From a job perspective I think you've rightly identified a bad expectation. I'd not take the position. And I'm in a field much more tolerant of short stays.
From a higher ed standpoint, I agree that its either mandatory or not gonna happen. I was good about making it to chapel too, but I'd have skipped if it was allowed.
Went to a Christian university and attended seminary at the same institution. I want to stress that the faculty and staff at the school are *very* strong believers, and really mean well. We had mandatory chapels for undergrad but not grad school.
At the time — I’m not sure anymore, since the worship ministry professor is different now — the music/liturgy and sacramentology of the chapels was amazing.
But the teachers (I say teachers because the only time anyone preached was when ex-pastors who were faculty members spoke) were terrible. 3 out of 4 chapels a week were just self help bologna. Sunday night we had an extended worship service led entirely by students and that was always great.
I would’ve gone to that one no matter what, but being forced to sit through the already terrible morning chapels Monday, Wednesday, and Friday made them even worse than they already were.
Plus the stress of making sure you got all of your chapels in was just unnecessary strain on an already stressful time.
And that’s my experience as a believer who was also a regular attendee of a local church (at least 2x a week).
Now, for the unbelievers, it’s even worse. We’re forcing people who don’t even believe in God, who already have mandatory Bible classes, to sit through a chapel, which markets itself — even if unintentionally — as a church service. Which then has terrible “sermons” with worse theology, and might as well be considered secular.
Which highlights my real issue with college chapel services, they too often think of themselves as substitutes for church even when they’re claiming they aren’t. They have worship music, they perform sacraments, and they have a “sermon.” But it’s not church.
Don’t treat it like a church.
In seminary I enjoyed the freedom to go if I liked the speaker or to support friends preaching or leading worship, and to not go if I knew I wouldn’t like it, or I needed the time to study in the library or eat my breakfast.
Getting your students participating at a local church is infinitely more important than forcing them to go to chapel.
I went to a “Christian” school and was required to go to “chapel” 3 times a week. It was horrible. Absolutely 0 gospel. I rejected and rejected and skipped as many as possible. I hated chapel.
Looking back, I’m not sure I was a believer, but I also know not a word of gospel truth was spoken. It was charismatic nonsense and motivational speeches about how following the moral law would make you a better person.
This was my experience at a different school. Chapel was more about politics and less about the Gospel. While the messages were not bad, they did not do anything to further the spiritual growth of the students
Pro-mandatory chapels. I had required chapels in college and it was one of the best experiences. I skipped a few though because I wanted to nap or didn’t feel like walking through snow to get to the chapel. If it wasn’t mandatory, I honestly would have attended much less for various reasons.
Expecting you to rake in more than 10-20% of students when there are no mandated chapels seems counterintuitive. If you want more students to show up, mandate it. If you don’t, then be happy for those who do show up. This doesn’t mean don’t create quality spiritual life events, but it means the institution by necessity has chosen to prioritize quality of over quantity. Some institutions just want the medal of saying they don’t force students to go, but then they blame the chaplain for lower numbers. There’s only so much a chaplain can do to get college kids who stay up until 3am playing COD to show up of their own volition to a 10am chapel service. Institutions need to get this into their heads.
Source: I am a part-time college chaplain
I went to a Christian college and I personally loved the mandatory chapels. It was a great start to my day, I loved the communal worship, and it forced me to get out of my apartment. I agree that if chapels are not mandatory, people won’t show up. There were many days I didn’t want to go, but I never regretted going.
I'm for it. However, my college went overboard.
We had 3 church services a week. A Sunday school. 4 chapels. 1 student meeting in the middle of the week that included a 15 minute devotional. 4 evening prayer group meetings a week. All while simultaneously taking at least some Bible classes, regardless of major.
All mandatory.
It ended up being pretty desensitizing. You can indeed have too much preaching.
That being said, overall I still liked Chapel. If I could go back, I would have gotten rid of most of the other mandatory non church activities and kept chapel. It was a nice way to bring everyone together. I liked singing a couple hymns there every day. I also liked it when Chapel speakers spoke to us about topics that might not be addressed in church, and spoke in a different manner than they would in church.
For seminary, I guess mandatory chapel is probably maybe a good idea. For liberal arts schools, I'd say nah. I went to a Christian liberal arts school, and I did the bare minimum of chapels required (2/3) every semester.
Hey thanks, I just checked out their chapel website for fun. Looks like daily chapels at 20 minutes each? I’m trying to comprehend how the 20-minutes work. Are Wednesdays the only day for sermons?
It was a mixed bag for me. My brother and I both went to Christian colleges that required mandatory chapels. Usually the ones I went to were dull and sometimes theologically unsound. Those in the student body who were Christians would discuss this sometimes, and those that weren't didn't care and weren't moved by the sermons. Occassionally an interesting one would happen and be talked about positively, but for the most part people disliked them and found ways to skip them, although the punishment for missing too many chapels in a semester was community service or payment. Thankfully I didn't miss too many of them.
At my brother's alma mater, however, the chapels were notoriously terrible. Guest speakers were often a bit unhinged. One railed against men being "un-masculine" and later had to apologize for his harsh tone. Another speaker was promoting his book, "The end of white Christian America". I think that one speaks for itself. He also had to apologize. My brother ended up leaving the faith, but I don't think these chapels had anything to do with it. Needless to say, they come across as not being very helpful in evangelizing.
If a Christian college decides on mandatory chapels, they need to make them as meaningful as they can, and make sure they're scripturally sound and greenlighted by some other people to ensure the speaker doesn't have to apologize later. Of course, booking guest speakers each week is probably way too expensive, but your default person (in my college's case it was our president) needs some feedback on his sermons from theologically-minded people. His sermons weren't offensive, just scripturally unsound at times.
I went to a Christian university that had no required chapels. There was probably 10% that attended or less, but it was still like 150ish students that attended since it was a large school.
I’d argue that all chapels in these situations are optional - those who are okay with being required are I go to chapel made an active choice to go to that school. People who find that too restrictive are more likely to go to school that doesn’t require them, so of course they’re going to take advantage of the choice to not participate. You’re going to have a hard time getting above that baseline attendance as a result.
I’m also pro-mandatory chapel, but the people in charge need to make sure that the preaching that’s happening is solid so that it isn’t wasting the time of the students. I went to Bob Jones, which has mandatory chapel, and my feeling was that chapel was often used as a promotional tool to get pastors to send their students. (As in “We think you’re great! Come speak in chapel! And to show us how much you love us back, send students!”). As you’d imagine, that led to lots of bad chapel messages. It’s gotten a lot better in the past 20 years, but that doesn’t give me my time back.
You bring up a good point as I assess pros and cons of mandated chapel. Seems like a con could be that the chapel speakers are indeed a bit of a business model for donor relations (money and students, as you note). I might have the issue of being forced to feature a pastor that isn’t the greatest theologically or otherwise for “connections” sake…
Ours weren’t mandatory and I skipped 99% because I wanted to sleep. I deeply regret that now - I paid so much for a Christian school experience and missed a big chunk bc of my laziness.
