What is the rational used for requiring worship attendance? How similar/ different is that rational to that used to require religion classes from all students?
Thank you!

The primary problem I had with your objection, David, it that it seems to center on whether the music was appropriate.

Two thoughts emerge: 1) Who decides on appropriateness in music? On what basis? Do you really want to enter that minor-chord-filled realm? 2) Do we have to like every item on the menu? Or can we say, with too rarely seen spiritual maturity, "This isn't for me, obviously, though apparently others enjoy it. I'll pass now and wait for something I enjoy."

Isn't the issue relevancy? It matter much what the curriculum is; what the chapel subject is; when Chapal is scheduled; the basis of recruitment; the mission statement of the Institution; the competing agendas; How the class and clinic schedules are formed around the chapel period. Rush in and Rush out doesn't make a lot of sense.

I know a person who wears a 30 year Rotary Pin with great pride. Yet I have attend more Rotary lunches that he has.

He had a cadre of buddies who would sign in for him when he was "too" busy to attend. 99.44% of the Rotarians knew about his scam but when the day came to pass out pins. The entire group stood and applauded good old faithful Joe!

I don't think chapel works that way.

I bet if Colin Powell, Hans Kung, Thomas Cahill, John R. W. Stott were the speakers the chapel would be packed. Tom

I completely agree with Chris on this and have the same questions he does.

I completely understand people have issues with requiring attendance at a worship service. However, I too felt that the reason provided was inadequate. Maybe I missed something but this is what it seems you're saying:

"I've never been against required worship attendance but now I am because I thought the music played this morning was inappropriate for worship."

Am I wrong in my assessment of your argument?

Originally posted at Ponder Anew 2:

Your points are well taken, and I would argue the same, though from a slightly different perspective. What I perceived here is the author's taking exception to the commercialization of this series (something that annoyed me when I attended the series last Saturday night), and to the music which seemed out of place for a worship service.

Those two factors, if I'm reading correctly, constitute an inability to properly "represent the cultural heritage of Christianity in general and the Seventh-day Adventist Church in particular".

I would tend to agree with those points, and I would add that while Christianity sees community and relationships as central to its mission and calling, compulsory corporate worship is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. Christianity, as I see it, has always been invitational rather than mandatory. The darkest shades of religious persecution have always come at the hands of those who seek to impose their views on others, whether through force or through the removal of any real, viable alternative (choice).

Open theism, which Dr. Larson recently discussed along with Rick Rice, contends that God's openness to future uncertainties is primarily based on human beings' true freedom (without viable options with real consequences, there is no real freedom of choice). When institutions make worshiping mandatory, however good their intent, the consequence is a fundamental opposition to God's gift of volition, of free will.

Ever since I was a student at PUC (nearly 20 years ago now) I have joined the student efforts to combat required worship attendance. Compulsion just doesn't seem compatible with the practice known as worship. I think that compulsion betrays more about university leader's and church leader's anxiety about the next generation staying with the church, as if compulsion could accomplish this.

However, I'm not sure I'm completely tracking with David's reasons for objecting to compulsory worship attendance. I think Jared said it well. The commercialization is intolerable. There could also be a distinction made between university in "assembly" and university at "worship."

I'm not going to launch into the whole worship style wars. Most of you know we employ a very contemporary style of music in Hollywood, though that style is diversifying as we speak. It's not to some people's liking. I just 30 seconds ago wrote an email expressing my dislike for a particular song the worship team was planning to use this coming Sabbath, but it wasn't because of the musical style, but the shallow and trivial nature of the lyrics that lead the congregation, IMHO, in the wrong direction. In Hollywood, it's not people's preferences that drives our conversation about worship.

I think the question of what constitutes worship is very vital and important. For example, I would be more concerned about showmanship and performance than with the style of music. It's pretty easy for young worship leaders to confuse worship leadership with being a "rock star." It's okay, I think, for a school to host a rock show, but maybe that isn't worship.

Dave,

To "progressive" even for a "progressive." I like that! I also agree that chapel should not be mandatory, especially so, if worship styles can not be found for a "happy medium." :~)

Hi Everybody!

Thank you for your comments! I appreciate them because I think that these issues are very important.

I've long had a lover's quarrel with my university about the form and content of our chapel services. Like most conversions, mine on Monday was a long time aborning.

I think we face three overlapping but distinct questions.

1. Was "Denver and the Mile High Orchestra" appropriate? My answer: No.

2. Are there any objective standards by which to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate music? My answer: Yes.

3. Can requring chapel and not merely assembly attendance be ethically justified? My answer: Maybe.

I hope to make good on all three claims after work today.

Meanwhile, the music since Monday has been excellent though varied, in my view.

The sermons in this Week of Devotion have all been superb from the very beginning.

Thanks!

Dave

I think compulsory attendance can be a good thing. There is a difference between compulsory attendance and compulsory worship, I think too often we mix those things up. A school I believe has a right to say, "this is something we want our students to be a part of, and we want you to attend." Now if they said, "you must worship," that would be a problem, but we all know there are people in our pews each week that are not worshiping. My Dad used to be the director/chair of a P.T. graduate school Andrews Univ. started in Dayton, OH. Now about 90% of the students at that school were not Adventists, and many not even Christians; yet the school still mandated that students attend chapel, yes graduate students. The students were never told they had to participate, believe, or worship, just attend and be respectful. Here is what we discovered the students loved it and looked forward to coming! They rarely complained and they even found themselves worshiping. It seems en vogue within SDA circles to revolt against compulsory attendance, yet people that have not grown-up in come are told they must attend, and they love it. The problem to me isn't why schools have compulsory attendance to chapel, convocation, vespers...no the greater problem to me is why our young people and those of us that are supposed to be encouraging them in their spiritual walks have such a problem with attending these worship services?

Chad, that's a no-brainer. When young people have been taken to church before they could even remember, it was not optional. Now that they are grown, it's perceived as something they are required to do, just as when they were small children.

For those to whom it is a novelty, naturally, they come at it from a different perspectivee

NO ONE, once they have passed the childhood stage, appreciate that which they are forced to do, most especially in religious matters.

Dave:

I think maybe you are missing something very important in all this. And, while not actually being there at your compulsory assemblies, I’ll just take your word on what actually happened. And as an intro to what I think you are missing, I nod to what C Blake noted: the worship style may not be my own, but this affords me the challenge to hope and pray that SOMEONE is being blessed. Heaven forbid that my judgmental and negative attitude detract from another -- who IS being blessed. Yes, even blessed by that music which I might find to be … whatever.

But for me (and I’ve attended MANY a compulsory worship in SDA schools) there is something extremely crucial to the notion (OK OK -- it took me many years to realize this…) of gathering together -- ALL of us -- as a family (or maybe tribe, or maybe corporate body, or maybe body of believers…) just for the simple fact of reminding us we ARE all here and ARE all part of the same entity and ARE in some real sense “in it” together. Different as we are, (our differences here on this blog but a small mirror/window into the differences I’m talking about) the very act of gathering together, in a way, FORCES us to remember that we are part of something bigger than ourselves. Yes, you DO have to sit down with all these jerks who differ so from you; why? because we are a family, a tribe, a movement, a body who believes it has something special offer.

There rests the real danger, in my opinion, that abandoning these sorts of rituals, fosters the kind of independence that elevates self -- and all it’s exclusivity -- at the expense of the group. Not a call to “group think” at all; what I’m suggesting is that compulsory time together is a good way to foster the awareness that there are OTHERS in my group, who do it differently than I do. And by gathering together (without the mandatory component, this gathering simply won’t happen…) we are implicitly seeing that the group is bigger then me and my ideas.

Compulsory worship while at college at AUC in the 70’s was greatly resented at the time… Now, I thank God for many of those memories. And frankly, it’s these memories that helped me see I really AM part of something larger than just myself. And, maybe, part of why I'm still an Adventist...

