"The common good" is a staple of both political rhetoric and religious social thought. In the already-underway 2008 campaign, it is a frequent refrain on the stump and a potentially overarching frame for a progressive agenda. But what are the roots of "the common good," and what does it mean, both theologically and politically?

Discussing these questions are Nathan Newman, a widely published author and Policy Director for the Progressive States Network, a nonprofit that supports state legislative campaigns for economic and social justice; Sally Steenland, Senior Advisor to the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and co-editor of Pursuing The Global Common Good; James Salt, Director of Organizing at Catholics United, and former consultant to political campaigns involving Catholic strategy; and David Buckley, co-editor of Pursuing The Global Common Good and former Program Manager at Faith In Public Life.

Nathan Newman

Putting the idea of sacrifice at the center of the definition of the common good seems problematic to me. The first question is why average folks should be asked to sacrifice anything, when a tiny minority is doing so well for themselves at the expense of the many. If the common good has no room for reasonable questions of what we can call "class war" questions, I become skeptical that the common good will become an excuse to shield the economic elite from hard questions.

But the second problem with talk of sacrifice is the public versus private distinction I highlighted in my first post. Most average voters already ARE sacrificing, for their kids, for sick relatives, for their communities. Many look to government for relief from those sacrifices and are not necessarily going to be thrilled to be told by common good politicians that they need to sacrifice some more.

James, the John Kennedy quote came from a specific time-- after a decade or so when family wages had doubled and the issue of taking a little bit of that additional rise of standard of living to help others was an easier thing to contemplate. We are at a very different point where wages have largely stagnated for decades, health costs are driving many families into bankruptcy, and speculators and rising home prices have left many families seeing their homes at foreclosure auctions. This at the same time that they watch incredible wealth sloshing around the globe.

So a common good based on public sacrifice by ordinary voters seems a bad place to be.

But there is an alternative discussion of common good, one that first does acknowledge that the common good means that a few individuals should not be able to exploit the commons for extreme private profit. The first step is to return those unfair elite skimmings from the commons -- whether financial, environmental or social -- back to the public as a whole. Once that is done, we can have the real discussion of the common good, which is less about "sacrifice" -- which people feel more comfortable in their private lives -- than about understanding that there are many things we all benefit from that are done together than done separately.

Public infrastructure is the most obvious-- mass transit to save the environment can't be bought on the margins; it needs a public commitment to shift a whole set of development patterns to make the network work for everyone. But the end result is a better life and a better planet. Seeing that we need to invest in our communities so all benefit from the wealth thereby produced is a broad sense of the common good that we need more progressives to endorse, and not run away from the idea that the government does many things that the market just flat out fails at.

Ideologically, that's the real conflict here. Many believe all that is needed can be produced by market exchange, my individual act traded for your individual act. And if "sacrifice" is mentioned, they see individual charitable acts as all that is necessary.

But the progressive view of the common good is that individual markets and individual charity are not enough. We need to understand that society is more than the sum of its parts, that we create collectively what never gets produced through the accumulation of individual acts. That is the deep debate and if the word "common good" just obscures that debate over the debate between market versus public planning by government, than it will do a disservice to the real debate needed.

Nathan

David Buckley

hi all,
a quick response is below to sally's and james' latest posts. it's been a pleasure.
db

It's interesting that you took up the sacrifice angle, Sally. James and I ran into each other last night in the midst of the snow storm, and the idea of sacrifice was what came up right away when we started talking about the common good. I think you're right that leaders will have to be careful when asking for sacrifice from the American people, but I also think we as a nation are willing to give it if leaders clearly explain what principles call us to act and show that it will bring concrete results.

What makes me so sure we're willing to sacrifice? In response to the two most dramatic events of the Bush presidency (September 11 and Hurricane Katrina), overwhelming numbers of Americans contributed time, blood (literally) and money to alleviate the suffering of their neighbors. At the same time, our national leaders broke public trust, either by implying that sacrifice wasn't necessary (just go shopping after 9/11) or that the government couldn't really be expected to do a good job of channeling such sacrifices (gross FEMA incompetence around Katrina). So the will to sacrifice is there; progressives just need to show the blend of principle and pragmatism that it takes to move sacrifice into concrete results.

As for what sort of sacrifice the common good would entail in the international arena, a few things jump to mind. One is to build on the Bush Administration's foreign assistance programs (especially in Africa) to use a small share of America's blessings to alleviate the suffering of the world's poor and sick. Anyone who works in foreign assistance will tell you that there's still loads more good work that could be done with well-designed programs. A second idea is to promote individual sacrifice through expansion of international service programs. There's a personal side to working for the common good, a sense in which we as a society will do it most effectively when the work spreads from federal policy to individual action. The government could promote that sort of action with incentives for international study and service, especially for young adults.

There are other areas at the international level where we could talk about sacrifice of course, but that gives a sense of a couple of options. When explaining these sorts of policy decisions to the public, it will be important to be very clear about what "sacrifice" means. Yes, we will sacrifice some of our nation's treasure and some of our personal time on behalf of the common good. We do this because we refuse to sacrifice our deepest values and our nation's long-term security. Yes, we're giving things up as a nation, but in return we're maintaining our nation's moral standing and enhancing our security by building stability and goodwill in parts of the world that could produce future threats to our nation. This isn't to say that the common good is just enlightened self-interest, but the two aren't entirely disconnected either. Any thoughts on that?

Cheers,
db

James Salt

Sacrifice-

Thanks for the response Sally. I’d like to begin with the most popular political quote of the 20th century. You know the line. In his inaugural address, President Kennedy began his term in office by calling us to sacrifice for something greater than ourselves with these words: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

I bring this quote up because Kennedy’s words came at a moment that is similar in certain ways to where we are today. These words came at moment when Americans were uneasy about our place in the world and when societal norms were being challenged by a new generation. Kennedy asked us to face these challenges together, in part through shared sacrifice.

Your question regarding the political ramifications of sacrificing for the common good is an important one, and one that has been missed by political pollsters. The fact that the concept of sacrifice doesn’t poll well in issue-driven polls should come as no surprise. Polls tend to give us a pixilated view of opinion and often miss our deeper values and our sense of meaning. How do polls test intrinsic values of leadership, such as honesty, character and the ability to do the right thing despite the consequences?

I think the ability to talk straight to the American people about the problems we face and what sacrifices are required can be politically successful. I believe that this straight talk explains why McCain performed so well in the 2000 NH primary, why John Edward’s health care plan was widely praised, (it calls for greater responsibility in acquiring coverage) and why Obama received a bump after he suggested we should raise taxes to fix social security. Obama got credit not so much because people agreed with him, but because he was able to level with them by saying what may be politically unpopular.

The need for American sacrifice will come in many ways: increased energy costs related to carbon emissions, increased public investment in our school system to better prepare US citizens to compete in a global market, and the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. All of these situations will require some sacrifice for our greater security. I believe this is not only politically possible, but a necessary component of successful leadership.

Sally Steenland

James, I like what you say about the common good. You say that “societies thrive when we are willing to serve and sacrifice for one another,” and I think that’s true. But let’s move from religion to politics. In religious teachings, sacrifice is what we’re called to do in order to live a meaningful life. But in politics, the word “sacrifice” tends to be a third rail—speak it and you die.

This is especially true when the specifics of sacrifice are spelled out and when it’s mandatory. People don’t want to be forced to give things up. We don’t want to live less comfortable lives. Some of this resistance might be selfish, but it also comes from genuine anxieties and concerns.

For instance, we don’t want to lose resources that we believe are needed to protect the well-being of our families and ourselves. We don’t want strangers deciding these things.

At the same time, we have sacrificed as a nation. During World War II, a combination of political leadership, community and religious spirit, federal regulations—and war—led to sacrifices large and small across the country, from school children to grandparents. More recently, in the terrible days after 9/11, the public seemed ready to sacrifice—eager, even, to demonstrate our solidarity of spirit. But George Bush told us to go shopping.

