Most Methodists recognize the value of three modes of Baptism. We do well to embrace the three postures for the Lord’s Supper. Each of the three relative positions of the presider, table, and assembly at communion are worth preserving. This essay will briefly discuss the unique contribution of each. It will not attack any of them. It will reference some of their shortcomings but only for the purpose of refuting them or demonstrating how they can be corrected. Most importantly, I recommend the final section, “How to Choose.”
Methodists received two postures for celebrating the Lord’s Supper through our Anglican heritage: facing east (ad orientem) and standing at the north side of the table (ad septentrionale latus — thanks to Drew Kane in the North American Anglican for allowing Northside to have a Latin name like the other two.) Together with Anglicans and many other protestants we received a third orientation from the church at Rome and the Ecumenical Movement of the 1960s following Vatican II: facing the people (versus populum)1. Each of these practices, when duly administered, are faithful means of administering the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Each accentuates unique aspects of the revealed character of God and the Biblical narrative. None of these three, when duly administered, contradict the revealed character of God or the Biblical narrative. Methodists would do well to recognize the value of each and encourage their use.
People Look East
With ad orientem, the minister faces the assembly when addressing the assembly and joins with the assembly in facing the liturgical representation of the presence of God when they are jointly addressing God. The location of the table2 (preferably with a cross behind, above, or on it) determines liturgical east and is the liturgical representation of God’s presence. The people face east in expectation of Christ’s coming again. (The table was likely consecrated for this purpose by an earlier generation. We could use more reminders that we worship in consecrated space with consecrated objects.)
By joining with the assembly to face east we do not turn away from the people at the table. In one sense, it is never possible to face the community gathered at the table. The celebrants stretch beyond this place to homes and hospitals of the parish. We gather with other communities, some in places that are less comfortable and safe than our own. We worship with the great cloud of witnesses and all the angels and archangels. While we cannot face all who are at the table, we can join with them all in a common orientation toward the anticipated rising Son.
While the ad orientem posture is known for recognizing God’s transcendence, it also emphasizes God’s presence. We turn together to acknowledge the One to whom we are speaking. We asked God to show up and we believe he has. People seem to have an innate desire to seek out and recognize God in our midst. Even in parishes where ad orientem has been banished for the last thirty-five years, you will witness a remnant of their collective memory calling the people to look east. Sometimes it is when the Gloria is sung. Sometimes, everyone including the pastor turns east during the Creed.3 Almost every Methodist church I attend still has one place where everyone faces the table. The Minister, the choir, and all the altar servers join with the congregation in facing their God. Unfortunately, it happens when the Minister is holding a plate of money high and lifted up.4 If this is the only place in the service where the Minister turns to face their God, then it miscommunicates the Biblical narrative.
In ad orientem worship the minister and people unite with the church militant, the church triumphant, and the heavenly hosts in reverent worship of a transcendent God who has deemed to make his presence known among us.
Look to the People
When the minister and people are facing each other (versus populum) it is often presented as the opposite of ad orientem. This ought not be so. The two are not in opposition to each other. They are in parallel. Versus populum is reverent worship with its own accent. I say this as one who never uses versus populum unless the circumstances leave no option. (We will address a method for determining which posture to use on which occasions at the end of this document.)
Versus populum imitates the gathering of the family for a meal. Its intention is to communicate the impression of a meal shared by Christ with his disciples. Just as ad orientem anticipates Christ’s coming by looking east, Versus populum worship anticipates his coming by focusing on the heavenly banquet. While we await his promised coming, we no longer need priests to make sacrifices on altars but ministers to distribute the bread of life and the cup of the new covenant at the table.
Criticism of versus populum for prioritizing the local community may be misplaced. The rite is intended to emphasize the sense of Christian community. We are a family by adoption. We share the common blood of the cross. The church is the body of Christ. To be sure, versus populum accentuates God’s immanence and the bonds of local community, but it need not neglect God’s transcendence nor the mystical community if administered properly. The problem is, few Methodists administer versus populum properly.
Too often, through the words and actions of a poor liturgy, the minister presents the rite as little more than a shared meal with the local community. Since versus populum liturgy communicates that this is not a sacrifice, the words must make clear the weight of the sacrifice that Christ has offered. Because it stresses the aspect of a shared meal, the words must make clear that we dine on the body and blood of Christ. His disciples are called to this table by Christ himself. It is our duty and joy to attend.