Abandoning this kind of gathering is ... giving up...

I'm staff at LLU, so chapel attendance is not required of me, but I enjoyed the music.

My comment, however, is that I believe students are NOT required to attend EVERY chapel service. That means they can pick and choose the ones they would most enjoy. The program for Monday (and each day this week) has been published for several weeks, and just a few seconds of poking on the Internet would tell me a lot about the musicians and the speakers this week. Perhaps students should attend those services that they feel cater to them individually?

The bottom line: you're not going to make everyone happy all the time. I have heard a number of VERY positive comments about Monday's programs, but it tends to be the negative comments that are heard the loudest. I hope the folks who make the programming decisions take the criticisms with a grain of salt and realize that there are likely ten times the number of negative responses who would be positive, but for whatever reason are not motivated to give an "atta boy" response to a service they feel to be of good quality.

Well, buddy, I hope YOU feel better now. I'm supposed to speak at REQUIRED chapel at your school tomorrow.

So, uh, what do you think I ought to say? Should I apologize to the students? And if so, on whose behalf?

Warning: I'm known to be vulgar.

-- Tim

It's funny how reactions can be so varied to the same stimulus. When I sat through chapel on monday morning my thoughts were, "It's nice to be attending a university that recognizes the different ways in which people prepare for worship." I've never been a fan of required chapels, but I so much appreciated the efforts that those in charge of this week of devotion have made to reach so many different worship preferences and styles. Thanks.

-Brian

Everyone's making good points!

Some really don't like to listen to groups like "Denver and the Mile High Orchestra" in required chapels. I am one of them. Others really do and we're hearing from some of them.

Great!

But I'm lucky. Because I am a professor, I can skip or leave any chapel I want with no penalty. In this matter I have perfect freedom. As a matter of minimal fairness, I think my students should have the same liberty.

Besides, I hear again and again that in music there are no objective standards for good and bad, that everything is wholly a matter of personal and communal taste.

This means that nobody should ever be required to listen to anything. It does not work to say:

"YOUR MUSICAL LIKES AND DISLIKES ARE NO BETTER AND NO WORSE THAN MINE AND THIS IS WHY I HAVE THE MORAL RIGHT TO FORCE YOU IN CHAPEL TO LISTEN TO MUSIC THAT I RELISH AND YOU LOATHE."

The only fair thing to do in this sea of aesthetic subjectivism and relativism is to make chapel attendance wholly voluntary.

Here's another point: I often hear that we have the music we do because this is what draws young people.

Why, then, do we have to require them to come?

Let's drop the requirement of chapel attendance, schedule a whole bunch of groups like "Denver and the Mile High Band" and see how many students show up over the course of a school year.

I think I know what would happen; however, I am by no means certain. So why not give it a try?

But there is another possibility. This is to consider the possibility that the musical standards on a Christian university campus might be intentionally different from those that are perfectly appropriate in Sabbath Schools, youth congresses, church camps, evangelistic meetings, store-front churches, beach vespers, moonlight mountain worships, marshmellow roasts and hay rides.

Tim

I took it that you were kidding last night when you asked if you should apologize at chapel this morning.

But just in case you did not ask the question in jest, here's my answer: NO!

Use every minute you have to preach the gospel from Scripture and once again the congregation will be blessed by your ministry.

I don't think Paul apolgized to his fellow prisoners, some of whom were probably in jail, before proclaiming Jesus Christ to them!

That's an imperfect analogy, but I think you get the point!

Dave

I attended chapel at E.M.C for five years. Here are a few I remember.

President Klooster a chemist rigged up a series of glass tubes that would smoke a cigarette and collect the "poison" in a little cup. He took a syringe and took up about one cc of the poison and injected it into a roosters mouth. The rooster promptly dropped "dead". The farm manager walked on stage and took the dead rooster away. Pres. Klooster went on with this talk. Apparently the farm manager wanted to here the rest of the story so he waited in the lobby. In a few minutes we all heard the rooster crowing!

The Education Sec. of the Lake Union gave the chapel talk.
He was quite animated. In the middle of his talk he strode over to the men's side and said: "I want to tell you man to man!"

The he strode all the way over of the ladies side and said:
"I want to tell you------and his voice faded away and the student body had a great laugh. The faculty on the platform behind the speaker appeared to be choking to death.

Professor Hammon the organist had the chapel. There was a piano on the platform. He stood up walked to the piano and played a shave and a haircut two bits. Then he explained the science behind those notes. Then he went on and play those same notes as Mozart would have composed around them. Then Bach, Then Handel, List etc. It was one of the best chapels we ever had.

I guess the lesson is if you have nothing to say--be funny. You'll be remembered.

Oh yes I rermember another. Carlye B. Haynes. Loud, thuderous, positive, about what I don't remember.

The best one were those that let out five minutes early. Tom

Tom,

Imagine PETA reacting to the rooster!

They actually had a chapel back when you were in school!

I agree that our first-order aesthetic preferences are subjective; however, I hold that our second-order principles are objective.

Example: "I want to run the L. A. Marathon." expresses a subjective first-order preference.

"I therefore must eat, sleep and exercise" is an objective second-order principle."

Worded elsewise: In aesthetics there are no objective categorical norms; however, there are innumerable hypothetical objective ones.

Likewise: "I want to be a Christian" expresses a subjective first-order preference.

"There are therefore some kinds of music I should make a practice of listening to and others I should not." is an objective second-order principle.

Having said that, the range of acceptable music for Christians is very wide, wider than most of us probably think; however, it is not limitless.

The food analogy works for me. We can eat many, many different things and get away with it, but not everything. Eating some things will kill us.

So great relativity does not necessarily mean total subjectivity.

Also, context matters a lot. The loudness of musical performances in a stadium is rightly greater than in a church sanctuary.

Thanks!

Dave

It seems that the conclusion of not requiring chapel attendence could have been reached years ago if we use Dr. Larson's reasoning. I know many that loath the organ and other forms of music that have been "forced" on them but their arguments of not being forced to attend chapel based on their musical preferences have not ever been seriously considered. I wonder why the emergence of a group like Denver and the mile high orchestra in chapel suddenly makes that point a relevant one.

I took a look at the LLU catalog for 07-08 and found the following:

CHAPEL SERVICES
In keeping with the commitment of our mission, Loma Linda University students have special requirements, such as chapel service attendance each Wednesday morning in the University Church. The chapel programs provide a variety of opportunities to integrate faith and learning. Undergraduates who live in the residence halls are also expected to attend worships in the residence halls each week.

RELIGION CLASSES
Classes in religion are part of the core curriculum in each of the University’s schools and programs. These classes deal with the study of the Bible, ethics, clinical ministry (which concentrates on ways to understand and meet the spiritual needs of patients in a manner that is noninvasive and individually appropriate), and a variety of other issues related to the student’s field of study and personal spiritual journey.
P. 34

Spiritual health
In addition to personal quiet times, opportunities for the student to further develop rich, personal spiritual resources are provided in scheduled religious exercises and activities and in informal association with others who cherish spiritual values. Religion classes as well as weekly chapel services are part of the required curriculum.
P. 59

Now Dave I'm going to have to push you on this because I think that there is a real relation between the rational which makes worship required and that which requires religion classes.

Am I conflating two issues or is there a connection here?

My own opinion is that the University is right to require worship attendance. I'm sorry but arguments about compulsion miss the point.

The issue isn't forcing religion on students but saying that the institution values spiritual health. The decision of the student to participate in this ethos, and derivative requirements like lifestyle constraints and worship/ religion classes was made during enrollment. These requirements are no more an imposition on the student than the school itself.

When you agree to attend an Adventist school you agree to embrace the campus and its distinctive ethos. Worships exist as they're part of the ethos of a Christian school. They exist to say something about the schools commitment to the student. Likewise, no one forced you to attend a Christian university- your attendance of worship is a fulfillment of your pledge to the school not an abridgment of your spiritual freedom.

