I read this article yesterday asking the question in the title: What Does Your Pulpit (Or Lack of One) Communicate to the Congregation? As it happens, I don’t think it necessarily a bad question to ask. Everything we do communicates something. The key questions are: (1) what are we communicating; (2) are we communicating what we want to communicate; and, (3) are we communicating unhelpful things unintentionally? The question isn’t a bad one when it comes to the pulpit.

As you can imagine (if you are a long time reader of this blog), I will start with what is now becoming something of a catchphrase: this issue is not in the Bible and so cannot be mandated. Whatever your view on the pulpit, there is no mention of pulpits for Christian worship in the bible. Whatever your view on the pulpit, you cannot bind anybody else’s conscience concerning the use (or non-use) of a pulpit. Though the question ‘what does our pulpit (or lack of one) communicate?’ is not a bad one, we have to set it in its proper place: this is a cultural and pragmatic question at best, not a moral or strictly biblical one.

With that said, the question becomes a bit trickier when we realise it is culturally informed. That is to say, one sort of pulpit in a particular setting might communicate something that in an entirely different cultural milieu communicates an entirely different thing altogether. Communication is, to some degree, in the eye of the beholder.

For some, the old fashioned, high and immovable pulpit communicates less about the centrality of the Word than it speaks to the understanding that the preacher is better than everyone else, more important and he alone stands 6ft above contradiction. In some of those contexts, the vestments worn combined with the 10-minute homily do very little to undercut that view and do nothing to reinforce the importance of Word-ministry. Those who view those grand old pulpits this way may value what is communicated when the preacher, wearing ordinary clothes, ambles up to a flimsy music stand on the same level as everybody else. Such a setup can communicate there is a priesthood of all believers that includes both the congregation and the preacher and he is no more important than anyone else. Indeed, it is the Word – and not the man – that matters.

Others, seeing these grand pulpits in grand old buildings find they communicates that this is an antiquated, dead religion with nothing to say to the 21st century modern. Those who view the old-style pulpits this way may appreciate a sleek, moveable pulpit that implies to them that this church, preaching that old message, has something worth saying to us today. By contrast, there are those who view the grand old pulpits and buildings as evidence this ancient religion has stood the test of time and is therefore worth hearing. A modern, moveable lectern communicates to them that this church is more concerned with either novelty or pandering to modern tastes than it is with communicating the old (and necessary) truths of scripture. What is communicated is, again, in the eye of the beholder.

Some might see the old pulpits and immovable pews and find they communicate that this is a church with a one-track mind. They may be interested in preaching (though, it might well be they are simply interested in running “services” of some sort) but they don’t appear to be very interested in doing anything else. Such people might see moveable pulpits, moveable chairs, moveable tables and find these things communicate that – whilst church services may well be important – so too is evangelism and outreach and using our space to interact with the community around us we are called to reach with the gospel. These inference and cultural communications may be right or wrong, may be fair or unfair, but we cannot avoid they will communicate something largely depending on the inferences and cultural background from which different people come.

All of these things, of course, become quite difficult when you live and operate in a multicultural environment. Suddenly, what one person believes a particular setup communicates, another person doesn’t. In fact, the more cultures and peoples you have in the room, the greater the number of potential cultural inferences may be drawn. Sometimes, high and immovable pulpits might communicate a dozen different things at once – some good and some less good – to the multitude of people seeing it and drawing their own inferences.

Given all that, I think it is worth making four basic observations and applications. First, what your pulpit communicates is not mentioned in the Bible. If the issue isn’t mentioned in scripture, it suggests it isn’t that vital an issue so far as faith and practice are concerned. All of which is to say, I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about it.

Second, because almost everyone will draw their own inferences about what pulpits communicate, it might be worth our while trying to find out what the majority of people in our context think before we assume we know. At least then, once we know, we can act accordingly. Do most people think our old pulpit communicate the centrality of the Word or do they think nothing more than it makes us look twee and old-fashioned? Before we act on what we assume we are communicating (helpfully or otherwise), it is probably worth trying to actually find out from normal people what they think is communicated.

Third, people will draw their inferences regardless and unless we are fairly sure everyone is drawing the same inference, there is a limit to how far we can do much about them in and of themselves. If people draw contradictory inference from the existence of a pulpit, we can’t meet them both. At the end of the day, we either have a pulpit or we don’t. That will communicate helpfully to some and less helpfully to others. The bottom line is, we may just have to wear that reality.

Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, far more important than what we might communicate due to inferences people may make is what we actually communicate by what we say directly to people that leaves no room for inference. If we want to communicate that the Word is central, rather than worrying about the style and positioning of our pulpit that is open to wildly different inferences being drawn, it is surely better to simply say ‘the Word is central’, teach from the Word regularly, offer meaty substantial sermons consistently and actively encourage people to listen to the Word in order to be changed by it. Won’t specifically and overtly communicating the centrality of the Word do more for the centrality of the Word than hoping the inferences somebody might draw from the existence or otherwise of our pulpit – which are subject to cultural and personal interpretation – might communicate that more clearly? Rather than relying on inferences, we do better to overtly communicate what we think is important. We should say it, teach it and then model it rather than hope our architectural choices make the point for us.