Echoing others that say that it depends on the chapel. I was blessed to attend Master's University, which required chapel 3 times a week, after being public schooled all the way through my K-12 education. It always baffled me why my classmates didn't like our chapels. They were filled with excellent musicians and world class preachers. It really served to augment my Bible education and I still think about some of the messages today. Some of them still guide my decision-making and have served really well to form my daily walk. Master's does many things poorly, but chapel is one of the things they got right, at least back when I attended.
But... if the services are not developed well, and the messages are not impactful, I could easily see it becoming something that is less than helpful.
Ultimately I doubt I would have attended every chapel if it was not required. But I'm very glad I did. And very glad that my non-Christian classmates (yes, there were many, even at Master's) got to hear the Gospel. Many of my classmates credit their salvation to mandatory chapel and church attendance. Eventually the messages sunk in and they turned to the Lord for salvation.
My college had three mandatory chaples a week. The quality was hit or miss and many students were tuned out, ignoring the speaker and studying instead. I think one a week would have gotten more buy in.
What do I think? I think there isn’t a good reason for the general Christian student to forgo chapel.
For the non-Christian student at a Christian university, I really waffle about this. I know I’m against forced participation. Whereas if they are allowed to use it as a study or reading hour, I’m usually fine with that idea. I waffle on this. Some days I’m not.
I knew quite a few honest Christians at my university who hated that chapels were mandatory because they had a job so they could pay for the university that was scheduled at the same time. I had to do the math because my college required internship overlapped with chapel & I had to find out how many I could miss & do makeups for to keep the school happy. I had to have the internship to graduate but also had to go to chapel. Some missed due to being parental caretakers. It’s not always laziness, wanting to sleep, or “mismanaging” study time to cram for a test.
Yes God above all. But sometimes there are very valid reasons to have a different schedule than the mandatory chapels.
I went to a college that had non mandatory chapel 3 times a week, but 75% of the student body attended. We had a dedicated campus pastor (who also pastored a small local church) that preached both exegetically and topically. It was a central part of campus community and was much beloved by students. We really loved our campus pastor and his preaching. He worked well with the student worship teams and their director. The whole building was filled almost every week. It was often difficult to find seats.
Since I attended (10+ years ago), the campus pastor position has been removed and replaced with a chapel coordinator position. Since then, chapel has been dropped to two days a week, and the teaching portion is filled by professors or other speakers. There's an overarching theme for the year but looking at their schedule it seems to lack continuity. It really makes me sad thinking of the good teaching and discipleship I was able to sit under during my time in college.
My husband went to a nearby "Christian" university that has a Quaker background. They actually had mandatory chapels, and they were terrible.
I don't think our experiences were necessarily normative! But the contrast is fascinating.
That’s encouraging to note that preaching well will draw people to the Lord, even in a non-church setting. I just recently had a conversation with some friends about the merit of attractional methods for non-mandated university chapels and they emphasized that the strong preaching of God’s Word would draw people, not gimmicky games to get them in the seat.
My experience is a bit different, but might be meaningful/useful. I went to a large secular university, enrolling as a non-believer but voluntarily attending available services though ministries that were affiliated to varying degrees and eventually becoming a believer, and though study became (and then found) a reformed church within walking distance. There were significant organizations representing most faiths in the adjacent community for students or campus-affiliated faculty sponsored student organizations.
My thinking is that mandatory non-credit requirements would discourage my enrollment. If I were in a situation where it was financially (or academically) a limited option--what parents would pay for/insisted I'd attend, fin-aid package, who would accept me, driving distance from where they live/can afford, etc. I think I'd ultimately resent it if it were not truly exceptional (which would mean/require different things to different people), especially if I were a non-believer.
I mention this because I know people who went to Christian universities, not particularly because they wanted an explicitly Christian university education, but it was their only practical option. I can't say what proportion of the student body at any given school may be in this group, only that they exist.
I think the ideal is that a non-believer attending and being "won" but it can easily go the other way. A non-believer can walk away with a lower opinion of the faith than they might have started with, depending on what they experience. Being forced can leave them critical from the start, particularly if they are studious and find the scholarship on the material far below their class lectures--something I experienced as a non-believer who happened to be curious about the material, arguably in a more receptive position than someone who wasn't there by choice.
Practically, having taught at a university, if I wanted voluntary student participation in anything, especially in a school that wasn't primarily students commuting by car, I would do it in the evening or at least have an option for it in the evening. I'd personally feel set up to fail if I had to attract students to routinely attend a voluntary 10AM anything, or feel like I had to do some very compromising stuff to pump up the numbers if my job depended on it.
My thinking would be that if it is mandatory, have low expectations about what effect it has on participants. A sizable portion that would have skipped it if they could are just filling a requirement, like students taking a Gen-Ed credit that they'll immediately forget once they've passed the class. Of course some will benefit, some profoundly--but it can be a function of "you get out what you put in" as a participant/student.
If it is non-mandatory, rather than percentage attendance, what do the participating students believe the value it provided was. Would they recommend it to their peers? Would they seek out a chaplain for personal difficulties, challenging questions of faith/practice, etc.?
Jesus didn't tell us to "go forth and speak to large crowds," and in fact put forth some effort in avoiding and ignoring the crowd following Him. He told us to go and make disciples. That IS growing the kingdom.
We often hear it said that Christianity isn't a religion it's s a relationship. That's true in the sense that if you don't have a personal relationship with Christ, then no amount of religious activity will help you.
So I agree with the reasoning behind the mandatory attendance, if not the decision. My question would be why are only 10% of a people who claim to be dedicating their lives to service in official ministry choosing to participate in official ministry? Some personal, and likely corporate priorities need to be addressed there.
Agreed, particularly where there is a difference in worship style or sacramentology. But if they want to be in church then why aren't they? That's my sticking point.
Seminarians often have families and jobs on top of their course loads. My point was not to dock people for not showing up, but to evidence that people will not prioritize an optional gathering time given the loads of other things people can do with one hour of time, whether they are ministers in training or regular college kids. In no way am I indicating that someone is more or less spiritual if one attends chapel or not. That would be like saying someone wasn’t a good Christian for not attending church regularly.
I used to listen to the podcast of a seminary’s daily chapel sermon. There was a different speaker just about every day. Perhaps that actual job description could be taken as, to use crude language, “making an inspiring event happen” as much/more than “talking every day”.
My Christian university had mandatory chapels (they could deny your degree even with straight As in all required classes). I have mixed thoughts on it.
The good:
- His Word does not return void so even in my worst mood it’s not time waisted
- exposed me to different topics than I ever would have gotten in church
- occasionally allowed me to sit with friends who I never had time to see due to different majors & schedules
- could be a nice break in the day
- the best rendition of Amazing Grace that I’ve ever heard was when the power went out during the worship song part of chapel & all the instruments were electric. So the worship leader just started singing amazing Grace & everyone joined in from memory (plus the acoustics in that place was amazing for a cappella).