I like the idea of requiring that a student attend, say, 30 worships and offer 50. From what Brian said that seems to be the system at LLU. I think that if there are a variety of options then people can attend services helpful to them and skip services they'd derive less from.

I know that at LSU you can petition to form your own small group. I know that some folk at the honors dorm had their own thing going on and they got worship credit for it and didn't attend the campus worships. I think that's a swell idea.

I think week of prayer should be attended by all because they're special events that the school spends a lot of time and effort putting together. I think for a Christian school weeks of prayer are the closest we get to a pep rally.

Assemblies are more like business meetings than worship right?

Quality questions for me point to a need for improvement by chaplains not abolishing the whole thing. The idea that one should be able to attend a Christian school and not have worship be part of that experience is not something I can support.

Thanks!

Thanks for theses responses, Johnny! I appreciate them.

For more than thirty-three years I have defended required chapel attendance and required religion courses for exactly the reasons you have articulated so well.

But over these same years I have seen two somewhat diverging trends. On the one hand, the School of Religion has been taking with increasing seriousness the idea that some kinds of religion courses are appropriate in form and content on this university campus and others aren't.

Meanwhile, over the same long period of time I have seen a trend in the other direction; that is, it seems to me that concern for objective standards for what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate for chapels on a university campus has decreased.

One evidence of this is that we no longer give religion credit for those who sing in the chapel choir because we no longer have a chapel choir.

Instead, what seems to be the case from my point of view, is that very honest and well-meaning attempts have been made by persons whom I respect to shift from objective standards to meeting the varying subjective musical tastes of the students.

Although this disappoints me, I can cope. My way of coping is simply not to attend. But my students do not have that liberty.

If they skip chapel services in which they expect the music or preaching or whatever to be offensive, they will be penalized.

The least severe penalty is that they will be expected to use the chapel they skipped for the reasons we are discussing as one of their permitted absences.

I don't think it right in this way to force people to listen to things that offend them when we have no objective reason for doing so.

I would like to receive a carefully crafted paper that explains why it was so valuable for LLU students to hear "Denver and the Mile High Band" that we required it.

There is an easy way to bring this matter to a swift conclusion. This is for the leadership of LLU to send an email notice to all students who were required to attend chapel on the day in question to receive a "free skip," one that does not decrease the number they already have coming.

Thanks again, Johnny!

I would like to receive a carefully crafted paper that explains why it was so valuable for LLU students to hear "Denver and the Mile High Band" that we required it.

Dave, you have me laughing out loud. You have my spectrum blog comment area endorsement for your proposal to grant all students who had to endure that band a worship pass. A straw poll of two students I know at LLU who were online and attended that chapel has 100% agreement with the verdict that "Denver and the Mile High Band" was awful.

But let me make sure I understand you.

Are you suggesting that it should be possible for a student to graduate from an Adventist university not having attended a single worship of any sort?

Pat, about your music comment above, "too progressive for a progressive..." Why is it that everyone assumes that progressives like rock music, drums, and praise songs that are "contemporary." I'm about as progressive as they come and I prefer a high church service any day. However, like Chris, I try to overlook my own tastes in situations like this and realize I'll have to fill my needs elsewhere.

Johnny

I'm sorry I forgot that you had already endorsed the idea of a free skip. Maybe you proposed it in the first place!

For years I have contended for required chapel services; however, I cannot bring myself to believe that it is right to require our students to listen to what we heard Monday morning.

The basic problem as I see it as that the idea that there are objective standards for distingishing good music from bad has fallen on very hard times.

Under these circumstances I think making attendance at chapel voluntary for all students, as it now is for all faculty, is the most equitible solution.

I'm repeating myself because I've said all I can at this point. So I'm going to sign off for now on this topic with my great gratitude to all who have participated.

Others can continue as long as they want, however.

Many thanks!

Dave

If Chapel is required it should receive academic credit.
Attendance should be 50 % of the grade.
To match date with topic/speaker 25%
A 25 word review of the subject 25%

At School Paper should publish the list two week prior to finals.

Nobody graduates without at least a 75% grade.

Which means no one needs to know zip about the subject and still pass.

Which is about standard at the moment. Tom

Hi Anon,

Is it not true that often "progressives" look at their more conservative Christians (vs.SDA conservatives) as a bit too traditional and locked into the past whether concerning scripture or lifestyle...of course labels often fail.

My Smiley face was at a “progressive” of “openness” having to take an “unpopular stance” related to “relationships”… not to the music per se. Actually, no one in mind, but self styled intellectuals may prefer “only” the “Classics.”

I remember 42 years ago in Dr.Watrous' "Mental Hygiene" class at SMC (bless his soul...great heart) discussing how it was felt that "rock and roll" created to much emotional response vs. the classics. My comment at that time (btw “that” rock and roll would put most of today's kids to sleep) was that "I sometime see a bit of 'self righteous high brow' emotion perhaps among the classical purist...cannot either form become an idol?"

Sometimes correctness cannot be defined but simply "felt." As a lover of all types of music, "I consider" hard rock and rap to be in the “non music” category and instead being a social phenomenon.

Don't know what the chapel group was like but there too sometimes appropriateness is "felt" in relation to a "religious" service. Doesn't mean it is inappropriate for all occasions. That is also why I said that if a "happy medium" could not be found then students on the "conservative" or "progressive" side should be allowed not to attend without consequences...in my opinion.

As someone who has attended both public universities and SDA's, I find that often some people in our schools attempt to be "on the edge" to perhaps exhibit their passive aggression or "coolness." Does it need to be done in designated "spiritual" time?

I agree with David's argument on this.

For Adventists this issue should be especially clear. Our commitment to religious liberty and freedom of conscience stems not just from the theological argument that we are keepers of the Protestant (and Arminian) flame, but also from our eschatology in which we see choosing to worship, against the requirements of the state, as a defining characteristic of true faith.

Not only Adventists, but particularly brave Christian thinkers from Søren Kierkegaard to Roger Williams have recognized the debilitating effects on spirituality and religious organization when freedom to act is tied to institutional control.

SK writes:

The interest of Christianity is: true Christians. The interest of the State, and therefore of its priests, is: many Christians. So let us get hold of the babes and give them a dash of water over their heads and make them believe that they are Christians, then we shall shortly have more Christians than there are herrings during the herring period, and then we shall be the greatest power the World has ever seen.

Requiring chapel attendance is kind of like the Adventist equivalent of infant baptism, in that it converts representation of belief from reason and risked faith, to mere outward show.

Or worse yet, an act to avoid financial loss.

In fact, I would argue that the student who chooses not to attend through conscience updates the Kierkegaardian update of martyrdom. Of course skipping chapel can be a morass of less noble desires -- extra study time, etc -- however, I think that there is room to regard conscientious disobedience as good faith.

I'm happy if a school wants to require community meetings, but to treat these as primarily religious strips the act of authenticity. Can God bless? Sure. Some Catholics burning Protestants at the stake were probably in a saving relationship with God, but that act of compulsion strips their faith of the witness to God's power to change humanity through freedom.

Johnny writes: When you agree to attend an Adventist school you agree to embrace the campus and its distinctive ethos.

Tellingly this is the classic academy and college administrator response: you signed on, obey the rules. But this smaller form of the old establishment chant "love it or leave it" falls apart logically and practically.

On that, there are degrees of institutional obedience -- I'd obey an income tax law, but not a Sunday worship law. Should students who disobeyed old rules about not watching movies while at an Adventist college or who currently wear jewelry against most college rule books, leave? This anti-change cliché appears in Adventism from time to time as it applies to any proposed internal critique. Because of it's broad application -- should I love a doctrine or leave my church? -- this statement tamps down creative free engagement with an institution which often is exactly the thing that keeps thoughtful folks connected.

