RELIGIOUS MINISTRATIONS IN STATE UNIVERSITIES BY DENOMINATIONAL
AGENCIES
By Rev. Beverley D. Tucker, Jr., D.D., of the Episcopal Theological Seminary,
Alexandria, Va.
The opportunity for service which the State universities offer to the
Church is one that has been largely neglected in the past. The older universities
and colleges in America were established under definitely religious
auspices, and long after the rise of the State university the various Christian
communions tended to limit their sense of responsibility to those
educational institutions, which bore the imprimatur of their respective
denominations.
Moreover, with the principle of the separation of Church and State
fundamental in our national constitution, the problem of how the Church
may wisely minister in a State university is a delicate and complicated one.
The utmost care has to be exercised to avoid denominational prejudices—
no system will be tolerated in which the privileges are not theoretically equal
for members of every religious affiliation. As a corollary of this principle of
religious freedom, the system adopted should not involve any form of coercion;
attendance upon religious exercises must needs be voluntary.
Dr. Philip A. Bruce has recently described at length (in his History of
the University of Virginia) the extreme caution which Jefferson observed in
eliminating every trace of denominational influence in the formative period
of the University of Virginia's life. So scrupulous was he to enforce his
fundamental principle that "education and sectarianism must be divorced,"
that in his original plan for the University, states Dr. Bruce, he made no
real concession to religious feeling beyond providing a room in the Rotunda
for religious worship.
As religion, however, is an irrepressible factor in human life, the demand
that the University should be other than neutral in religious expression
soon made itself felt. The first proposal to make good this deficiency was
put forward by Jefferson himself. The proposal was that each of the principal
denominations should establish its own theological school just without
the confines of the institution. Thereby would have been established a
natural liaison between the secular education of the State and the religious
education of the Christian communions. One can only voice the regret that
the leaders of the Church in that day had not the vision to carry out the
proposal. Through such an arrangement mutual confidence and respect
might have been the resulting relationship between the religious and educational
forces of the State rather than the suspicion and misunderstanding
that has too frequently characterized their mutual attitude.
While this opportunity for coöperation between the University and the
Church on a large scale was not taken, yet the demand for some religious
expression in the life of the faculty and students soon received a modified
provision. As early as 1829 a plan of engaging the services of a chaplain
was undertaken by those interested. The support was arranged by voluntary
subscriptions, and the chaplain elected, in rotation, from the leading
denominations of the State. This plan continued in operation, in one form
or another, until 1896. For a portion of this period regular religious services
were held in one of the University halls set apart for that purpose; later, a
chapel was built on the ground, the funds for the purpose being contributed,
not by the State, but by friends and alumni of the institution.
From 1896 until 1917 the plan was adopted of inviting distinguished
clergymen from the various denominations to conduct religious services in
the Chapel as a substitute for the earlier plan of having a resident chaplain.
The Young Men's Christian Association, through its general secretary,
stood sponsor for the plan and, in addition to the Sunday services, made
provision for Bible study groups and fostered opportunities for social service.
Theoretically there is much to be said for each of these plans. Their
primary motive was to furnish a method of religious cooperation, which
would be interdenominational in character. Practically neither method
proved an adequate solution of the real situation. The latter plan lacked
continuity both in the personality of the leader and in the mode of worship.
Both plans failed to furnish any definite connection with the previous religious
training of the students or to make any positive preparation for the
church life, to which the student might go after leaving the University.
In 1917, the Faculty Committee on Religious Exercises decided to discontinue
the chapel services and to make an appeal, through the Charlottesville
Ministerial Association, to the various religious denominations to assume
a more definite oversight of their adherents at the University. The
immediate occasion for taking this step was the general upheaval at the
University owing to war conditions, but the committee frankly recognized
that the chapel system had served its day and had become a burden to be
borne rather than a stimulus to the religious life of the University. While
such a system might supplement, it could not serve as a substitute for the
organized ministrations of the various communions. Moreover, this appeal
to the Church as such to assume the leadership in providing religious opportunities
for the members of the University was in line with Jefferson's
original policy, namely, of making no provision for theological education in
the University curriculum and proposing that the various denominations
should establish their divinity schools in the university neighborhood.