Moreover, the minister still needs to acknowledge the presence of the One to whom we speak by both actions and words. It is true that at a dinner party the host does not turn their back on the guests. It is also true that during table grace the host does not look at any of the guests and say, “Blessed are you, O Lord God, King of the Universe, for you give us food to sustain our lives and make our hearts glad.” It is further true that this is no ordinary meal but a sacred rite. Common dinner party etiquette does not inform our practice. The minister still needs to physically distinguish between an address to the people and an address to God. The minister must acknowledge God’s real presence by action and not ignore him through neglect. Most presiders at versus populum fall short here.
It is important to versus populum that the minister speaks across the table—not from in front it. It is too easy for this posture to make the minister the center of worship with table a mere accessory. When addressing God through prayers such as thanksgivings and doxologies, the minister stands boldly at the table, arms outstretched, palms up, with eyes toward Heaven. (This requires us to finally memorize the liturgy). For prayers such as confession or supplication, it is best that the minister bows over the table. The minister bows because if the minister kneels during versus populum they disappear. If one objects to these actions as being “too Catholic,” then I have some suggestions. 1) That is odd because modern Methodists received versus populum directly from Vatican II. 2) Do not use versus populum. Explore the other two options. It is likely you may be most comfortable with one of the forms of Northside. 3) To put it plainly, if your liturgy is guided by your anti-Catholic bigotry then perhaps you shouldn’t be a pastor at all. With all the faults that we can find with the Church of Rome, I will defend the proposition with anyone that the Catholics never in their cumulative history did the damage to the Sacrament that Protestants have in the last half century. Finally, the value of liturgical acts does not lie in who thought of them or how old they are. The value lies in their authentic conveyance of the character of God and the Biblical narrative.
Which Way Is North?
Northside is peculiar to Anglicans and Methodists. It has never been practiced elsewhere. There are three postures that can be referred to as Northside worship. One is nothing more than a rubric for the minister to stand to the left side of an imaginary line at the center of table. Otherwise, it is ad orientem worship. We will say no more about that. Another understanding places the minister at the north end of a long table with the people gathering about on all sides. In practice, this looks much like versus populum and could be appropriate for many situations today. The third from is the one that was common in Anglican and Methodist churches in the U.S. in the 18th and early 19th century. The minister presides from the North end of the table. As in ad orientem worship, the minister faces the people when addressing the people and faces the table when addressing God. As in versus populum, the minister never has their back to the people. While it is barely remembered today, I frequently have cause to use this form of Northside worship.
The original advocates for Northside did a poor job of preserving a record as to how and why they use this posture.5 It appears to be borne out of the fact that the lavaliere microphone and jumbotron had not yet been invented. The church needed a posture that would allow the pastor to be heard and the manual acts seen without the celebrant turning away from God. All the forms of Northside we mentioned make this possible. While Puritan elements may have had an anticlerical attraction to Northside, most of the other meaning and symbolism attributed to it seems to have been attached to the ritual after the fact. Though modern technology has largely eliminated the original need for Northside, we still have worship forums where the practical benefits of Northside are desirable.
The form of Northside that comes to us primarily through a Puritan influence has the minister presiding from the narrow end of a long table with the assembly gathered around on all sides, perhaps several rows deep. This originated in a time when churches did not have pews. It was used where the size of the congregation permitted. The posture allows everyone to see and hear the liturgy, and it diminishes the separation of clergy and laity. It is otherwise like versus populum. One can easily identify occasions where such a liturgy would be ideal.
Throughout the eastern U.S. we have many churches built toward the end of the Northside era (or which are modeled after them). The chancel is set off from the nave by a rail. The table is placed center behind the rail with barely enough room for an average size person to walk between the table and the rail. The table is backed up to a centered ambo which is on a platform one or two steps higher than the platform for the table. One cannot celebrate ad orientem because there is not enough room between the rail and table to perform the actions. One cannot celebrate versus populum because there is no place to stand behind the table. If the minister moves the table forward to the rail to stand behind it, then they have the same space restrictions as they did from the front. Furthermore, this closes off the path to move along the rail to distribute the elements. The only way to celebrate is by presiding from the north side.
Other than as means to celebrate ad orientem without completely facing away from the people, the reasons for the Northside posture no longer exist. Sound systems resolve the problem of being heard. A competent minister can make the manual acts visible from either ad orientem or versus populum. Unless it is a small parish that cannot afford amplification, the best option would be to redesign the chancel.
How to Choose
I accept all three postures as valid…when properly administered. Ad orientem, versus populum, and Northside (ad septentrionale latus — thanks to Drew Kane) each deserve a place in our liturgy just as sprinkling, pouring, and immersion belong in our Baptism liturgy.
