Does Chapel even exist anymore?
As a senior at Andrews University, I found myself asking this on the first Thursday of the semester. When I attended that morning’s co-curricular, I discovered the schoolwide Chapel program had been rebranded, and was now called “AU Gather.” This intrigued me, because last year, I had written an opinion piece in the Student Movement about fines regarding Thursday co-curriculars under the guise of it being a religious program. However, if it is no longer considered a chapel, this opens up the floor to many questions; one such question is if there was even a point to rebranding the program at all.
The short answer is yes; the long answer is more complex than that. What must be acknowledged first is that student input contributed significantly to the process. Jose Bourget, the AU Chaplain, says that his team “did engage with other student feedback last year from AUSA senate, surveys, and focus groups that communicated a range of views and expectations from students about ‘chapel.’” Hence, chapel denotes a traditional worship service, but the name ‘AU Gather’ denotes more of a community aspect to an assembly. However, this being the case, another question arises about the online categorization of AU Gather.
Simply because the name has changed does not mean the program itself has; it is still considered ‘chapels and forums’ online along with the 12 credit requirement attached to it. Admittedly, AU Gather is a genuine rebrand attempt. However, unlike the former, the word ‘chapel’ is a category title, so referring to the Thursday assemblies as chapels is what many students will tend to resort to by default. And, because this is a default title, it gives the impression that the program is a worship service, despite attempts (such as the renaming) that suggest otherwise.
It is also worth mentioning that the Thursday assemblies have much in common with what is expected at a vespers program, such as a song service and a type of spoken message as the bulk of the meeting. This similarity has been taken into account by people who believe that these programs are, in fact, worships. According to student T Bruggeman (senior, computer science and math studies), who attended a panel last school year regarding the program itself, they observed that “when challenged by students who said that Chapel is undoubtedly a worship service due to it having the same structure as a worship service, the panelists said that they had tried removing songs from Chapel in years past, but students didn’t like that, so they brought it back.” So regardless of the positive purpose of the rebranding, it may give the impression —not the actual intent— to the general student body that it’s a copout to a fine to a religious program, with some students genuinely believing that it is and should still be a worship service.
So, is it a religious program? Of course, there is an unspoken expectation that it should be so. However, according to the Adventist Accreditation Association, although there are mentions, there are zero explicit requirements for an SDA university to have a chapel-like program. That being said, it is very likely that more religious content will be shown at programs like these, as the new AU President, John Wesley Taylor V, was part of a committee that revised the second edition of a guide entitled “Faith by Design.”
“Faith by Design” was created to be a spiritual master plan for SDA colleges. Its purpose is to guide Adventist tertiary institutions into incorporating certain practices that create an ideal spiritual program. Point five in particular says that the university president acts as the spiritual leader of the institution, and that the role can be split with — but not delegated to — anyone else, including the chaplain. Additionally, point six addresses that the individuals who oversee spiritual programs on campus must report directly to the president. It has been observed that Dr. Taylor takes this role with the utmost seriousness; therefore, it would not be far-fetched to assume that AU Gather will be more religion-focused in the future.
Regardless of opinion, the Thursday program at AU is not the same thing as a weekend worship service. Andrews is a school, not a church. A church has members; a school has students. AU has every right to create a chapel program, but when the school currently does gather on Thursdays, it is not under the guise of a worship service or as a body of believers, it is under the guise of a heterogeneous group of enrolled students who have agreed to come to the same location as per the university requirement. So, technically, no: AU Gather is not a religious program.
This does not mean that AU is not an SDA school with zero worships, but the student body is there on Thursdays for a slightly different purpose. Because of this, it would not be in good faith to call the required quota of 12 assemblies a true worship service; rather, it should be considered a gathering that happens to incorporate faith-based content. Much like the opinion reflected by Dr. Anthony Bosman, who is a part of the AU Faculty Senate, Andrews “should thoughtfully reflect on how we can remain true to our distinctive faith-based mission while being inclusive of a religiously diverse student body.” This may mean to classify AU Gather as a religious program, or it may be the opposite. That is ultimately an administrative call.
However, perhaps the most concerning factor regarding this topic is the polarizing opinions surrounding it. On one hand, there are individuals who hold the opinion that spiritual revival is crucial in any aspect of what the campus does, even going as far as to say that “bad choice(s) will enlarge the nest of this woke invasive species at Andrews.” On the other hand, there are others who will find any chance they can to discredit individuals in spiritual leadership positions who may be of a more conservative mindset, writing articles that are obviously biased towards a more liberal point of view and ultimately compromising current administrative leaders.
There may be some who say that by choosing to even come to an SDA university, it makes no sense to deliver any sort of complaint because school attendance was voluntary. This is easily refutable, because it is quite similar to confronting a resident of the United States and telling them that they have no right to bring up domestic issues since there are other countries with bigger problems. That doesn’t follow. In order to bring about change, issues must be addressed.
The bottom line is that AU needs to be clearer on the purpose of Thursdays. There may be circulating arguments that Thursday assemblies need to be more religious; there may be arguments on the other side that say they shouldn’t be. Whatever the stances are, if there exists an obvious polarization on an issue that has faith-based content involved, then an event of this nature needs prompt clarification.
Speculating on the purpose of what Thursday assemblies are poses a further dive into why the question itself even exists. There will always be different stances on the intent of AU Gather; that much is true. But when those stances become toxic and accusatory, then it becomes an ironic banter between separate groups that pulls people apart rather than bringing them together. The core of what AU Gather is trying to accomplish —coming together as a diverse student body— will no longer matter.
Perhaps it would be better for neither side of this argument to exist.
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of Andrews University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, Andrews University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.