# Is it right to sell seating right in church



## cupotea (Dec 14, 2006)

I understand Spurgeon sold some kind of seating right when he preached, is this practice biblical? especially in light of 1 Cor.9:18.


----------



## CDM (Dec 14, 2006)

Where did you learn this from?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 14, 2006)

duncan001 said:


> I understand Spurgeon sold some kind of seating right when he preached, is this practice biblical? especially in light of 1 Cor.9:18.




I've been reading Spurgeon and things about Spurgeon for years. I've never read or heard about that untill now. Could you please post a link to any story about this practise.
God bless and keep you.
Visited you homepage. Wish I could read Chinese!


----------



## jaybird0827 (Dec 14, 2006)

Hey, doesn't Rome do this? I had a friend back in high school who used to make jokes about trying to squeeze past the "seat money box" inconspicuously.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 14, 2006)

It's a common practise in some of the mega churches and thier special protracted meetings.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 14, 2006)

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/whoschs.htm

Spurgeon's ministry at the commodious Tabernacle was attended constantly by capacity crowds of more than 5,000. The church found it practical to distribute free tickets to those who wanted to attend, assuring them seats in the very large auditorium. Many who came without tickets hoped to at least find standing room, else they would request tickets for another time. The members were encouraged to alternate their visits so as to accommodate the crowds of people anxious to hear the lively sermons delivered at the rate of 140 words per minute, 20 words more than the average rate for public speaking! Thousands of hearers testified to having been converted under Spurgeon's ministry, while thousands more told of being saved by reading the printed sermons.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 14, 2006)

Paying for seats was a common practice for centuries...the reason they have the "Free Methodists" etc. There used to be pew boxes...each family had their own and the making of were paid for by the family to the church on top of tithe. When I was a child and visited a UMC church (my brother and I attended alone and it was in walking distance till my parents could locate the nearest IFBchurch and their bus ministry). I was informed the next day at school that the other children's parents paid for their pews/use thereof. And that I was not welcomed back unless my parents put out also.


----------



## cupotea (Dec 14, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I've been reading Spurgeon and things about Spurgeon for years. I've never read or heard about that untill now. Could you please post a link to any story about this practise.
> God bless and keep you.
> Visited you homepage. Wish I could read Chinese!



I got this from chapter nine of Spurgeon, a new biography written
by Arnold Dallimore, who I trust as a reliable source.(could I ?)

Sometimes I wish I could read English better


----------



## JonathanHunt (Dec 14, 2006)

duncan001 said:


> I got this from chapter nine of Spurgeon, a new biography written
> by Arnold Dallimore, who I trust as a reliable source.(could I ?)
> 
> Sometimes I wish I could read English better



Duncan, you can trust Dallimore. His biography is the best, short yet comprehensive work available on Spurgeon.

The concept of 'pew rents' was commonplace up to the Victorian era. I don't know when it really died out. That did not mean, of course, that you had to pay to go to church, but certain ppl paid for particular pews for their families. The admission to the Tabernacle was by ticket in Spurgeon's time. I am sure it had to be, if not only to control the numbers going in. The members did pay for their tickets (tiny amounts) but I also believe that this was to a large extent (especially for the poor) their giving to the Lord's work.

JH


----------



## Timothy William (Dec 15, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> Paying for seats was a common practice for centuries...the reason they have the "Free Methodists" etc. There used to be pew boxes...each family had their own and the making of were paid for by the family to the church on top of tithe. When I was a child and visited a UMC church (my brother and I attended alone and it was in walking distance till my parents could locate the nearest IFBchurch and their bus ministry). I was informed the next day at school that the other children's parents paid for their pews/use thereof. And that I was not welcomed back unless my parents put out also.


Sounds like you had a lucky escape.  

