A World Magazine blog post called Separation of Church And State University caught my eye. It looked like an interesting case. A resident assistant (RA) at the Univeristy of Wisconsin - Eau Claire was told to not lead Bible studies in his dorm room. He felt his religious liberty was being infringed upon.
I thought to myself, why not ask a fellow Centurion and former RA from a state university what he thinks about this case? So I did. I was not disappointed. The worldview warrior responds here.
(HT: World Magazine Blog)
Tough call. On the surface, it seems a bit silly. The question always comes down to whether or not the person is using their official position to gain influence or to attach an air of official recognition to the religious activity. Not knowing the particulars of this incident, I can't say to what extent this is the case; however, it seems to me that a sufficient remedy would simply be to ask the RA to disclaim that s/he's not acting in an official role during the Bible studies.
It's admittedly very subtle, but there has in the past been a concerted effort by some Christians to inject religion into "official" or official-seeming venues to try and give the appearance of official endorsement or official preference. It's why commandments displays tend to raise so much ire (and why it's far more complicated than just pitting Christians against non-Christians), for example; or the "meet at the flagpole" prayers, for another. For some reason, it's not enough that people pray privately in their homes and churches, never mind what Matt 6 says about it. So much of it is done for show rather than for sincerety these days.
That's why I always have a lot of trouble with these issues. Because on the one hand, it looks basically harmless. But on the other hand, I know that there are those out there who will try to use such things as a wedge to try to shoehorn their religion further into unrelated official events.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 08, 2005 at 14:57
Did you read the response of the Worldview Warrior I linked to?
Curious to get your response to his reponse.
Posted by: Dawn Treader | November 09, 2005 at 17:53
I think WW reads to much into it when he claims she's "advocating and exhorting," but I see nothing terribly uncontroversial there. It looks to me like she's just trying to find the right balance between his RA responsibilities and his free exercise rights. Which, I might add, is precisely the right thing to do. If the appearance of conflict of interest can reasonably be avoided, then it should be.
It's interesting, however, that it was only his leading of the sessions that was questioned. The MSM stories I saw about it seemed to paint it as his participation and attendance being questioned, which is a different matter.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 10, 2005 at 17:52
I agree, Tom. I wasn't reading into her "advocating and exhorting" but rather just emphasizing those words of hers to make my point. I was trying to encourage fellow Christians to engage the culture here and now instead of waiting till every law is in place for them to lead their Bible studies or whatever they feel they can't do currently.
You are right... the MSM painted the story in a controversial light because the lawyers painted it in that light. I don't think this was as big of a deal as they made it seem. I would like to see the RA in this instance truly lead others to become leaders. If leadership is about always having the same followers and never growing those followers to become leaders themselves, is it true leadership?
I agree with you that we should avoid a conflict of interest but if the RAs are not able to lead a Bible Study they should also mandate that RAs can't lead other groups that could also lead to an appearance of a conflict of interest. I am reminded of many fellow RAs who led in groups like NOW, Vagina Monologues performances, College Democrast and college Republicans, etc...
My point being, if you legislate that RAs can't lead one group with a particular worldview or particular presuppositions about the world around us, you would have to be consistent in not allowing RAs to lead almost any group since these groups on campus all have particular worldviews which some of their residents may not feel comfortable with.
- Brian
Posted by: Brian | November 14, 2005 at 16:58
Brian:
Well, just to be specific, I think that the conflict of interest occurs not because of the type of activity led by the RA, but by the fact that the RA is leading that activity in the residence hall. Such activities should be limited to those officially sanctioned by the university to avoid apparent conflict of interest.
What the RA does outside the residence hall is the RA's business, and that would include leading a Bible Study group.
As I understand this story, the conflict of interest was not just that the RA was leading Bible studies, but that s/he was doing so inside the dorms. I don't think a meet-at-the-student-union kind of study group would have run afoul of the standard.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 15, 2005 at 23:07