The Pew Controversy-A Primer

Southern Baptists are a cantankerous lot. As the SBC approaches each June, word of possible resolutions begins to wind its way out of the 40,000 churches of the Convention. This year promises to be no exception.

Over the Founders blog, JBuchanan, who is leading the current opposition to the use of theater seating in the churches, has proposed the following resolution on Pews:

Whereas, our Baptist forefathers, both of the Sandy Creek and Charleston
traditions, upheld the use of pews in the church, and

Whereas, Noah and his family sat upon benches hewn from wood in the ark,
and

Whereas, the pew generates a sense of community and unity in the church,
and

Whereas, the pew by its uncomfortable nature lends itself to the resistance
of slumber, and

Whereas, the theater style seat represents a heretical gnostic influence
upon the church, and,

Whereas, Leonardo Davinci painted Jesus and His disciples seated upon
wooden benches in the "Last Supper" thus conveying the secret message that all
true churches use pews, and

Whereas, theater style seating represents the decadence and wordliness of
Hollywood, and

Whereas, if pews were good enough for Paul they ought to be good enough for
us,

Let it be resolved,That this convention call upon all of our churches to
burn all existing theater style seating in our churches, andLet it be resolved
that we publicly repent of our pewistic tendencies, andLet it be resolved that
any church that continues in pewism be removed for the fellowship of this
convention.

I thought I would make a few observations about the resolution here and provide some background into this controversy for our Southern Baptist readers.

As I pointed out to JBuchanan, Da Vinci was a paedopewist, so he may not want to go there. In addition, I believe Jeff Young put it well when he wrote,

“...BFM2000 was purposely drawn up in such a way as to leave room for Pewites
and Chairists. To narrow the parameters of cooperation in our convention to only
followers of Pewism is to go beyond your authority as a SBC messenger.”

We must be careful about this resolution. I do, however, laud JBuchanan for bringing this issue before the Convention after so long, and, for the most part I find it agreeable.

The Pewist Controversy has been going on since around 1900. At that time, the Landmark pews, who affirmed that the use of pews in churches goes back to John the Baptist, left the Convention to form their own denomination, the Landmark Pewist Baptist Church of America (LPBCA). The difficulty sustaining this historical thesis is quite evident. In what pew did John the Baptist sit? Did he hew pews out of trees for his listeners? How did he transport his pews? Jesus was a carpenter, did He make them for His own listeners? Where is that in the Bible?

In addition, most the groups using pews in the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene church were heretical groups. Will anybody actually consider the Pewlicans orthodox Christians?

This gets us to the early middle ages, in which the Fifth Slateran Council declared that sitting on pews made of oak slats is a means of grace, as they represent the rock on which we have built our houses and actually become the rock when the priest speaks the right words. However, as Zwingli, the great Reformer, pointed out so well, the pew is only a pew. It does not become the rock when we sit on it just because the priest says a few words over it ex operate pewterato. Luther, of course, with his doctrine of multivolipewsence (aka conpewstantiation), took a position between the traditional Catholic view and Zwingli. Calvin took yet another view, and agreed that the pew retains its natural properties, but it does become the rock with respect to the faith of the church when they sit upon it.

Traditionally, Baptists get their theology of pews from Zwingli and Bullinger. From this point to the 19th century and the Landmark Pew Controversy, there was little, if any disagreement, though the General Pewists believed that Christ wanted everybody to sit on them; but Particular Pewists believed that they were only made for the elect.

The Controversy occurred as a result of the rise of two movements. First, the hyper-pew controversy and then the Pewist Disciples of Christ movement, both of which nearly wiped out 19th century Baptist churches.

Hyper-pewists are still with us today. Essentially, they affirm that any pews that are not made from particular kinds of wood are all inventions of men and should be rejected. Largely a result of the reaction to the burgeoning Industrial Revolution, the hyper-pewists came to reject all mass produced pews. Today, the Primitive Pewists maintain the tradition of making their own pews. However, the Progressive Baptist Pewist Associations generally allow mass produced pews into their meeting houses. However, neo-Gnostic hyper-pewism is still with us today, and we must guard against it closely. This group believes God has provided no common pews for men and that only hyper-pewist are saved! In addition, many affirm one must have a warrant to sit, as if one can peer into God's electing decree to see if you are one of those elected for the pew.

The Pewist Disciples took a more free position on the use of pews, introducing the padded pew in the mid-19th century. As you might expect, many Baptists gravitated toward them, since they had more comfortable seating. Unfortunately, some of them have come to believe one must be baptized in a pew in order to be validly baptized. We strongly disagree with this as contemporary orthodox Baptists!

The Landmark pewists were the last on the scene until the late 20th century. Folks needed to know what church had the one true seating arrangement. Many Baptist churches had been devastated by the Pewist Disciples. The Landmark Pewists accepted mass produced pews into their churches and adopted the padded pew. This effectively wooed many back from the PD’s. However, when the Landmarks tried to take over the mission boards, saying that only those baptized in churches with their type of seating were validly baptized, the ensuing controversy caused a split in the SBC. We generally know this as the Down Pew Controversy or the Landmark Pewist Controvery.

The rise of theological liberalism largely served as a buffer between the pewists and non-pewists in the Convention until the Conservative Reformation, with the exception of the Back Row Incident of 1963, in which folks swore that a pew was hewn from a tree on the Grassy Knoll and placed in FBC Dallas shortly before the Kennedy assassination. Dr. Criswell was not amused.

In the late 80’s, Paige Padderson and Judge Pewsler began calling on messengers to elect more and more conservative pewists into leadership. The result was the development of two factions. The conservatives believed in a very wooden pew that had no flaws in the original blueprint. The more moderate faction accepted the padded pew and some affirmed that some designs may have some flaws. Because of this, they were often called “soft” by the followers of Dr. Padderson. If my memory serves, there was some controversy over the pews installed at SEBTS under Dr. Padderson as they seemed to have seats covered with animal skins gained from African safaris. In addition, many in NC and later in TX expressed concern that Padderson may be hoarding SBC cooperative pews in the presidential homes on each campus.

However, the two groups came together to oppose theater seating in the churches, issuing a joint proclamation of unity called the Pewist Peace Report. In the late-90’s, Rick Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Pew and the follow up book Seeker-Sensitive Seats, set off a storm of controversy across evangelical Christianity. As a result many Baptist churches got on board with seeker-sensitive pews, seminars for more effective seating arrangements, and then, following the new pragmatism, began fund-raising drives to raise money for installing theater-seats in their churches. The anxious bench made a reappearance in some smaller churches as well, angering the hyper-pewists, since this implied that serious Finneyism had reemerged, much to their consternation. This is where we are today.

So, for those of you uncertain about the history of this movement, I hope this primer has helped. Remember this, and sit up straight this coming Sunday.