Home > Resources > Worshiping Communities > Campus

Home

Professional Resources

Seminary Chapel Survey 

In the spring of 2007, a questionnaire was sent to all ATS-accredited Protestant seminaries in the USA.  The purpose of the study was to begin to map the range of practices and policies at the nation’s seminaries surrounding community worship.  Thus, the questionnaire asked simple questions and invited reflection and feedback.  The questions were divided into four primary categories: Leadership, Liturgy, Community, and Curriculum. 

Sent to over 125 institutions, we received responses from more than 30 schools, including:

  • Asbury – Orlando
  • Asbury – Willmore
  • Austin Presbyterian
  • Boston University
  • Brite Divinity School
  • Calvin
  • Candler
  • Church Divinity School of the Pacific
  • Claremont
  • Concordia
  • Dallas
  • Denver
  • Eden
  • Fuller
  • Garrett Evangelical
  • George Fox
  • Golden Gate Baptist
  • Lutheran Theological Seminary – Gettysburg
  • Memphis
  • Michigan Theological Seminary
  • North Park
  • Northern Baptist
  • Pacific Lutheran
  • Perkins
  • Philips
  • Princeton
  • Regent
  • San Francisco
  • Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
  • Southwest Episcopal
  • Trinity Lutheran
  • Wesley
  • Western (RCA)
  • Yale

Summary
The percentage of returned surveys (27%) is too small to make valid extrapolations for certain types of statistical questions (e.g. How many seminaries meet more than once a week for worship?)  Still, the sample is large enough to discern some interesting patterns and make some preliminary summary observations, along with representative comments from the survey responses themselves.  (NOTE:  For the sake of confidentiality, comments have been slightly edited when they might give away their school of origin).

Leadership 

The survey found that almost every school devotes significant faculty and administrative resources into running a chapel program.  The range ran from one part-time student coordinator to one school with a whole fleet of deans, faculty advisors, chaplains, assistants, sacristans, sextants, and musicians (13 in all!).  In most cases, at least two faculty/staff members have responsibility for worship as a significant part of their work-load.  The most common arrangement was a division of labor between someone whose expertise lay in liturgy or homiletics, and a musician.  Most schools also make abundant use of volunteer student assistants or paid interns for both administrative tasks copying music, preparing worship space, etc.) and to help plan worship.  Some schools also make use of faculty and student committees to give input and guidance.  The largest schools, and those with the most conservative and detailed worship patterns were those schools who poured the most resources into campus worship.  

            Representative Comments:

Worship in seminary contexts depends heavily on student volunteers.  These students do behind-the-scenes work, such as bread-baking, space-shaping, prayer-writing and worship planning.  They also lead their peers in worship itself – praying, preaching, singing, playing, dancing, acting, and so forth.  Most schools who celebrate the Eucharist reserve presiding at the meal for those who have already been ordained (usually faculty or staff). 

Some seminaries rely on a select cadre to do the lion’s share of volunteering; others try to share the joy far and wide, with hundreds of students volunteering in one capacity or another over the course of the year.  Some seminaries require all students in the M.Div. programs to participate in worship leadership (and all faculty, too!).  At these schools, those who volunteer to play an instrument or offer a prayer do so above and beyond these expectations. 

            Representative Comments:

About half the responding schools indicated that they have authoritative documents or written guidelines that contribute to the planning process.  At least half of those who did not have such documents indicated that they intend to produce such documents, or that those documents are in process.  (See section on customaries)

Of the schools who responded, two-thirds indicated that the person primarily resonsible for chapel oversight and direction is  a faculty or staff member with a Ph.D. in Liturgy, Homiletics, or another related field.  These individuals often have titles such as Dean or Chair or Director, and are also ordained in their respective church traditions.  At one institution, the worship buck stops at the top: the seminary President is the primary planner for all community worship.  Meanwhile, the other third of the schools have a “Minister” or “Chaplain” with an M.Div. in these positions of visioning and leadership.  Only three schools employ non-ordained staff as the primary leader for community worship.  Many schools, however, employ second and third year students as worship “Coordinators” or “Assistants” as those primarily responsible for day-to-day implementation of worship (at least half of responding schools).  The other half have individuals with advanced degrees as primary implementers, though those advanced degrees are most often in music rather than theology. 

Liturgy

The questionnaire inquired about worship “style” in order to avoid making use of divisive (and largely unhelpful) code words like “contemporary” and “traditional.”  Of course, “style” can refer both to expressive idioms (especially musical ones – the sort often labeled with words like contemporary and traditional) and also to worship form or ordo.  Asking the question in this way invited interpretation on the part of respondents. 

Though some seminaries felt confident labeling their community’s worship (“praise music with a sermon” or “Generic anglo-Protestant”), most schools used words like “varied,” “diverse,” and “eclectic” to describe their intent to expose students to a broad range of worship ‘styles.’  Furthermore, many schools noted that the worship style for a given service was closely tied to the traditions of the speaker or other worship leaders for that service.  A few seminaries noted that the time designated for worship often was used for broader communication between the seminary and the student body – in these instances, prayer and preaching and so forth were incidental.