Does it take a crisis to commit us to sacrifice? Is national leadership essential? James, can you spell out what kinds of sacrifices you think are needed to have a thriving society? And how do we get there?

James Salt

The Common Good: A fundamental moral value

As a Catholic now working on behalf of justice and the common
good, I wanted to focus my comments on the grounding of the common good in
Catholic social teaching and then directly respond to John McKinnon's
November 23rd Wall Street Journal article on recent political efforts to
define the term.

Simply put, the common good is an element of Catholic moral theology that
describes how society can protect the dignity of life and promote the full
development of the human person. Dignity is the profound understanding that
each and every person has the presence of God within them. The intrinsic
nature of human dignity requires society to support the development of the
full potential of every human being. Therefore, Catholics define the
common good as the best way in which to order society in support of dignity
and full human development.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated in John McKinnon's article, the common good can be over simplified to the point of losing power and meaning. McKinnon reminds us that the common good has broad if not universal acceptance, but means many things to many people. The common good is not the same as finding common ground, nor is it placing the interests of the many above the interests of the few. The common good is a belief that societies thrive when we are willing to serve and sacrifice for one other. That is that I'm better off when my neighbor is better off. This concept links the interest of the self with the interest of the other. (For Christians, we call this the golden rule) Furthermore, the concept of
the common good has universal acceptance, as evidenced in the fact that few if any arguments exist against the necessity of roads, public schools or clean water.

Finally, I wish to add that the concept of the common good has immense power to transform our domestic and international policy debate. An unreported story of the 2004 election was the use of the common good by the Catholic Bishops to directly rebuke the politics of mere self interest. In the 2003 version of the Faithful Citizenship, the Bishops write: "The central question of politics should not be, 'Are you better off today than you were
four years ago?' The central question should be, 'How can we -- all of us, especially the weak and vulnerable -- be better off in the years ahead?'" A close observer will recognize that this quote is a direct response to Ronald
Reagan's political rhetoric while debating Jimmy Carter. (Too bad that wasn't the Catholic story coming out of the 04 election.)

A thorough pronouncement of the common good ethic from those seeking elected office has the potential to redefine the role of government in American society. This has been a point sorely absent from the post-New Deal left and despite the sloganeering, absent from the Presidential fields. (Obama and Huckabee come closest to articulating a vision of the common good but haven't fully developed the concept.) This absence has enabled Conservatives to completely frame the terms of the debate on government. Political realignment will occur when progressives (and authentic Conservatives) fully understand the power and universality of the common good as a fundament moral value and move past mere slogans.

js

Sally Steenland

I hate to say it, but I’m getting worried about the common good. Not the concept itself— it’s a rich moral precept with deep roots in our religious and civic history. But I worry that the phrase is in danger of being turned into a slogan, tacked onto whatever issue needs ethical pumping up, and stretched beyond its genuine meaning to give moral cover to whomever/whatever needs it. (You know the common good is in danger when oil companies are using it in their ad campaigns.)

As progressives and liberals—both religious and secular—we’re right to claim the common good as core to our identity. And it’s encouraging to see presidential candidates like Obama, Edwards and Clinton anchor their vision for our country in the common good and ground their plans for health care, the environment and poverty in its ethical tenets.

In so doing, they’re spelling out what the common good looks like. They’re wrestling with its tensions. And they’re blending religious faith with civic participation in an effective and time-honored way.

What’s got me worried, then? Because the common good has such strong appeal and resonance, I worry about the temptation, on all our parts, to shrink it to meet our particular needs—to “own” the common good as if it were a product brand. (Common good T-shirts, anyone?)

Instead of tailoring the common good to suit ourselves, we should challenge ourselves to embody its values of responsibility and service to others, stretching ourselves to live up to its important ideals.

In my view, this is not only the right thing to do, but makes good sense. We live in a very interdependent world where the actions of people far away affect us. Like it or not, we need each other. The common good recognizes this truth. And it calls us to be principled and pragmatic, to go beyond narrow self interest to find common ground with others.

Because I’m a Calvinist, I believe in a fallen world, which means the common good will probably never be perfectly realized on this earth. Even so, we need to keep striving for it, reaching beyond ourselves for something larger and better, calling others to join us on the journey.

David Buckley

Hi All,

Thanks, Nathan, for kicking us off in this discussion. I have to
admit that I was surprised (pleasantly so) to see you dive right into
the "why" question. Someone once said that we all agree about human
rights, so long as nobody asks why. That person had a point, and it
would be reasonable to say the same thing about the common good. So
"why" is a tough place to start, as you admit. I think you're right
that it's only by having those difficult conversations that we can
inspire the kind of pluralistic progressive movement we need to build
a more just country.

And the challenge doesn't stop there. The common good calls us not
only to craft domestic policies that promote human dignity and
economic justice, but also to craft international policy that promotes
those same values across the globe. If it's challenging to talk about
"why" between Nebraska and New York, it's downright daunting to dream
of a common good that stretches from Kansas to Khartoum.

Daunting, but maybe just the kind of goal America's leaders need to
set. The global common good could meet the greatest challenges facing
America and restore our standing in the global community. By
promoting effective multilateral engagement, it would aid in promoting
smart responses to global climate change. By restoring relationships
with allies, it would make us more successful in combatting
international terrorism. And by promoting compassionate foreign
assistance, it would bring relief to those suffering from disaster and
disease around the world.

I have the sense that the American people are waiting to hear this
kind of a message, both as it relates to domestic and international
policy. We want to believe in our nation and our capacity to do good
for our neighbors and for our world. We want to believe that politics
can be more about common interest than about individual power and
ambition. And we want to talk "why," even though we don't expect to
hear the same answers.

Cheers,
David

Nathan Newman
Secularism versus the Common Good

So I'm been asked to talk about the role of the Common Good from the "secular" perspective, except it's clearer to say I come at it from the atheist perspective, since in many ways I think I'm less of a "secularist" than many folks precisely because I think it's hard to have a real discussion of a "common good" when everyone is leaving their faith at the door of public discourse, at least the way many secularists think you should.

For most people, the discussion of aspirations in their own lives and what they want from the public sphere are not so distinct. The hard part is figuring out how we make accomodations to other people's diverging desires and beliefs in the public sphere compared to in our private lives. But then again, doing it in the private sphere is often quite hard, so why should any simple formula-- a la a how many menorahs are needed to allow a creche in the town square -- make it easy publicly?

An Atheist at Mass: I'm an atheist personally, but my recently born child was christened just two weeks ago at a Catholic Mass, and I was married by a Catholic priest, although, on his urging, he dropped the eucharist for the wedding since it wouldn't have been very inclusive for the Jewish parts of my family or many of the non-Catholic members of the wedding. He also threw in a mention of how marriage is itself sometimes alienating in a society that excludes some people from the institution. Yes, he was a cool priest, but that's why my wife, a believing Catholic with her own accommodations to her faith, had chosen him, and she had known he would find a way to have a ceremony that would make me comfortable. And I of course agreed to have the Catholic wedding and accommodate the christening because they were so important to my wife. And in raising our child, she'll go to church, and then I'll have my chance to explain why I don't believe God exists and the evidence against it.

Maybe this private accommodation of faith reflects my idea of what would encourage a better engagement with the public common good-- more compromise all around on the rituals we should be willing to share in the public space based on understanding that we should modify those that make others too uncomfortable or unhappy. Secularists shouldn't knock out rituals that they really don't care that much about one way or the other, while the more religious should recognize that rituals, like marriage, if they are going to be shared in the public sphere have to be modified to be more inclusive, with the obvious example now being inclusive of gays and lesbians.

