What did the students think? (Part 1)

One of the things that I've been thinking about a lot in regards to compulsory chapel is how students reacted to the policy. I've come across two sources from different time periods (approximately 80 years apart) and, as one might imagine, they suggest that, at best, student attitudes towards chapel changed dramatically over the years or, at worst, the earlier of the two sources wasn't actually written by a student. I will begin this two-part post with an editorial type of report that was published in the Ursinus College Bulletin in April 1889. Bear in mind that this piece is entitled "College Sundays" and as such does not include weekday chapel although attendance was still required.

" At eight o’clock in the morning a general Bible-class, composed of resident students, and any others who choose to attend, is held in the College chapel. Prof. Ruby conducts it. The selections of Scripture studied are those of the International Series. This service has an interested attendance. All the resident students are required to be present, it is true. But that must not be taken in the harsh peremptory sense. The compliance is cheerful, virtually voluntary, and evasions or excuses are rare occurances. The must is assented to as a bird consents to fly with its wings, or a man to work with his hands. Next comes the privilege of attending public worship in some adjacent church. There are several churches in the three villages contiguous to each other with the college in the central one. One is located immediately opposite the college grounds. The others are within east and, in fair weather, pleasant walking distance. Each student may select the one he prefers regularly to attend. All are required, in this case again, to make a selection and to be in their place. But the rule seems to set so softly upon them that it is not felt to be a chafing yoke. It may be that one or another wisely makes a pleasure or necessity, - but as practice makes virtue easy, so compliance with the law soon kindles love for it…
Once a month, or oftener, if other engagements allow, at half past three o’clock in the afternoon, the Vice-President, Rev. Dr. Super, and Prof. J.S. Weinberger give the students Bible-Talks on special topics, which have proved attractive and profitable…Attendance upon this is, of course, voluntary, but a large proportion of the young men of the college find pleasure in being there…
These facts suggest that their own inferences, and most assuredly none of these will be that a Christian Sunday at college need be a day of gloomy asceticism, or of puritanic pietistic severity (such as anti-religious papers often caricature), but a season of purest pleasure and most salutary rest and recreation" (Ursinus College Bulletin, Vol V, No. 7, April 1889, "College Sundays," 117-118).

As alluded to above, I'm not entirely sure who wrote this article because rarely (if ever) were names included with things that were published in the early Bulletins. All I know is that the Bulletin was edited by AW Bomberger, though I doubt he wrote everything that was published in the newsletter. I have yet to decide how important this information gap is.

Moving on to the substance of the piece. Students who gathered in the Bible study class/seminar are purportedly cheerful and (dare I suggest it?) excited to attend these meetings with professors and administrators on Sundays. Furthermore, students rarely skip the class or furnish excuses for their absence. The person writing the article implies with his comparison to birds and the rest of mankind that these classes are inexplicably a part of the Ursinus experience (at least for resident students) and the Ursinus education would not be complete without weekly attendance at these Bible classes.

I find this claim to be extremely important not just in gauging the popularity of required prayer but in tracking the attitude of Ursinus towards what we consider a quality education. What immediately comes to mind as I read and re-read that sentence and consider that concept the more and more I think about our required CIE classes. When I think about required Bible classes shaping a good, reputable Christian education in the late nineteenth century in relation to a required seminar in which we gain a solid foundation for a reputable liberal arts education in the twenty-first century...well, the two just don't seem quite as far off from one another.

As for the required attendance at local churches on Sundays, it seems that the writer of this article needs to strain a little harder to keep from coming off as if the practice was forced too hard upon the students. Still, though, the assertion that "compliance with the law soon kindles love for it" doesn't suggest that the requirement was met with as much enthusiasm as the Sunday morning Bible class.

Before passing too much judgment about the writer's sugarcoating of the attitudes of the students, it is important to consider the position he or she was in. The Bulletin was not meant as a student paper distributed exclusively at the College - on the contrary, from what I've gathered it was provided to the students but meant for alumni and "friends" of Ursinus who were in a position to give money (remember that the College was in extreme debt for many, many years). Additionally, a common practice at the time was for colleges to send one another their publications as a method of showing off. Any editor worth his or her salt (AW Bomberger included, I'm sure) would never allow any sort of article or editorial that would put the associated institution in a position to fall into disfavor with donors, alumni, and other places of higher learning.

So, I think that until I am able to gather more information about the feelings of the student body towards required religious activities it is safe to assume that while some parts of the Sunday religious ritual were received better than others, the students did not feel strongly enough (or didn't react strongly enough) to warrant a formal note about the whole thing...but perhaps faculty minutes and informal documents will prove otherwise.