My problem with paying for pews would be that it allowed the exchange of money for influence within the church. While I can see the benefits as far as fund raising and orderliness are concerned, it seems inevitable that those with a greater capacity to pay will buy higher status seating and a more prominent position, leading to greater influence in weighter matters concerning the running of the church.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Dec 15, 2006)

it was common not only for pew rents

see:
http://www.nyapc.org/history/?name=Pew Rents


> An apt example at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church is the matter of pew rents. Pew rents were the principal source of financial support for the church during all of the 19th century. The archives of New York Avenue contain pew rental account books from that century. Each family paid a quarterly rental fee for a pew in the sanctuary. Families who sat closer to the front paid more, so it was clear to everyone who were the most prominent -- if not the most joyful -- givers.



but it supplied essentially the largest single source of income to a church.

locked doors on the ends of the pews are still seen in historical places like Boston's old north church picture of lockable pew door at:
http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/PFR1434.php 

there are 58K hits on google for the words "pew rental receipts" including pew rental books at historical libraries, auction notices with old pew rental receipts etc.


the curious thing is that the past is so distant to much of our culture that people don't even have knowledge of such things which are only a few generations earlier.

the *Free Methodists* were "free" not only for no pew rentals but no slavery (free soilers) 
free from hierarchical church ties and freedom in worship styles. 
see: http://www.freemethodistchurch.org/Sections/About Us/Basic Info/FAQs/FAQs Main page.htm

but the most important factor was free pews.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 15, 2006)

I think the book of James settles this issue for me - it ought never to have been done.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Dec 15, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> I think the book of James settles this issue for me - it ought never to have been done.



i'm a bit surprised to see strong postings on issues like this.

Don't you think that the generations, yes generations of American Christians who used pew rents to raise money for their church thought about the issues, read the Scriptures to see if they were Biblical, and prayed sincerely for guidance? What is it with the self centeredness of modern Christianity which doesn't think that anyone in the past was quite as consistent a believer as they are?

The issue was driven by the disestablishment of the church during the Revolutionary historical period. The church had gotten used to getting all of it's money from taxes*, what options do you think they had in the changing social climate of the late 18thC? Look at how it was graduated, how families paid pew rentals on the same pews for generations, how seating was done after a certain hour to fill up the pews and set all the strangers. Don't you think that they ever read James themselves?

The Free methodists begin in 1860, about 150 years after the practice is well established in all the American churches. Don't you think that someone in those 150 years asked the question "is it Biblical?" and since it continued the majority of people answered Yes?

why do we always think that our culture is smugly superior to the past? that no one in the past had quite the grasp of things as do we? and that no Christian in the past was quite as consistently Christian as are we? isn't this just a bit historically myopic and egotistical?

shouldn't those who benefit from something (sermons for instance) also be the ones to bear the burden of paying for it? is voluntary giving really Biblical as the sole means of support for a church? why don't we ever subject our cultural ideas to Biblical scrutiny like we look at our ancestors and blame them for not being more Biblical. Has anyone found an essay from these times, or in the intersection between switching from pew rentals to free will offerings where good theologians defended either the new practice or the older one? what were their arguments and how did they justify pew rentals in the face of say James? or do we condemn their practice without really doing our homework and seeing what they really said about the issues?

Yes, Christians are often culturally blind, i have only to read the thousands of sermons defending slavery i have on my book shelves, or to reread Dabney for the dozenth time to realize that, but our age really isn't all that different, we are just blind in a different way.

on an associated topic. what do you think our ancestors and fathers in the faith would think about our culture's reliance on advertising? what do you think that they would say about church's advertising on TV and radio? or even broadcasting sermons on the airways? sermons separated from the person of the pastor, separated from the issues of the congregation, how could you do such a thing? just indescriminately send out words meant for specific ears in the pews for just anyone to hear? what do you think that they would say about the Biblical basis of our society's reliance on advertising for substantial pieces of our media and information dissemination apparatus?


notes:
* pew rentals seem to develop in the Boston churches first, it looks as if the disestablished denominations start with it in the first quarter of the 18thC. It reaches a peak in the crisis of the late 18thC and the systematic disestablishment of the state churches in the wake of the Federal disestablishment. How many ways did churches raise money? i've evidence that it was the major means of income at least in urban churches up to the unCivil War.


----------



## Timothy William (Dec 15, 2006)

Richard Williams, you raise some good points. You are certainly right that, where possible, we should not condemn a point of view before we have fully examined the arguments in its favour. It is also true that, if a certain practice has been advocated or engaged in for a long period of time, there are probably some arguments in its favour, even if they are not immediately apparent, and that we should seek to understand them before dismissing them. Much intellectual (and theological) triumphalism could be avoided if we kept to this. 