Finding the "Why" of the Common Good: But the key is that the focus of all of these compromises are based fundamentally on caring together for the future, whether one's own child in a home or all the children of a nation when a President runs for office. All of the major Democratic candidates have been citing their own religious faith in tying it to why they want a minimum wage or health care or other policies to bind us more together in a just society-- and that is all to the good and the right approach, if that's how they feel. But in the long run, we need a broader dialogue not just about the "what" of the common good but how we continue the dialogue on the "why" and accommodating our different belief systems to agree on how to arrive at that "what."

Of course, it's is a sad reality that if any of the Presidential candidates said that belief was coming from an ethical atheistic position, they'd be out of the running, but then Mormons have some problems in the polling as well as a minority. I'm actually quite enthusiastic about Obama's occasional discussion of the problem of liberals in talking about religion, a point I made in this post at TPM Cafe. He argued that liberals avoided discussions of religion out of fear of offending anyone, and the net result was a distrust by the public that any real conversation on values was actually happening in the public sphere.

Finding Respect for Non-Belief: In a religious country, I don't expect a distrust of non-belief to change radically, but when we aren't even engaged in a real discussion, where Christians, Muslims and Jews can talk about how their faith motivates their political actions, how can people of faith even have a chance to hear what the ethical motivations of atheists are-- and whether they could consider one as a common good leader? My basic conviction is that only as a real religious engagement over values happens in the public sphere will atheists actually even have a chance to get respect within that sphere.

Counterintuitively, a secular public space, by cultivating more ignorance of each others' beliefs, has left less room for the less religious to be validated for their own values since the religious never engage with atheists in a meaningful social dialogue. We spend our time fighting over what to exclude from public debate instead of arguing over what we share based on the overlap in our values.

Of course, we have always as a society been able to discuss the concrete things we want from elected officials -- whether jobs, health care, schools etc. -- without having to reference the values that demand it, but any discussion of a Common Good and, frankly, a more progressive society which goes beyond an interest group aggregation of voting preferences, requires a deeper engagement in finding the "why" of what we all want. It's a less comfortable discussion than the secular one, but one that I actually think will lead to a more just society and actually more real respect -- as opposed to court-enforced silence -- for those who disagree with the Christian majority of our nation.

Posted by Dan at 11:13 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (10)

There's been a lot of buzz in the media this year about the broadening of the evangelical agenda, and attempts by some (non-evangelical)* progressives to reach out to evangelicals and vice versa. Evangelicals who have sought to broaden the agenda to include issues like poverty, global AIDS, human rights and torture, immigration and global warming have been fiercely attacked by some conservatives who claim they are distracting attention away from issues like abortion and gay marriage. On the other hand, some progressives have dismissed the efforts of religious progressives to reach out to evangelicals around these issues, accusing them of seeking meaningless common ground and ignoring core progressive issues, or of attempting to build a conservative religious coalition within the Democratic party. This week, we are asking evangelicals who are reaching out to progressives and progressives who are reaching out to evangelicals to speak for themselves.

Robby Jones a religion scholar and consultant to national progressive organizations; Randy Brinson and Pastor Bill Devlin of Redeem the Vote; Shaun Casey of Wesley Theological Seminary and Center for American Progress; Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite of Chicago Theological Seminary; and Rev. Rich Killmer of National Religious Campaign Against Torture weigh in... UPDATES FROM CONTRIBUTORS TODAY POSTED IN COMMENTS!

*I add "non-evangelical" as a point of clarification, so as not to imply that there are not progressive evangelicals-- there certainly are.

Round 2 (August 1):
Shaun Casey
The increased participation of Evangelicals in progressive causes is sending shock waves through the traditional leaders of the Religious Right as Mark Tooley's hand wringing quotes attest in the article cited today in the comments section below. The truth of the matter is that this new political activity is not being fed by the chattering classes in the traditional media and it is not going to be stopped by secular progressives or by nervous right wing power brokers.

Many evangelicals are tired of being painted as ignorant huckleberries who follow the dictums of preachers with bad hair. They are tired of being painted with the labels "dominionists" and "theocrats." They are tired of the war, they are troubled by poverty, and they are tired of being taken for granted politically. They are looking for partners in solving these problems as Randy rightly observed.

One hard truth that is being exposed is that the Evangelical world is very complex and highly decentralized. Once the illusion that Evangelicals only care about abortion and same sex marriage is disabused, the realization is sinking in that reaching out to Evangelical communities is hard, sort of like herding feral cats.

Randy Brinson
I think it is important to note that there is a majority of Americans, particularly those that are motivated by their religious convictions, to come together to solve problems... We must be careful to note that this coming together is not to give a political advantage to a particular ideology but to actually solve serious social problems that face our country.

Regardless of your political identification, we can promote values that are coming from our shared belief in Jesus Christ and what he has called us to do on this earth. What are those things that we can solve ?

1. We can promote strong families and responsible fatherhood... look at what groups like Promise Keepers is doing to encourage men taking responsibility for their families as well as the leadership that Sen Evan Bayh has done to promote fatherhood.

2. We can seek to promote self esteem and self worth and the unique spiritual gifts and talents of our children, which is the best deterrent to sexual promiscuity and teen pregnancy.

3. We can encourage mentoring on a broader scale.

4. We can promote smart planning for our cities such that the environmental impact is minimized and that land use is in the best interest of municipalities, not developers.

5. We can work together to protect children from sexual predators and amend our laws that fail to adequately protect women from domestic violence and sexual assault.

6. We can instruct children and students about the proper role of sex and the benefits of monogamous relationships within marriage.

7. We can to promote healthy nutrition and lifestyles, in order to reduce the future burden that diabetes, hypertension and obesity create for our health care system, rather than focusing on health care access alone.

Research has shown that there is a close relationship to self esteem, education, marital stability, and security of women and the development of anxiety, depression, eating disorders and other social ills. We must be proactive to help address the fundamental causes of the social ills that government ultimately has to care for. These are not conservative or progressive ideals, they are common sense ideas that have a deep Biblical historical basis.

Where these ideals intersect within the entire evangelical community is a good place to start the dialogue.

Randy

Round 1 (July 31):
Evangelicals and Progressives: Finding the Faith to Build a Meaningful Politics
Robert P. Jones, Ph.D.
Robby is a religion scholar and consultant for a number of progressive organizations, including the Third Way, Progressive Christians Uniting, and People for the American Way Foundation; he is also an affiliated scholar at the Center for American Progress.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1, RSV).

More and more people across the country are realizing that the recent levels of polarization of politics and politicization of religion has been bad for both, and that the continuation of the conversations between Evangelicals and progressives might be a key step in recalling a more prophetic religion and a more meaningful politics.

As someone who grew up Southern Baptist and whose commitments to progressive politics were formed in the crucible of the Deep South, I have had a somewhat unique vantage point as I’ve worked at this intersection both as a scholar studying the role of religion in public debates, and as a consultant on specific projects, such as a current effort to bring together progressives and Evangelicals on cultural issues with The Third Way and Redeem the Vote.

I want to focus here on one of the deepest obstacle to progress: a sense of defensiveness, particularly the ideological malady that thinks that giving an inch is opening the floodgates to disaster. For example, in Evangelicals circles, it is well-known that James Dobson and the Christian Coalition have both strongly resisted efforts to broaden the evangelical agenda to issues like poverty and global warming, claiming these are not core issues. In progressive circles, I personally encountered a similar defensiveness after giving a presentation of public opinion data that showed the promise of common ground between progressives and Evangelicals. The first comment came from an agitated prominent progressive blogger, who, on the bases of his own biases alone, proceeded to tell us not only that any outreach strategy was a waste of time but went on to seriously propose that a more prudent strategy would be to find ways to simply suppress the Evangelical vote.