Back to the worship requirement issue:

Having participated in one of those alternative worship groups at Andrews, I know how close they are to a fraud. We just got together, read something and signed our names. Forcing folks to join and then slapping a thin religious patina over the experience leads to exactly the sort of cynicism that I see in my barely-Adventist grad student friends.

I cannot imagine a respectable university requiring students to attend a symphony or gallery opening, due, in part, to the recognition that these are particularly subjective experiences in which participants derive a large measure of their meaning from freely and creatively being present.

Like in a human relationship, trust keeps people authentic and involved a lot better than chains.

Why would a Christian university cut out free will with a reality even more subjective and important than art and love?

Alex

Sounds like a great argument against "guarding the edges of the Sabbath et al". Tom

For anyone who was at the Loma Linda week of devotion this morning, I thought Pastor Tim Mitchell had an excellent message that helped me sort out a few of the issues brought to the discussion here. I encourage everyone to catch a replay of it on llbn.tv if they get a chance.

- Brian

If Chapel is required. So should the Presentation be structured to speak to the Mission Statement: "To Make Man Whole!" To be invited to address 2000 professional students should be a high honor that requires careful preparation.

It should be the high point of the work week for both speaker and listener. There must be at least 50 propositional truths about health and disease worthy of the most serious and provocative inquiring in a public setting. LLU is a regional center on venum therapy. It has a first class proton center. It is or was on the cutting edge of using piezoelectrical bone healing.

It is matched only by Japan and Finland in the study of dental caries.

Its neonatal work is internationally known.

Certainly there must be a Divine aspect and purpose to all this beyond a good quarterly report.

For some poor guy or gal struggling over the Kreb Cycle for the first time. There ought to be a time to place in all in Divine Context.

Let chapel be the dress rehearsal of a peer reviewed paper.

Why LLU? Here's Why! You've got the whole world in your hands.
Tom

Alex,
I think it's a poor appraisal of our young peoples creativity if they are unable to, if they're unhappy with official worship offerings, create a worship service with their friends that does meet their needs.

I did propose that such an event meet the official worship requirement as currently practiced by at least one of our Universities. However you seem to consider even that fulfillment of a worship requirement as incompatible with, as you said, 'creative free engagement'.

I don't buy it.
-johnny

Johnny, your first sentence is a classic informal logical fallacy: the straw man. Look it up. I'm not questioning the creativity of "our young people." Rather, I question their freedom.

To wit: I note the internal contradiction in requiring attendance at religious services.

Johnny writes: However you seem to consider even that fulfillment of a worship requirement as incompatible with, as you said, 'creative free engagement'.

Yes, note your syntactical construction: "requirement" and "free." : ) I'm open to a creative argument showing how they are compatible, particularly in religion; until then I appreciate your "in."

I thought I had run out of steam but maybe not.

Brian

I, too, was at LLU Chapel this morning and was blessed by Elder Tim Mitchell's sermon which was very relevant to our discussion here. He said at least two things that I am taking to heart.

One of these is that we need to be more hospitable to people whose musical preferences and other things differ greatly from our own.

The other is that at his church there are two very different worship services and that the members of his church people are free to choose either one.

So, yes, it was good for me to hear him for the first time this morning.

Tom

You have in mind the kind of chapel services I would like to see. These would be uniquely appropriate to our campus, experiences that we could have no where else.

Why duplicate something that Calvary Chapel and other places like that are already doing very well, particularly when they can't do what we can?

Johnny and Alex

As I understand it from this and our email exchanges, we are all ready to reconsider the practice of requiring chapel attendance but that we do so for different reasons.

Some of us have conditional reasons for doing so; i.e., if certain things were different than they now are we would again favor requiring attendance because that has been our first choice all along. This is what I have in mind.

Others of us have unconditional objections. From this point of view under virtually no circumstances would it be right to compell attendance because worship that is not freely given is not worship at all. Although I respect this argument and feel its pull, it is not where I now find myself.

But if for either or both of the above reasons we conclude that required chapels should be a thing of the past, we have two additional alternatives.

One is to make attendance at all worship services wholly voluntary. This is what I have in mind. The other is to require people to attend a specified number worship experiences that they either join or create, so that we have "selectives" with students doing what they think best.

Because I think that the "selectve" system might be a logistical night mare, I don't favor it.

Thank you!

I currently attend a divinity school which was, almost half a millennia ago, founded by a Bishop. Through the years it’s changed and merged with another ancient university to become what is now the University of Aberdeen. While unfamiliar with the specific history, I do know that at one point worship was mandatory and now it’s not.

We have morning prayers at my school (I blogged about it for Spectrum here which are active while the term is in session which I regularly attend. I am normally joined by two professors, three other students and one staff member. I don’t recognize the staff member but the rest of us are in Divinity.

I see worship as an integral part of a Christian education. Here at Aberdeen worship is a value added. Is the difference that one school requires some sort of worship participation and the other doesn’t? Or perhaps it’s due to the secularization of ancient universities in the UK with the (rightful) separation of their ecclesiastical and state institutions? (significant qualifier: my speculation on past and current attendance is limited to the divinity faculty and students...)

Alex’s main thrust isn’t with the necessity of worship for Adventist education but its effectiveness. To that end he makes a compelling point. I suspect that if Monte were to provide us statistics we’d see that the number of young people who lapse after college corresponds to the number which would, if they could, not attend worship at all durring college.

Hence his point to me on google talk this morning (his evening) that the 5-7 willingly faithful at Aberdeen are more profitable than hundreds coerced. I know for a fact that Alex sees worship as an integral and inseparable part of an Adventist education. He is not interested in seeing Adventist education secularized.

My question then is what system would you propose to provide every student at an Adventist university moments of worship? I personally think that La Sierra University has done a great job at mitigating all these competing tensions of free association and the belief that worship is an integral part of the Adventist educational experience.

An unanswered question is how can you create a system which lays bricks and makes disciples? That task is one we’re not meeting even as worship attendance is apparently being met.

Can we fail at one goal and succeed in the other? Does our failure nurturing disciples mean that worship events should not be a part of the Adventist school experience for an unseeking incoming student?

As long as time shall last, I suppose there shall be a debate about required chapel attendance. Allow me to present the slippery slope argument, which I'm surprised hasn't entered into the conversation yet.

This past fall, I attended a chapel service at Dartmouth College (as detailed here.) Originally a school to train Protestant missionaries, the school is, of course, almost completely a-religious (unless one considers atheism/secularism as a religion) now and there were only 12 persons in attendance.

I am not, of course, arguing that the school became less spiritual simply because chapel attendance was no longer required. Neither am I arguing that chapel attendance is the barometer by which students' spirituality is measured. What I am saying, however, is that when a school starts getting lax about its corporate "worship" goals, it shows an overall shift in direction, which trickles down to the students' attitude. "If the administration does not require us to go to chapel/church/religion classes, what does that say about their estimation of its importance?"

As much as we would like to believe that an 18-year-old student is fully prepared to be responsible for his or her own spiritual well-being, the reality is, many are not. They still need guidance and external motivation to help them be in a position to receive spiritual instruction and edification.

On the other hand, Alex's tension about freedom of choice - which we as Adventists rightfully herald - is relevant as well. I, myself, am not completely sure how all these things should interact with one another.

Lastly, I, too, find it ironic that David's reason for finally making up his mind against required chapel is that he didn't care for the music - something that many students have felt for a long time, I would imagine. At the same time, I am very sympathetic to the idea of "appropriateness" in music and, yes, the reality that there probably is an objective criteria by which all music can be judged against. Personal and subjective taste are not that criteria, though.

Unfortunately, I haven't yet figured out what that "objective" criteria is. Please let me know if you figure it out.