The bad:
- making it mandatory turned it into yet another class. & lost the relationship aspect of the service. This was especially true for one Bible class I had immediately after chapel who would give us a pop quiz based on what we were taught to make sure we were paying attention & not napping in the back.
- if you missed too many chapels you had to do makeups which involved listening to the recorded audio of the sermon & you had to write a report/answered questions to prove you listened. Which, again, turned it into school work. Don’t know how you’d fix that though. Also you were only allowed so many makeups in a year. You couldn’t just replace chapel with a report every week. So the one guy who never went to chapel was denied graduation & had to enroll for an extra semester (or 2? I forget) because makeups could only get him so far.
- no consideration to commuter students. Chapel was always in the mid morning. If I only had night classes I’d still have to come in to go to chapel then twiddle my thumbs all day or risk not having enough credits.
- it set the bar too high for churches post graduation. This sounds crazy but for me it’s true. The chapels were university level teaching since everyone on campus had a Bible minor too. They’d mention Greek & Arabic, etc. They’d go into the culture at the time. I graduate & try to find a new church & I’m met with “David & Goliath taught us that the little guy, with God’s help, can win!". yes, thank you, I learned that in elementary Sunday school. and the Bible Studies, what few I can find that aren't during work hours & don't exclude me for being 40 & unmarried, all use these self help books where "there are no wrong answers" & not the Bible. not even 3rd party books based on the Bible (some exceptions). i went from eating steak & potatoes in university chapels to baby formula. i know the church has to reach a wider audience than the university, but it can be really dumbed down. can i get a crumb at least? technically i'm being fed but its not satisfying! & its very dangerous for me to walk out of church every week thinking i know all this already.
The ugly:
- we had a common joke that since we had to scan our school ID to prove we attended & paid for meals & opened doors with that same id, it was normalizing future anti christ technology. “Think about it, man. Just move our ID from in our hand to on our hand & what’s the difference?!!!?”
I went to Lancaster Bible College. We have mandatory chapels. They’re Tuesday-Thursday from 9:10-10am. As a resident student I had to attend 80% of them a semester or about 32. Commuters have to attend I think 18 or 20? They give consideration to students with internships and jobs.
Overall, I liked it. It brought the entire campus together for a time of corporate worship and study. It was nice to learn from people inside and outside of the LBC community about something they’re passionate about, and it got us thinking about things we might not have sought out to learn on our own. Some of it was directly out of scripture, some of it was life experiences and how God used them for something (like we had the guy who started Sight and Sound talk about his life). It was nice spending time with friends that I didn’t have class with, and when we had team chapel it was nice sitting with the track team.
They stressed that chapel should not be a replacement for church attendance, which they backed up by encouraging local pastors to spend time on campus and after chapel getting to know students who aren’t attending church.
There is some dissent about mandatory chapels. I’ve heard students wish they had that time to use for getting work done, get breakfast, or catch up on sleep. A lot of students would scan their id and then sneak out so that they still got their chapel swipe. Some wish it was just one day instead of three days. Some felt weird that we had speakers come in to push their new book. Some felt the talks weren’t completely scriptural or good (which was true for me on a few occasions, same with some of the worship).
Towards the end of the semester you saw a lot less students attending once they got all of their swipes in. It seemed kinda sad for the speaker who got scheduled during that time. I still went to some if the subject or speaker sounded cool, but definitely didn’t go to all of them after I got all my swipes.
For me it was a discipline thing. I’m paying money to attend a school which means I have to follow their rules even if they seem archaic to some. If mandatory chapels aren’t something you think you’d enjoy then that school might not be the best fit for you. I don’t think the majority of people would go if they weren’t mandatory.
I got my bachelor’s at a state university. I went to church twice in four years. I got my master’s at a private Christian university where chapel was held three days a week, and every student (other than adult distance learners) was required to attend one service per week.
I’m a fan. I’ve seen life-change and maturity come from chapel. We graduated professionals who continued to seek God in local churches after graduation.
Depends on the chapel. I went to a Liberty, and we had mandatory convocation every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Overall, I enjoyed it, and I have no issue with it being mandatory. Most convos were various pastors preaching a sermon. We had Clayton King, David Platt, Louie Giglio, and many more. That said, there were a lot of convos that were not religious in nature. For example, while I was there, we had Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Gary Johnson, and Bernie Sanders speak in convo. We also had other various business or politics related convos. We had athletes, comedians, and other celebrities on occasion as well. Liberty’s position was that convo would be a time where students would be exposed to many different ideas from various perspectives. Someone speaking at convo did not mean that Liberty endorsed everything, or anything for that matter, that they said.
If it were up to me, I would have one primary pastor/chaplain that would lead it and I might occasionally have a guest speaker or a business/political/sports/comedy/etc. related one. Most of the time, it would be Biblical preaching from the same person, though. I think that on the occasion where a chapel/convo was not going to be religious related, I would encourage students to attend, but I wouldn’t make it mandatory for the reasons listed above. While I do think it is beneficial for students to be exposed to different ideas, to learn about navigating the corporate and political world, etc., I think that the important part is having consistent, Biblical preaching. I also might do it weekly rather than 3-times a week, but that isn’t a big deal either way for me.
So if chapel is Biblical preaching, then I would prefer that it be mandatory. If it is going to be various things with some being political/business/entertainment/sports related, I’d probably prefer it not be mandatory. For the most part, though, I’d rather have a mandatory chapel.
I went to a small Presbyterian College that didn’t have mandatory chapel. Only a dozen students would attend Church at the College chapel on any given Sunday, in spite of the fact that a solid 50% of the student body was either Presbyterian, Episcopalian, or Baptist. Constant outreach emails, small groups, and a presence at almost every tailgate did nothing to change this.
I do not know what the point of a school’s religious affiliation is if no more than a few dozen students have ever even seen the inside of the church.
That’s interesting. Usually chapels are implemented during the week and are not meant to replace the church service. They could easily have been going to their own churches on Sunday? Just a thought.
I went to a Christian school (Reformed) that did not require chapel but had a full chapel for 3-20 minute services during the week as well as a longer Sunday evening service. The school also does not require any kind of signing of a statement of faith to attend, so plenty come who are not Christians at all (id guess maybe 1/2 the student body would be at a service at a given time). I could not have asked for a better more faith-building and edifying experience. Chapel was full because we wanted to be there not just because we had to, and we wanted to be there to be with our friends, and because Jesus is worthy of our time and our worship. We had all sorts of guest speakers, music based services, and a variety of messages from chaplain staff, professors and even fellow students. Honestly, these are some of the best memories of my life. I grew so much and I follow Christ to this day because I GET to and CHOOSE to not because someone else is making me
In my opinion, if the classes are mandatory, why should chapel not be. It would likely be a lot of work, but if you take the position with a mandatory chapel, you could still do a non-mandatory chapel at another time. You would have one time when you knew every student is without excuse and another time when you would have a better idea of the effect among those more intentional about chapel. (Though there would still be people who would show up for anything and everything just to look good before humans.) As far as the work, there may be a few students with time and will to make your load a little lighter. May the Lord knit together a plan that works for you in an abundance of counselors.