The great twentieth century theological H. Richard Niebuhr identified a sense of defensiveness at the heart of what can go wrong not only with religious groups but all human groups and called for a movement from an ethics of defensiveness (which he noted resulted ultimately in an ethics of death) to an ethics of faithfulness and responsibility. The key to this move was to articulate (“to confess” in religious terms) our own positions as honestly as possible while embracing our human finitude, which requires the modest notion that we might be wrong. That simple acknowledgment gives life to a humility that opens up space for new conversations and breaks down old orthodoxies.

It is worth noting that at least three significant things can happen as we move from defensiveness to faithfulness, a process Niebuhr thought had to be ongoing:
1. Space opens up for creativity on issues that seemed completely intractable. For example, as I noted on my blog last week, Democrats in the House recently made a quiet but significant step toward healing one of America's deepest divides by passing the "Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative" as part of the 2008 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill for 2008.
2. Opponents are humanized and become more complex. For example, in a recent meeting, a prominent Catholic leader told a largely surprised group of progressives that he had hosted visitors in his home to pro-life protests and anti-war protests on back to back weekends and that in his theological framework, these were perfectly consistent things to do.
3. The possibility of mutual critique emerges as the excesses of one ideology become more visible viewed in the light of the other. For example, progressives begin to think more about the importance of changed hearts and Evangelicals more about transformed institutions.

Although these are modest steps, they are significant. Thankfully, we are beginning to see a new day and the emergence of a meaningful national politics that requires less fear and more faith—both in our fellow citizens and in our own abilities to hold our principles while listening to others and looking for the common good.

We Must Pull Together
Randy Brinson, MD
Randy is Chair of Redeem the Vote

It has been tremendously challenging as well as rewarding as Redeem the Vote has worked to help define and give voice and life to those of us in the evangelical community to move away from the vitriol and polarization that has characterized so much of the political debate. In fact, as I speak to Christians across the country, many have been terribly demoralized by the fact that much of our spiritual message has been muted by the political debate that frequently divide dedicated, devout people of faith along "artificial" fault lines that never existed prior to the co-opting of the Christian evangelical message.

As someone involved with the conservative political movement for the past 30 years, I have come to appreciate the views and opinions of the entire evangelical community, not just a chosen few. I have also realized that it is important that the ends don’t justify the means in achieving the goals of the conservative movement, particularly if it means vilifying dedicated men and women, who share our common bond in our belief and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord.

Many conservative Christians see the need to promote responsibility along with rights. If that is true, then wouldn't it make sense that we are responsible for others as well? We are responsible to show them love and respect and protect them.

That is why the situation is so tragic in Darfur, where millions of Christians have been killed or displaced, where women are being systematically raped and tortured and sold into slavery, while we sit idly by. It also means that we are responsible for the implementation and monitoring of basic human rights, in areas where we can exert that influence. We must not sacrifice basic human rights in order to preserve a "favorable trade status" with another foreign country. We must never sacrifice our standards of human decency and embrace human torture, regardless of the circumstances.

It means we are responsible to care for our environment. We must protect our coastal waterways and natural forests from destruction. We must curb our environmental pollutants so we can protect our atmosphere from the growing threat of human induced global warming.

Finally, we are responsible for those caught in the cycle of poverty, to devise policies that will lift them out of poverty. This will require all of us to involve ourselves in the lives of those less fortunate. My challenge is to have every Christian home invest in one family that is mired in poverty. To provide mentoring, financial counseling, job skills, educational assistance, that will make them productive and restore their self esteem. In the end, conservatives Christians can also find that the investment in those in poverty can help them to be productive as well, to become contributors to the American experience.

However, all too often, the issues raised by our progressive friends fall on deaf ears, with many of us to busy with our own lives to care. These issues are important and need to be addressed by the entire body of Christ.

I personally applaud the efforts of the Democratic Party and progressives within evangelical political circles on the left, that have taken the opportunity to reach out and listen to those of us that have deeply held, spiritual convictions regarding issues ranging from abortion, gay rights, same sex marriage, and religious expression. I am appreciative of the fact that the majority of evangelicals, both conservative and progressive, support the fact that everyone deserves the basic tenet of human dignity, that women and children need to be protected from violence both physical and emotional, and that there is a need to promote fatherhood and the family unit, and reduce the need for abortion on demand. It is my prayer that the Republican Party will do the same and affirm these same principles that are the definition of who were are as people of faith, moving beyond rhetoric alone. We have had dialogue with a diverse group of individuals ranging from Common Cause, Third Way, Faith in Public Life, and Democrats for Life, looking for the consensus that can be found among people of faith and those seeking common goals.

If the progressive community is willing to define these areas of consensus, then it behooves those of us that ascribe to more conservative political views to be equally objective. We need to realize that just because someone pronounces certain Biblical beliefs may not necessarily live these truths in their daily lives (as we have seen recently in the lives of several previous members of Congress). We must be willing to reexamine our views on tax policy, particularly if these positions may be outdated or impractical and that the tax code represent fairness to all and that all contribute to the American common experience. We must be willing to look at environmental policy that may sacrifice our national resources to benefit one segment of the corporate world. Finally, we must examine our judiciary such that the policies and decisions of our judiciary demonstrates true balance and respect for all Americans, not just those able to afford it. We must look to protect women in a more substantial ways ranging from child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence, rather than be dismissive of women's needs as many in the conservative movement have done.

I could go on and on, the bottom line is that we must pull together, conservative and progressives of faith to defend those that cannot defend themselves, ranging from the unborn to the elderly and everyone in between. We need to treat them with love, respect, and dignity that all of us in America may be able to experience the "American Dream"

If you agree with us, join us and Redeem the Vote to make a difference, be a mentor, teach a child, love someone that is alone, and vote and make a difference in your community and country.

Progressive-Evangelical Alliances: Something New Is Brewing… and There’s a Lot to Gain
Shaun Casey
Shaun Casey teaches Christian Ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary and he is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for American Progress

In the last two years I have spent a fair amount of time in different evangelical communities listening to people talk theology and politics and I am hearing things there that I have never heard before. First of all, there is a profound unhappiness with the direction the country is going. From the war in Iraq, to post-Katrina New Orleans, to the recognition of the reality of global warming, more evangelicals are questioning the sufficiency of the narrow agenda of the Religious Right. Second, a lot of this discontent emanates from Christian college campuses. Something new is brewing in these schools and no one has a comprehensive view of the full scope of the changes this generation is leading. Finally, progressive organizations of many different types are building relationships with various evangelical tribes for the mutual benefit of the country. Progressives who are nervous about these developments need to take a hard look at what they are gaining in these alliances: more opponents of the war, more advocates for solving domestic and global poverty, and more advocates of stopping global warming.

It is hard to predict just where these alliances are heading, but their political implications are going to be hard to miss. The upshot is that the stereotypical boxes the media and the Religious Right tend to put people and causes into are in need of serious revision.

Some of My Best Friends…
Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite
Susan is President of, and Professor of Theology at, Chicago Theological Seminary

Some of my best friends are evangelicals; some in the teaching and learning community at Chicago Theological Seminary would self-describe as evangelicals. They are attracted to CTS because of our mission to “transform the world toward greater justice and mercy.” These evangelicals and the progressives in our community differ on biblical interpretation and an array of theological doctrines, but they unite around the idea that faith must include a core commitment to social justice.

There are at least 70 million evangelicals in the United States, about 25 percent of the population and they are a very diverse group as their numbers would suggest. There are those who attend megachurches and worship a gospel of prosperity, there are fundamentalists who believe in a literal interpretation of scripture and want the book of Genesis taught as science in schools, there are the “dominionists” who want to pass a Constitutional amendment defining America as a “Christian Nation” and to establish a theocracy in this country, there are the “old style” evangelicals in the Billy Graham mold who are intent on “saving souls”, and “new style” evangelicals who have acquired tremendous political and social clout through radio and television ministries and direct political work such as James Dobson, and there are “left-wing” evangelicals such as Jim Wallis’ Sojourner movement or Ron Sider’s Evangelicals for Social Action. And there are many others along this continuum from right to left.