One more point that stands in tension with my previous points:

When we, as Adventists, suffer from a weak understanding of the Gospel message, coercion is our only option.

Somewhere, someone once said, "And I, if I am lifted up, will draw all peoples to Myself."

Shawn

I think you confuse requirement with coercion. Is it coercion to require English 101 as a prerequisite for a BA degree?

The Loma Linda Bulletin is careful to outline its requirements, of which Chapel is noted as being required except to those on clinical duty etc. Unless Mom and Dad coerced you to attend LLU. There is no coercion involved.

The question, as David presented it, was simply is the requirement either a spiritual or an educational advantage to the students/faculty as presently constituted? Dave's citations would indicate that it is not. Then the question arises. Should it be eliminated or should it be made relevent to an upper classman in the midst of a heavy load of academic study leading to making man whole?

I personally think, it should be improved. If that is impossible, I agree with David. Drop it!!! Tom

My reading in the books on the history of the secularization of private univesities in North America convinces me that abandoning required chapel attendance is the single greatest indicator that the college or university no longer takes it religious heritage seriously.

This is why for so long I have contended that we should retain the practice.

What's more, LLU in recent years, under the gentle encouragement of Gerald Winslow, has done much to improve the time of chapel. This has been a huge improvement.

But again, I think there are limits to what we can REQUIRE students to experience.

Secularization can occur in more than one way and one of these other ways is to be unable to distinguish in worship services Christian music from non.

As to objective criteria, one I would propose would be that the music should not be so loud as to cause students in my classes to say that it hurt their ears, that they felt physically assaulted.

I wish I saw this as an isolated incident; I don't. I rather see it as an extreme indictor of a trend.

All LLU has to say is that they agree that this one went way over the line and that it won't happen again.

But this is not the response I'm getting. Rather, it is that I am too rigid and conservative.

Because this is not the reason for which I'm usually faulted, this is a new and somewhat amusing experience for me.

Thank you!

Dave

Tom, I hear what you're saying. Maybe the word "coercion" is a little too strong to our ears. However, one of the definitions of coercion in the dictionary is "the act of compelling by force of authority." Is compelling a student to attend chapel by saying they will have to pay $50 for each chapel they miss coercion? Is the university using its authority in such a manner?

At the same time, I understand what you are saying. I am a firm believer that instead of tearing the practice down (or complaining about it), we should strive to make it better. That is probably the best solution.

Dave, I think you are right, for the most part, about the music issue. As someone who enjoys "contemporary" music, who has been a part of "Christian rock bands" (my father has always maintained that that is an oxymoronic statement), and writes music, I still feel uncomfortable with much of the music (or, more specifically, the performing of that music) that takes place today. Is that just personal preference? Maybe that has something to do with it, but I think it goes beyond that.

God has given us brains to discern between what is praiseworthy and what is not. Somehow we seem to figure these things out when addressing other allegedly subjective experiences - why not this one?

Thanks Shawn

I think we are on the same page. Tom

"REQUIRED WORSHIP IS AN OXYMORON!" Might as well say "Required Love." Worship can NEVER, and must NEVER be required, period.

"If the administration does not require us to go to chapel/church/religion classes, what does that say about their estimation of its importance?"

It proclaims that the importance of each individual student's spirituality in NOT being forced and that the administration acknowledges and admits that both worship and religious impulses are ONLY freely given. Public high schools have "Assemblies" which students are usually required to attend, at least a certain percentage.

Can one coerce Sabbath observance? Can one coerce spirituality? Such coercion trivializes both worship and our free choice to either worship or not. It is often not until one becomes a parent that there dawns the recognition that religious training and devotion just might be something important to a child's life. However, what an adult (18 years or older) desires in spirituality is not something that can be taught, but must be caught and only when the need is felt.

How many young people learned to dislike, often intensely, the forced attendance at worship? Does such forced attencance have any relation to their spiritual life a few years later? Isn't that the whole purpose of the requirement? IOW, how effectively have those goals been met?

This one's for Dave...and it's from Tim, not "Elder Mitchell." (smile) It is cheerfully written.

Two prefaces:

1) I have appreciated your work for the 27 years I have been aware of it. You're an asset to the church for variety of reasons. I think you're great. You're one of the last people I think I would argue with, certainly not in a public venue.

2) I agree with most of what you have said about required worship: On one hand, to require worship is of questionable value for the heart. I think of the EGW statement that a sullen obedience to the will of God will produce the heart of a rebel. I'm worried that required worship can produce that kind of fruit. On the other hand, you point out that schools who leave it behind leave their Christian heritage behind. I deeply harmonize with the tension you describe in that respect.

That being said, I'm having a rough time with your protocol and hermeneutics. I might understand them better if I knew what campus tensions have existed and what discussions had already taken place intramurally. As a visiting outsider, I have to say that my initial reaction is to wonder why you felt the need to discuss a Loma Linda issue on a public blog. It seems unfair to your colleagues, and it made me feel extremely uncomfortable as a guest. I felt I had to go through with my presentation, but I would have preferred to be at home.

Regarding the hermeneutics, I don't think your own university department--and it is a GREAT one!--could stand up to the tests you want to want the chapelmeisters to pass. I'm sure you can remember times when worthy discussions took place that were not within the established culture/theology of Adventism (and thank God for that!). But in a university, and particularly in a university, part of the process of growth is to hear the arguments that are not in continuity with our own experiences and practices. And I think university students could be reasoned with that way regarding worship. For example, regarding Mile High, people who are not being "blessed" (whatever that is), should be able to shift into the gear of "understanding." They could ask questions--"What makes a top secular band like Mile High feel God's calling to cross over into religious/sacred music?" "This music doesn't feel religious to me. What is the fruit of the lives of the musicians?" "What scriptures give me a context for this? Psalms? Acts 15? Leviticus? 1 Corinthians 12-14?" And the same questions can be asked about classical musicians who play secular dances and dirges for worship. By excusing people from uncomfortable worship experiences we do them a disservice. Now, if people are continually uncomfortable that's a different matter.

...and there were probably times when a guest speaker your department invited came to campus and said something outside someone's (or even the majority's) boundaries of taste, theology, and even the mores of respectful humanity--and you had an uproar to deal with. You might want to consider that uproar _after_ the week of prayer is over, there could be further explanations as to what happened. And they might be described in ways that will also be hospitable to your guest musicians. (By the way, the Heralds were ear-bustingly loud too, and in their evening concert did music that sounded like Manhattan Transfer, Oak Ridge Boys, early Mills Brothers, etc. Those are not generally accepted styles of Adventist music either...but the Kings Heralds have the right historical name, so they get a free pass. )

You noted my pain about music in my presentation yesterday. Originally I had not planned to go there, but given what happened at the meeting you referenced, and your subsequent posting here I wanted to include one view of dealing with it. I am hurting, hurting, hurting for my church family. How has the blessing of music become a bludgeon, as it apparently inflicted pain on you and me? I hurt for you, as well as I hurt for the people who attempted to produce a program that would be progressive, yet within the boundaries. It is more complex than what meets the eye (er, ear), I'm sure.

Anyway, allow me to share a personal item about your comment that in our congregation we have two services from which people can choose. I had high hopes for this, but is still painful and somewhat ineffective. For years we tried to blend, but this was extremely difficult. For example, if you try to blend it in one Sabbath you get a magnificent chorale...then a toe-tapping gospel song with a drummer. It just doesn't flow. So we tried to blend by varying weeks. A choir one Sabbath and a band the next. That doesn't work either. People don't know which week to come to church. It reminded me of the bloc voting in the cold war Olympics. Week by week half the congregation would either praise it or trash it, depending on who got their way.

We thought the new format would be the perfect answer: Traditional at 10 with SS at 11 (The saints keep their basic morning times). Young people, who like to sleep in, meet at noon. But this too has been painful. One, because change is difficult; and two, because Christians really do want to get the whole family together in one place. Young people want their grandparents and friends there...and older people want their grandchildren and friends there. And the toughest decision they have to make is what music they're willing to put up with to have everyone there.