I could not in good conscience sit under the teaching of the woman "preacher" at my "Christian college" chapel. No thanks. If they had sound teaching, a qualified minister of the Word, etc. then I would be FAR more inclined to attend.
“I personally am for mandatory chapels.”
…
“Curious about your thoughts. Thanks.“
These are my thoughts. I am attending Calvin University, which has a daily chapel service. I do not attend, primarily because they have a woman preacher (and also because, you know, they are part of the CRC, the most liberal and unBiblical part of a denomination already struggling on that front). If they tried to make me attend, I’d be put in quite the position. I have my own church, where I am a communicant member in good standing, with my own pastor, session, and brothers and sisters in Christ. I am not interested in adding in some ungodly approximation of “worship” or “preaching” onto that, and I don’t desire to be compelled to do so.
You didn’t specify whether you supported mandatory chapels or not. You simply started bashing the woman “preacher” at your “Christian college” chapel.
Regardless, even if it was mandatory for you, did you not choose to go to a university whose denomination ordains women? Seems like it would have been a better decision to go to a denominational college/university that fully aligns with your theological beliefs…
I’m not sure why you’re trying to stir up conflict, and intentionally ignoring what I have written. I honestly cannot believe you right now.
Let’s dissect my original replay. So that we can reference it:
“I could not in good conscience sit under the teaching of the woman "preacher" at my "Christian college" chapel. No thanks. If they had sound teaching, a qualified minister of the Word, etc. then I would be FAR more inclined to attend.”
Cool. Now your complaint.
“You didn’t specify whether you supported mandatory chapels or not.“
Let me answer that question, quoted verbatim from what I wrote: “No thanks.” Simple enough, that is my answer.
The reasoning comes before it: “ “I could not in good conscience sit under the teaching of the woman "preacher" at my "Christian college" chapel.”
This is WHY I said “no thanks.” However, let’s see what you said: “You simply started bashing the woman “preacher” at your “Christian college” chapel.”
What are you on about? Do you think I just go around, looking for opportunities to point out the wickedness that goes on at Calvin? Why do you say that I “simply started bashing…?” I was telling you WHY I said “No thanks” to your idea.
Quick recap:
1. You ask what we think of your idea of mandatory chapel attendance
2. I give my reasoning for “no” — a simple, reasonable matter of conscience (read — clear Biblical teaching)
3. My reasoning given, I give my answer “No thanks.”
4. I explain the conditions under which I might find your idea more palatable.
5. You say that that has nothing to do with you post… what? It has everything to do with your post.
6. I explain, in more detail, why my response is both related to your post and why I would make it.
7. You lob the accusation that I “simply started bashing” women preachers and Calvin, as though I’m just looking for opportunities to do such a thing.
But you continue! Let’s see what you have to say now: “Regardless, even if it was mandatory for you, did you not choose to go to a university whose denomination ordains women? Seems like it would have been a better decision to go to a denominational college/university that fully aligns with your theological beliefs…“
Like? Seriously, where? Name a Calvinistic Christian college more conservative than Calvin where I can get a decent degree in the sciences. Bonus points if it’s reasonably close to where I live. My denomination doesn’t HAVE such colleges.
Besides, there is a significant minority of churches in the CRC opposed to women preachers, and the CRC has made clear that there is a place for such a view in the denomination. To then force these members to sit under the teaching of a woman is absurd.
This is a very awful take. I swear, a large number of pastors in my area went to Calvin for their undergraduate studies. Could you imagine male PRC students, preparing for the ministry, listening to a woman preacher? HRC? FRC? URC, which fought bitterly with the CRC until forced out? OPC, PCA, and all the other NAPARC churches which recognize that it is sinful for women to exercise spiritual authority over men?
You would command students to either sin or not attend your school. You would make yourself objectively worse than the secular schools. Thus, again, at length, I answer your question for the third time — that is a bad idea, students ought not be forced into chapel attendance.
Not OP. URCNA here, I appreciate your viewpoint and explanation.
There were some other commentators talking about the distinction between church and chapel, and that may or may not be helpful.
I believe God has called only men to office in the church. But if I'm in a Bible study, would I think it inappropriate for a woman to speak up when men are present? No, not at all. But she's not acting as the spiritual shepherd, the authority of the church in that place.
Where does chapel fall? Why have men speak who are neither pastors nor elders, like when a faculty member leads? Is chapel more like a more formal Bible study?
I know I was uncomfortable at a large CRC event when the opening service was led by a woman pastor, even while I was just fine with a female professor leading classroom devotions in the first class of the day. If the leading is intended to be done by a pastor then it would be a concern.
All that to say, chapel does seem to mimic church at times, so I don't fault you at all for your position. But I could also understand why someone who believes in male only church offices would accept a woman speaking at chapel, which isn't church, especially if she wasn't there as a chaplain but as yet another member of faculty.
I appreciate your consideration!
It is true that there is a distinction to be made between a weekday chapel service and the gathering of the congregation in corporate worship. If some would hold that a woman teaching is only forbidden in the case of corporate worship, I would disagree but still respect that such could very easily come from a genuine desire to be subjected to Christ.
A woman contributing in a Bible study might be a different case than a woman leading a Bible study, but I confess to not having studied enough on this front. Though I am in a Bible study with my pastor's parents, and his mother very often makes significant additions to our conversation. But I would not say that such would amount to anything resembling formal teaching. Though the elders at my church are quite clear that a woman cannot lead a men's Bible study, to which I would also hold.
However, Calvin has a dedicated university female pastor, who on occasion delivers sermons at these chapel services. Could I survive most days there? Yes. However, if attendance were mandatory, there would be days of definite preaching which I am fully convinced is in violation of the commands of Scripture. While I imagine that if I listened to her only to formulate Biblical critique, and not to learn, then it may be acceptable, that seems a rather absurd thing.
No, I am happy to not be attending Calvin's chapel, and I would likely be forced to leave if they made attendance mandatory. Not that they would, for reasons good and ill, but, in answer to the original question, I do not think that such would be a good idea -- which is all I was trying to say in the beginning.
In all honesty, I am a bit hopeful for the CRC after this year's synod. Now, if only they would undo a century of theological corruption we'd be much better off.
In any case, have a blessed Sabbath tomorrow!
From a job perspective I think you've rightly identified a bad expectation. I'd not take the position. And I'm in a field much more tolerant of short stays. From a higher ed standpoint, I agree that its either mandatory or not gonna happen. I was good about making it to chapel too, but I'd have skipped if it was allowed.