My best friends who are evangelicals I know from decades of work in the peace movement. You can hardly do better when you want a colleague who will work tirelessly for peace than to pick someone who takes the Sermon on the Mount literally. No Just War drivel there, just solid, biblically based peacemaking. Today I encounter the same kind of solid folks in those evangelicals who are actively engaging the environmental movement. I welcome their energy and the kind of serious commitment of energy and time I have found consistently characteristic of socially engaged evangelicals in the peace movement.

At the same time, I have enormous concerns given the wide sweep of evangelicalism represented above. While it can seem very attractive to “move beyond” the so-called wedge issues of homophobia or abortion for the sake of widening the discussions, I believe it is crucial to the future of this nation to directly challenge the militant core of evangelicals (especially the dominionists) who are hostile to democratic pluralism, who champion the “totalitarian politics such as denying homosexuals the same rights as other Americans” (Chris Hedges, American Fascists) and who would legislate what women can or cannot do with their reproductive lives. I grew up pre Roe v. Wade and there’s no way I will not resist with all my strength a return to back-street abortions that maimed and killed so many women.

So I sometimes feel torn because in principle bridge-building with those who have different religious perspectives is a core value for me, while at the same time my faith requires that I stand up for freedom of religion, personal conscience and universal human dignity. I think that we progressives should take the increased opportunities for dialogue with evangelicals with utmost seriousness, but I also believe fundamental issues of religious freedom are at stake in our times and I must and will speak out decisively in defense of that freedom. Both things have to happen.

Ask anyone who knows me. I can be an exceptionally trying person to have as a friend, though I try to be as interesting as possible.

Evangelicals – Broadening and Leavening Peacemaking and Justice in the Religious Community
Rev. Richard Killmer
Rich is Executive Director of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. NRCAT founded Evangelicals for Human Rights, which authored the “Declaration Against Torture”

Those of us committed to the tasks of peacemaking and justice within the religious community are always working to broaden the base. Societal change often occurs when a large number of people representing the diversity of the U.S. share a common goal. People of faith help to produce that majority when they are committed to broaden the base within their own denomination or faith group to accomplish that goal.

Those of us with commitments to peacemaking and justice therefore need to reach out to people in a variety of religions. It requires sitting down with people of other faiths to present our concerns and our goals. It means taking these individuals and their faith seriously – viewing the conversation not just as a means to an end, but as an opportunity to honor the importance and integrity of their beliefs even if those beliefs are not our own.

Those in the interfaith community have always had to deal with differences of opinions as we work on specific issues. To successfully broaden our coalition requires working with people with whom we may disagree on other unrelated issues and concerns. We are simply not going to have a very broad base if we are only going to work with people with whom we agree on most major justice issues.

This "Faith in Public Life LIVE" blog exchange is about evangelicals, progressive Christians and others in the faith community working together. Though people in these communities have different opinions about a variety of issues, I believe that it is very important that people of all faiths encourage a significant evangelical presence in most interfaith campaigns. I say that for several reasons:

• Evangelicals are growing quickly and already represent a large portion of the U.S. population. According to John C. Green of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, University of Akron, a leading researcher on evangelical engagement in politics, at least 25% of the American population are evangelical. There are sixty denominations affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals, along with a host of schools, parachurch organizations, ministries, mission organizations and commissions.
• They have a rich heritage of concern about social justice in the United States. Among the causes taken up by evangelicals were the abolition of slavery in the 1800s, the fight against child labor in the early 1900s, ending the nuclear weapons arms race in the 1980s, ending hunger and poverty in America and around the world, and the need for government action against global warming.
• Evangelicals are receiving a great deal of attention by the press, the Congress and the White House.
• Evangelicals bring a great deal of energy and fervor to their discipleship.

Evangelicals broaden and leaven many efforts in peacemaking and justice. They need to be welcomed and encouraged to join in providing leadership to these issues.

The Risk Driven Life? Losing Yourself while Loving Others
Pastor Bill Devlin
Bill is president of Redeem The Vote www.redeemthevote.com

Followers of Jesus of Nazareth who attempt to jump into the 'common ground' fray may soon find themselves ground up in the process of aligning with those who they have not previously aligned with. Operating outside the box is something folk do not do in real life-too risky (what will my friends say?); and within religious circles, does the word 'heretic' conjure up warm and fuzzy vibes within one’s soul? Some would say that those of us who actually seek relationships with folk who working on 'other issues' have sold out to the cause and have abandoned the faith. As one who has practiced reaching out since 1989, it is like the man who went to the doctor and was told, "I have good news for you; and I have bad news for you." The patient shuddered, "Doc give me the good news first!" The doctor replied, "You only have 24 hours to live." "That's the good news the man decried and then exclaimed, "Give me the bad news…" The doctor stated sadly, "I wasn't able to reach you yesterday." To those who are adventurous and willing to live the risk driven life, I do have good news and bad news for you. Jesus has called us to work with those we do not agree with-that’s the good news; the bad news is, Jesus has called you to accomplish this task, however difficult. Since the Carter administration, the polarization of right and left has only grown colder. In discussions surrounding public policy between evangelical left and evangelical right, there is no such thing as global warming; rather, it would be described as global colding, each side growing further apart over the years and it may get worse. And as for me and my house, as we have for the past many years, we shall work with those with whom we disagree. And we know that we will be accused by some of abandoning principle. Yet the Gospel compels us to work together to bind up the broken-hearted in our culture.

Three months ago, as an orthodox evangelical and long term national pro-family leader, I received a phone call from a long term friend and proud unbeliever who works as a top aide to Philadelphia’s mayor John Street. "Devlin, you're one of those born again guys; do you care about the poor?" "Lance' I said, I've lived amongst the poor for twenty years." “Then Devlin you need to work with Governor Ed Rendell on his commitment to reform health care in Pennsylvania."

“Who do I call ” I asked. Now three months later, I chair the Faith Coalition of Governor Ed Rendell’s Task Force for Health Care Reform. Outside the box: yes. Inside the Gospel: of course. For the poor, the disenfranchised, the dispossessed, the broken, the orphan, the widow: do I find myself sitting on the premises or standing on the promises? Am I cold and frozen or called and chosen to accomplish being ground up finding common ground. Following Jesus means dying to self, giving up one’s self in pursuit of serving others-no matter the high degree of risk or loss of one’s own reputation. He must increase: I must decrease. Grinders: start your grinding. I look forward to losing myself while loving others.

Posted by Katie at 11:59 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (11)

Faith in Public LIVE is back, this time discussing a contentious issue in faith and politics: bias in media coverage of progressives' religious beliefs and outreach efforts. Our first blogger, Paul Waldman, is a senior fellow at Media Matters and a regular contributor to TAPPED. Jeff Sharlet is editor of The Revealer and co-author of Killing The Buddha: A Heretic's Bible. Dan Schultz, aka "Pastor Dan," is co-founder of Street Prophets and an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ.

Part 10: Dan: Christians' theological and political differences demand thorough analysis

Jeff:

I think we're talking at cross-purposes to a certain extent. Again, you're certainly correct to notice deep differences in the practice of Christianity in this country. But because unity runs so deep in Christian identity, you're never going to get very far in encouraging us to think of ourselves as fundamentally separated from one another. And because Christians won't think of themselves as separate, the press won't report on us as separated, relying on our self-description.

More important in some ways, there is a battle going on within American Christianity to define the center of the faith. As I'm sure you know, part of the fight going on within mainline denominations is conservative factions trying to break away from the main body of the church. They justify this in part by saying that sometimes it's better to just go separate ways if there's no agreement on a path forward. The consequence of this, however, is that it allows the IRD types and their conservative allies outside the church to weaken the denominations and claim that they're "failing" because of their liberalism.

