“Religious Work”

Report on a Listening

Little Switzerland, North Carolina
September 8 – September 10, 2005

(This report begins with one person’s account of what was presented, heard, and discussed. It is followed by a summary of suggested initiatives that emerged from the discussion.)

The Teagle Foundation brought together over sixty participants—faculty members, undergraduate students, campus administrators and chaplains, foundation colleagues, Teagle Foundation staff and board members, and others—for a Listening on “Religious Work.” The Foundation’s concern for this matter has two origins. The first—history—derives from Walter Teagle’s wish that “religious work” always have a place in the work of the Foundation. The second—passion—reflects the Foundation’s mission to provide students with a transforming, enriching, and genuinely lasting liberal education. These two starting points decidedly center the Foundation’s attention to “religious work”—an otherwise large and unwieldy subject—on the relationship between students’ religious and spiritual concerns and their engagement with higher (liberal) education. A second consideration, running parallel to, and at certain points intersecting the first, is the idea that what we call the “Big Questions”—those questions that examine value and meaning in life—are being eclipsed and are today no longer as central as they once were to faculty and students at colleges and universities. The Foundation recognizes that students’ interest (or lack thereof) in religion and the “Big Questions” is changing. By responding to these sets of issues, the Foundation hopes that students’ academic engagement might increase, and from there, result in more vigorous learning in the liberal arts.

The Listening was structured into five panels and one working group session, each focused on some aspect of the following issues: students’ religious and spiritual engagement (before, during, and after college), college administration and faculty responses to students’ religiosity and spirituality, profiles of the evangelical student today, how religion is experienced inside and outside the classroom, the (dis)engagement of the “Big Questions” in higher education, and how the sacred and the secular understand each other. It concluded with an open discussion of possible directions the Foundation can take in this area going forward.

Students religious and spiritual engagement: The Listening began by laying out what we know and consequently, what we do not know about students’ religious and spiritual engagement. A 2003 study by the Higher Education Institute (HERI) at UCLA reveals that college students today have “very high levels of spiritual interest and involvement,” are “more actively engaged in a spiritual quest,” are “exploring the meaning and purpose of life,” and also, “display high levels of religious commitment and involvement.” Some Listening participants expressed skepticism over the methodology of this research (and arguably of these types of research endeavors in general), in particular pointing to issues of subjectivity. For example, when one takes a similar survey and sees a question with the word, “spirituality,” how then does one—given the breadth of understanding each person can have of this word— process the question? Can such individual subjectivity be boxed so that research surveys produce reliable and telling results?

Religious and spiritual engagement before and after college, however, is different from what happens before and after those four years. One study shows that in the years leading up to college (ages 13 through 17), teenagers are “moral therapeutic deists.” They regard religion in a benign fashion: while a majority claimed they are “religious,” they turn out to be conventional in their religiosity. Religion is a not a point of contention or rebellion for them, and if anything, it is just the opposite—religion is a background issue that does not filter in their active consciousness. Teenagers also tend to be highly inarticulate about religion, but interestingly enough, not when it comes to subjects adults assert as important. In the years after college (ages 20s through 30s), another research study suggests that while there is some increase in the levels of spirituality among those polled, there is an absence of spiritual “awakenings” and no increase in church attendance. The PI of this study asserted that “generic” spirituality does not exist as spirituality is embedded in religion and religions differ.

Despite methodological issues, the HERI data and others like it push certain questions front and center. One panelist posed the question of whether there is a difference now that students are coming into higher education with a greater articulated commitment to religion and spirituality. Does this affect their engagement, for example, with the core of a liberal education (understood here as an educational space where questions can be asked and beliefs challenged)? He suggested that for now, students’ religious and spiritual involvement has only a slight effect on their college experience. Nevertheless, he recognized that colleges and universities should respond to the influx of religiously and spiritually engaged students into their campuses, and asked how these institutions would create an environment that allows students to express and practice their religion beliefs and spiritual commitment.