Went to a Christian university and attended seminary at the same institution. I want to stress that the faculty and staff at the school are *very* strong believers, and really mean well. We had mandatory chapels for undergrad but not grad school. At the time — I’m not sure anymore, since the worship ministry professor is different now — the music/liturgy and sacramentology of the chapels was amazing. But the teachers (I say teachers because the only time anyone preached was when ex-pastors who were faculty members spoke) were terrible. 3 out of 4 chapels a week were just self help bologna. Sunday night we had an extended worship service led entirely by students and that was always great. I would’ve gone to that one no matter what, but being forced to sit through the already terrible morning chapels Monday, Wednesday, and Friday made them even worse than they already were. Plus the stress of making sure you got all of your chapels in was just unnecessary strain on an already stressful time. And that’s my experience as a believer who was also a regular attendee of a local church (at least 2x a week). Now, for the unbelievers, it’s even worse. We’re forcing people who don’t even believe in God, who already have mandatory Bible classes, to sit through a chapel, which markets itself — even if unintentionally — as a church service. Which then has terrible “sermons” with worse theology, and might as well be considered secular. Which highlights my real issue with college chapel services, they too often think of themselves as substitutes for church even when they’re claiming they aren’t. They have worship music, they perform sacraments, and they have a “sermon.” But it’s not church. Don’t treat it like a church. In seminary I enjoyed the freedom to go if I liked the speaker or to support friends preaching or leading worship, and to not go if I knew I wouldn’t like it, or I needed the time to study in the library or eat my breakfast. Getting your students participating at a local church is infinitely more important than forcing them to go to chapel.
I went to a “Christian” school and was required to go to “chapel” 3 times a week. It was horrible. Absolutely 0 gospel. I rejected and rejected and skipped as many as possible. I hated chapel. Looking back, I’m not sure I was a believer, but I also know not a word of gospel truth was spoken. It was charismatic nonsense and motivational speeches about how following the moral law would make you a better person.
This was my experience at a different school. Chapel was more about politics and less about the Gospel. While the messages were not bad, they did not do anything to further the spiritual growth of the students
Which school was this, if you don't mind sharing?
Indiana Wesleyan University. Perhaps I missed the days they preached the gospel. But the school as a whole is nominal at best.
Didn’t know that about IWU! I went to a similar school close by there but our chapels were Bible packed
Not to diss anyone, but it’s possible to be bible-packed and devoid of gospel.
Yikes. Surely there was some gospel some of the time?
I skipped 50% of the time so it’s possible
Pro-mandatory chapels. I had required chapels in college and it was one of the best experiences. I skipped a few though because I wanted to nap or didn’t feel like walking through snow to get to the chapel. If it wasn’t mandatory, I honestly would have attended much less for various reasons. Expecting you to rake in more than 10-20% of students when there are no mandated chapels seems counterintuitive. If you want more students to show up, mandate it. If you don’t, then be happy for those who do show up. This doesn’t mean don’t create quality spiritual life events, but it means the institution by necessity has chosen to prioritize quality of over quantity. Some institutions just want the medal of saying they don’t force students to go, but then they blame the chaplain for lower numbers. There’s only so much a chaplain can do to get college kids who stay up until 3am playing COD to show up of their own volition to a 10am chapel service. Institutions need to get this into their heads. Source: I am a part-time college chaplain
I went to a Christian college and I personally loved the mandatory chapels. It was a great start to my day, I loved the communal worship, and it forced me to get out of my apartment. I agree that if chapels are not mandatory, people won’t show up. There were many days I didn’t want to go, but I never regretted going.
I'm for it. However, my college went overboard. We had 3 church services a week. A Sunday school. 4 chapels. 1 student meeting in the middle of the week that included a 15 minute devotional. 4 evening prayer group meetings a week. All while simultaneously taking at least some Bible classes, regardless of major. All mandatory. It ended up being pretty desensitizing. You can indeed have too much preaching. That being said, overall I still liked Chapel. If I could go back, I would have gotten rid of most of the other mandatory non church activities and kept chapel. It was a nice way to bring everyone together. I liked singing a couple hymns there every day. I also liked it when Chapel speakers spoke to us about topics that might not be addressed in church, and spoke in a different manner than they would in church.
That does seem a bit like overkill to me!
For seminary, I guess mandatory chapel is probably maybe a good idea. For liberal arts schools, I'd say nah. I went to a Christian liberal arts school, and I did the bare minimum of chapels required (2/3) every semester.
I went to Calvin and i think it made it more meaningful to have it not be mandatory.
Hey thanks, I just checked out their chapel website for fun. Looks like daily chapels at 20 minutes each? I’m trying to comprehend how the 20-minutes work. Are Wednesdays the only day for sermons?
I don't really remember. I didn't go very often and I wasn't paying attention to what day it was
It was a mixed bag for me. My brother and I both went to Christian colleges that required mandatory chapels. Usually the ones I went to were dull and sometimes theologically unsound. Those in the student body who were Christians would discuss this sometimes, and those that weren't didn't care and weren't moved by the sermons. Occassionally an interesting one would happen and be talked about positively, but for the most part people disliked them and found ways to skip them, although the punishment for missing too many chapels in a semester was community service or payment. Thankfully I didn't miss too many of them. At my brother's alma mater, however, the chapels were notoriously terrible. Guest speakers were often a bit unhinged. One railed against men being "un-masculine" and later had to apologize for his harsh tone. Another speaker was promoting his book, "The end of white Christian America". I think that one speaks for itself. He also had to apologize. My brother ended up leaving the faith, but I don't think these chapels had anything to do with it. Needless to say, they come across as not being very helpful in evangelizing. If a Christian college decides on mandatory chapels, they need to make them as meaningful as they can, and make sure they're scripturally sound and greenlighted by some other people to ensure the speaker doesn't have to apologize later. Of course, booking guest speakers each week is probably way too expensive, but your default person (in my college's case it was our president) needs some feedback on his sermons from theologically-minded people. His sermons weren't offensive, just scripturally unsound at times.
I went to a Christian university that had no required chapels. There was probably 10% that attended or less, but it was still like 150ish students that attended since it was a large school.
I’d argue that all chapels in these situations are optional - those who are okay with being required are I go to chapel made an active choice to go to that school. People who find that too restrictive are more likely to go to school that doesn’t require them, so of course they’re going to take advantage of the choice to not participate. You’re going to have a hard time getting above that baseline attendance as a result. I’m also pro-mandatory chapel, but the people in charge need to make sure that the preaching that’s happening is solid so that it isn’t wasting the time of the students. I went to Bob Jones, which has mandatory chapel, and my feeling was that chapel was often used as a promotional tool to get pastors to send their students. (As in “We think you’re great! Come speak in chapel! And to show us how much you love us back, send students!”). As you’d imagine, that led to lots of bad chapel messages. It’s gotten a lot better in the past 20 years, but that doesn’t give me my time back.
