed to work, it doesn’t exclude or shunt off anybody, and the dynamic is clearly very different from how it works when there are rows of seating.
Richard

I like the standing, but watching restless kids squirm around on the floor…
Oh please, kids squirm just as much in pews as they do standing. Kids squirm, it’s just one of those things. One of the upsides to having traditional architecture and images in a worship space is that I’ve noticed it gives restless kids something to look at so they aren’t always as antsy. When I was an evangelical Protestant, one of the things I always disliked was that children were banished from the main worship area to another part of the church for their own ‘kid-friendly’ service.

How is sitting on the ground for the sermon different from sitting in a pew or chair?

Indy: I thought I was trying to remind people that not all of our experiences fit into a picture postcard, Hallmark version of America. And that a debate which seems normal to many can sound totally unrealistic. Some of us do find ourselves in non-standard, non-traditional situations sometimes even when we yearn for what seems like the Hallmark version the rest of you seem to share.
Indy, I wish Franklin J. hadn’t spoken so harshly to you, but it really is strange to my ears that you got high-handed about a Christian liturgical practice that was apparently universal until the Reformation, and which was universal in Orthodox churches until the last century, speaking of it as if it were some kind of bizarre imposition on the faithful. Maybe we moderns simply aren’t at the center of the galaxy, with a 360-degree viewpoint on the rest of the universe (to steal a phrase from Sarah Ruden). Maybe we have something to learn from past generations. I think your point might have been better received had you not seemed to judge traditionalists as cruel for preferring to stand during liturgy, as countless generations of Orthodox Christians have done over the centuries.
Interesting to hear you speak of “pew wars,” Richard. I guess that hasn’t been part of my Orthodox experience (and thanks be to God for that). I can see where some of the more fervent traddie types might think that standing = holiness, and people who sit are backsliders. And I can see that people who like to sit might in some way internalize that presumption, and lash out against people who prefer to stand, calling them “holier than thou,” even if there are no grounds for that judgment. Personally, having experienced Orthodox worship both standing and in pews, I vastly, vastly prefer standing, and not because it’s a sign of being a spiritual athlete, but because it opens up the liturgy, and allows one to experience it much more intensely (as I say in this post, it’s the difference between being a spectator at a performance, and gathered around a bonfire).
I wonder if Orthodox Christians who have only worshiped in churches with pews would be willing to try it the other way for six weeks, just to see what it’s like. Until I became Orthodox, I’d spent all my life as a Christian sitting in pews, and had no idea people did anything other than that. The idea of standing during liturgy struck me as strange and onerous. But once I put aside my own prejudice, and tried it, I soon understood why standing as the normative mode of liturgical worship for the congregation was superior.
Peter, nobody minds you sitting for a sermon, or sitting at all in Orthodox worship (as we’ve been saying). The point is what’s normative in a parish. In a traditional Orthodox church setting, you can sit if you want to, in chairs or on benches along the side of the church. But most people will stand.

“I will say this for the dubious: when you see it in action the way it’s supposed to work, it doesn’t exclude or shunt off anybody, and the dynamic is clearly very different from how it works when there are rows of seating.
Richard”
I think this cannot be stressed enough. Coming from a Presbyterian/Episcopalian background, I loved my pews – everything made sense, you knew your place in line, when it was your turn, etc. As a convert to Orthodoxy attending a convert parish with no pews, this was a big adjustment for me. I sat on one of the chairs by the wall for several months before feeling comfortable moving to the open floor. Like Richard, I saw this incredible method to the madness and it slowly started to make sense to me. Children squirm, this is true, and it has been impressive to me how friends in parishes will just walk up to the mom with the squirmy baby/child and offer to hold/take the little one so that mom can have a few minutes of focus and attention on the service. That is not at all easy in a pew setting, and it is much more disruptive for those sharing the pews. I have also been one of the pregnant “infirm” attendees, and I have welcomed the chance to sit in the chairs. I can confirm for Indy that I never felt excluded in any way. My children are able to stand nearby (or quietly move around to stand near one of their friends), and my husband is never far either.
It takes time to understand the advantage of open space in Orthodox churches (both for Orthodox and anyone accustomed to pews), it is not an issue that can be argued and won by conversation alone. The experience over time is the only way to demonstrate how it can work. I don’t think that I know anyone as critical as I was of pew-free churches, and since I am currently pregnant with our 4th, I have spent a fair bit of time sitting in chairs pregnant, nursing, or just resting with a little one. That said, it is a whole different experience to share and participate in the Liturgy (and all of the other services) standing.

I converted to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism closer to ten years now. As history buff, I knew that before the rise of Protestantism, Roman Catholics stood during services. I recognized the historicity, tradition, and meaning of standing in the presence of the Lord when I started to attend Orthodox services. I have also observed that children are freer to move around during service and ironically, tend to behave better and are easier to control than when stuck in a pew. Separating them has been discouraged by all of the married Orthodox priests I have known in the Spirit of the God-Man’s words: “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
Also, churches that practice standing are closer to the mystical goal of bringing us closer to God. The author Rod captures the experiential nature of Orthodox Christian worship, which is stronger than in heterodox denominations. Sadly, concession towards the deliberate use of pews deprives Orthodox faithful of a more perfect experience, as with disregard for the Church Calendar in favor of the so called “New” Julian Calendar. It is also a symptom of the the spirit of the times, where laxity and complacency influence the need to “fit-in” at the expense of the beauty and Tradition of Divine Revelation.

Rod, I see your point. But isn’t in true that in the past the number of people who lived in to their 80s and 90s was much, much smaller than it is now. I’m describing a congregation where most of the people are in their 80s and 90s with some in their 70s. I’m much younger but attend as a companion to an older relative. You wouldn’t have had such congregations anywhere in the past. As baby boomers age, we’ll see more and more congregations with really old people. I’ve heard some observers say we have to re-define old age and differentiate between mid-old (70s) and extreme old age (80s, 90s, 100) nowadays. I understand what you mean about past practices being normal and accepted for a long time but wasn’t it more likely that they involved younger people than what I’m describing — albeit some with some health problems — since the life spans were much shorter? Things that seemed incurable then can be cured and managed. In the old days, how many really old, very feeble people still were around to attend worship services or, if housebound, yearn to get out and worship? Not many, I would think, given life expectancy and the number of things that killed people off earlier than nowadays.

My parish has pews, but almost no one ever uses them. We all stand. No one cares if you sit, but it just seems more natural to stand. I would prefer to get rid of the pews for all the reasons you mentioned. The pews make it harder to do prostrations for one thing. Parishes without pews just seem more intimate. Still, it’s not anything worth making a big deal about.

Pews are kinda in conflict with the Orthodox concept of the re-integration of body and soul on the journey towards union with God, no? Standing of course makes it easier to move around, prostrate, bow, etc. but it also helps – at times, forces – the mind and heart to snap back to attention and focus on what you’re there for in the first place. Maybe I’m undisciplined (no, I know I am) but the standing really helps.

“I would plead that as Orthodox Christians we shouldn’t allow ourselves to diminish the value of symbols or lose the participation of our bodies in worship. Sadly, one finds examples of such a loss. I was in US last month and enjoyed that visit very much, but was saddened to see that many Orthodox churches have been taken over by pews. Have you reflected on the horrid effect that pews have on worship? People in pews can no longer make prostrations or even make deep bows. They just stand or sit and thus become an audience instead of active participants. In a pew it is not easy to make a proper sign of the cross with a deep bow. Now you might say that this is not so important and that pews are there for convenience and that people today just can’t stand up for very long. But traditionally the Church has provided stalls and benches on the sides or a few chairs here and there. Those who need to sit can then come forward to make prostrations. But our tradition is not one of neat rows.”
- Metropolitan Kallistos Ware from ‘Glorify God with your Body’: http://incommunion.org/?p=246
Many years ago when His Eminence, Metropolitan Kallistos was asked what he thought about pews, his answer was rather more succinct:
“Take them out and burn them.”

Oh please, kids squirm just as much in pews as they do standing. Kids squirm, it’s just one of those things
Kids also kick the pews, bang on the pews, race their toy cars along the pews …
(I don’t have kids, but I used to be an usher.)

“Take them out and burn them.”
When people criticize Orthodoxy, it’s really this kind of faithfulness to non-Scriptural tradition that comes to mind. Having people stand is based on “tradition,” and has no real relation to the word of God or the Scriptures. It is about obedience and order–which have a role to play in organized religion–but it also becomes a rather fetishized sense of “tradition.”
Now, it is perfectly fine within the confines of Orthodoxy to have these arguments and for the pew wars to wage on. But it also seems to be a place for a critique of Orthodoxy and traditionalis that is as potent as the critique of moralistic therapeutic deism: the role of tradition as fetish that almost supplants the Scriptural as a binding force.

“Christianity is a liturgical religion. Worship comes first, doctrine and moral rules come afterwards. Surely it is one of the strengths of our Orthodox Church that we still attach immense importance to symbolical action involving our body and material things. All too often in the western world people have lost the power of symbolical thinking — not entirely, but quite frequently. It is surely a deep impoverishment.”
- Metropolitan Kallistos (again)

Listen to Joseph’s Wife above; she’s telling the truth. This is one of those things you can’t really understand until you’ve seen it in action. Rare is the Orthodox liturgy when I just stand there stock-still. Usually one of the kids is squirmy, so I take him outside, or take him around the church during the liturgy to light candles and venerate icons. This is perfectly normal. It might sound like chaos, but it’s not — not at all! Believe me, it’s far, far easier to deal with kids in church when they can move around and not be obtrusive. Obviously you don’t want kids monkeying around during liturgy, but there’s a big difference between being somewhat free to move during liturgy, and playing around. You ought to see the well-behaved kids of St. Seraphim parish during liturgy.
Peter, how presumptive of you to label a tradition a “fetish”? Care to explain the difference?

When my family began regularly attending an Orthodox church about 3.5 years ago (and subsequently joined), we had to adjust to standing throughout the service (and to the kids being with us the whole time and not being ushered out to “children’s church”). My boys were only 4 and 5 years old in the beginning, and while I knew that they could not stand throughout the service, I wanted to begin training them to do it as they were able. I also wanted to do this in an unarbitrary way, but not knowing the liturgy well, was not sure what to do. I noticed that one the older men in the parish (he was about 90) would stand for several longer sections of the liturgy, and sit for others. So, I told my boys to watch “Mr. Alex” and when he stood, they were to stand. They watched him with eagle eyes during the standing parts to know when they could sit. Now, they are able to stand throughout the service and serve as altar boys. When “Mr. Alex” died a couple years later, the boys had lost an Orthodox role-model who did not even know he had been one to them.

Re: “tradition as fetish”
I don’t think Peter would be presumptuous to label Protestant tradition fetishes as divisive. Fetishes for various traditions (allegedly all Scripture-based) are they very engines of institutional maintenance for the various and multitudinous Protestant bodies and do in no way serve as a “binding” force, scriptural or otherwise.
Holy Tradition is the deposit of Faith passed down from Christian to Christian since the time of Christ and his Apostles to this very day. In the Orthodox Church, Holy Tradition includes Holy Scripture, the way we worship, the writings and lives of the Saints, iconography, and much more. Holy Tradition is the deposit of Faith passed down from Christian to Christian since the time of Christ and his Apostles to this very day.

I’m a Presbyterian, so maybe I just don’t get it, but the objection that “pews teach the lay people to stay in their place, which is to passively watch what’s going on up front, where the clergy perform the Liturgy on their behalf” strikes me as very strange in a liturgy that has the priest going behind the closed doors of the iconostasis part of the time so that they can’t watch even passively what he’s doing.

Well, Russ, as I said, pews make sense liturgically for Protestantism, which is centered around the proclaiming of the word, and sermonizing on it, and not the Eucharist. I don’t see anything wrong with or off-putting about pews in a Protestant church. A typical Protestant service is supposed to do something different than an Orthodox service.

Good point, Rod. Protestantism is different in that regard, what you say makes sense.

It is worth noting that the ethnic extraction of the parish will likely have a lot of influence on whether pews are present or not. To my knowledge, Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian and Ukrainian churches have pews a part of their collective tradition, even in the old country; Russian and Middle-Eastern churches do not. Of course, this isn’t universal; the age of the parish and its building have a lot to do with it, and the trend in general seems to be toward no pews.
I don’t really care that much either way. I’ve been a member of parishes with pews, and without; because no one really uses the pews anyhow, I would just as soon see them gone. What I cannot stand, however, is when (as RD mentioned) the pews vs. no pews discussion becomes a litmus test for how “orthodox” a parish is. It makes no sense to fight about it, and the world of Orthodoxy is large enough to permit any number of diverse local traditions.
On the issue of old folks, especially in the older, ethnic parishes, the elderly will be the ones who stand longer and better than anyone else. I was admonished once by a little old Romanian lady for leaning against the wall; she was not pleased with me.

Rod: I’ve visited Orthodox churches both with and without pews, and I actually liked the dynamic of not having them, at least in the context of an Orthodox liturgy. It’s also worth noting that many Protestant churches (including Anglican, but only only them) have traditionally had the congregation come up to the front to receive communion, so there is a lot more motion in Protestant churches than this discussion seems to assume.
But I’m more interested in the kinds of arguments people use, I guess. For example, in the essay you quote from, the objection that somehow pews create a distance between priest and laity that isn’t otherwise there strikes me as odd given all the other ways a distinction between priest and laity is symbolized in Orthodoxy. I mean, what would the bishop think if the the laity all showed up wearing gold vestments and crowns one Sunday? And given the size of some iconostases in older churches, the priest essentially disappears for part of the liturgy.
Or the objection from Matt above in the comments: “pews are kinda in conflict with the Orthodox concept of the re-integration of body and soul on the journey towards union with God, no?” I’m baffled as to how that could be. When sitting down, our body and soul aren’t as integrated when we stand?
The conversation does bring to mind James 2:3, where James warns against inviting the wealthy to “sit here in a good place” or telling the poor “you stand over there.” It would seem to indicate sitting was the norm, at least in the Jerusalem church of the first century.

Kids also kick the pews, bang on the pews, race their toy cars along the pews …
Yep.
I don’t have kids either, but this stuff doesn’t bother me. I’m more annoyed by cell phones, but that’s a whole other discussion.

Peter: Let’s grant you the point, but the other side is this — where are pews or rows of seating mentioned in Scripture? Are they mentioned in the description of the Temple? The synagogues? Or in any of the descriptions of the heavenly Liturgy? The parable of the Publican and the Pharisee tells us that both men stood in the Temple (Luke 18:11, 18:13). Does St. Paul discuss them in any of his discourse on worship? If we take (as the Orthodox do) St. John “being in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10) as a reference to him being at a celebration of the Eucharist, he could have hardly “turned around” (1:12) or “fell at [Christ's] feet as though dead” (1:17) in the midst of tight rows of seating. If you want to make the argument that the practice of a lack of rows of seating is based on an appeal to unscriptural tradition, fine, but you must also concede that the practice of having rows of seating can’t really be argued to be any more scriptural, and is based more on a desire to accommodate. Rather than calling the practice of open floors a “fetish” based on “unscriptural tradition,” what I might suggest is, as one Orthodox person told me once, “We don’t like to talk about minimums. Minimums tend to become maximums.”
I will note that the counterargument to it being easier to deal with kids without rows of seating is that the seating gives small, squirmy children a structure with parameters with which they must deal. I don’t buy this counterargument, but I’ve heard put forth before by the folks who would go out the door with the chairs/pews.

…in a liturgy that has the priest going behind the closed doors of the iconostasis part of the time so that they can’t watch even passively what he’s doing.
Which, frankly, assumes that the congregation has no other role than to watch the action at the altar. This is a false assumption.
Richard

Re: rows of seating mentioned in Scripture? Are they mentioned in the description of the Temple? The synagogues?
I do believe Jesus referred to certain self-important people liking “the best seats in the synagogue”. But synagogues were for instruction, not worship in the days of Temple Judaism.

Re: If we take (as the Orthodox do) St. John “being in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10) as a reference to him being at a celebration of the Eucharist
St. John was a bishop, as were the other apostles, so presumably he was _celebrating_ the Eucharist as opposed to being in the congregation. Priests do stand (or kneel) while celebrating the eucharist, in the Western tradition as well.
For that matter, the _congregation_ either stands or kneels during the actual eucharist (though we sit during Liturgy of the Word), so even if he _was_ in the congregation he might still have been standing.

The reference to the Pharisees liking “seats of honor”/”chief seats” (?????????????, “first seat”, implied to be in a public place) in the synagogue doesn’t imply rows of seating. It implies that important people were seated in important places in the synagogue. It seems like we don’t actually know much about the floor plans of synagogues contemporary with the apostles, (http://www.jewishmag.com/44mag/synagogues/synagogues.htm); it seems like there were perhaps some benches, but precisely how many and how they would have been laid out seems murky, particularly since the Bar’am synagogue is noted for not having its benches anymore. The same article does note that the earliest synagogues had benches on three sides, but also points out that the 4th century Capernaum synagogue has benches on only two sides. Based on this evidence, it seems like a synagogue was laid out rather closely to a pewless Orthodox church, at least as far as seating goes. (Incidentally, the Greek word given in the James reference as the locale for the scenario is ???????? — synagogue.)
And St. John may or may not have been celebrating the Eucharist on Patmos; he doesn’t say. One way or the other his environment appears to allow significant freedom of movement. In any event, the comment about “the congregation might still have been standing” seems to be something of a non-sequitur.
Richard

Protestants don’t have pew wars with people saying “burn the standing spaces” as a mark of adherence. So the comparison isn’t really apt.
The fact that this issue is so central and is a signifier of “orthodox Orthodoxy” based only an adherence to non-Scriptural tradition does rise almost to the level of fetish in the most academic sense. It is worthy of critique, just as it is when Catholics can recite the Catechism and canon law but only have passing familiarity with the Scriptues. It is the critique Evangelicals make of these orthodox faiths, and it is one made by more mainline Protestants. It is, after all, why the Reformation took place; the rebellion against tradition that was disconected from Scripture but only as a form of control and hierarchy.

My experience is with a fairly progressive Presbyterian church, but it amuses me to note the other Protestants describing complimentary practices. The congregation collectively stands for all hymns (aside from a few of the most somber ones when appropriate to a specific service), for the segments of the service where it would be speaking, and for the Peace of Christ (where everyone moves about freely shaking hands and greeting each other, though this past flu season we went several weeks with a request to pass on shaking hands out pf practical health concerns). The choir also sits when it’s not singing or speaking, but we’re beginning to experience the down side of that as we try to figure out how to accommodate overflow from what the loft was designed to hold. We also invite anyone to come to the front to light candles at the front during any part of the service when no one is speaking (basically when the choir is singing or the hymns).
The part of our service that I was most surprised to learn that few others do is the Prayers of the People, where all members of the congregation are invite to stand and share their celebrations and concerns and request prayers in kind with the congregation. A guest pastor we recently had characterized us as being a very optimistic congregation, as there are no clocks to be seen anywhere in our sanctuary (a realistic one, she posited, makes sure there is one directly in front of the pastor) but I think the Prayers is far more a sign of that as, at some of the more highly attended times, it can compete with the sermon for the longest segment of a service since there are seldom any limits placed on it. (Imagine, if you will 20-30 people each standing one after the other and taking a as much as a minute or more to express something they feel they need the support of prayers for, each followed by a summary of the request, then a call and response from the congregation.) Once, for the Easter service, where attendance can easily pass 200, we tried having Deacons available after the service to take the prayers. Only once though; nearly everyone strongly preferred it as part of the service, no matter how long it would take.
As for kids, while they’re perfectly welcome to try to sit for the service, we do have a nursery for the youngest and activities and special services for the older ones (and then an eventual phase in to sitting for part of the service once they hit first grade or so, then proceeding up to an extended session just before the sermon). It has nothing to do with “banishment” and everything to do with offering something to kids that is better at engaging them, teaching them, and building strong positive associations rather than forcing them to endure parts of the service that they can glean little from other than boredom and frustration. We’ll see how long it lasts, but for now church is a place my kids beg to go to rather than approach with dread.

Peter: With respect, you are able to make that claim only by just about entirely refusing to look at the issue on its own terms. The reason it is seen as important because, as the 5th century maxim goes, lex orandi lex credendi — the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. How and what we pray and worship is the basis of our faith.
As I suggested earlier, before condemning those who see it as important out of hand as “fetishistic” or “unscriptural” or whatever, those inclined to be dubious might do well to experience it for themselves on its own terms, rather than criticize based on what is, honestly, a different set of assumptions. The Reformed assumption that Tradition is a form of control disconnected from, if not explicitly condemned by, Scripture, for example, is decidedly not shared.
Richard

I’ve been a member of parishes with pews, parishes with rows of chairs instead of pews, parishes with a clear floor. I’ve been in parishes where there were rows of chairs in one place, and clear floor in another.
I personally prefer standing at worship. Which is not to say I haven’t taken advantage of a seat!
But there is a freedom that comes from not being locked into a pew that to me fits well with the notion that when you’re in Church you’re actually in your Father’s home.

The vast majority of Byzantine Catholic churches have pews (I was one for many years). I am now attending an OCA mission which has no pews but a few folding chairs for those who prefer not to stand the whole service. Most of the people do stand. I understand the arguments for standing, but I have to say that I’ve seen people come in for a first time visit and turn around and leave when they couldn’t figure out what to to. I think the tradition of standing is good, but we have to acknowledge that many Orthodox parishes in the US have pews and they’re fully Orthodox despite them. I think if a parish wants to not have pews, that’s fine. But, keep in mind that it’s quite counter-cultural not to have pews in this country. Do we just say to visitors: “We’re not going to have pews and if you don’t like that you don’t have to stay?” If we’re not going to have pews we should go the extra mile to consider how to make first time visitors comfortable until they understand the tradition. Perhaps having a few more folded chairs expressly for visitors?

Re: And St. John may or may not have been celebrating the Eucharist on Patmos
In regards to very early Eucharistic practice, we need to remember the Eucharist was originally a meal, not just a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. So it would not have been unusual for people to sit to partake of it.

Jon: Sort of, and sort of not. There are a lot of complex issues of liturgical scholarship packed into that statement. Start with Dom Gregory Dix, who sees a basis in a kind of Jewish ritual meal called a chaburah BUT who also points out that the rooms of the urban houses where the Eucharist would have been celebrated were already set up in ways we would recognize as being a church interior. On Patmos — who knows?
In any event, “seated to receive the Eucharist” has little or no bearing on the point at hand, which is a lack of a witness of nice, neat, rows of seating.
Orthocath: the Orthodox parishes I’ve seen with open floors manage to make this a non-issue. There are either sufficient seats open along the sides for visitors, or they are deliberately vacated to make room for visitors who show up.
Richard

Years ago, I would have thought pewless Churches insane. Now, I have a hard time with pews, at least for Lenten worship.
Indy, you might visit a pewless Church to get a realistic feel for what it is like. If people want to sit they do. Folks with them either sit too or stand next to them. No one notices or cares. I’ve been to a lot of Orthodox services and I can honestly say it’s completely natural for folks to sit and stand together. I can’t think of how or where this would be an issue. Orthodox services just accommodate this personalization normatively. Also pewless Churches are much more accomodating for wheel chairs and walkers – I’ve had to help elderly relatives in both settings and the pewless Churches are much easier for them.
One thing that did amuse me though: it is usually the old women who stand no matter what, including in Churches with pews, while the younger folks are the ones I’ve seen sitting most.

As a cradle Orthodox who only came back to the church in middle age I’m with the standers, though sometimes when I’m at St. Nicholas in DC I try to stand near a pillar so that leaning becomes an option.Standing during the Liturgy is not easy when you do it in front of pews! The real test of standing during worship is when it is time to kneel! (And get back up again.) Despite seventy year old knees, to stand before God is what I will do until this body is laid out.

Re: old ladies standing–beyond a certain point, standing works better than sitting in terms of arthritic hips not freezing up. Also, a recent study has indicated that long periods of uninterrupted sitting are not good for ANYBODY.

Interesting thread, I learned a lot from it. As my first comment showed, I initially was mystified as to why it would be considered an enhancement for people to stand. As I noted, it seemed unnecessary to me, and tiring to my fellow congregants, especially since I worship as part of a very elderly congregation in a Protestant church although I myself am much younger than most of them. It’s been a long time since many children attended my church, the congregation largely shed younger and middle aged people and only the elderly, such as the relatives I escort, remained. So I’m not even used to seeing many kids squirming in the pews. I knew very little about the way Orthodox worshippers experience worship. I’m accustomed to services that focus on scriptural readings, prayers, and sermons, not on actions and rituals, so the question of whether or not there should be pews made no sense to me. Now that I see that Orthodox services involve physical actions such as prostration and making the sign of the cross, the debate makes more sense to me. I wouldn’t have protested “why impose on the old folks” had I realized that. One of the reasons it’s worth hanging around a blog of this type. You can learn how very different others’ experiences are than your own. I’m most familiar with Protestant services, and know a little about Catholic masses from having seen some on tv. This interesting thread gave me some glimpses into Orthodox worship and I learned a lot.

The odd thing is that our services do focus on prayer, hymns and preaching to – it’s just interwoven with a lot of physical/liturgical movement that involves laity. One way to really see how this comes together is to visit a Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts during Lent (typically Wed and Fri evenings): this is to my mind the most beautiful and moving of all Orthodox services. Since it typically involves a fair amount of prostration and kneeling in prayer, it highlights some of the themes on this thread. Independent of that, I strongly feel that all Christians – Protestant, Catholic, whatever should experience this ‘flavor’ of worship at least once in their lives.

The fact that this issue is so central and is a signifier of “orthodox Orthodoxy” based only an adherence to non-Scriptural tradition does rise almost to the level of fetish in the most academic sense. It is worthy of critique, just as it is when Catholics can recite the Catechism and canon law but only have passing familiarity with the Scriptues. It is the critique Evangelicals make of these orthodox faiths, and it is one made by more mainline Protestants. It is, after all, why the Reformation took place; the rebellion against tradition that was disconected from Scripture but only as a form of control and hierarchy.
Of course, the attitude of many Evangelical Protestants toward Scripture and “the Word” almost rises to the level of fetish as well, as if the Bible (or at least the KJV) was handed down from Heaven ready-made, printed and bound, with the words of Christ in red.

As a person with multiple health problems (and under age 50, by the way)including fibromyalgia and bladder problems, I think I can speak about the physical repercussions of standing vs. sitting in church. We are fairly recent converts to Orthodoxy, and were doubtful about standing for a whole service. However, I have discovered that standing is much easier on my back than sitting. Pews are not generally known for their ergonomic correctness. And when we attended Protestant churches, I had to stake out an end of pew seat so that I could get up and go to the restroom without climbing over eight or ten other people. (Talk about feeling awkward! Sit in a pew until you just can’t hold it anymore and then try to climb over several people without attracting a lot of attention.) Now I stand comfortably for almost all of every service. If I am very tired, or having a migraine, I just sit down for a while. My daughter visited when she was pregnant and she needed to sit. I just stood next to her. Not a big deal unless you make it into one.
Indy – please visit an Orthodox church. This isn’t the way to be introduced to Orthodoxy! We found our church to be the most loving and welcoming group of parishoners we had ever encountered. Sitting/standing issues are completely secondary. The people are wonderful, the service is beautiful, and you can feel God’s presence every moment. God bless you for taking your relatives/friends to church.

Of course, the attitude of many Evangelical Protestants toward Scripture and “the Word” almost rises to the level of fetish as well, as if the Bible (or at least the KJV) was handed down from Heaven ready-made, printed and bound, with the words of Christ in red.
A critique heard often and loudly by the trads. Turnabout is fair play, I’d argue, in the critique of the Orthodox and trad Catholics.

This is a good example of an argument that fits into the “who cares” category. It is all much ado about rules of the club, and discussions like this never seem to go anywhere. You have your contingent who will argue that their club rules are essential to the core tenets of the club in some fashion or another. You’ll have others who will argue that they do what they do because, well, shrug, that’s how it has always been and if you don’t like the rules try somewhere else. And then there will be another group who will continue to appreciate and support their club’s rules, but they’ll also say they now appreciate the rules of other clubs. I’m sorry, but I just can’t see standing before the maker of the universe after I’ve passed on and being queried by admonished for standing (or sitting) during worship services. What I have a dickens of a time keeping in mind is that I think the stance of my heart is most important…sure, what I “do” has some meaning, too, but the heart can easily undercut whatever my hand may be doing.
Cheers,
Mike

Paintergirl: “Sitting/standing issues are completely secondary.”
Or make that tertiary, quarternary, and so on. We Orthies often have our priorities stacked in a mind-blowingly “different” way.

Orthodoxy is focused on the heart. One might even say fixated on it if you have read through some of the fathers represented in the philokalia. But we don’t say the body doesn’t matter – we view the human person as fundamentally integrated: the physical side of us influences the spiritual and vice versa – they can’t be separated. This is I think the biggest difference we have with Protestants: in a sense we are ‘materialists’. As I say, a tangible way to get a sense of this is to visit for Presanctified Liturgy – the integration of body, mind, heart can’t be described in a blog comment. But frankly ‘rules’ have nothing to do with it – we are more than ideas and feelings and the Church recognizes this fact.
The other thing is that Orthodoxy doesn’t consist of a bunch of ‘rules’. There are practices designed to draw us closer to God and to help us understand our relationship with Him. The Church building is iconic in this sense and our worship is based entirely on encounter with a Living God with every dimension of our being.

Pews are lame. Pews prefer the ear and hamper the nous. The Orthodox should be very wary of adopting anything from the heterodox.