The role of and implications for faculty: To these questions, the answers and experiences of colleges and universities are varied. What permeates, however, is that faculty members are key; their engagement with students’ religious and spiritual lives has palpable effect, while their disengagement can create problems and lead to missed pedagogical opportunities. In a generation when many current faculty members were trained in highly secular environments, and teaching in a time when secularism was prized above all else, it was easy enough for them to leave religion and spirituality and the questions they raised at the doorstep of the classroom. Another HERI study, focusing on faculty attitudes toward religion and spirituality, revealed that many faculty believe these subjects have no place in the academy. Others say that they do not know how to address, nor are they qualified to teach religion and spirituality in the classroom. There was some feeling among the participants that the reason for these sentiments is because faculty are only trained for, and subsequently encouraged throughout their careers, to undertake narrow scholarly pursuits that leave little room and incentive to engage the “Big Questions” that are at the heart of a liberal education. Graduate school is not a breeding ground for liberal educators, but rather the opposite—a place where specialists with expert knowledge in particular fields are created, thereby ensuring a new generation of disciplinary scholars.

There was some discussion about the “secularization hypothesis,” the assumption that with modernization, religion would fade away into the background, especially among well-educated people. Is this idea still tenable? Is it still possible for faculty members to continue in this vein, to follow narrow (and secular) academic paths given, one, the influx of students who demonstrate great concern for religion and spirituality, and two, the volatile relationship of religion and politics, most notably after 9/11? One provost suggested that faculty are “in denial” about students’ religion and spirituality, while a faculty member offered another observation. 9/11 was, for his institution, a catalytic event that pushed faculty members into an odd space, where they found themselves operating between a spectrum of discomfort with any one religion, and unrest with no religious or spiritual belief at all. Whether or not these same feelings—and the intensity of them—permeate the academy, there does appear to be some crisis of faculty identity. Participants suggested that perhaps an intervention into the way faculty are trained and how their careers are structured is warranted so that pedagogy can be made a priority. (When should this intervention happen is another question—in graduate school? Post tenure? Mid-career? How would this intervention deal with the rigidity of institutional structures that demand the hiring of faculty based on good research rather than teaching excellence, and require heavy administrative responsibilities of their faculty members?)

Administrative initiatives: Administrators too are faced with the matter of students’ religious and spiritual engagement, and must grapple with how the institution, as a whole, should respond. One college president raised three questions that point to key issues at stake on campuses: (1) How does an institution support pluralism, including religious pluralism? (2) How do faculty raise the “Big Questions” that are often tied to religion and spirituality, and particularly the intellectual level at which they are discussed? (3) What is the role of the chaplain? Campuses are addressing these issues in a variety of ways, as evidenced by the questions and ideas participants offered. Another college president explained that his institution—a Quaker college with a diverse student population—sees itself as a “crossroads” college and meeting place where individuals of different cultures, disciplines, perspectives, and beliefs and practices can come together and pursue a life of open and respectful dialogue. As such, this institution’s approach is to cultivate a multi-faith and pluralistic, yet rational approach to religious life on its campus. (Could this be the antidote to the secular experience?) This includes programs that promote conversation on campus by encouraging faculty to take on active roles and inviting guests to speak about religion and spirituality. One participant suggested that revitalizing the core curriculum—and inviting faculty members from all disciplines to help shape it—could bring the articulation of religion, spirituality, and the “Big Questions” back into the classroom. Yet, another wondered, would religious belief hinder intellectual pursuits as defined by the modern university if it indeed is allowed back into the classroom? How would this affect the way higher education seeks truth and produces knowledge? A dean of religious and spiritual life questioned whether academic inquiry needs to interface with religious / spiritual work on a campus, and if so, who then should ensure not only that this happens, but that it is done in a proper way? He asserted that religious work in this context is not about defining spirituality, and has to be about education, not religion. Religious work’s concern for meaning and purpose in life relates to pedagogical issues, and as such, faculty and student life professionals—including chaplains—must partner so that each knows what goes on within the others’ realm. Another college president observed that her campus is at times effective and at other times not effective enough when dealing with students’ religious interests and engagement. On the one hand, about 40% of her institution’s students attend worship or prayer services, the campus ministry is taking on a larger role, religion courses are increasing in popularity, and students are expressing interest in meaning. On the other hand, she is wary of this behavior and notes that faculty are anxious too, and should be. Students, she sees, have very little understanding of interiority (they are always plugged in, programmed, or medicated in some fashion), have trouble slowing down their lives to reflect and deal with pain (whether physical, mental or emotional), should be anxious about the world they have to enter after college, and do not know how to assess or to create centers of value. She suggests that residential education needs to ramp up, faculty need to get more involved and start to use the classroom as a space to talk about a student’s self and the world, and the campus has to engage in holistic conversations that see and understand education as a formative process.