My job as a pastor and an activist is not to play that game. If there must be division within the body, that's the way it is. But I'm not conceding my place in the tradition or allowing the conservative folks to break things up without a fight. They're going to have to admit that they're the ones breaking unity.

That might be tough to understand if you're outside the church, but trust me, it makes sense within it, particularly if you're from an episcopal system. Think of it as the "third rail" in Christianity.

I have this argument frequently with people like Atrios, who recently called the ecumenical project "a horribly bad development" for the very solid reason that it papered over real differences between different stripes of Christianity. And as one of my commentors put it, "the whole ecumenical thing actually gets in the way of any sort of mutual accountability" by putting a happy face on a not-very-happy situation.

My response to Atrios, and now to you, is that allowing Christianity to be defined by its differences only empowers the extremists. As you yourself point out, part of the reason the Religious Right has been able to dominate the media narrative is that they shouted and pounded the tables and acted like general gorillas until the press took them at their word that they defined the faith. But they were only able to do that by defining themselves over and against those "weak-kneed Christians" such as myself. Bullying the press and fomenting division within the church have gone hand-in-hand, in other words.

Which is again not to say that we should ignore real divisions and pretend that the Christian church is just big happy family, goshdarnit. We are a beautiful, big, brawling, thoroughly dysfunctional family sometimes.

But as with anything else, reporters should do a basic analysis of the power dynamics behind a description of the faith or the church. James Dobson claims to represent "true" Christians. So do I in my way. Reporters should demand that we spell out what we mean by that, and not be afraid to challenge those statements as political rhetoric. (I'm going to live to regret saying that, I just know I am.) That much I think you and I agree on.

To bring the discussion back to where it started, my biggest problem with this TIME series is that that political analysis is all but absent. The project of making the Democratic party "faith-friendly" so far has been predicated on making it more acceptable to social conservatives.* Other than in the objections of Kim Gandy, the NOW president, where do we hear that not all Democrats think that might not be such a hot idea?

The answer is we don't. What we hear instead is that Democrats are afraid to talk about faith itself, as though to speak of faith were necessarily to concede ground to the social conservatives.

That's not true, and it's just that sleight of hand that keeps the "faith-friendly" project alive. Because I believe theologically that social conservatism does not define my religion, politically I don't see the need to bring social conservatives into my party in order to bring in Christian voters. We're already here, and we're already liberals.

There again, we agree. I want reporters to understand that the political equations put forward by Sullivan, Vanderslice, and their allies are just that: political statements, and not uncontested ones, either. You no doubt would like me to back up my words by bringing into the conversation the people I believe do define progressive faith.

That's what I've been trying to do with Street Prophets, and I'd suggest that makes a good place to bring this discussion to a logical conclusion. Let's talk about how the blogs and other emergent technologies affect the conversation on religion and politics.

Dan

*For the benefit of the critics down in the comments, to the extent that "making the Democratic party more welcoming to people of faith" is ever given any explicit content, it's this. Even the discussion of "evangelical environmentalism" is couched in terms of reaching social conservatives who might care about more than abortion and same-sex marriage.

Part 9: Jeff on self-definition

Dear Paul and Dan,

The unified body of Christ Dan describe is a theological ideal, not a sociological reality. And I'd argue that it's important to recognize that it's not even an ideal for all Christians. You sure don't have to let James Dobson tell you you're not a real Christian, but as journalists and activists and general observers of the world, it does us no good to pretend that he thinks you are. Christianity may aspire to unity-within-diversity, but it functions in this world as a family of related religions. And the relations aren't always as obvious as they seem. To wit: Austin Ruse, an organizer of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, believes George W. Bush is the first Catholic president. Yes, you read that right. Moreover, the Breakfast invites Bush to speak from the podium, but not Ted Kennedy -- because they don't believe he's a Catholic. It's not that they think he's a bad Catholic -- they don't think he's a Catholic at all, while Bush is.

That's just one scary political example. There are plenty of others. I'm betting that there are Christians even here at this site who'd be unwilling to say that the Jesus worshiped by a friend of mine, a former Air Force chaplain who's also a crone in a coven -- yes, you read that right -- isn't the same as theirs. As my friend explained to me: When she's dancing naked around a bonfire of a giant wooden head carved to resemble "The Horned One" -- Jesus' pal -- she's being a good Christian.

Well, that's cool with me -- I'm all for self-definition -- but it sure as hell wouldn't be ok with the church I just visited in Ohio, a mostly African-American pentecostal church with a distinct wariness of Satan at all turns.

The point being, for journalists and activists, that religion really is as religion does. To proclaim doctrinal purity in a nation where most self-described Christians have read only small portions of the Bible -- and that's leaving aside the disagreements about what it actually says, and how important what it says is -- only sets off the bullshit detectors of journalists, and for good reason. Well, not always -- I remember when a NYT journalist op-eded about Bush's alleged fundamentalism on the basis of Bush's alleged Methodism. The reporter read a Methodist website which proclaimed Jesus the one and only, and concluded that Methodists believed the same intolerant creed as Falwell. So I'd like journalists to be even more skeptical about unity-within- diversity. Part of the reason Falwell and Co. were able to dominate the media narrative is that they shouted that they were Christians louder than anyone else. So much of the press said, "Ok, that's a Christian." It'll do progressives no good to try to outshout them.

My modest proposal: Leave Paul aka Saul out of it. Not out of your faith or even your activism, but out of your claims on the public sphere. He's describing an ideal (and not one that's meaningful to me as a Jew), not a fact, and right now we -- journalists, activists, and subjects of Bushworld -- need a lot more facts in the stories we tell about who we are and who we'd like to be.

That brings me to your last question, How do we invite more and better participation in the big conversation that's the alternative to Bushworld? I think those are two separate questions. More participation is the job of activists, who need to get folks organized. Better participation is the job of journalists, who need to do a smarter, more attentive job of describing that organizing.

Part 8: Paul on getting results with reporters by playing hardball

Well, my reply is only to Jeff - here it is:

In response to Jeff's last post, let me clarify what kind of reporters I was talking about. Jeff does long-form magazine journalism, which among other things allows him plenty of time both to talk with his subjects and to explore his topic in print. As such, he rarely (if ever) calls up a source and says, "My deadline is in half an hour, and I need a quote. Can you talk for two minutes?" But newspaper and television reporters do, and those are the stories where the overly simplistic portraits are painted.

Jeff, your piece on Sam Brownback was terrific (those who haven't read it ought to: here'
s the link), but my guess is he's going to think twice about giving a guy like you that kind of access again. In any case, he's a struggling candidate desperate for attention. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is the most important political figure in America, with the possible exception of the president. She doesn't need more press coverage, so she can be as picky as she wants. Since everyone writing about politics would love to interview her, she can exercise very tight control over who she talks to and take few if any risks. I don't think it has much to do with ideology. I'm sure if you made the same two calls to, say, Dennis Kucinich and Rudy Giuliani, you'd find that Kucinich would be happy to have you move into his house for a week, and Rudy's flacks would tell you to stuff it.

But back to the broader question of the differing attitudes toward the press. What I was really thinking about in my suggestion about being tough with reporters was political reporters. Republicans have gotten excellent results from playing hardball for some time. Remember back in 2000 when a boom mike "caught" then-candidate George W. Bush calling Adam Clymer of the New York Times a "major league asshole"? I've talked to half a dozen national political reporters about this, and every one said they thought it was a set-up, that Bush knew exactly what he was doing and expected his words to be picked up by the microphone. He and Cheney were sending a message to reporters, and to their supporters: we have nothing but contempt for the press.