I have a rule that has served me well when deciding which posture to employ on various occasions. I let the architecture decide. I do not fight against the architecture. If table is against the east wall, we celebrate ad orientem. If the table is sandwiched between a rail and an ambo, we will celebrate Northside. A freestanding table open all sides is suitable for any of the three. I always set aside my personal preference to cooperate with the architecture.
Imagine a person traveling to England who falls in love with driving from the right side of the car. When they return to the U.S., they decide to continue with their preference of driving from the right side even though the car is built to be driven from the left. They look silly, and it is dangerous. Ministers should understand that the same applies to us if we try to worship according to our preference when the architecture was designed for a different use.
I have witnessed ministers go through painful contortions to celebrate versus populum from a Northside table. They move furnishings around to awkward locations. They spin around juggling plates and chalices. They come in front of the rail and try to organize the flow of people in a space that was not designed to work that way. People are bumping into each other coming and going. The minister and liturgist are constantly shifting about. Replenishing the bread requires multiple people engaged in complex maneuvers. All of this just to avoid celebrating in the valid manner for which the church was designed. The same can be said about trying to force any posture into a space that was designed for another.
Please do not make matters worse by bringing out folding tables, or coffee tables, or whatever odd table someone dragged out of that abandoned Sunday School room. It looks ad hoc, out of place, and irreverent because it is. Remember, there is a table in the chancel that was consecrated for this purpose. Methodist ministers need to take care that we worship in consecrated space with consecrated objects. A minister refusing to use a consecrated table due to personal preference is detrimental both to themselves and to the parish. It is likely that you feel uncomfortable every time you do it and wish there was a better way. There is. Either celebrate the way the church was designed for, or if you are not going to use a table that was set aside to God for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, then gather the community, give thanks to God for its service, release it for secular use, take it out of the chancel, and consecrate a table more suitable to your preference.
Each posture is a faithful sacramental practice. Each can lead to material heresy when not administered properly. The solution is not to blame the posture but to correct the liturgy. Most Methodists can recognize the value of three modes of Baptism. We can also embrace three postures for the Lord’s Supper.
- This is the route through which the posture entered the Methodist community and most other protestant denominations. There is no record of its general use in Methodism or Anglicanism prior to this. Whether there was an ancient practice of versus populum that was forgotten by the West during the Middle Ages is not our concern. It has never been practiced in the East. Regardless, its value does not lie with its age but with its faithfulness to the Biblical narrative. ↩︎
- If you want to get persnickety technical, a Methodist church does not have an altar. We have a table. Nonetheless, I use the terms altar and table interchangeably in casual conversation. There are sound reasons for identifying the table as an altar, but rather than make the argument now, in this essay I will use only the term table for the sake of the persnickety ↩︎
- The practice of facing east for the creed is awkward and seems to have developed organically in the absence of coherent sacramental teaching. My assumption is that many of our ministers have conflated the creeds with some sort of pledge of allegiance. Understandably they would seek some object on which to focus their pledge. The cross and table would seem like the natural choice. However, the creed is not an address to God. This is not a vow but a confession. The confession is not made to God but to each other and the world. It is a confession by the community and each individual member of the community to the community as to the faith we proclaim and live in the world. It is an apologetic for the life we live. It is appropriate that the minister and people should face each other as they boldly confess the creed. ↩︎
- It is appropriate to turn east for any doxology, however when we choose to do so let us not have our eyes following the procession of the plate. The plate is not a processional cross. We turn east at the first note of the doxology and continue through the prayer. ↩︎
- I have the advantage of thrice living in communities where Northside was the norm. If you have a year or two with nothing better to do, try studying the history and theology of Northside worship. I am retired and can afford it. You will confront issues such as: Does a table have four sides, or two sides and two ends? Does it have two sides, a front, and a back? Does it have two ends, a front, and a back? If you are facing the north side of a table, are you really facing south from the north end and looking down at the north side immediately in front of you, or are you standing at the south end and facing toward the north side from there, or are you standing at the north end of the west side facing east and looking down at the north side? Why do we want to do this anyway? If any of this interests you, then after you are cleared by a therapist start with these articles:
J. T. Tomlinson THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TABLE – Church Society
Adam C. Young Why I believe North Side celebration to be important.
Drew Kane Presiding from the North Side of the Table – The North American Anglican
(If you can find an out-of-print copy) John R. W. Stott, “Why I Value the North Side Position” Church Pastoral-Aid Society (1963). ↩︎
Leave a Reply