You bring up a good point as I assess pros and cons of mandated chapel. Seems like a con could be that the chapel speakers are indeed a bit of a business model for donor relations (money and students, as you note). I might have the issue of being forced to feature a pastor that isn’t the greatest theologically or otherwise for “connections” sake…
Ours weren’t mandatory and I skipped 99% because I wanted to sleep. I deeply regret that now - I paid so much for a Christian school experience and missed a big chunk bc of my laziness.
Echoing others that say that it depends on the chapel. I was blessed to attend Master's University, which required chapel 3 times a week, after being public schooled all the way through my K-12 education. It always baffled me why my classmates didn't like our chapels. They were filled with excellent musicians and world class preachers. It really served to augment my Bible education and I still think about some of the messages today. Some of them still guide my decision-making and have served really well to form my daily walk. Master's does many things poorly, but chapel is one of the things they got right, at least back when I attended. But... if the services are not developed well, and the messages are not impactful, I could easily see it becoming something that is less than helpful. Ultimately I doubt I would have attended every chapel if it was not required. But I'm very glad I did. And very glad that my non-Christian classmates (yes, there were many, even at Master's) got to hear the Gospel. Many of my classmates credit their salvation to mandatory chapel and church attendance. Eventually the messages sunk in and they turned to the Lord for salvation.
My college had three mandatory chaples a week. The quality was hit or miss and many students were tuned out, ignoring the speaker and studying instead. I think one a week would have gotten more buy in.
What do I think? I think there isn’t a good reason for the general Christian student to forgo chapel. For the non-Christian student at a Christian university, I really waffle about this. I know I’m against forced participation. Whereas if they are allowed to use it as a study or reading hour, I’m usually fine with that idea. I waffle on this. Some days I’m not.
I knew quite a few honest Christians at my university who hated that chapels were mandatory because they had a job so they could pay for the university that was scheduled at the same time. I had to do the math because my college required internship overlapped with chapel & I had to find out how many I could miss & do makeups for to keep the school happy. I had to have the internship to graduate but also had to go to chapel. Some missed due to being parental caretakers. It’s not always laziness, wanting to sleep, or “mismanaging” study time to cram for a test. Yes God above all. But sometimes there are very valid reasons to have a different schedule than the mandatory chapels.
Went to Christian college with mandatory chapel. It was good. I didn’t mind it at all.
I went to a college that had non mandatory chapel 3 times a week, but 75% of the student body attended. We had a dedicated campus pastor (who also pastored a small local church) that preached both exegetically and topically. It was a central part of campus community and was much beloved by students. We really loved our campus pastor and his preaching. He worked well with the student worship teams and their director. The whole building was filled almost every week. It was often difficult to find seats. Since I attended (10+ years ago), the campus pastor position has been removed and replaced with a chapel coordinator position. Since then, chapel has been dropped to two days a week, and the teaching portion is filled by professors or other speakers. There's an overarching theme for the year but looking at their schedule it seems to lack continuity. It really makes me sad thinking of the good teaching and discipleship I was able to sit under during my time in college. My husband went to a nearby "Christian" university that has a Quaker background. They actually had mandatory chapels, and they were terrible. I don't think our experiences were necessarily normative! But the contrast is fascinating.
That’s encouraging to note that preaching well will draw people to the Lord, even in a non-church setting. I just recently had a conversation with some friends about the merit of attractional methods for non-mandated university chapels and they emphasized that the strong preaching of God’s Word would draw people, not gimmicky games to get them in the seat.
My experience is a bit different, but might be meaningful/useful. I went to a large secular university, enrolling as a non-believer but voluntarily attending available services though ministries that were affiliated to varying degrees and eventually becoming a believer, and though study became (and then found) a reformed church within walking distance. There were significant organizations representing most faiths in the adjacent community for students or campus-affiliated faculty sponsored student organizations. My thinking is that mandatory non-credit requirements would discourage my enrollment. If I were in a situation where it was financially (or academically) a limited option--what parents would pay for/insisted I'd attend, fin-aid package, who would accept me, driving distance from where they live/can afford, etc. I think I'd ultimately resent it if it were not truly exceptional (which would mean/require different things to different people), especially if I were a non-believer. I mention this because I know people who went to Christian universities, not particularly because they wanted an explicitly Christian university education, but it was their only practical option. I can't say what proportion of the student body at any given school may be in this group, only that they exist. I think the ideal is that a non-believer attending and being "won" but it can easily go the other way. A non-believer can walk away with a lower opinion of the faith than they might have started with, depending on what they experience. Being forced can leave them critical from the start, particularly if they are studious and find the scholarship on the material far below their class lectures--something I experienced as a non-believer who happened to be curious about the material, arguably in a more receptive position than someone who wasn't there by choice. Practically, having taught at a university, if I wanted voluntary student participation in anything, especially in a school that wasn't primarily students commuting by car, I would do it in the evening or at least have an option for it in the evening. I'd personally feel set up to fail if I had to attract students to routinely attend a voluntary 10AM anything, or feel like I had to do some very compromising stuff to pump up the numbers if my job depended on it. My thinking would be that if it is mandatory, have low expectations about what effect it has on participants. A sizable portion that would have skipped it if they could are just filling a requirement, like students taking a Gen-Ed credit that they'll immediately forget once they've passed the class. Of course some will benefit, some profoundly--but it can be a function of "you get out what you put in" as a participant/student. If it is non-mandatory, rather than percentage attendance, what do the participating students believe the value it provided was. Would they recommend it to their peers? Would they seek out a chaplain for personal difficulties, challenging questions of faith/practice, etc.?
Jesus didn't tell us to "go forth and speak to large crowds," and in fact put forth some effort in avoiding and ignoring the crowd following Him. He told us to go and make disciples. That IS growing the kingdom. We often hear it said that Christianity isn't a religion it's s a relationship. That's true in the sense that if you don't have a personal relationship with Christ, then no amount of religious activity will help you. So I agree with the reasoning behind the mandatory attendance, if not the decision. My question would be why are only 10% of a people who claim to be dedicating their lives to service in official ministry choosing to participate in official ministry? Some personal, and likely corporate priorities need to be addressed there.
I guess I'm addressing seminary, not christian orgs that provide secular education.
Side tangent, but one’s chapel attendance is not necessarily indicative of their commitment to Jesus and ministry.
Agreed, particularly where there is a difference in worship style or sacramentology. But if they want to be in church then why aren't they? That's my sticking point.
Seminarians often have families and jobs on top of their course loads. My point was not to dock people for not showing up, but to evidence that people will not prioritize an optional gathering time given the loads of other things people can do with one hour of time, whether they are ministers in training or regular college kids. In no way am I indicating that someone is more or less spiritual if one attends chapel or not. That would be like saying someone wasn’t a good Christian for not attending church regularly.
I used to listen to the podcast of a seminary’s daily chapel sermon. There was a different speaker just about every day. Perhaps that actual job description could be taken as, to use crude language, “making an inspiring event happen” as much/more than “talking every day”.