Nothing changed when they took office. In the early days of his presidency, Bush's aides would punish reporters who were too critical, as the American Prospect reported.
"There seems to be a system within the White House of retribution," said one White House correspondent. "Basically, if you write something [negative], it's like at the communication meeting with [Bush senior adviser] Karen Hughes the message goes out that so-and-so's on the blacklist -- in some cases for that day, in some cases for that week." Karl Rove tried to strong-arm the Washington Post into removing Dana Milbank, a reporter who had been critical of the administration, from the White House beat. In 2004, Cheney kicked the New York Times off his campaign plane because he didn't like the Times' reporting. Never in a million years would a Democrat think of being that tough with the nation's most important news outlet.

Of course, the president is in a position that allows him to make life very difficult for reporters if he chooses. Blacklisting a White House reporter will make it difficult if not impossible for that reporter to do his or her job. Activists and individuals who interact with the press, on the other hand, are in the opposite position: they're begging for attention. But that doesn't mean they can't act proactively. They can be polite and still view every interaction as an opportunity to engage that reporter in a dialogue, however brief, about the weaknesses in coverage of their issue. They can write or call reporters and tell them when they've screwed up or ignored something important.

This is what we do at Media Matters. But we try very hard to do it respectfully, yet firmly. We don't question journalists' motives, accuse them of being biased, or call them names. Some of them don't like getting criticized, which is perfectly understandable. But journalists have so much influence on the operation of our democracy that it's incumbent on us as citizens to watch them like hawks.

Part 7: Dan: "sometimes you have to be willing to throw a sharp elbow or two to get your message heard."

First Jeff, then Paul (through Jeff), then Jeff a little more:

I didn't want to go all theological on Sharlet, but to quote the apostle Paul: "What? Has Christ been divided?" (I Cor. 1:13) Your point about unacknowledged differences preventing real understanding is a good one, but one of the foundational beliefs of Christians is that we all worship the same Jesus of Nazareth. More to the point, we are all a part of the one body of Christ, though as Paul says, we don't all fulfill the same role within it.

Now, partly that's to say that the favorite sport of Christians is arguing about who's a good Christian and who isn't. But partly that's to say that - again quoting Paul - "there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism" - and I'll be damned if I let somebody like James Dobson tell me that I'm not part of it. Unity-within-diversity is a cherished tradition among Christians, even if we can't agree on what that means or who's eligible for it. That's particularly true for progressive Christians, who both pride themselves on diversity and are sick to death of getting called heretics and faithless monsters for doing so.

I wish to God that I could get my fellow progressives good and angry about this kind of thing, but angry doesn't seem to be what we do best. I do wish that we could be a bit more contentious on this score, both with our co-religionists and with the media. The stakes are high, and we've really taken quite enough abuse as it is.

So in answer to your question to Paul, Jeff, no: we don't need to call the reporter an a--hole. We need to be a--holes, at least once in a while. I'm sure that what Paul would tell you from the Media Matters perspective is that being demanding works. Reporters have been so beaten down by the right wing that they simply don't respond to polite entreaties (or 1600 word press releases). Sometimes you just have to bludgeon them before they'll respond. That's what we've learned on countless other issues such as Iraq, Social Security, or the Supreme Court, anyway.

And sometimes you have to be willing to throw a sharp elbow or two to get your message heard. One of my greatest frustrations in blogging is having nice Christians say to me, "Maybe you should take it easy on James Dobson (or Pat Robertson or Tony Perkins). It's not Christian to be so harsh." Go read what Jesus had to say about his religious rivals. He didn't soft-pedal much.

That doesn't excuse being an abusive jerk for its own sake, of course. But Lord knows that there are some people who need to have their tops shaved a bit. It's the same argument you hear all the time about "blog incivility": is it worse to use intemperate language, or to excuse actually immoral behavior like the war in Iraq?

To answer Jeff's question about imagining a different country, then, part of what needs to happen is a very frank - though not necessarily brutal - conversation amongst the "progressives and lefties". (If anyone ever wonders why I'm such a crank at Street Prophets, this is it. Somehow, we have to break through the wall of politeness that keeps us from talking honestly.) One of the things that the Kossacks have been trying to point out to Bill O'Reilly's fans this week is that they're not all foaming at the mouth with hatred and animosity. There's in fact a lot of imaginative work that goes on there, all ignored because it's too easy to focus on the real anger and outrage.

As that conversation takes place, the people taking part in it need to advocate for it in the wider media. I mean that both in the sense of pushing the fruits of the conversation, and in the sense of advocating the conversation itself.

Because, as Paul understood, there was nothing that could separate us from Christ's love except our own walking away. I may think that Amy Sullivan and Mara Vanderslice are prime examples of Inside-the-Beltway Chowderheads, and I'm sure they often consider me somewhat less than Christian in my approach, but what binds us all together is not our common ground but that we're all arguing about the same thing. We need to be open about that, and invite people into the fracas.

We might not always win the argument, but at least we'll be providing a healthier conversation.

In my book, that's of almost supreme importance. We've seen what can happen to a government and a political system when they are taken over by megalomaniacal, paranoid, reflexively secretive people who think that they don't need anyone to tell them what God has appointed them to do. To the extent that we can provide an alternative to that kind of governance, well, it's a win-win for everybody.

I'll kick it back to Jeff and Paul with this: if the answer to question of how to imagine a new country is to broaden the conversation, how do we invite more and better participation?

Part 6: Jeff: "Paul, where can I find these progressives who 'reveal too much'? Sounds like a good story."

A little while ago NPR's "On the Media" invited Paul and I on to argue about this very issue, and we totally failed -- we just kept agreeing with each other. But now I'm ready. Paul writes that progressives "open up to [journalists], they go off message, they leak, they reveal too much." I could not disagree more. But more importantly -- Paul, where can I find these progressives who "reveal too much"? Sounds like a good story.

I've been writing very critically about the religious right for national magazines for years. And yet religious right figures return my calls, send me unsolicited information, and grant me access. They also call me nasty names, but I can live with that.
Progressive groups? They rarely return calls. When they do, they tell me they'll have to have a meeting before they tell me anything. Then they stay on message, all right -- repeating the same quote I've already read in other magazines. Thanks, but no thanks.

That's not always the case, of course, but it's almost never the case with the Right.

A tale of two senators: In 2006, I did a profile of Senator Sam Brownback for Rolling Stone. The first day I was in his office, another journalist -- a liberal, as it happens, simply trying to protect his access to Brownback from interlopers -- sent Brownback's flack a dossier on my lefty associations. I watched it open up on the flack's screen, including a piece I'd done for Harper's on the secretive Christian Right group Brownback was a part of. Brownback knew who I was, where my politics were.
So he invited me to go to church with him in Kansas. To prove, I think, that he wasn't afraid of me.

A little while later, I called Hillary Clinton's office to ask if I could speak to her for 15 minutes about faith. Her flack all but hung up.

I don't know where Paul's been reporting, but the rightwingers I speak to -- not just leaders, but folks of all ages, all over the country -- typically pour me coffee and talk too much. Progressive responses tend to be more like those I encountered at an anti-Clear Channel march I attended for an anti-Clear Channel story in the NY Times Magazine (which killed it for being too critical; it ended up in Harper's) -- most people refused to speak with me, BECAUSE I was from the NYT.

Rightwingers aren't kinder or more courteous people (just the opposite) -- but these days, they're a lot bolder. They open up because they think they can -- they're certain I'll "twist" the truths they tell me, but they don't care because they believe they're true. Progressives guard their beliefs so jealously that they're unwilling to share them unless they can get a guarantee that the result will be not journalism, but transcription.

No right-winger has ever said to me "And as long as I've got you, can you tell me why the reporting of you and your colleagues is so shallow and simplistic?"Is Paul really suggesting that the way to get better progressive coverage is to tell a reporter, at the end of an interview, that he or she is an a--hole?