Dave, go for it. Find our objective walls of propriety. But be sure you keep in mind that there will be collateral damage either way. Someone gets embarrassed or excluded by each statement or decision we make. I think an ethicist may be extremely adept at helping the church sort this out. And I wish you well, and hope that you will do it in collegiality, community and agapé.

Best regards,

-- Tim

Elaine

I think the wording is required attendance. It is a head count not a soul count.

The mission statement of LLU is to make man whole. The chapel assignment is just one dimension in that net-work.

If it has gone astray then either fix it or drop it.

I attended the University of Illinois Medical Center Campus.
Every Wednesday noon there was a speaker. Attendance was not required but the auditorium was standing room only. We had Nobel Prize winners, regent professors, ethicists, and behavioral scientists from U. of Chicago to Stanford.

Wednesday noons is when we grew up. Loma Linda could do the same. Tom

Tim [!]

First of all, thank you again for your sermon yesterday! Both in form and content it was excellent and you blessed us all.

I'm sorry you felt as though you had to address our recent discussions about music even though you didn't want to; however, you felt convicted by the Holy Spirit that you should and you did it well.

As I understand it, a "classic" is a work of art that addresses a local issue in a way that has universal value. Your sermon was a "classic."

I am taking it to heart as the Word-of-God to my soul from my Pastor-of-the-Day. Thank you!

If you or others want to "argue" with me, you're going to have to try harder. I think that on this thread we are having a good discussion!

I couldn't tell from what you said yesterday how successful you thought the two services plan--one traditional and the other contemporary--works. I gather that the results are like sweet and sour sauce, better in some ways and worse than others.

As far as I know we have no comparable challenge in the Loma Linda area because we have so many different congretations with so many different styles of worship that people can go where they want. That releases a lot of pressure, I suspect.

You're right: My work is often controversial; in fact, if it isn't controversial it probably isn't my work. This is true of all ethicists everywhere.

It is not our job to think out loud in public about what by now are widely accepted ethical stances ("Slavery is wrong.") but about those issues that are honestly controverted ("What about discarding 'unneeded' embryos at IVF clinics?").

The current Jack W. Provonsha series of nine lectures or panels from at least that many different points of view on "The Moral Status of the Human Embryo, that Mark Carr and Dawn Gordon who lead our Center for Christian Bioethics organized, is an example.

So is the upcoming book on "Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspects" that David Ferguson, Fritz Guy and I edited.

From the very beginning we at LLU in ethics decided to lay out some ground rules for ourselves to which we would stick as closely as possible:

1. Get the very best spokespersons in the nation, and sometimes internationally, to address the issue.

2. Never feature only one position on the subject. Always get the best possible representatives from the leading schools of thought on and off campus to present their diverse views.

3. Always provide an opportunity for audience feedback. Never allow someone to make a presentation and then walk off the stage or out of the room without giving people a chance to challenge what he or she said.

4. Except for classes, which are different, do not deal with controversial issues when people are required or feel very obligated to be present. Don't force them to listen to things when it is not the right time for them to do so.

5. Make it clear to everybody well in advance what the issue and speakers will be so that no one is surprised.

We have followed these rules for so long that by now they are carved in "our hearts rather than stone."

I intensely object to what happened Monday morning because(a)the performance was highly controversial for its time and place and because (b) the five rules of engagement, or their approximations, were not honored.

Please know that I say this only with the greatest possible distress, particulary because some of those who are most responsible for what went happened are among my most highly respected friends.

Yet if my students had had a clear knowledge of what was going to take place, some of them would have skipped. One told me that if that much noise had persisted in an industrial setting, the workers would have been required to wear ear plugs.

My own ears rang--not steadily but now and then--for six or seven hours after Chapel. The parents of some students wondered in telephone conversations what was going on even though they could turn down the volume on their monitors. And so forth.

I didn't like the music but the primary issue is not that. It is that my students were REQUIRED to listen to it, something that would not have taken place if the five common senses rules of had engagement been honored.

The only way to falsify what I have just said is to establish that featuring "Denver and the Mile High Orchestra" did not have to conform to these rules, or ones like them, because they were in fact "not that controversial." As far as I know, no one has made this claim.

To be continued...............

Dear Tim and David, Alex and Johnny, Ryan, Elaine, Shawn, Brian, Trevan, and Tom,

Thank you all for providing stimulating discussion and piquing my own thoughts on free will, mission of a university, the subjectivity and experience of music and art, standards of decorum in places of worship, generational differences, etc.

How can we be in community with a wide range of diversty in age, culture, musical tastes, beliefs, politics? Tim described the challenges faced by the PUC church to try to appeal to many groups in one service. (I miss your sermons so much, Tim--the authenticity, speaking the hard truths, calling us to accountability, standing on common ground with us rather than "preaching.")

If we have difficulty in a small sphere of church, college, etc, how will we live, let live, love in the wider world?

Tim [continued]

I have not yet worked through the exegetical and hermeutical issues on this but would like to.

I want to do the same with the writings of EGW. The SDA heritage, because of some its very early experiences, has a discernable orientation on music and worship and so forth. I think we should take our heritage seriously, though not slavishly.

Even though we once were "Shouting Methodists," today we are generally wary of some of the charismatic movements. Have we become too formal? Or did we learn something in our past that some other groups will eventually discover on their own?

My own approach to these issues is very simple. First question: "What do you want?" This gives us a subjective answer.

Second question? "How can you get it?" If it is available, this answer is objective.

Example:

"Do you want to hear well?"

"Not necessarily."

"Listen to whatever you want."

Another Example:

"Do you want to hear well?"

"Yes."

"Don't listen to music that is louder than ________ decibles."

Few things are more objective than this. Any audiologist can fill in the blank within seconds and it is valid irrespective of our subjective preferences.

Often there is no objective answer at this time. So we make an educated guess, encourage others to do the same and live together in peace.

Now to the most difficult question: Why have I gone public. In a word, the answer is that because I had no other choice.

For many years a number of us have expressed our growing concerns and I believe that we have not been taken seriously.

I don't expect agreement; however, it would be helpful to have a response that is more substantive than "we try to meet the diverse musical preferences of our students."

Your response to me on this Blog is a longer and more reflective written statement than I have yet received at LLU. Thank you for taking me seriously.

But there are other constituencies that are more important than me. One of these is my students. I is wrong to REQUIRE them to listen to such music, especially when, as we are often told, there are no objective standards that establish that it is in their educational and spiritual interests to do so.

Another consituency is the wider world of Adventism that needs to know that we don't all think the same at LLU, especially about things like this.

But for me the most important is LLU itself. It is not helpful for it--the university itself--to leave the impression around the world that we all endorse of what took place when in fact that is not so. The interests of the university are better served in the long run if people see that such things are being openly debated.

Monday mornng's chapel is not an isolated or even the worst incident. I complained about anther one that was "vulgar" in a sense that I explictly refused to apply to "Denver and the Mile High Orchestra."

Yes, some of my students say that the Heralds were also too loud.

What's the point of all this volume? How does it help us hear the still, small voice of God?

I agree with Tom: With regard to a required chapel policy, fix or quit.

Its time for a Sabbath rest! Thank you!

Dave

Dr. Larson, just so I can be clear on the subject, is your primary objection to mile high that it was painfully loud, and if so, could the whole problem have been solved by the AV team turning down the volume? As far as I can tell this has been your main objective standard by which to judge the music as innapropriate for the setting. I'm starting to wonder if this is more a fault of the sound guys.

Brian

Yes. The volume of the music is my first and foremost objection. I have noticed that this is standard operating procedure for many similar groups.

What's the point? And is hearing this sort of thing so important that we must REQUIRE it?