Student response: But what happens when a campus does not respond or if its response is viewed, by its students, as inadequate? One participant proposed that basic economic theory suggest a possible outcome in this scenario: if colleges and universities are not adequate sources of religious and spiritual engagement, then students will look elsewhere—and they have. One student said that highly religious students do not feel welcome on campus and have become involved in external networks such as Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, an evangelical organization that has extensive reach on campuses nationwide. Students have also formed “underground universities”—campus-based organizations that sponsor additional classes with a slant more sympathetic to their religious beliefs, and instruct like-minded students how to navigate an institution’s curriculum so that they take classes that reaffirm, and are open to, their way of thinking. Another student said that on campus, religion and spirituality need to be discussed in a “safe” space, but one that still presses students to examine their beliefs—and those of others—in a critical manner. He suggested that discussion of religious beliefs can also be accessed through controversial subjects. On his campus, he found that even students with conservative religious leanings would attend a debate on abortion—what he called a “juicy” topic.

Evangelical students, to whom the Listening paid close attention, do not share one collective identity. One provost pointed out that while they are more likely to self-identify themselves as conservatives and Republicans than 15 years ago, they are not necessarily poster children for the Religious Right. He explained that they favor an equal rights amendment and registering all guns; are split 50-50 on banning abortions and favoring government programs to address poverty; oppose backing Israel over Arab states; and oppose increases in defense spending, taxes to project domestic jobs, and the generation of nuclear power. A dean of religious and spiritual life suggests that they can be, in fact, a test case for pluralism as they are the most racially diverse student group on campus and do not necessarily share the same beliefs and assumptions about what is important in life. Their diversity is in part a product of the opening of U.S. immigration borders in 1965 and the shift towards an American multicultural identity. This influx of peoples from the “southern” half of the world had a great impact on the demographics of the American evangelical population and, with that, the evangelical student population; their presence provided existing evangelicals with a new population to evangelize and convert, and they did.

Two participants observed that while evangelical students come to their institutions with a set of discernable attitudes and values, they can be engaged in a liberal arts setting. They exhibit a deep devotion to their faith that often translates their engagement with learning into vocation and devotion to their community. They have great respect for the written word and articulate their understanding and beliefs with conviction. They have strong motivation and solid work habits, making them good students. Truth be told, evangelical students do fine, and even well, at secular institutions as long as they operate within the scripted boundaries of current academic conduct and methods. As one participant explained, they become problematic and run into resistance and hostility only when they do what they are determined to do—that is, evangelize.

What can be done?: “Religious work,” even if approached from the consideration of student religious and spiritual engagement, is a big umbrella. What can philanthropy, and in particular, the Teagle Foundation, undertake in this area going forward? Bob Connor cautioned against the tendency towards addition in higher education—adding another course or program, adding another administrative office, adding another building space, and so forth—to deal with this issue. What he suggested, instead, is to follow another mathematical process: multiplication. This is, in an institutional setting, equivalent to forming communities. Cultivating existing, as well as new forms of community, will help bring together different members of a campus together to a safe, shared space where discussions can take place and ideas be exchanged. Through these and other textured interactions, a campus can address and engage issues of religion and spirituality, and “Big Questions” too, in a genuine and holistic way.

Philanthropy can help by fostering the creation of such communities. One idea that emerged during the Listening was to fund a working group that would gather faculty members, chaplains, and student life administrators to converse, generate ideas, and script the nuts and bolts on how religion, spirituality, and the “Big Questions” are and should be dealt with, both inside and outside the classroom. There was agreement that to engage the “Big Questions,” campuses must be able to draw from both the religious and the secular, incorporating both of their traditions, their metaphors, and their vocabularies. Another possibility would be to support a working group that would bring together chaplains from various campuses to discuss, compare, and learn from each other how religious life is and can be structured at colleges and universities. Yet another thought was to reshape student life responsibilities so that the administrative office better engages students rather than just being part of a campus’ support staff.

Another line of action would address how faculty are trained and rewarded, as well as their attitudes and campus roles. The need to specialize, from graduate schools onwards, to become experts in some small sliver of academic study, and then to be encouraged, often solely on the basis of a research and publishing record, have pushed faculty into a profession that tends to undervalue pedagogy. This was a critique that cropped up, in various iterations, over the course of the Listening. A number of participants called for a hard look at graduate education, Ph.D. production, and tenure structures. Related to this is the question about the structure of American higher education. Perhaps, as one participant pointed out, in addition to examining faculty, the undergraduate major and the centering of the modern university on reason and truth seeking must also be re-evaluated.

Cheryl D. Ching
October 26, 2005