Unfortunately, a salient advantage of the Roman Catholic custom of pews has gone unmentioned: it is much less embarrassing to nod off during the sermon while sitting than while standing. A mere drop of the head onto the breast does not imperil one’s neighbor in the same way as potentially tumbling into him while debout. Then again, Catholic homiletics is still in a dismal state despite the springtime of Vatican II. They probably should take up a fourth collection and hire an Evangelical just for the homily. He could be discreetly dismissed with his stipend at the end of the Mass of the Catechumens, if the ordinary objects.
The pew also accommodates various styles of kneeling, from the ramrod straight posture which I habitually use (being of a staunch Pharisaic disposition) to the more eased spirituality that flexes the knees and spreads the gluteus maximus abundantly on the bench. Concentrating on my missal, I am not distracted by such slouching publicans, mind you.
I have written to Pope Benedict asking that, prior to the anticipated reuinion of East and Weat, as a concession to Tradition, the pews be removed from Catholic churches along with the filioque.. It is much easier to slip out of an Orthodox liturgy and go downstairs for a cup of coffee. This is a good custom. The coffee is consumed standing.

“sorry, but I just can’t see standing before the maker of the universe after I’ve passed on and …”
Interesting choice of verb there Mike W. What makes you think of “standing” before the maker at the judgement? How come you don’t imagine yourself sitting, or maybe lying down?
Anyway this is a strawman. To say “it is better for your spiritual life to do A than B” is not to say “everyone who does A is going to heaven” or “everyone who does B is going to hell.” One could say the same about fasting: you won’t go to hell just for eating meat during Lent. Or prayer: you won’t go to hell for failure to say the Trisagion every day.
But Orthodoxy is not about finding the minimum we can get away with doing and not get sent to Hell. It is about doing the most we possibly can to unite ourselves to Christ. The Church has developed norms for fasting, prayer, worship and other things that are for our benefit. It is not wise to disregard them.

(Just to be clear, “Richard” is not me, despite the same first name and similar views. I always post under my first and last name here.)

Peter,
Re: “The fact that this issue is so central and is a signifier of ‘orthodox Orthodoxy’ based only an adherence to non-Scriptural tradition does rise almost to the level of fetish in the most academic sense. It is worthy of critique, just as it is when Catholics can recite the Catechism and canon law but only have passing familiarity with the Scriptues. It is the critique Evangelicals make of these orthodox faiths, and it is one made by more mainline Protestants. It is, after all, why the Reformation took place; the rebellion against tradition that was disconected from Scripture but only as a form of control and hierarchy.”
First of all, Peter, this issue of pews vs. no pews in the Orthodox Church is mainly about Orthodox tradition versus Protestant tradition. Specifically, this issue concerns the spiritual impoverishment that can happen when Orthodox Christians lose the ability to worship God with their bodies by signing the Cross, making bows and prostrations due to the importation/adoption/infection of the Protestant tradition of pews into our sacred space.
I’m sure that our worship gestures and postures are completely foreign to you and your Protestant confession, but I’m pretty sure that you understand pews and how they function in your church setting.
What I don’t understand is how our adherence to our own worship traditions marks Orthodox Christians as “non-scriptural” adherents of some sort of illicit tradition that leads to the reason why, in your words,“ the Reformation took place; the rebellion against tradition that was disconnected from Scripture.”
Let’s take a look at a real tradition that is disconnected from Scripture, the Evangelical Protestant tradition that allegedly holds the Holy Scriptures to be the highest authority on all matters dealing with the Christian Faith.
The Holy Scriptures in the Christian tradition have always included both Hebrew Scriptures aka the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament.
We’re okay so far, right?
I get the feeling you’re going to be uncomfortable with what follows.
When early Christians began to form their Bible in the decades after death of the Lord Jesus Christ, they based it in part on the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture
called the Septuagint (translated in Alexandria in the Third Century BC).
In short, the “Old Testament” of the early Christians (and the Orthodox Church to this day) was the Septuagint.
After the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D., the Pharisees became the dominant tradition among the surviving Jews. Remember, that the notable Jewish sects of New Testament times included: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians, Zealots, High Priests, Scribes, Elders and the Disciples of John.
What does this have to do with the Holy Scriptures/Bible?
Well, a funny thing happened around 100 A.D. The rabbis of the Pharisees set their canon of Scripture. What’s so funny? Note that the Christians already had their “Old Testament” canon BEFORE the Pharisees had set their canon.
The Pharisees set up their canon in opposition to the canon of the Christians who were doing annoying things to them like quoting prophecies about the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, from the Septuagint. For instance, the Christians cited Isaiah 7:14 which reads “Behold a virgin (Greek: parthenos) shall conceive.” But the Hebrew text says “young woman,” Hebrew: almah and not betullah: virgin.
The Pharisees, in setting up their canon, decided to leave out a number of books that were in the Septuagint and of course they also prohibited Christian works like the Gospels. The reason given by the Pharisees and accepted by the Protestants is that certain of these Septuagint books were considered suspect and somehow impure, because at the time, Hebrew versions of these books were not available or were ignored by these rabbis. But to Orthodox Christians it is clear that a major reason, if not THE major reason that these books were left out was that they were (are) too messianic.
An aside: Hebrew versions of some of these deuterocanonicals are turning up thanks to the continuing work of archaeologists (cf. the Dead Sea Scrolls). It boggles the mind to think that ancient texts that were not available to First Century A.D. Pharisees are turning up in modern times!
All Christians continued to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint until the 16th century, when Protestant reformers parted ways with the Catholic Church and its Bible, deciding the Old Testament should include only the books in the canon of Hebrew Scripture, leaving out the Septuagint books they termed the “Apocrypha” (books of questionable authorship or authenticity). The Roman Catholics call these books “Deuterocanonical” (“between canons”). The Orthodox Church considers them to be part of the Old Testament.
Why did the Reformers part ways with the Roman Catholics over the Old Testament canon? Simple. Protestant Tradition versus Holy Scripture.
For instance, the Reformers didn’t like that the ancient Christian traditions of the holy ones of God (aka Saints) interceding for the faithful and prayers for the departed were found in 2 Maccabees.
But how to get around the Protestant tradition of “Sola Scriptura”, Scripture Alone as the ultimate authority?
The Protestant solution was a pretty straightforward one: Just get rid of the offending scriptures! You won’t find 2 Maccabees in a Protestant bible.
It’s a good thing that the Protestants as body kept Martin Luther’s hands off of the New Testament canon. If Luther had his way, James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation would not be in the Protestant New Testament. These books conflicted with Luther’s prime fetish, his own innovation, the Protestant salvation by “faith alone” tradition. Where is the one place where one finds “faith alone” in the entirety of the Holy Scriptures? James 2:24, which reads: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (NIV).
When told that some of his fellow Reformers objected to his addition of the word “allein” (alone) in his translation of the Romans 3:28, he retorted, “Tell them Martin Luther would have it so!”
Martin Luther trumps the Holy Scriptures and traditional Protestants have been following his lead ever since.
The irony that the tradition of “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone as the ultimate authority) is found nowhere in any Bible of any kind is lost to many Protestants.
Also many Protestants do not realize that they are pharisaical when it comes to the canon of the Old Testament, siding with the Pharisees against the Christians on the canon of the Old Testament with the sole exception (?) of the Septuagint version of Isaiah 7:14.
The Holy Scriptures state the Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).
The Bible (ALL of it) has always been the Church’s book, and part of her Holy Tradition.
The expurgated versions of the Holy Scriptures used by Protestants to attack the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church are bibles that have been dismantled according to Protestant traditions.
What hypocrisy!