I also believe that their antics on stage would have been fun elsewhere, but we were they to pay our respects to God.

I would like to understand their lyrics and have been looking on the Internet for them.

Pipe organs can get too loud too. That's not fair to the congregation either.

If they had performed in any venue at which attendance was purely voluntary, I would not be objecting.

Thanks!

Dave

Hi Becky!
I have a very simple proposal: Don't REQUIRE people to listen to music they find very offensive. All my best to you and Chuck!
Dave

Hi Becky!
I have a very simple proposal: Don't REQUIRE people to listen to music they find very offensive. All my best to you and Chuck!
Dave

Dave,

I found this site with a few of their song lyrics, if you're interested. I don't know if this is helpful or not!

Ken C.

A few things strike me as I listen to the dialogue.

One is my own experience as a student in attending worships at religious insititutions, some Adventist, some not. While for the most part I was not particularly troubled by them being required, there were times when having to attend was very annoying, and perhaps even resented. This was of course made worse if the service itself was not something I fully resonated with. I would have explained my reasons for reacting the way I did as many have in their posts. In my case, however, if the truth were to be told, what the real issue was - was that I just don't like it when anyone tells me I have to do something. The response was not all that different when I was very small, and I wish I could say it has fully gone away as I have gotten older. I think there probably is a theological issue involved here, a somewhat basic one, but I am not sure it is the one that usually gets enthusiastically discussed.

Second, I find myself troubled about the way that our culture influences our worship experiences at times. I'm not referring here to a particular type of music, but something more subtle. It seems to me that there is an odd mixture of consumerism and the need to "capture the attention of the audience" that can infuse worship experiences and get in the way of actually engaging in worship. I think this can happen regardless of the musical style (the same thing can happen with speakers) when one somehow senses that what is going on is more about the performance or presentation than it is about responding to the God that engages us in the act of worship. This is much harder to talk about and sort out, but I think this is probably more where the real issues lie. I don't know how to do this well without listening carefully to what is on the heart of those involved, and maintaining a certain willingness to withold judgement. My sense is that the other conversations about a particular musical style, or my freedom to only shop for the product that I like the most, talk all around this more basic issue. Not to say that those might not be helpful conversations at some point, just perhaps not the most basic ones.

Finally, I am struck by how odd this conversation would probably sound to the first disciples. I'm sure that they had their own issues.

It is interesting that all of this, all sides of the worship/music/appropriate issue and after the fact discussions, is being done presumably in the name of Jesus. And of coarse the cliche "What Would Jesus Do" is of no help. His life and teachings leave little in the line of building and legislating for empires.

Just my two cents, if a college-aged person doesn't want to attend chapel, what does one hope to accomplish by forcing them to do so? We are not talking about children or uneducated persons. If people only attend out of fear, you will only get outward compliance. It seems to me that those who do not want to attend and don't are at least being true to themselves. Bottom line is that people have a choice about what college/university they attend and if they choose to attend a university/college that requires chapel attendance, then they will probably offer outward compliance minimally. I find it ironic that organizations that foster religious liberty and yet deny it to those that attend thier own institutions. I don't think there will be any mandatory chapel attendance in the new earth as I don't believe anyone will be there that wouldn't choose to attend or give it a second thought....ah but of course every day and moment would be a chapel moment there!

Shawn

Thanks for the link! This is exactly what I have been looking for. Of the bunch, I like "Stand" and "Unwind" the best.

Thanks again!

Dave

So much heat in such a small pond. If LLU were responsible for the laws of a society, then freedom would be a foundational concept. But it's not. LLU enrolls about 4,000 students in a nation with millions of students and billions of people. LLU is a small pond.

LLU provides an education to help people continue the ministry of Jesus Christ. Of course LLU has spiritually oriented requirements.

Students are notified of these requirements before they can even start an application for enrollment. They know what they're getting into, and they pay big bucks (plus interest) to get it. Of course LLU requires attendance at spiritually oriented activities.

Students are at LLU for such a short, short period of their lives. Of course LLU does it's best to help them grow as members of the spiritual community.

Perhaps LLU should require faculty and staff to attend chapel as well. This would no doubt spark more spiritually oriented conversations with students, creating more opportunities for faculty and staff to help students grow spiritually. This is, after all, part of the mission of LLU, right?

Have as anyone in this disccusion ever Googled "Fart Music?" Its a growing genre. What it be OK for chapel?

Bob

My answer to this question is clear, concise and I think compassionate and charitable:

Required chapel, no. Volunatary chapel, yes.

Although I very much doubt that I would find it appropriate, those who genuinely hold that this kind of music makes a positive contribution to their lives as Christians should be allowed to organize worship services on campus that feature it.

But they should not have the power to force others to attend and listen. Freedom is freedom and fair is fair.

Paul on another topic: "Let all be convinced in their own minds."

Thanks!

Dave

Thought provoking post, Dave.
Prior to the series, I was concerned that the King's Heralds might prove a problem with the target audience. However, it seems that the producer who arranged the music did his usual masterful job of providing a wide variety of musical styles so that everyone could feel equally blessed or offended or both at different times. It is something like family worship--sometimes it's focused on your needs and much of the time it's focused on what appeals to others, but the important thing is the whole family is together worshiping God. Those of us who attend Calimesa (along with the music producer) get this sort of thing each month. One Sabbath has hymns with the organ, the next has the praise band with their trap set, electric guitar and bass. Okay, we haven't had the group that provoked Dave's comments yet, but as soon as we line up some corporate sponsorships, we'll be able to afford them.

Dan

Thanks for the splendid laugh!

While reading your post my mind kept saying, "Yes. Yes. Yes. This is exactly the kind of wisdom I'd expect from Doctor Giang. Aren't the saints at Calimesa wise," etc [all this in the split of a second, of course!].

But then your last line graced the excessive seriousness of this whole discussion with some much needed humor! Thank you very much!

Just think how many great bands we could feature in our church services if we advertised corporations on the back of each pew, sort of like they do with bus benches: "These worship services are brought to you in part by Baskin & Robins" on one pew. Another ad on a second pew, etc.

I have no objection to tellling everyone what we are doing here at LLU, of course. But businesses like McKee Foods?

Why cannot they not support the program annonymously or, at most, by being listed in some discrete "honor roll" like we do at concerts, etc.?

I'v been told that corporate sponsorships of SDA worship services did not begin at Loma Linda but that it has been going on for a while elsewhere.
Amazing!

If this isn't evidence that the great American religion of consumerism is taking over our church, I'm not sure would could be.

A serious question: Are there reliable and important scientific studies on the possible interactions between various forms of music and neurological functioning?

Thanks again, Dan. Happy Sabbath at Calimesa!!

Dave

What is authentic Adventist worship? Do we know ourselves well enough to describe it? Do we know even know it when we see it?

I suspect that there is no consensus in the community. It is ironic that an organization that thinks it is VERY important for every Sabbath School in the world to study the same scriputral topic each Sabbath follows the lesson with a "Heinz 57" grab-bag of worship elements pieced together with ideas, activities and styles borrowed from numerous different Christian and pop-culture communities both traditional and historical. An organization and culture that does its best to impose a specific number of fundamental beliefs, ironically assumes an "almost anything goes" standard in worship.

Behind Dave's critique is an assumption that worship is better facilitated in some contexts than in others. It is true for me.

The fundamental commercialization of worship in the SDA community -- as well as many other Christian communities -- is the tacit buy-in to marketing -- sales figures, if you will, of baptisms or filled seats in pews. In an era in which some believe there are no markets, just niches, I find that my church is less and less interested in my niche. The focus is not on the demographic of life-long SDAs but on those coming of age today. I'm expected to be loyal, to grin and bear it, but that leaves me to live with only the worship experience that I can create in private.