As early as 1910, the Episcopal Church had taken a positive step in this
direction. Recognizing the inadequacy of the university chapel system in
providing pastoral oversight and cultivating church loyalty; recognizing,
furthermore, the practical difficulty of adding the pastoral care of the Episcopal
students at the University to the extensive parochial duties of the
rector of the local church in Charlottesville, the Diocese of Virginia has
organized a parish, with its own rector, in the University community, for
the avowed purpose of ministering to its adherents among the students and
faculty. An excellent building site has been purchased and a temporary
chapel erected, where for the past ten years regular services have been held.
The plans provide for the building of a permanent church as soon as the
funds are available.
While a local congregation, over and above the student and faculty
members, has come into being, yet the work is regarded in the nature of a
diocesan responsibility. The bishop has authority to insure the selection
of a clergyman who is qualified to be a helpful pastor and preacher to a
student community, and the diocese assumes the obligation of assisting the
local congregation in the financial outlay for building and retaining such a
church.
An alternative to this plan, and one that is being tried in many State
universities, would be to add to the staff of the local congregation a student
pastor, who will serve the university community and foster the affiliation of
the students with the Charlottesville church of their respective denominations.
The fundamental principle to be observed in both of these plans is this,
that the State University, where our young men and women gather from
many parts of the country at a critical stage in their intellectual and spiritual
development, should be regarded as a special field of service by the
Church. It requires an oversight more definite than a collegiate chapel
system can furnish. It calls for leaders, who are especially qualified and
trained for work among students; for leaders, moreover, who can give their
whole time and thought to the moral and religious life of the university
community; and is a work of too great importance to be tacked on as an
incident of the busy life of a local rector or pastor.
In this day when the outlook for Christian unity seems more hopeful
and encouraging than in the past, the system outlined above may seem to
imply a backward step, a building higher the walls of partition. Personally,
I should conceive it as a step forward in the direction of Christian
unity. The colorless, vague religion of a college chapel makes not for
religious unity but for religious negation. I have greater confidence in the
fact that a group of broad-minded student pastors, working together for the
moral and spiritual life of the University, will do far more to create that
attitude of mutual trust and tolerance, which is the first step toward cooperation
and unity. The problems confronting the different college pastors
would be much the same. Through conference and through combined efforts
in service extension and Bible study there will be many natural opportunities
for fellowship in the Christian life. Unless our ideal is for a dead uniformity
rather than for a lively unity, I have greater hope of Christian unity
in the direction of positive loyalties than of amiable negations.
Abstract of an Address by Rev. Samuel Chiles Mitchell, Ph.D., LL.D., of the University
of Richmond
In addition to the plans of the preceding speaker, the only suggestion
I can make is that the various denominations coöperate with the Young
Men's Christian Association in the maintenance of a University Preacher
on permanent tenure. In this way I believe a man on the order of Phillips
Brooks could be secured, who would give his whole strength and time to the
religious life of the University. Such a man as Bishop McDowell, or Dr.
Gilkie, or Dr. Jowett would make a lasting impression upon the University
community by his continuous presence and by his messages, springing out
of the changing needs of the student body.
The advantages of a permanent tenure over the chaplaincy for two
years, which was the custom in my student days here, and over the place of
having different visiting ministers from Sunday to Sunday, are apparent.
By permanency of office you can get a really great personality whose voice
will command attention everywhere. His interpretation of the spiritual life
will be progressive in spirit and cumulative in effect. He will enter sympathetically
into the life of the individual student as well as reënforce the religious
purposes of the University community as a whole.
In Madison Hall we have an agency with which the denominations
can work to this end. Whatever might be lost to specifically denominational
interests by this plan, would in my opinion be more than made up by
the emphasis upon the essentials of Christianity which such a preacher would
give, thus enriching religious life and truth for all through the University.