However, there comes a point where the weight of scriptural evidence, and the lack of universal acceptance, and the lack of confessional backing, leads to a switching of the onus of proof from those who would disparage a certain practice to those who would uphold it. Many of us have wondered at the Church of Rome, and have been amazed at her clearly unscriptural practices, and have heard blatantly unbiblical justifications for them, and have thought something like "can't you see? that is so obviously wrong, according to the Bible. A child could see that." Yet sometimes the thing that is most clearly wrong is the hardest thing to disprove. The man who shows where it is clearly condemned in scripture sounds like a simpleton, while the one with a complex argument, drawing on both scripture and practical considerations, sounds like a learned, level headed, judicious man. Sometimes we must engage in deep doctrinal discussions on a certain point, and sometimes we muct see that one side of the argument is correct, and move on. 

An interesting corollary would be whether or not it is wrong to charge for online access to sermons and other material. My first reastion is that it would be allowablw, but if one were to insist upon a categorical condemnation of fees for pews, it would be slightly awkward (though, I think, not impossible) to justify fees for online sermons.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 15, 2006)

Richard Williams;

I like the past and will go see an optomolgist to see if I truly suffer from the historic myopia that you describe. But, for me, this issue seems pretty clear..I am glad those days are gone.



You also wrote:
"...is voluntary giving really Biblical as the sole means of support for a church?.."

Just what else do you have in mind?




You also made the great point:

"....Has anyone found an essay from these times, or in the intersection between switching from pew rentals to free will offerings where good theologians defended either the new practice or the older one? what were their arguments..."

This would make an excellent search. ANYONE?




You also wrote in your last post:

"...shouldn't those who benefit from something (sermons for instance) also be the ones to bear the burden of paying for it?..."

My one concern is that the church is a voluntary organization... we don't charge member fees the las time I checked. 

....And, if it came to it, I would rather sit on the ground or stand than be charged a fee to buy a pew to hear the Free Grace of God. I give voluntarily to pay the pastor and if member fees were incurred I would go back to the NT pattern of usually meeting in a home.





How does the regulative principle play into all this?







p.s. this reminds me of a song from my pre-saved days by Metallica..."...make your contribution and you'll get a better seat..."


----------



## Kevin (Dec 15, 2006)

rmwilliamsjr said:


> i'm a bit surprised to see strong postings on issues like this.
> 
> Don't you think that the generations, yes generations of American Christians who used pew rents to raise money for their church thought about the issues, read the Scriptures to see if they were Biblical, and prayed sincerely for guidance? What is it with the self centeredness of modern Christianity which doesn't think that anyone in the past was quite as consistent a believer as they are?
> 
> ...



 

Great post! Except for the bit about the rev Dabney--we all know that he is (almost) always correct


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 15, 2006)

Agh! I left out a very basic reason for the pew rents in regards to the family boxed kind....there were coal heaters in the boxes for the winters...it helped pay for the coal also.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 15, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> Richard Williams;
> You also wrote:
> "...is voluntary giving really Biblical as the sole means of support for a church?.."



Is it really voluntary when your choice is to pay (money that you may not have) or be brought before the magistrate for non attendence (common in the early days of this country) or even simply break God's law by non attendence.




> You also wrote in your last post:
> 
> "...shouldn't those who benefit from something (sermons for instance) also be the ones to bear the burden of paying for it?..."



Again, leaving out those that may not be able to afford such things.


> ....And, if it came to it, I would rather sit on the ground or stand than be charged a fee to buy a pew to hear the Free Grace of God. I give voluntarily to pay the pastor and if member fees were incurred I would go back to the NT pattern of usually meeting in a home.



Ditto


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 15, 2006)

I must also relate this to a modern day situation...

Want to know why the cults are claiming many and we are but a speck to look at (I'm not speaking of salvation or election...I'm speaking of how we spread the gospel). It is because of this issue right here...your mention of paying for sermons etc. For every good, generally reformed, message or book on Christ, the home, etc that is paid for...I can show you where hundreds of similar materials from a sect or cult are being given out for free...in the forms of books, CDs, tapes, etc.