As a 50 something guy with the knees of an old man, I like the practical middle ground I first experienced at Mt. Athos. There are many “prayer stalls” around the perimeter of the knave and in the porches that provide just enough support for taking a load off aching legs while leaning in prayer. They have flip down seats for sitting during the kathismas. Some monasteries even have little padded rugs at each stall to ease the sore feet some get after hours or years of standing on hard stone. Have to admit though, even the oldest monks do their prostrations on the bare stone floor. You can probably spot an Orthodox who prostrates in a church with pews by the bruises on her forehead.

Christ is truely present at the Divine Liturgy; we come to be with Him. It is very disrespectful to sit in the presence of our King. Pews are a protestant invention designed to bring us “comfort” during the service. With pews comes laziness. I do not come to the service to be entertained. I think if the 90 year old women can stand during an All-night Vigil, I think we can stand for the 2 hour Liturgy. Peace be to all, this Great Lent.
Haralambos

John W., whatever differences we have with Protestants, best not to start down that path right now, it being the Great Fast: “O Lord and King, grant me the grace to be aware of my sins and not to judge my brother; for You are blessed now and ever and forever. Amen.”

Greg,
Forgive me if I have offended you by giving the impression of judging Peter at the start of the Fast.
On the contrary, my last post to him was a gift, a snapshot of the start of my own path that I took over a decade ago out of the “traditions of men” that inform Evangelical Protestantism towards the Orthodox Church.
You see, as an Evangelical Protestant I loved the Bible, the Holy Scriptures, “God’s Word.”
Now, as an Orthodox Christian I love that I have EVEN MORE of “God’s Word”, more of the Bible, all of it.
I now have the parts that were denied to me by my former pastors who falsely claimed that the Holy Scriptures were their ultimate authority.

P.S.
My apologies to any within the Anglican communion who indeed include much of the Septuagint in their Bibles.
Most Protestants (especially the KJV Fundamentalists) are shocked when they find out that the original King James Version (1611) contains the deuterocanonical books (labeled as Apocrypha) in the Roman Catholic canon and shared by the Orthodox Church.
I have been pleasantly surprised by the scholarship of the Church of England of 1611 as the many footnote cross-references that they provide for deuterocanonical books link to New Testament passages. These linkages objectively testify to the unity of the Holy Scriptures, the gift of the Holy Spirit through the Fathers of the Church.

I know that most here don’t even consider Anglicans to be real Christians but let me offer my experience of my Anglo-Catholic parish which has pews.
Pews don’t have to mean passivity. Its how you respond to the liturgy that determines that. In my parish we sit some during the liturgy with most of the sitting time being spent listening to the sermon, the remainder listening to two of the readings and various announcements. The rest of the time, the vast majority, we are either standing or kneeling.
I think there is an ancient tradition that gets neglected when there are no pews. I think it was traditional in ancient times to sit when recieving instruction. This makes perfect sense to me. In my eyes, Orthodox tradition of standing for the whole service just might be excluding this variation of human tradition. (I also think that this is where the Protestant tradition of pews came from for the most part. I am sure it was not primarily about comfort. My other theory of course is that pews originated in cold climates where sitting on a cold stone floor would be so uncomfortable as to be distracting.)
Variation can be a good thing. To do different things with ones body for different situations, to distinguish between one thing and another. The pews of our church offer us the opportunity to make those distinctions. We dont need them when we stand to pray or sing, but we do need them in order to sit while being taught, and to kneel before the glory of God. In this respect, they are a good thing. Its the congregation that makes them either instruments of laziness or instruments of worship.
The thing that I miss most in Orthodox churches that do not have seating is kneeling in prayer and adoration. We spend most of our time on our knees in my parish. This is not to say that one way is better than another. It is to say that difference is maybe not always such a bad thing. I love the time I spend on my knees and I find it particularly helpful to me in reminding me of my humble position as a supplicant before the Lord.

Rod,
So glad to see this post.
Our parish recently pushed the pews to the outside about 5 years ago, and what a positive difference it has made.
I have children 2 and 4, and I am supposed to be in the demographic which advocates for pews (“they help keep the young ones reigned in”). Now when we go to churches with pews, I find my girls are very cut off by them. They inevitably wander to the aisles to be able to see what is going on or they stand on top of the pews.
For me, pews are like unnecessary walls which cut us off from communion with God and communion with the other. Not to judge churches with them, but I am personally ready to start the bonfire with any church willing to join the movement.

A correction:
“Deuterocanonical” connotes second or secondary canon not “between.” Secondary not in terms of inspiration but in order, after the Old Testament and before the New Testament.
Re: Hebrew versions of some of these deuterocanonicals are turning up thanks to the continuing work of archaeologists (cf. the Dead Sea Scrolls.
According to my 10-year old notes, the deutero-texts found in Hebrew versions:
Sirach, Tobit, Judith, parts of Daniel (I don’t know if the parts are ‘Bel and Dragon’ and/or ‘Song of the Three Youths’), and Psalm 151. If anyone has any updates, I’d like to know!
Peter,
Can you tell me how Evangelical tradition gives rabbis get the authority to declare the Christian canon?
The Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church tells us that Christ founded a Church, this Church declared what books are canon.
The Protestant problem is they’ve got no way of telling the canonical Bible from any other collection of books. All they have are their likes or dislikes.
The view of the church in Reformed Tradition is expressed in the Latin phrase, “Semper Reforma” (always reforming). Maybe some day, God willing, Protestants will reform or counter-reform back to Orthodoxy, perhaps starting with their Bible.

I think that Anglican Peggy got it wrong about sitting to learn. In the ancient synagogues, the teacher sat, and the listeners/learners rrbstood around him. (See the times when Jesus spoke in synagogues.)

Mike W.,
Read the Book of Acts. It seems the early church had more than a few controversies (ie. circumcision, meat offered to idols, etc) that outsiders probably rolled their eyes at. Oh well…..