(picture from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)

Representative Comments:

While many seminaries – both non-denominational and denominationally connected – described their worship as “eclectic,” half the denominationally connected seminaries proudly and unapologetically claimed their denomination’s worship heritage as the dominant worship style practiced on campus.

(Picture from Church Divinity School of the Pacific)

Representative Comments:

As one might expect, baptism seems never to be celebrated on seminary campuses.  However, Eucharist is celebrated at least weekly in nearly two-thirds of the responding schools.  The Lord’s Supper is celebrated never or fewer than twice a year at 20% of reporting schools, monthly at 16% of reporting schools, weekly at 48%, and more than once/week at 16% of reporting schools.  In most every case, the more frequently celebrating schools are those from liturgically conservative traditions – Episcopalian and Lutheran, with Methodist and Reformed schools following next in frequency.  Schools from Baptist and non-denominational traditions celebrated least often or not at all.

Representative Comments:

With only three exceptions, the seminaries who responded to the survey have a dedicated building (or buildings – plural) for the express purpose of the community’s worship and for the training of liturgical leaders. 

Community

Just as many seminaries offer significant liturgical variety in their worship, most seminaries (of those that responded to the survey) also offer variety in the times of day, and length of service during which the community comes together to pray and worship.  One school, comprised largely of commuter students, has ceased having regular community gatherings for worship altogether.  16% of the schools meet only once per week.  Those that meet only once do so for a significant chunk of time: at least 45 minutes.  Of the other schools, 58% meet between 2 and 4 times a week, and 26% meet more often than that.  One school offers over 15 opportunities each week for community prayer and worship.  Schools like these, who worship more frequently, will often offer a shorter daily prayer service each day of approximately 20 minutes, and augment this practice with mid-week Eucharist service or a healing service or a longer preaching service. 

(photo from Seabury-Western Theological Seminary)

Representative Comments:

Seminaries also reported wide variety in student and faculty attendance at community worship.  20% of responding schools reported robust student attendance of more than 50% of the student body at worship.  12% reported lackluster attendance – less than 10% of the student body.  However, some of these low numbers reflect attendance at daily prayer, a service not necessarily intended to attract a large segment of the student population to worship.  Most schools (a little more than 50%) reported adequate attendance of between 20% and 40% of the student body worshipping at a given service. 

Likewise, a number of seminaries (24%) reported strong attendance by faculty.  A slightly larger number (31%) reported weak faculty attendance at community worship.  The remainder (45%) reported something in between.  

The size of the statistical sample and the nature of the survey do not allow for too many conclusions to be drawn from this data, though there are some intriguing correlations.  For example, schools that report robust student attendance are far more likely to report strong faculty attendance.  Some responders did not hesitate to point out this correlation and suggest that there was a causal relationship: when faculty attend community worship, students see what they value and imitate them. 

The data also suggest some surprises.  For example, there does not seem to be a strong correlation between frequency of services offered and strength of attendance.  So, for example, a seminary with only one service per week might well expect it to be better attended than the mid-week service at a seminary that worships more than five times per week.  While this is true comparing some schools, it is not comparing others.

Representative Comments

Seminary communities are comprised of more people than just faculty and students.  There are seminary staff and student families: spouses, children, etc.  Most seminaries attempt to hospitably welcome all these to community worship, though considerations of time and location often prevent fuller participation by these peoples.

Representative Comments

Like the culture at large, many seminary communities are becoming less and less homogenous, and seem to be eager for their worship to reflect this change.  Some are pleased with their success in this regard; some are trying hard, but recognize there is room for improvement.

(photo from Illif Theological Seminary)

Representative Comments

Curriculum

Worshipping and learning about worship are two distinct tasks.  But educators are realizing that they are not so distinct as they might first appear.  Whenever we worship, we learn about worship even as we do it.  Thus, more and more educators are coming to see the value of a praxis-theory-praxis pedagogical model.  This is true in many seminaries as well, as educators strive to make stronger connections between teaching about worship and the practice of worship itself.  Some seminaries make this connection explicit, requiring all students to plan and lead worship in connection with for-credit courses in liturgy.  At the other end of the spectrum are seminaries who offer no connection between the two; some offer no instruction in worship at all.  In between are a myriad of ways seminaries are exploring to help students learn by doing and do while learning.

Representative Comments

Many seminaries try to give practical experience actually leading worship to students studying worship.  But does it work the other way?  Do seminaries require or offer training to those who lead the community in worship?  Most do.  Only 20% of responding seminaries indicate that no training is either required or provided for worship leaders.  Some schools note that participants such as readers or singers received as-needed guidance from faculty or other chapel administrators.  Other schools, more rigorous in their requirements, note that those planning worship have passed at least one introductory course in worship, and often have received more specific training from those who teach worship at the seminary.

Representative Comments

Many schools find all sorts of ways to connect worship leading and worship learning.  Here are some of the more common and some of the more creative ways our survey uncovered:

Representative Comments: