Comments on: David Wells and Starbuck Pulpits

By: coastalpastor

coastalpastor — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:54:07 +0000

Is it possible that the symbol (pulpit) ends up being treated as though it is the reality that is being symbolised (authority of the word)? How far away is that from idolatry?

By: John

John — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:34:51 +0000

I love Wells, but I think he is pushing a tad far here, especially regarding the pews. There is nothing that pews have inherent in their symbolism that is absent from chairs except perhaps a certain communal dimension (although, I would argue this was somewhat accidental to why pews came into vogue — which was their economy, not theological meaning). If Wells were to make the argument on those grounds: that is, that the removal of pews is problematic because it symbolizes a shift from the community to the individual he may have something there (although, I fear he might well be reading a bit much into that most of us would affirm is a pretty nice and natural improvement in furnishings and nothing much more).

His comment on the pulpit I think merits some warrant. The lack of pulpits in modern sanctuaries tends to indicate an elevation of the person of the preacher and heighten the performance aspect of the sermon (the preacher is freer to move, his gesticulations are clearer, etc). Furthermore, the loss of the pulpit is also part and parcel of the death of manuscript preaching. I think there are benefits to outline and manuscript preaching, but manuscript preaching certainly does tend toward a greater care for words, phrasing, and thus theological precision. So, in part, the loss of the pulpit symbolizes a shift in the typical preaching style. And that is a fair enough critique. As Wells himself says: this is nothing to die on any hill for, but something to certainly be aware of.

By: jbstarke

jbstarke — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:24:30 +0000

Sam, well I don’t think Wells is necessarily putting too much emphasis on the physical if you read the whole interview. Just giving an excerpt might have been misleading. He is using Historical Theology to help him interpret trends and movements. He is fearful of not putting enough emphasis on the importance of the sermon and preaching in the life of the church, which I tend to agree with. One thing that I do want to think further on is that these figures, like a pulpit did have significance because it elevated the proclamation of the Word of God, and I’m wondering if the disappearance of these things shows that our emphasis is moving away from the importance of the that proclamation. Anyway, if you have never read any of Wells, you should. His stuff is very thoughtful.

By: WWW - 29.06 « A Steward of the Secret Things

WWW - 29.06 « A Steward of the Secret Things — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:30:46 +0000

[...] of the week must go to David Wells on Satanism, Starbucks and other Gospel [...]

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:53:41 +0000

interesting thoughts. Although I think maybe the author is placing too much emphasis on the physical things that are changing in the church and not enough on the fact that the churches that are focusing more on the “human connection” are sacrificing the truth of the gospel to do it. For example, Joey Butler doesn’t use a pulpit and people sit in folding chairs and bleachers but you can bet that the truth is preached. I think the bigger problem is not that the church is trying to appeal to a broader spectrum of people but in the way that the Truth is being watered down and pushed aside to do it. i think i have reached a good place where i can finally stated that I truly dislike mega churches (which is where we see a lot of this taking place).