In terms of my current profession -- marketing -- the SDA church is not sure of its positioning -- the space it wants to claim in the marketplace of Christian ideas and styles. Yes, it is the church of truth -- funadmental beliefs -- and strong centralized control. But in the real, living manifestation of the church -- WORSHIP -- there is no coherent, authentic Adventism.

So, my church seems to have chosen to leave me. That is perhaps even more serious problem than whether or not I am required to attend anyway.

Anonymous

In the 1958-1966 era faculty were expected to attend Chapel--patient care demands excepted.

Although engaged in direct patient care. I attended on a regular basis. As I recall, those were vere refreshing hours.

The issue only raises it ugly head because of lack of content, not every a joyful noise unto the Lord.

As I recall the chapel was often better refreshment than the Sabbath Sermon.

Of course, I was there when the fight for doctrinal prefection was full blown. I'm glad I was only on the Board of Trustees during Dallas and Glacier View. Since then to speak from the heart is a very dangerous enterprise--so making noise is safe if not appreciated. I suggest--forget the 2300 days and talk about the Alpha and Omega of our salvation. What a motivation to get back in the trenches and fight the good fight! Tom

"I bet they say something about music," I said to myself this morning when I saw that the Sanctuary Sabbath School would be devoted to a panel discussion among several of the pastors on SDA college and university campuses in North America.

They did. In fact the eight panelists and one moderator spent more time on it than any other issue.

They emphasized three themes: (1) It would be helpful if we all expanded our musical horizons in a charitible fashion; (2) there are definite limits as to what kinds of music are appropriate in Christian worship; and (3) it is difficult to draw this line with precision and never can it be drawn in a way that is acceptable to everyone.

Oakwood College's Craig Newborn's reaction to the music that preceded his sermon earlier in the week was commended: "It's not my cup of tea," he said, "but I'm not the only one drinking." This attitude was indeed commendable!

Had there been an opportunity I would have liked to have asked two questions:

(1) Is it not the case that the range of music one features should be narrower when the audience is REQUIRED to listen to it?

(2) Does not a Christian college or university campus have an AFFIRMATIVE DUTY to help students become more acquainted with and appreciative of those forms of Christian music that have stood the test of time, irrespective of their style or culture of origin? The panelists did not address either of these issues.

The "crisis management" approach dominated. No one asserted that the present situation provides an excellent opportunity for them proactively and persuasively to seize the initative on behalf of Christianity's rich and varied cultural heritage. No one said, "We have a chance to teach our students something about Christian music they don't already know!"

Dan Matthews, longtime SDA television speaker, moderated the discussion.

The panel included Andy McDonald (Florida Hosptial College Church), Mic Thurber (Southwestern Adventist University Church), Pat Morrison (Atlantic Union College Church), Dan Smith (La Sierra University Church), Ron Halvorsen (Union College, College View Church), Karl Haffner (Kettering College of Medical Arts Church) Randy Roberts (Loma Linda University Church) and Hyaveth Williams (Loma Linda University Campus Hill Church).

Dave,

you did notice that your two questions were asking for opposite actions, didn't you? (1) asked for a narrowing of the spectrum (2) asked for a widening of the spectrum toward ancient trends. ("that have stood the test of time").

conclusion: you are asking for a narrowed spectrum shifted to the past.

hee hee, are you showing your age?

I'm not going to make a career out of objecting to some recent required Chapels on my campus, with the appearance last week of "Denver and the Mile High Orchestra" being the straw that finally broke the camel's back for me.

Yet I do have one more thing to say and this is that broadcasting their performance all over the nation, and in many parts of the world, will eventually cost our denomination millions of dollars that will shift from it to various conservative Adventist independent ministries.

This will not happen all at once or in one place. And it is not likely to have much impact at Loma Linda because probably there will always be a steady stream of people who will want to study here in order to enter one of the health professions.

But we will see decreasing support for some of our liberal arts colleges as SDA young people are encouraged by their parents, pastors and preferences to go elsewhere.

How much money are we talking about? If only 100 SDA families around the world direct a mere S10,000.00, a year in tithe, offerings and tuition elsewhere, the amount is 100 x 10,000.00 = 1,000,000.00

This will have a growing snow-ball effect as families follow this practice year after year and convince their relatives and friends to do the same.

We can count on our friends in the various conservative Adventist independent ministries to carry this recording with them from place to place all around the Adventist world where it will be easy for them to capitalize--yes, I mean capitalize--on residual resentment toward our institutions.

Some will respond by trying even harder to be "relevant" and "up-to-date" and "with-it" and "in touch" with our young people and this will result in even more of them going elsewhere.

Can one ill-advised Chapel service do this much damage? If it is broadcast across the nation in the circumstances in which we are working, most assuredly.

Some will respond that some of the things people like me have said and done have also cost the denomination millions of dollars. They are right.

But we did what we did and said what we said as matters of principle; I don't recall us ever pandering.

Some will also say that the only thing worse than having historic Adventists tote the Chapel recording from place to place is for them to take our new book on "Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives" with them. They are right about this too.

The difference is that our book will help save the lives of many gay and lesbian Christians within and beyond Adventism. I think their lives are worth it. I don't think that featuring "Denver and the Mile High Orchestra" was.

This problem can be partially rectified if the right leaders swftly make it clear in public that featuring this group on campus was a mistake that will not happen again.

But continuing to describe people like me who have objected as "Eurocetric, Monocultural, Disincarnatinal, Mentally Unbalanced, Liturgical Retrogrades" is not likely to help! It makes me laugh, but it may make some others cry.

I hope this is all from me! I'm glad God treates us better than we deserve, as Elder Karl Haffner preached so well at the LLU Church yesterday.

Thank you!!

Dave

Dave

Another story out of the past. A colleague of mine at LLU School of Dentistry left for private practice in Washington State at about the same time I accepted an administrative position at the Medical College of Georgia.

In those days, one Sabbath a year was devoted to LLU offering day. My friend's pastor invited him to call for the offering since he had recently been connected with the University. My friend agreed, if the pastor thought it best if the Pastor knew that my friend took money out of the offering plate every time the LLU Sabbath came around. Tom

And of course, empires are built with money.

I have read most of the comments while watching Greta on Fox.
Do what I did for required chapel. Take a book. Read it. Graduate. Move on...Dave, you have been holding this in for 33years plus...anonymous alumnus

Right on the mark, Dick. Clearly this empire has been for some time built with money.

It's sad that a community that was once such a spiritual force has slowly mutated into a worldly empire, and then in such a predictable fashion, begun to break itself down in the bitter, accusatory, and all too banal recriminations of the "music wars".

At least when Koresh was tempting people out of that chapel, there was fire to be stolen.

I think both Dick and the Administration have forgotten why chapel was instituted in the first place. It was to bring a diverse group together in community to strengthen their bonds with God and each other. Of course if it doesn't do that then why have it?

On the other hand, why not try and reestablish LLU as a community of Christian scholars working together to make man whole! The last thing they need is entertainment. They need constant reassurance of the presence of God and the rightness of their cause.

Not an empire but The Kingdom of God=="suffer little children to come unto me!"

What we know is chapel is broken. Does anyone know how to fix it? If not what alternatives are available? When I taught at Marquette University the dental classes were 110 strong. I really got to know only the top ten and the bottom ten. That may be the way to produce a dentist. But how about a Medical Evangelist? Tom

The Bible says that we must try our best to be as non-offensive as possible in regards to eating meats served to idols and regarding circumsision. I think the same principle applies here. We should choose music that will be least offensive to those worshiping. Some people I know many not LIKE hymns or softer church music, but I'm sure they're not OFFENDED by it. Boredom or different taste does not equal offense. But on the flip side, many people WOULD be offended by music that sounds similar to worldly rock songs, etc. (Many times because they gave up this type of music when they gave their life to Christ). The loudness can also be offensive. We must be culturally sensitive when choosing what type of music we play in our churches.