Examples
Vision Forum CDs on the home ($10-14 each) - Charity's Godly Home Series (FREE including shipping)

Presbyterian magazine subscription of your choice ($$) - The Heartbeat of the Remnant and their Missions Magazine (FREE) (I'm sure the JW's stuff is also the way it's passed out)

Many Bible Studies ($$ for your books) - JW's will come to your home, books included.


Just something to think about.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 15, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> I must also relate this to a modern day situation...
> 
> Want to know why the cults are claiming many and we are but a speck to look at (I'm not speaking of salvation or election...I'm speaking of how we spread the gospel). It is because of this issue right here...your mention of paying for sermons etc. For every good, generally reformed, message or book on Christ, the home, etc that is paid for...I can show you where hundreds of similar materials from a sect or cult are being given out for free...in the forms of books, CDs, tapes, etc.
> 
> ...



This is one of those things that makes you go Hmmm.


----------



## gwine (Dec 15, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> Many Bible Studies ($$ for your books) - JW's will come to your home, books included.


Actually every time JWs have come to my door they have asked for money for their publications. But your point is well noted. I wonder, though, if Scientology gives its material away.



> 1Co 9:17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship.
> 1Co 9:18 What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.
> 
> 2Co 11:7 Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel to you free of charge?
> ...



The Gospel is offered freely, though it cost our Lord dearly, but the ministers should be supported by those who have the means to do so.


> 2Co 8:1 We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia,
> 2Co 8:2 for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part.
> 2Co 8:3 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will,
> 2Co 8:4 begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints--
> 2Co 8:5 and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us.


I'm with Trevor in my myopia. We have enough of people judging others because of the way they dress and the like not to keep James in mind. It is hard to see the justification for buying a pew, although Colleen's comment about paying for the coals has merit. It is hard to imagine the services back then as I sit in my padded and climate-controlled environment, squirming around because I am *too* comfortable.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 15, 2006)

We must keep in mind in this discussion the historical origins of this practice. For years churches had no seating at all. People stood or squated or brought stools from home. This was the universal practice in the west well past the end of the middle ages and into the time of the reformation. 

Remember Jenny and her stool? Did yoiu ever wonder why she had a stool in church? She had it so she could sit down because the churches did not have pews or seats of any kind.

The rich would bring in elaborate chairs carried by servants the poor would stand or carry milking-style stools. The transition to fixed pews happened slowly and was expensive. 

It is not dificult to imagine that many who advocated this inovation (of 'official' church supplied seats) would cite James as a justification for charging pew rent as a way to to avoid the trouble warned of in James. So don't be to hard on our fathers they read the same scriptures and tried to live by them as do we, only in a context we can hardly concieve of.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 15, 2006)

An interesting tid bit from www.churchantiques.com:

*Pews and Status*_

From the 1600s through the mid 1800s, Churchgoers of most denominations were seated in their houses of worship according to social rank, whether by assignment or purchase. This expressed a nearly universal Christian perception of social rank as part of a divinely ordered hierarchy of creation. The highest ranking pews were close to the pulpit, the lowest furthest from the pulpit. Private pews gave rise to the practice of numbering pews for easy record keeping.

Some pews were set aside as general seating for special groups. Details varied according to town, location, date and circumstances. Variants included reserving seats for adolescents, the poor, widows, the hard-of-hearing, and black people.

These last were called Negro Pews. These pews were sometimes numbered, sometimes labelled "free" or "Negro."

*Negro Pews in 19th Century America*

In the USA there would also be pews for the use of black people (free or enslaved) and Native Americans. 

Often the Negro Pews would be in upper galleries, as far as possible from the pulpit. White people would be appointed to oversee or monitor them. Apparently slave owners had to purchase pew space for their slaves in their churches, just as they did for themselves.

From the 1840s to the 1930s churches gradually shifted from private pews to free and open seating, giving rise to the term "free church". Old pew numbers and labels were usually left in place._


----------



## BertMulder (Dec 15, 2006)

It is still the practice in many (Dutch heritage) Reformed Churches, such as the Netherlands Reformed.

Families pay for their assigned seating, and will insist on their right to sit there, even if they come right before the service starts.