for my brothers & sisters who need to see the Scripture references and to learn the tradition, here is an informative excerpt:
In performing divine services in a manner like the saints, Whom the God-inspired prophets Isaiah, Micah, Daniel and St. John the Theologian saw “standing in the heavens next to the throne of God” (Isaiah 6:2; I Kings 22:19; Daniel 7:10; Apocalypse 7:11), Christians similarly should not sit during divine services, but stand.
The custom that Orthodox Christians stand during prayer in church services is not only a representation of spiritual service in the Heavenly Church, but also in the Church of the Old Testament.
In the description of the blessing of Solomon’s temple it is said: “The Levites and all the singers, being arrayed in white linen and having cymbals and psalteries and harps stood at the east end of the altar” (II Chronicles 5:12); “All the congregation of Israel stood” (II Chronicles 6:2).
Another example from the Bible occurs in tile description of the reign of Josaphat. In order to protect his homeland from the Ammonites and the children of Moab, he “stood in the congregation of Judah in Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord before the new court. And all Judah stood before the Lord, with their little ones, their wives, and their children” (II Chronicles 20:5, 13).
Ezra and Nehemiah, speaking of the services of the Jews after the Babylonian captivity, say: “And they set priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the Lord, after the ordinance of David, King of Israel” (I Ezra 3:10); “And the Levites stood according to their rank and cried with a loud voice unto the Lord their God, and the Levites caused the people to understand the law; and the people stood in their place” (Nehemiah 9:4,5; 8:7; also Matthew 6:5).
To stand during prayer was thus it customary rule among the Jews, as is proven in their writings, in the manner of the Heavenly and the Old Testament Church, Orthodox Christians have maintained the custom, since apostolic times, of standing during divine services. The correctness of such practice is evident from New Testament scripture, where we find the words of Christ: “When ye stand praying” (Mark 9:25), and in apostolic tradition, where it is often proclaimed “Let us stand well.”
Christians, according to the apostolic teachings, all had to stand during the reading of the Gospel and the “Liturgy of the Faithful.” During other readings and homilies some would stand, others would sit. Tertullian, in the year 190 A.D., mentions the practice of standing during services. He says: “Some, in preparation for prayer, throw off their cloaks, and some think it their duty not to stand, but to sit, and we are not to imitate these. It is especially improper to pray while sitting at the very time that a multitude of angels stand before the face of the Lord in fear and trepidation; sitting shows that we are somehow praying unwillingly, carelessly, in a lazy manner.” Blessed Augustine, when discussing standing in church, says: “Moved by fatherly love, I have advised those who have an affliction of the legs, or are burdened by other sickness, that they should sit quietly and listen attentively during lengthy readings. But now even some of our healthy daughters think that they should do this all the time…. Even worse, they engage in idle talking not listening themselves, nor allowing others to listen. Thus, I ask you noble daughters, and implore you with fatherly concern, that none of you should sit during readings or homilies, unless a profound weakness of the body forces you to do so.”
In the early works of the Holy Fathers a reverent attitude during services was shown to be an important and sacred duty. In one such writing it says: “One must stand and not look around, nor lean against a wall or pillar, nor stand with a cane, nor shift one’s weight from one foot to the other.”
To stand before God and His holy saints during the church services is the only acceptable posture for the faithful, both for the ones who are serving, and the ones praying, for does a servant sit before his master? The faithful are all servants of the Lord, redeemed by His blood (Luke 17: 10; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20).
…The Apostle Paul says: “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith” (I Cor. 16:13); ‘Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth’ (Ephes. 6:14); “Stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved” (Phil. 4:1). If a Christian must always stand on guard spiritually over his salvation then he must do so even more during, the divine church services, which serves as an expression and an enrichment to private everyday service to God. If the spirit of the ones serving and praying strives toward the Highest, will it not also lift up the body which is subject to it?
Standing during church services shows us to be humble servants, ready, attentive and willing to serve God. Not unlike the Old Testament sacrifice: the faithful, standing and becoming fatigued during services, themselves symbolically become offerings to God, as the Apostle says: “Present you bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is you reasonable service” (Romans 12:1).
an excerpt from the book: The Concern of the Orthodox Church for the Salvation of the World by Rev. G. S. Debolsky. Translated by Maria Naumenko. website: Orthodox info.com

Nice catch, Richard Must have been a Freudian slip of my fingers. As I think about it, I do hope I’m flat on my face before my Maker, but we’ll have to see how it all plays out.
I’m not dismissive of tradition in general, but I do confess to being mystified by the sometimes good natured (and mostly not) hectoring that goes back and forth about various practices such as to pew or not to pew. Some seem to make every religious practice and tradition “essential” to their particular faith and that is all well and good, I suppose, but I wonder if it has as much to do with keeping a particular denomination or church distinct from others as any overt or covert spiritual benefit. In other words, what started out as a practice that was culturally inspired took on religious overtones when the various church fathers and mothers felt it needed more justification than “this is how it was always done it in Ninevah.” As for me, I certainly find manual labor of almost any ilk meditative in nature, and the physical discomfort that comes from bucking bales in 110 degree heat, or building a rock wall in subzero temps, or painting a house are all wonderful teachers. My friends think I’m a bit of a masochist in these regards, and maybe so.
Cheers

Having also come into Orthodoxy in a parish that used to have chairs in our rented space, I didn’t mind them. But then I attended services at the Cathedral in Dallas, and I remember thinking that his is how Christians should worship – literally gathered around their Pastor to hear the sermon, and standing with the Angels and Saints around the altar.
And also – we Orthodox believe in “full body worship”, which is greatly impeded by pews. I can’t imagine how Forgiveness Vespers, or the Canon of St Andrew or other services during the Great Fast can be properly done with pews in the way. This is, of course, not to say that those who cannot prostrate or kneel are not worshiping – but I imagine that they would choose to be able to do those things if they could.

I think I’m in the same parish as Geoff B. He wouldn’t have been there at the time, but in our old rented space, under our former priest, we had chairs. I didn’t mind them too much. But then I attended services at the Cathedral in Dallas, and I remember thinking that his is how Christians should worship – literally gathered around their Pastor to hear the sermon, and standing with the Angels and Saints around the altar.
And also – we Orthodox believe in “full body worship”, which is greatly impeded by pews. I can’t imagine how Forgiveness Vespers, or the Canon of St Andrew or other services during the Great Fast can be properly done with pews in the way. This is, of course, not to say that those who cannot prostrate or kneel are not worshiping – but I imagine that they would choose to be able to do those things if they could.
Mary

Please forgive the double post – I thought the first one had been lost.

Psalm 24:3
Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
Esdras 1:5
In accordance with the directions of David king of Israel and the magnificence of Solomon his son. Stand in order in the temple according to the groupings of the fathers’ houses of you Levites, who minister before your brethren the people of Israel…
4 Ezra.10:33
He [God] said to me, “Stand up like a man, and I will instruct you.”
Sirach 43:9,10
The glory of the stars is the beauty of heaven, a gleaming array in the heights of the Lord. At the command of the Holy One they stand as ordered, they never relax in their watches.
Mark 11:25
And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
Luke 18:13
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
1 Corinthians 16:13
Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Ephesians 6:13
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

1 Esdras 1:5
In accordance with the directions of David king of Israel and the magnificence of Solomon his son. Stand in order in the temple according to the groupings of the fathers’ houses of you Levites, who minister before your brethren the people of Israel…

I came from the world where worship was synonymous with a very polite rock concert and until about a year and a half ago, there was nothing in my experience that could have led me to conceive of a church without pews. After attending services at the cathedral in Dallas since then I cannot imagine sitting while worshiping during the Liturgy. Standing indicates active participation in worship.
The word passive used above to refer to sitting in pews is very appropriate, and the imagery of that quoted paragraph evokes patrons at an entertainment event; worship as a consumable commodity.

it is my experience that many in the OCA Diocese of the South are smug in their traditionalism. They look down their noses at pews, at those who don’t fast the way they do, at “cradles” who are a bit more lenient. At Greeks who kneel on Sundays. At those who — gasp — don’t do full prostrations!
There is nothing wrong with having pews. There is nothing wrong with standing, either. It’s only a problem for the holier-than-thou zealous converts who are always looking out of the corners of their eyes to see who’s doing what.
In my current parish we are not “impeded” by pews. We don’t have a problem doing Forgiveness Sunday. Everyone lines up across the front of the church. Sitting doesn’t mean you’re not active in worship. How dare you assume what is in someone’s heart as they sit? And how do pews get in the way of fasting?
Keep your pious practices, but let’s not boast.
By the way, did Vladyka make the Oklahoma parish near McAlester (name escapes me) remove their pews?

Rod, you show in your opening comments the common misperception that Eastern Catholics (not Eastern ‘Rite’ Catholics) attend ‘mass’. Latin Catholics attend ‘Mass’ (derived from the phrase from the Liturgy, ‘Ite, missa est’ in Latin) but Byzantine Catholics of all varieties attend ‘Divine Liturgy’, as do Orthodox believers.
Eastern Catholics are not ‘Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite’ or other mistaken and derogatory designations that attempt to equate Eastern Catholics with an imagined plot by the Roman Catholic Church to take over Orthodoxy by surreptitiously introducing Latin Catholics posing/pretending to be Orthodox in practice only but in other ways exactly the same as Roman Catholics and then drawing Orthodox away from their own Church.
I know you didn’t intend a bad meaning here – just trying to provide more accurate information. I also attend St. Seraphim Orthodox Cathedral in Dallas (rarely) and St. Sava Orthodox Church (often).

CC,
Funny, but in my experience, many people (especially converts from evangelical Protestantism) in the OCA are smug in their anti-traditionalism. They look down their noses at parishes with no pews, at those who fast, “cradles” who are a bit more ascetical and at the Greeks because, well, they are Greeks and therefore “ethnic.”
These kind of troublemakers pretend like they are freeing themselves from what they call “little t traditions” or “ethnicisms” when they are really just captive to their own traditions (e.g. resdiual Evangelicalism and xenophobia).

Dr. Kinder summed up the views of Alexander Campbell (of the Stone-Campbell Movement that brought about the Disciples of Christ, Independent Christian Churches, and Churches of Christ) in this way:
“He viewed kneeling as a sign of submission, standing as a sign of reverence, and sitting as a sign of nothing.”

Well, John, this was not my experience in a lifetime of membership in the OCA at St Seraphim. But I have not been there in 7 years. In my day “anti traditionalists” would not have been tolerated by Bp Dmitri. But there definitely were movements throughout St Seraphim’s parish history to strip away ethnicity — common complaint throughout the OCA — this coupled with things like Bp Dmitri’s stance on things like pews caused at least two major congregation splits at St Seraphim. These are the things newcomers like Rod are not aware of. Or, if they are aware,it’s all on the hush-hush. Just like so many things there.
Hank, the Orthodox are probably no more interested in Kinder’s or Campbell’s views on sitting than they are in the same men’s views on the sacraments. Irrelevant.

Personally, I remember when I was young and my feet were beginning to get tired from standing during a particularly long Sunday liturgy. I tugged on my mom’s sleeve and whispered, “My feet hurt,” and my mother said, “Well, then concentrate on the service.” Since my mom had never mislead me, I did so and still do so today. I’ve noticed, when visiting friends’ Protestant and Catholic churches since that day, that my mind tends to wander while I sit down and wait for their service to be over (yes, I know – heterodox in the extreme to attend, but I do not participate in any way). Even now, middle-aged, when I notice my feet or legs complaining about a service’s length, I realize that I’ve let my mind wander and refocus on the service in front of me. And guess what? When I pay attention to the service and am truly listening, I don’t notice my feet or legs at all! That bit of discomfort forces me to listen – with pews, my mind is absolutely free to ignore everything! I’m definitely on the side of pewless churches.

How funny that no one that has commented here has made the connection to “why” churches began installing pews.
Originally, the thought was that it is always physically possible to stand more people in a defined space than seat people in the same square footage. Fact
The next time that you have the opportunity to attend a full church service, take a good look at the ages of people in that church.
Good Christians tithe…..or some large amount of regular attendees do.
All of the people in that church that are under 50 years of age, are in some stage of raising and supporting families of some number of children.
To say children are expensive, no person would argue with that. To say that there will always be unplanned for future expenses with having children, no parent or grandparent will argue with that statement also.
Any organization, church, business for profit, non-profits need two different types of money: weekly and monthly cash flow from collection plates passed and tithes sent to the church are the funds that cover ongoing operational expenses…every organization must have that, and capital in large chunks which are necessary to pay those expenses above and beyond normal operating expenses.
The elderly that have lived through the child raising years and have lifetime accumulated capital have the option, that only the elderly can afford, of being able to give to churches in large chunks. Many of the elderly that have enjoyed the many benefits of their church over a long number of years want to help out their church with large donations they can afford to do toward the end of their lives. Many of the elderly will in their Wills leave large amounts, or sometimes ALL of their money and assets to their church.
In a churches’ square footage where 600 could stand, maybe only 300 can be seated.
The elderly can not stand for any long periods at all. Before pews, when standing was the only option, the elderly stopped attending their churches services at some point….for health and age restrictions that could not be prevented.
Pews in churches allowed the elderly to continue to attend their church right up to their death in most cases.
The big chunk money that comes into a church NEVER comes from the young….ONLY from the elderly.
In that church that used to stand 600, now seats 300 there may very well be only 20-30 elderly which have the money to leave the church upon their deaths, a chunk-sized amount of capital that equals or exceeds the combined tithing of 20 families for 30 years.
It’s just good business-sense, which is not the least bit sacrilegious to say. Chunk capital pays for additions, remodels, expansions of the church and enhances the number of future Christians which can enjoy that church.
The oldest people have the most money.
The oldest people can not stand.
Pews allow the elderly to continue their attendance until their deaths and their Wills are read.
Every organization created for any purpose has both continued operational costs to cover and must have capital infusions for major repairs or expansions.
Pews have made churches better for all ages
The pews are there for the elderly.
You young people can certainly stand an any church you choose if you believe it enhances your experience.
Old people don’t have that option and they have the big bucks they can afford to give.

Europe has mostly no pews. At 70, my joints are replacements. I only attended one parish w/no pews but some chairs, and the really extreme people came in shoeless, in poor clothes, ripped and dirty, did their prostrations and talked to no one. Problem was parishoners were unfriendly, even rude to priest’s wife and children because they didn’t like her; senior priest threw out suspected homosexuals couple times a year. People working in the hall were downright surly, very unchristian and never came upstairs for liturgy. I don’t understand the 50 days of standing until Ascension, Bright Week shud be enuf. Most of our people are over 60 or dead. Fast laws are monastic, we are not monastics! Byzantines fast 2hrs before Eucharist, no fasting over 70, and never a person skips Eucharist, and they sing great hymns. We Orthodox have 8 hymns in book, but only know 4. Children with toys in church make a lot of noise and motion. I went to a Russian Metropolia Church in S.F., never saw a prostration, but the best choir and riveting bass-voiced Deacon, few ever took communion. Ukrainians also don’t take communion except altar boys. Greeks are the worst, and totally ethnic- no water for Jesus at this well.

PEWS are forbidden in Holy Orthodoxy – no question. To sit during the Holy Mysteries is even blasphemous. How can we sit when the Cherubim and Seraphim are worshipping and prostrating before Christ the King of Glory.

Also our prayers are empty when we sit on pews: Why we pray; Let us worship and fall down….when we sit? Ha?? That is nonsense…

Pews were introduced by prostestants first (even they stood during prayer) – later the catholic church also introduced them.

And in recent years some modernised orthodox parishes also started to use pews (and other uncanonical things).

“Pews have made churches better for all ages”

1.) And u think in old russia or serbia, greece or romania – there have been no elderly people? What a silly comment.

2.) It was never easy to be orhtodox – remember the “NARROW PATH”. It is only a sign that our faith is week and that we do not want to give God the respect which is due to Him.

3.) Pews are against the Tradition of the Church – and so they are uncanonical. NO one is allowed to change Tradition.

4.) For about 2000 years orthodox christians stood during prayer – and now we are too weak to stand? Come on…are we so weak….

Funny that in our times gymns are full!

Like you, Rod, I am a convert to Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic Church. And like you, I have a strong aversion to pews in an Orthodox church. For me, they are, quite literally, obstacles. As you know, we worship with our bodies as well as our souls. We bow deeply, touching the floor with our right hands. We make full prostrations, kneeling down, placing our hands on the floor and touching our foreheads to the floor in adoration and repentance before God. Pews make these forms of worship virtually impossible. An open space also makes me sense much more that I am in communion with others, instead of separated or regimented.

Rod, I also live in Philadelphia. I attend The Orthodox Church of St. Elizabeth the New-Martyr in Rocky Hill, NJ, just outside of Princeton (a ROCOR parish with liturgies in English). Please send me and email to let me know where you attend.