Ohio Wesleyan, as the name suggests, was begun by the Methodist Church, a mainline Protestant institution. Perhaps that was one reason why my freshman year in 1965-66 played out in such a disciplined, regulated environment. There were complex rules about “late hours”; one had to dress for dinner and sit at tables where food was passed family-style; each woman ‘s dorm was tenderly – and sometimes not so tenderly – guarded by resident dorm mothers, single women of a certain age who always wore skirts and those “old-lady” shoes. (Maybe some readers of a certain age will remember what they looked like.) Of course, fraternity and sorority life added opportunities for mischief and mayhem. I was amazed to see the first panty raid of the year (there would be several), led by the Sigma Chi’s, who stayed o to serenade us from the dormitory courtyard with their “sweetheart” song. The dorm mothers scurried about, trying in vain to get us away from the windows.
And there was compulsory chapel three days a week. This requirement fell away by my sophomore year, but before it did, we were privileged to have guest speakers like Charles Schultz of “Peanuts” fame, who told us that many of his cartoons reflected biblical characters and teachings, and Yale Chaplain William Sloane Coffin, who urged us out into the streets of our small college town to protest war, racism, and poverty.
They were heady times, especially for someone who had grown up very near the poverty line and who had met exactly two Afro-Americans in her entire lifetime. Then there was the focus on evolution and the human being[1] as scientist in Term One of the “Conflict and the Human Condition” course. I had faithfully attended, for as long as I could remember, a church so conservative that the congregation pressured one young pastor to leave after he delivered a “radical” sermon on Rachel Carson’s newly published “Silent Spring.” (At least that was the public reason, although I suspect his inauguration of a sex education class for teenage church members also played a role.)
The first handout for the OWU Conflict course fired some volleys across a conservative Christian’s bow, and I began to take satisfaction in my newfound freedom to challenge some old ideas as I delved into material like this:
For all his uniqueness, man is part of nature and subject to his biological and evolutionary heritage. Even as he increasingly manipulates and directs natural processes to his own ends, man is in turn dependent on these processes. It is obvious to the educated mind that man will continue as a successful species only as he achieves understanding of, and respect for, the world in which he lives, biologically and physically as well as socially. One aspect of man’s culture, his interaction with his natural environment, is embodied in the scientific approach. Science is not an entity separate from all other aspects of man’s existence; it is an integral part of man’s culture, whose impact on man, his understanding of himself and his future is of the highest order. (From the “Introduction to Term One”)
As you see, there is no mention of God or a divine plan for nature. (That would come later as we tackled “human conflict” from a sociological perspective). Human beings both direct natural processes and are dependent upon them. Yes, that made sense, as I remembered our high school course on how to survive a nuclear attack and the night I couldn’t decide whether to bother with homework since the Cuban missile crisis would soon precipitate nuclear war with the USSR. And if human beings control and are controlled by natural processes, what good is prayer? Why bother? Heady stuff, as I noted earlier, but disconcerting and soon to be downright depressing. One personal outcome: I stopped going to the local Delaware church that had been so welcoming when I first arrived on campus and dropped out of its choir. I realize this often happens among the college cohort, but I did it with sadness and disappointment. Truth to tell, I actually missed it, and Sunday mornings seemed lonely indeed.
[1]As mentioned earlier, the idea of “inclusive” language had not yet dawned in the mid-60’s. To respect this cultural development, I am substituting “human being” for “man” wherever possible in my own commentary while leaving the original course materials unchanged..
No comments:
Post a Comment