There is a light in the front of the church that will be turned on perhaps 5 minutes before the service starts to indicate that visitors can now find a seat amongst the ones still left empty. They might still have a fight though if they sit in some late comers seat, although the custodian will then, hopefully, rule in their favor.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 15, 2006)

BertMulder said:


> It is still the practice in many (Dutch heritage) Reformed Churches, such as the Netherlands Reformed.
> 
> Families pay for their assigned seating, and will insist on their right to sit there, even if they come right before the service starts.
> 
> There is a light in the front of the church that will be turned on perhaps 5 minutes before the service starts to indicate that visitors can now find a seat amongst the ones still left empty. They might still have a fight though if they sit in some late comers seat, although the custodian will then, hopefully, rule in their favor.


A good way to keep visitors out of your church.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Dec 15, 2006)

in looking for more information i found:

at:
http://www.materialreligion.org/documents/dec96doc.html


> Like many American churches, St. Pauls Evangelical Lutheran Church in Chicago had been dependent on pew rentals to support its work throughout much of its history. But economic changes (in particular, wartime inflation and post-war depression) and social changes (including a greater number of young adults away from their families) led the church to institute a pledging system in 1919. Several years later the church started using offering envelopes, described as "The New System" in "St. Pauls Boat," the church newsletter, in March 1924. (The church, located in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood, is now known as St. Pauls United Church of Christ.)





> But a few years ago, all members in good standing paid their pew rentals and as we could then control more readily this once very beautiful custom, we had no difficulty in raising such income, as was necessary to continue the church's ministrations. Even today we have a large number of members who pay us their pew rent once a year and consider their duty done. On the other hand, we are glad to announce, that we are bringing into the church a new constituency, which makes regular and liberal church support its conscientious aim. Many of our members have taken our monthly envelopes and make consistent use of them, thereby enlarging on monthly income.



and interesting metaphor from a UUA website
http://www.uua.org/cde/largechurch2001/keynote.html


> - Children's Sunday School: Rendle commented, "The teachers who were at the Sunday school week after week [in years gone by] doesn't exist any longer. We are struggling to get over the pew rental process, where you supported the congregation by renting a pew. And you were there every single Sunday. Part of our congregation has a pew rental mentality. Now we are doing ministry with time share people. And as we are doing education with our children, and we have curricula that depends on them being there every week, we find that they are showing up two out of four Sundays a week. So how do you put pew renters with time share people?"



the oldest reference from:
http://anglicanhistory.org/neale/pues.html
is a must read attack on the use of pews, with an excellent historical survey.


> In all this contest, the introduction of pues, as trifling a thing as it may seem, has exercised no small influence for ill; and an equally powerful effect for good would follow their extirpation. Hence it is that, from the first moment of our existence as a Society, we have declared an internecine war against them: that we have denounced them as eye-sores and heart-sores; that we have recommended their eradication, in spite of all objection, and at whatever expense: that we have never listened to a plea for the retention of one; for we knew well that, if we could not destroy them, they would destroy us.





> In Bishop GrostÍte's injunctions, (1240), it is ordered, that the patron may be indulged with a stall in the Choir. And in the twelfth chapter of a synod at Exeter, holden by Bishop Quivil in the year 1287, we read as follows:
> "We have also heard that the parishioners of divers places do oftentimes wrangle about their seats in church, two or more claiming the same seat; whence arises great scandal to the church, and the divine offices are sore let and hindered: wherefore we decree, that none shall henceforth call any seat in the church his own, save noblemen and patrons; but he who shall first enter shall take his place where he will."





> After this, the freeholders appear to have erected the pues at their own private expense in this church.
> At this time the fashion prevailed of providing the pues with locks. Bishop Earle says, of the 'she precise hypocrite': "She knows her own place in heaven as well as the pew she has a key to





> And about this time Bridgewater church would appear to have been pued.
> In 1635, the first vigorous opposition was made to pues by Matthew Wren, then Bishop of Hereford: a man whose name will be to all Churchmen {Greek text} a ktema es aei. He might perhaps have been acquainted with the innovation in his Diocese to which I have just alluded. In his Articles, (III. 10) he asks,
> "Whether doth any private man or men of his or their own authority erect any pews, or build any new seats in your church? And what pews or seats have been so built? at whose procurement, and by whose authority? And are all the seats and pews so ordered that they which are in them may kneel down in time of prayers, and have their faces up to the Holy Table? Are there also any kind of seats in the Chancel above the Communion Table? or on either side up even with it?"
> And again, "Are there any privy closets or close pews in your church?" (like those, I suppose, which I have just mentioned at Stoke Castle.) "Are any pews so loftily made that they do any way hinder the prospect of the church or Chancel? so that they which be in them are hidden from the face of the congregation?"
> ...





> In 1641, Dr Pocklington, already hated by the Puritans for his Sunday no Sabbath, published his Altare Christianum. In the second edition of this work, he inserted the following passage, which is not to be found in the first:
> "The practice of piety was then (in the Primitive Church) performed in kneeling before the Saviour and Redeemer. The stools they had were either none, or none but fallstools, to come and fall down and kneel before the LORD. [This etymology is, I need not say, more pious than correct.] Ambition to step up into the highest rooms and seats, and there to enclose and enthronize themselves, was confined to pharisaical feasts and synagogues; holy men and good Christians had no such custom in those times—sought no such state and ease—nor did the Church of God. The Churches of God did and do detest the profaneness that is and may be committed in close and exalted pews."





> We have seen then that pues were supported by puritans and attacked by churchmen. We must now enquire into the reasons of this fact; for it is a mistake to suppose that it was only the love of comfort and ease, and a pharisaical desire of separating themselves from their neighbours, which led the former to uphold,-and only a zeal for the beauty of GOD'S houses which induced the latter to denounce them; besides these more obvious causes, there were other as substantial at work on both sides.
> It must be remembered, that in an age when the Bishop's Injunctions to Churchwardens were so stringent, and when a presentment for contumacy involved consequences so serious, that those who were determined on disobeying episcopal authority were at least willing as much as possible to conceal their disobedience. And pues afforded them an excellent method of doing so.


it is as much an attack on the puritans as it is a history of pues, but it is certainly interesting reading.
via vector was: http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1660/08/05/

there is a history and analysis of church financing at:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...ew+rentals&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=63&ie=UTF-8
with a short piece on pew rentals


> Pew Rentals:
> Pew rentals resulted in a system where those who attended Church were able to support the
> Church and this proved to be a popular system with the decline of tax income. Those who
> were serious about Church and rich could buy premium pews (those at the front) and those
> ...



the holiness movement and free methodist have the most developed criticism of the system.
from: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...w+rentals&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=123&ie=UTF-8


> One of the key results of this embourgeoisement was the estrangement of the churches
> from “the new masses.” The new urban poor no longer felt welcome in the established
> churches. The churches were well aware of this estrangement and often lamented it. Yet,
> their attention seemed inexorably fixated on the upper classes. Martin Marty quotes the
> ...





> he building of this church came only three years after the approval of “pew rental”
> as a means of fund-raising within the Methodist church. In the coming years, Methodist
> churches increasingly turned to “pew rents” as a means of raising the necessary income for
> such facilities. Several scholars have written on the effect which this fundraising method had
> ...





> 2. Worship Facilities. Not only was relevance the case with their worship
> atmosphere, but the very facilities used by holiness people for worship were intended to say,
> 
> Page 9
> ...



a few pieces of information.
synagogues had pew rentals as well, as did roman catholic.
the system that replaced it is often called the "envelope system"

"the rental of a Church pew qualified one to vote in elections of the pastor"
from: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~george/johnsgermnotes/germhs83.html
so it often functioned as the equivalent of a poll tax as well.

well, i'm off for other things. still no theological discussions of value found. but i find myself glad that our church uses chairs and i sit in the back row....*grin*
share what i've found so far.
plus i asked for help on another board.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 15, 2006)

rmwilliamsjr said:


> i'm a bit surprised to see strong postings on issues like this.
> 
> Don't you think that the generations, yes generations of American Christians who used pew rents to raise money for their church thought about the issues, read the Scriptures to see if they were Biblical, and prayed sincerely for guidance? What is it with the self centeredness of modern Christianity which doesn't think that anyone in the past was quite as consistent a believer as they are?
> 
> ...



Well said. This is true for so many issues between past and present.


----------

