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