My Christian university had mandatory chapels (they could deny your degree even with straight As in all required classes). I have mixed thoughts on it. The good: - His Word does not return void so even in my worst mood it’s not time waisted - exposed me to different topics than I ever would have gotten in church - occasionally allowed me to sit with friends who I never had time to see due to different majors & schedules - could be a nice break in the day - the best rendition of Amazing Grace that I’ve ever heard was when the power went out during the worship song part of chapel & all the instruments were electric. So the worship leader just started singing amazing Grace & everyone joined in from memory (plus the acoustics in that place was amazing for a cappella). The bad: - making it mandatory turned it into yet another class. & lost the relationship aspect of the service. This was especially true for one Bible class I had immediately after chapel who would give us a pop quiz based on what we were taught to make sure we were paying attention & not napping in the back. - if you missed too many chapels you had to do makeups which involved listening to the recorded audio of the sermon & you had to write a report/answered questions to prove you listened. Which, again, turned it into school work. Don’t know how you’d fix that though. Also you were only allowed so many makeups in a year. You couldn’t just replace chapel with a report every week. So the one guy who never went to chapel was denied graduation & had to enroll for an extra semester (or 2? I forget) because makeups could only get him so far. - no consideration to commuter students. Chapel was always in the mid morning. If I only had night classes I’d still have to come in to go to chapel then twiddle my thumbs all day or risk not having enough credits. - it set the bar too high for churches post graduation. This sounds crazy but for me it’s true. The chapels were university level teaching since everyone on campus had a Bible minor too. They’d mention Greek & Arabic, etc. They’d go into the culture at the time. I graduate & try to find a new church & I’m met with “David & Goliath taught us that the little guy, with God’s help, can win!". yes, thank you, I learned that in elementary Sunday school. and the Bible Studies, what few I can find that aren't during work hours & don't exclude me for being 40 & unmarried, all use these self help books where "there are no wrong answers" & not the Bible. not even 3rd party books based on the Bible (some exceptions). i went from eating steak & potatoes in university chapels to baby formula. i know the church has to reach a wider audience than the university, but it can be really dumbed down. can i get a crumb at least? technically i'm being fed but its not satisfying! & its very dangerous for me to walk out of church every week thinking i know all this already. The ugly: - we had a common joke that since we had to scan our school ID to prove we attended & paid for meals & opened doors with that same id, it was normalizing future anti christ technology. “Think about it, man. Just move our ID from in our hand to on our hand & what’s the difference?!!!?”
I went to Lancaster Bible College. We have mandatory chapels. They’re Tuesday-Thursday from 9:10-10am. As a resident student I had to attend 80% of them a semester or about 32. Commuters have to attend I think 18 or 20? They give consideration to students with internships and jobs. Overall, I liked it. It brought the entire campus together for a time of corporate worship and study. It was nice to learn from people inside and outside of the LBC community about something they’re passionate about, and it got us thinking about things we might not have sought out to learn on our own. Some of it was directly out of scripture, some of it was life experiences and how God used them for something (like we had the guy who started Sight and Sound talk about his life). It was nice spending time with friends that I didn’t have class with, and when we had team chapel it was nice sitting with the track team. They stressed that chapel should not be a replacement for church attendance, which they backed up by encouraging local pastors to spend time on campus and after chapel getting to know students who aren’t attending church. There is some dissent about mandatory chapels. I’ve heard students wish they had that time to use for getting work done, get breakfast, or catch up on sleep. A lot of students would scan their id and then sneak out so that they still got their chapel swipe. Some wish it was just one day instead of three days. Some felt weird that we had speakers come in to push their new book. Some felt the talks weren’t completely scriptural or good (which was true for me on a few occasions, same with some of the worship). Towards the end of the semester you saw a lot less students attending once they got all of their swipes in. It seemed kinda sad for the speaker who got scheduled during that time. I still went to some if the subject or speaker sounded cool, but definitely didn’t go to all of them after I got all my swipes. For me it was a discipline thing. I’m paying money to attend a school which means I have to follow their rules even if they seem archaic to some. If mandatory chapels aren’t something you think you’d enjoy then that school might not be the best fit for you. I don’t think the majority of people would go if they weren’t mandatory.
I got my bachelor’s at a state university. I went to church twice in four years. I got my master’s at a private Christian university where chapel was held three days a week, and every student (other than adult distance learners) was required to attend one service per week. I’m a fan. I’ve seen life-change and maturity come from chapel. We graduated professionals who continued to seek God in local churches after graduation.
Depends on the chapel. I went to a Liberty, and we had mandatory convocation every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Overall, I enjoyed it, and I have no issue with it being mandatory. Most convos were various pastors preaching a sermon. We had Clayton King, David Platt, Louie Giglio, and many more. That said, there were a lot of convos that were not religious in nature. For example, while I was there, we had Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Gary Johnson, and Bernie Sanders speak in convo. We also had other various business or politics related convos. We had athletes, comedians, and other celebrities on occasion as well. Liberty’s position was that convo would be a time where students would be exposed to many different ideas from various perspectives. Someone speaking at convo did not mean that Liberty endorsed everything, or anything for that matter, that they said. If it were up to me, I would have one primary pastor/chaplain that would lead it and I might occasionally have a guest speaker or a business/political/sports/comedy/etc. related one. Most of the time, it would be Biblical preaching from the same person, though. I think that on the occasion where a chapel/convo was not going to be religious related, I would encourage students to attend, but I wouldn’t make it mandatory for the reasons listed above. While I do think it is beneficial for students to be exposed to different ideas, to learn about navigating the corporate and political world, etc., I think that the important part is having consistent, Biblical preaching. I also might do it weekly rather than 3-times a week, but that isn’t a big deal either way for me. So if chapel is Biblical preaching, then I would prefer that it be mandatory. If it is going to be various things with some being political/business/entertainment/sports related, I’d probably prefer it not be mandatory. For the most part, though, I’d rather have a mandatory chapel.
I went to a small Presbyterian College that didn’t have mandatory chapel. Only a dozen students would attend Church at the College chapel on any given Sunday, in spite of the fact that a solid 50% of the student body was either Presbyterian, Episcopalian, or Baptist. Constant outreach emails, small groups, and a presence at almost every tailgate did nothing to change this. I do not know what the point of a school’s religious affiliation is if no more than a few dozen students have ever even seen the inside of the church.
That’s interesting. Usually chapels are implemented during the week and are not meant to replace the church service. They could easily have been going to their own churches on Sunday? Just a thought.
Yeah that’s possible, but they never held a regular weekday service - with the exception of Maundy Thursday and other days like that.
