altarhistory

The Christian Altar-Table in History
by Daniel T. Benedict, Jr.

The beginnings to the medieval period
The first Christian tables for the Eucharist were in homes which were the churches of the period.
They were made of wood and were identical with household tables used for domestic purposes.
Augustine (4th- 5th c.) refers to wooden Eucharistic tables and there is evidence that wooden
tables were still used in some churches as late as the eighth century. These first altar-tables were
normally free standing with the presiding minister standing on the far side facing the congregation.
This would change as we shall see below.

Over time, the favored material shifted from wood to stone. Celebration of the Eucharist in the
catacombs is often overplayed in Christian imagination and was the exception as the site of
Christian sacramental worship. However, the celebration of the Eucharist on the stone tombs of
the martyrs may have given rise to the growing adoption of stone altars.

When the Constantinian era began (early 4th c.) and the church could now build public spaces.
Altars were customarily built over the tombs where the apostles and martyrs were buried, perhaps
inspired by the reference in Rev. 6:9 (“I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for
the word of God.") The ideal was for the church to be brought to the martyr, not the martyr to the
church! In time, however, all dedicated altars had to have a relic of a saint or martyr included
under or in the altar top (mensa).

“From the fourth century altars were, in many instances, covered by a canopy [ciborium]
supported on four columns, which not only formed a protection against possible accidents, but in a
greater degree served as an architectural feature of importance.” (See the Catholic Encylopedia
article listed in sources.) I take that to mean that the covering added visual “weight” or presence to
the altar that was under the canopy. In the West the term more commonly used for this canopy
structure is “baldachino.”

Other emerging features related to the altar included

the chancel partition or rail, separating the people from the clergy seating (presbyterium)
and choir space (sometimes the choir space was also excluded),
the iconostasis or icon screen (especially in the East) decorated with icons or other art,
which fulfilled a similar function of dividing the altar and the priestly action at the table from
the congregation. In current practice in the West, these architectural features are
questionable and many see them as contradictory to the agency of the assembly as primary
celebrants in Lord’s Day worship by not allowing them to gather around the altar-table.

From early on the orientation of the church space was for the altar to be placed in the eastern end
of the oblong space (basilica). Even when churches were not so oriented the side where the altar
was located was designated as “liturgical east.” However, this practice was not universal and in
some cases the opposite orientation was adopted.

As a more finely diced look at altar orientation, liturgical scholars and historians use two terms: the
“westward” position and the “eastward” position.

The “westward” position of the altar-table refers to its placement in such a way that the
priest/presider stands on the "east" side of the table facing the congregation.
This position was customary until about the 8th or 9th centuries when the “eastward”
position (the priest/presider standing on the “west” side of the table facing in the same
direction as the congregation) was widely adopted.

“For centuries there was only one altar in each Christian church, but the celebration of private
Masses caused other to be added, the original altar being then known as the ‘High Altar’….”
(Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 40).

Before the 10th c. the cross and candlesticks were not placed on the altar, though the cross would
have been placed on top of the ciborium that canopied the altar.

Other related features for the altar included the reredos: any decoration behind or above an altar
including statues, screens, or tapestries. (See graphic at left.)

The Reformation
Protestant reforms in the 16th through 18th centuries generally moved toward simplicity and
rejected altars, especially those traditions that came to be known as “free church” and “low
church.” The “table” for the celebration of communion—often made of wood—was viewed as de-
emphasizing the Eucharistic sacrifice in preference of it serving as a place of memorial sharing.
Many American Protestant denominations, following this “memorialist” tendency invented and
widely used minimalist low wooden tables inscribed with “In Remembrance of Me” and often placed
on floor level with a large central pulpit on the raised platform that asserted the dominance of the
preached word over the sacramental deed.

The Wesley brothers (John and Charles) were high church Anglicans and undoubtedly celebrated
the Lord’s Supper at “eastward” altars (that is, they stood facing the altar with their back to the
people) and their hymns and writings (see The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley by
Rattenbury) use vividly sacrificial imagery and metaphors. They did not have the same revulsion
that some of the earlier continental European reformers did.

For an excellent treatment of the 19th and 20th century struggle around these architectural and
design concerns in one Protestant tradition see Karen Westerfield-Tucker's American Methodist
Worship (Oxford, 2001), pp. 253-256.

Present day altar-tables
The westward position has been gradually adopted in the Roman Catholic Church and other
churches that are attuned to the liturgical renewal movement. Since the Second Vatican Council in
the mid-1960s, Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopal and other mainline sacramental churches
have been making major shifts in their understanding and placement of altars. In my
understanding the norm for all sacramental churches in the West is the “westward” position.

Here I note a point of fundamental archaism in many Protestant churches that continue to have a
“eastward” position of their altar while using reformed rites of Word and Table that call for
“westward” positioned altar-tables! Many are aware of this conflict because they frequently haul
out a "make do" table to allow the presider to face the congregation. One wonders why these
churches don't go further and move or replace the "altar" with an "altar table" in the "westward"
position!

