SHOULD CHURCH PULPITS BE A FOCAL POINT AND ELEVATED?

Doug Groothuis thinks so and writes passionately:

I have noticed that as churches embrace more of popular culture, especially in worship forms, the pulpit disappears or is lowered in elevation. . .  We need a theology of the pulpit. The Word of God is above us. The preacher should explain and proclaim and defend Scripture as true and holy. He or she is a servant of the Word and should be a deep student of its truth (2 Tim 2:15). There is, therefore, good reason for the pulpit to be central and raised up, since Holy Scripture is central and exalted. . .

We are creatures of place and symbol. A low, small, pulpit (or even a music stand, which I hate with a perfect hatred) does not communicate authority or transcendence. Of course, a bad preacher in a good pulpit is a bad preacher still. Yet, the pulpit itself speaks, both to

the congregation (not an audience) and to the preacher. If you climb up into it, you had better be ready to deliver Spirit-led, biblically faithful words of truth.  [more. .]

Me:   Is Groothuis cranky or does he have a point?   At first, not much of what he said registered with me.  But the more I've thought about it, the more I find myself agreeing with him.  He's right: we are indeed "creatures of place and symbol."   Wouldn't a preacher mounting a pulpit sense (if for psychological reasons alone !) the solemnity and weightiness of his responsibility before God and man more deeply than one putting notes on a music stand?  The same goes for the congregation.  I recall my experience in a lovely little Episcopal Church.  When the preacher mounted the pulpit, the congregation recognized we had come to the part in the service specifically and uniquely set aside to hear the Word of God.  Now that I've been attending a more informal church, I discover via Groothuis's post that I had actually forgotten the former sensation of solemnity and expectancy associated with "receiving" the sermon.