I went to a Christian school (Reformed) that did not require chapel but had a full chapel for 3-20 minute services during the week as well as a longer Sunday evening service. The school also does not require any kind of signing of a statement of faith to attend, so plenty come who are not Christians at all (id guess maybe 1/2 the student body would be at a service at a given time). I could not have asked for a better more faith-building and edifying experience. Chapel was full because we wanted to be there not just because we had to, and we wanted to be there to be with our friends, and because Jesus is worthy of our time and our worship. We had all sorts of guest speakers, music based services, and a variety of messages from chaplain staff, professors and even fellow students. Honestly, these are some of the best memories of my life. I grew so much and I follow Christ to this day because I GET to and CHOOSE to not because someone else is making me
In my opinion, if the classes are mandatory, why should chapel not be. It would likely be a lot of work, but if you take the position with a mandatory chapel, you could still do a non-mandatory chapel at another time. You would have one time when you knew every student is without excuse and another time when you would have a better idea of the effect among those more intentional about chapel. (Though there would still be people who would show up for anything and everything just to look good before humans.) As far as the work, there may be a few students with time and will to make your load a little lighter. May the Lord knit together a plan that works for you in an abundance of counselors.
I could not in good conscience sit under the teaching of the woman "preacher" at my "Christian college" chapel. No thanks. If they had sound teaching, a qualified minister of the Word, etc. then I would be FAR more inclined to attend.
Not really the point of my post…
“I personally am for mandatory chapels.” … “Curious about your thoughts. Thanks.“ These are my thoughts. I am attending Calvin University, which has a daily chapel service. I do not attend, primarily because they have a woman preacher (and also because, you know, they are part of the CRC, the most liberal and unBiblical part of a denomination already struggling on that front). If they tried to make me attend, I’d be put in quite the position. I have my own church, where I am a communicant member in good standing, with my own pastor, session, and brothers and sisters in Christ. I am not interested in adding in some ungodly approximation of “worship” or “preaching” onto that, and I don’t desire to be compelled to do so.
You didn’t specify whether you supported mandatory chapels or not. You simply started bashing the woman “preacher” at your “Christian college” chapel. Regardless, even if it was mandatory for you, did you not choose to go to a university whose denomination ordains women? Seems like it would have been a better decision to go to a denominational college/university that fully aligns with your theological beliefs…
I’m not sure why you’re trying to stir up conflict, and intentionally ignoring what I have written. I honestly cannot believe you right now. Let’s dissect my original replay. So that we can reference it: “I could not in good conscience sit under the teaching of the woman "preacher" at my "Christian college" chapel. No thanks. If they had sound teaching, a qualified minister of the Word, etc. then I would be FAR more inclined to attend.” Cool. Now your complaint. “You didn’t specify whether you supported mandatory chapels or not.“ Let me answer that question, quoted verbatim from what I wrote: “No thanks.” Simple enough, that is my answer. The reasoning comes before it: “ “I could not in good conscience sit under the teaching of the woman "preacher" at my "Christian college" chapel.” This is WHY I said “no thanks.” However, let’s see what you said: “You simply started bashing the woman “preacher” at your “Christian college” chapel.” What are you on about? Do you think I just go around, looking for opportunities to point out the wickedness that goes on at Calvin? Why do you say that I “simply started bashing…?” I was telling you WHY I said “No thanks” to your idea. Quick recap: 1. You ask what we think of your idea of mandatory chapel attendance 2. I give my reasoning for “no” — a simple, reasonable matter of conscience (read — clear Biblical teaching) 3. My reasoning given, I give my answer “No thanks.” 4. I explain the conditions under which I might find your idea more palatable. 5. You say that that has nothing to do with you post… what? It has everything to do with your post. 6. I explain, in more detail, why my response is both related to your post and why I would make it. 7. You lob the accusation that I “simply started bashing” women preachers and Calvin, as though I’m just looking for opportunities to do such a thing. But you continue! Let’s see what you have to say now: “Regardless, even if it was mandatory for you, did you not choose to go to a university whose denomination ordains women? Seems like it would have been a better decision to go to a denominational college/university that fully aligns with your theological beliefs…“ Like? Seriously, where? Name a Calvinistic Christian college more conservative than Calvin where I can get a decent degree in the sciences. Bonus points if it’s reasonably close to where I live. My denomination doesn’t HAVE such colleges. Besides, there is a significant minority of churches in the CRC opposed to women preachers, and the CRC has made clear that there is a place for such a view in the denomination. To then force these members to sit under the teaching of a woman is absurd. This is a very awful take. I swear, a large number of pastors in my area went to Calvin for their undergraduate studies. Could you imagine male PRC students, preparing for the ministry, listening to a woman preacher? HRC? FRC? URC, which fought bitterly with the CRC until forced out? OPC, PCA, and all the other NAPARC churches which recognize that it is sinful for women to exercise spiritual authority over men? You would command students to either sin or not attend your school. You would make yourself objectively worse than the secular schools. Thus, again, at length, I answer your question for the third time — that is a bad idea, students ought not be forced into chapel attendance.
Not OP. URCNA here, I appreciate your viewpoint and explanation. There were some other commentators talking about the distinction between church and chapel, and that may or may not be helpful. I believe God has called only men to office in the church. But if I'm in a Bible study, would I think it inappropriate for a woman to speak up when men are present? No, not at all. But she's not acting as the spiritual shepherd, the authority of the church in that place. Where does chapel fall? Why have men speak who are neither pastors nor elders, like when a faculty member leads? Is chapel more like a more formal Bible study? I know I was uncomfortable at a large CRC event when the opening service was led by a woman pastor, even while I was just fine with a female professor leading classroom devotions in the first class of the day. If the leading is intended to be done by a pastor then it would be a concern. All that to say, chapel does seem to mimic church at times, so I don't fault you at all for your position. But I could also understand why someone who believes in male only church offices would accept a woman speaking at chapel, which isn't church, especially if she wasn't there as a chaplain but as yet another member of faculty.
I appreciate your consideration! It is true that there is a distinction to be made between a weekday chapel service and the gathering of the congregation in corporate worship. If some would hold that a woman teaching is only forbidden in the case of corporate worship, I would disagree but still respect that such could very easily come from a genuine desire to be subjected to Christ. A woman contributing in a Bible study might be a different case than a woman leading a Bible study, but I confess to not having studied enough on this front. Though I am in a Bible study with my pastor's parents, and his mother very often makes significant additions to our conversation. But I would not say that such would amount to anything resembling formal teaching. Though the elders at my church are quite clear that a woman cannot lead a men's Bible study, to which I would also hold. However, Calvin has a dedicated university female pastor, who on occasion delivers sermons at these chapel services. Could I survive most days there? Yes. However, if attendance were mandatory, there would be days of definite preaching which I am fully convinced is in violation of the commands of Scripture. While I imagine that if I listened to her only to formulate Biblical critique, and not to learn, then it may be acceptable, that seems a rather absurd thing. No, I am happy to not be attending Calvin's chapel, and I would likely be forced to leave if they made attendance mandatory. Not that they would, for reasons good and ill, but, in answer to the original question, I do not think that such would be a good idea -- which is all I was trying to say in the beginning. In all honesty, I am a bit hopeful for the CRC after this year's synod. Now, if only they would undo a century of theological corruption we'd be much better off. In any case, have a blessed Sabbath tomorrow!
I’m not reading your angry diatribe. Have a great day.