I have frequently used the hyphenated term “altar-table” throughout this "tour." I have done so
because I am very much aware of the recasting of our understandings of Christian worship and of
the dual dimensions

of offering to God our Eucharistic “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in union with Christ’s
offering for us” (language from the United Methodist service of Word and Table)
and of our sharing/participation/koinonia in a meal of encounter with the risen Christ and
with each other.

So “altar-table” emphasizes both of these. While various churches may more frequently use "altar"
or "table", I believe that it is safe to affirm that our respective churches and their rites understand
that both aspects are central to our understanding and practice of Eucharistic celebration.

I can think of no sacramental church tradition in North America that does not officially mandate or
recommend that the table of the Lord be free-standing (even in Orthodox churches, the altar,
though enclosed by the iconostasis is not against a wall). Certainly all Roman Catholic,
Episcopal/Anglican, Lutheran, United Methodist, Presbyterian and Reformed, and United Church
of Christ denominations now have rites for "Word and Table" that assume the “westward” position
of the table—i.e., the presider standing and facing the congregation across the altar-table.

Increasingly, worship space design and practice is for the people's seating to be close to the table
so as to have a sense of being gathering around it. The chancel rails and other partitions
“fencing” the table are being ignored or removed to “open up” the space and allowing the altar-
table to be uncluttered, visible and accessible to the assembly for its “full, active, and conscious
participation” in the celebration of the Eucharist.

Recovering full participation
The question of where to place the altar-table hinges on the congregation’s sense of itself in
relationship to the Paschal mystery—the central story of God’s saving action in the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ—and to their sense of their role in announcing and enacting the
Paschal mystery in liturgy and life. Though not his intent, Per Harling’s schema of the history of
worship offers a simple diagnostic tool for assessing the role of the altar-table in worship in our
respective church buildings. In his book Worshipping Ecumenically (World Council of Churches),
Harling proposes three historical moves (and I add my interpretive comments to the quoted
material):

• “In the earlier Christian churches worship was something done in memory and in praise of

the

risen Christ.” The focus was on experience and full participation. The whole assembly

enacted

worship and served God as a priestly people. The table was simple and accessible.

Worship

got into the people’s

neurons, muscles, and bones!

They ate and drank a real

meal together

around a table in a

domos

[

house

]

for the church, whether a house or a

basilica.

• “During the middle ages worship became something said in memory and in praise of the

risen

Christ.” The focus was on recitation and enactment by the priest. Worship got into the

people’s

eyes and ears

, but the table became more exclusively an altar and the people’s

role as active

celebrants was diminished. The result was clergy performance

oriented

spaces leaving the

people sacramental orphans and “outside” observers. Many present day

worship spaces built

in the first two-thirds of the 20th c.

aped this medieval vision of worship

(divided chancel, rails,

and “high altars”) in the design of the space for aesthetic reasons,

even though their theology

didn’t square with the sacramental understandings of the middle-

ages.

• “During the Protestant Reformation worship became something heard (and understood) in

memory and in praise of the risen Christ.” There was deep suspicion of sacramental action,

symbol and mystery. Worship was

cerebration

—it got (or was supposed to!) into

the minds

and thinking

the people. In Protestantism, by and large, the altar became a minimal table

for

memorial/memory of Christ without enacted encounter

(real presence)

with

the risen

Christ or with each other.

Using this schema, note the reduced levels of engagement and participation available to the
people of God. God’s table of meeting and altar of oblation got distanced, shrunk, and minimized!
Simultaneously the pulpits became central and larger. Thankfully, the liturgical renewal broadly
adopted is opening the way for the fullness of Eucharistic celebration and to creating or placing
the altar-table in the midst of the assembly as a space for “full, conscious, and active participation.”

The phrase, “full, conscious, and active participation,” has been widely used by Catholic and
Protestant liturgical leaders as a manifesto of what must characterize vital and faithful Christian
worship. (See The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council and Motu
Proprio of Pope Paul VI (Glen Rock, NJ: Paulist Press, 1964), 36). It certainly will serve us well as
we design worship space and give tough and thoughtful consideration to the “why, what and
where” of the altar-table as we renovate existing spaces or design new buildings for God’s people
today and in the decades to come.

Sources:
“History of the Christian Altar”—Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01362a.
htm

Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (second edition), ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone
(Oxford University Press, 1974).

“The Christian Altar-Table in History” copyright © 2007 Daniel Benedict/StrongCenterOpenDoors. Website: www.
strongcenteropendoors.com

This article may be printed, copied, distributed, reprinted in church bulletins or newsletters, or otherwise used for
nonprofit local church worship or education with the inclusion of the copyright citation and the www.
strongcenteropendoors.com website as its source. It may not be used for profit or republication without prior
permission. It may not be reproduced on another website, though other websites are welcome to link to it.

Please send comments to Dan Benedict at stlukebysea@yahoo.com.