Part 5: Paul: "there is a higher degree of professionalism on the right when it comes to dealing with the media."

First, to Dan's question: As a starting point, progressives need to get savvier about the media. To take just one example, let me quote from a study of policy advocacy by progressive and conservative Christian groups, by Katherine Stenger and Kathryn Johnson (it isn't available online), that looked at the press releases they sent out: "The average length of press releases from left-leaning groups was 730 words.The average length of press releases from right-leaning groups was a mere 329 words. Right-leaning Christian groups have learned to make their point quickly and clearly, and this style appeals to journalists."

Does it ever. The sad fact is that journalists are not going to read 730-word press releases (and that was the average - some actually ran over 1600 words). The most valuable resource journalists have is time, which appears to be just one of the many things conservative Christian groups understand. So it's no wonder they get more and better coverage. This is just one specific example that illustrates how there is a higher degree of professionalism on the right when it comes to dealing with the media.

The question of, as Dan put it, journalists who are "nominally on their side but perhaps in actuality not as friendly as they might seem" is a key one for everyone on the left. One of the media problems progressive operatives have is that they like journalists and respect journalism. They talk to reporters and find out that they're folks not unlike themselves, who seem pretty liberal. And so they open up to them, they go off message, they leak, they reveal too much. Then when the stories get written, they are shocked to find that that nice reporter stuck a shiv in them.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have no illusions about journalists. They hate them and everything they stand for. They assume that the journalists are out to screw them. And that governs how they interact with them.

So here's a tip: if a reporter seems like a nice person who shares your perspective, don't assume that's going to be reflected in their writing about you and your cause. It's just as likely they'll be doubly tough on you to show how professional they are and how their own beliefs don't color their reporting, lest the dreaded "liberal bias" charge rear its head.

Now, to Jeff's question of how we imagine a different country and describe it to a media that doesn't know how narrow its horizons are.well, that's a mighty tall order. One lesson we could take from the conservatives is to be unafraid to browbeat reporters about it. What if every time you talked to a reporter, you gave them the quote they were looking for, then said, "And as long as I've got you, can you tell me why the reporting of you and your colleagues is so shallow and simplistic?" Then tell them what they ought to be writing about. After they've heard the same thing from a dozen people, it might start to sink in.

Part 4: Jeff to progressives: "Common grounder activists are annoying. Common grounder journalists are deadly."

Dear Paul and Dan,

Now we're talking, by which I mean arguing, which is as it should be.

Dan's last question first:

"how can progressives corral journalists and political operatives nominally on their side but perhaps in actuality not as friendly as they might seem?"

I don't know about that evolutionary dead-end known as the "political operative," but I'll speak to the question of how progressives can corral journalists: The same way the Right does, with good stories and lots of access. That seems obvious, but the Left doesn't get it. Couple of examples: After I wrote a story for Rolling Stone about BattleCry, a militant fundamentalist youth movement that uses extreme war imagery to organize kids all over the country into "cadres" for fundamentalist revolution, a progressive activist I respect quite a lot invited me to cover a very worthwhile program, an interfaith summer camp. That's nice. When I told him that'd be a hard sell -- I wouldn't read such a story myself -- he understood and we lamented with one another about the difficulty of telling sweet, uneventful stories. So don't; save those for the literary magazines. Progressives need to bring their arguments out into the open without worrying about the press portraying them as "divided." Better that than bland.

Access: This is a problem of the entire Left, from radical to Democratic liberal. Progressives are media-literate enough to know that the story that a reporter will tell about them won't be the story they themselves would tell. So, all too often, they attempt to control the narrative by parceling out access on some kind of bizarre need-to-know basis. I'm about as far left a journalist as you'll find writing for national media, but I have much easier time getting access to right-wingers than I do progressives.
Rightwingers who know I'm not their friend return calls, invite me into meetings. Progressives who know I'm friendly hem and haw and delay and protect themselves so well they never get into the fight. They don't get narrative -- the idea that a reporter needs to see the life of an organization, not hear talking points. While progressives strategize about "frames," the right blasts itself into the mainstream as if from a shotgun. The right's media secret isn't framing; it's ubiquity.

Take Randy Brinson. I remember laughing over a Washington Times' puff piece on Redeem the Vote in 2004. Brinson was a joke, his intentions transparent. But he did the right thing, for a right wing activist looking to shape the debate: He stuck around and talked to anyone who wanted to talk to him. Along comes Amy Sullivan, and suddenly this conservative activist has a platform in a liberal magazine that thinks he's some kind of hero, and from there it's a hop, skip, and a jump into mainstream media.

Which brings us to the problem of journalists who are "not as friendly as they actually seem" and political hacks like Vanderslice. I think we should make a distinction between the two. I don't agree with Sullivan's politics, but I understand what she's doing, and why. She's a good political reporter, making a case through stories for her politics. My problem isn't with her journalism, but with her politics. How do progressives deal with those? By arguing with them. She'll argue back. That's the way it should work. She gets that as well as you and I do.

Consultants like Vanderslice are a different species. Their job isn't to argue, it's to persuade journalists that there is no argument -- that Democrats and progressives are mostly aligned around their talking points. Not to put too fine a point on it,
but: to hell with 'em. Mara Vanderslice is not "nominally" or otherwise on any side I want to be on.

But wait, cry the common grounders -- don't we all oppose poverty and worry about global warming? Yeah, and so does Pat Robertson. So what?

Common grounder activists are annoying. Common grounder journalists are deadly. Much more problematic than an honest centrist like Sullivan are the stealth centrists who write the "news" for magazines like Time. Yes, Dan, the Democrats-and- religion story was lousy. Not because they used anonymous sources -- that can be ok -- or because they failed to talk to any Democratic candidates about their faith. (See "access," above; then try calling Hillary's office to ask her about her faith. Good
luck.) It's because they practice a journalism ultimately committed to sameness rather than difference. I don't mean difference in the touchy-feely ain't-diversity-grand way, but in the sharp-elbowed small-d democratic way.

Which brings me round to your first point, Dan, your bemused skepticism over the possibility of persuading American Christians that there's more than one Christ out there. A few years ago, my friend Peter Manseau and I spent a year traveling the country to write a book about the margins of faith, the eccentricities that allow one a perspective from which to view the center. When we set out, we thought it was a shame the U.S. wasn't like ancient Greece, a different god for every town. That wasn't a theological perspective, mind you; we just wanted good stories. And we found them. It turns out the U.S. is like ancient Greece, and there is a different god in every city, thousands of them. The craziest part is that they're almost all named Jesus.

There’s a Jesus in Miami’s Cuban churches, for instance, who seems to do nothing but wrestle Castro; a Jesus in Heartland, Kansas, who dances with witches who also consider themselves Christians, naked but for his antlers; a Jesus in Manhattan who dresses in drag; a baby Jesus in New Mexico who pulls cow tails and heals the lame or simply the sad by giving them earth to eat; a musclebound Jesus in South Central L.A. emblazoned across the chest of a man with a gun in his hand; a Jesus in an Orlando megachurch who wants you to have a black Beamer.

The pastor of that Orlando megachurch doesn't think his Christ is the same one believed in by the witches of Kansas. I think he's right about that one point. And as journalists -- and people who want better reporting from journalists -- I think we'd do well to pay attention to the differences. Imagine if that Time story had instead of telling Mara Vanderslice's life story really paid close attention to her idea of the divine and investigated the theological struggles within the progressive coalition. You raise the odious Institute on Religion and Democracy; imagine if reporters asked tough questions about the IRD's theological and political goals, if, when Hillary said she was a Methodist, the press asked her, "What kind?"

That can't happen until we abandon the myth of common ground. For much of the 20th century, that common ground was vaguely liberal, if not left or even progressive; now, it's conservative, regardless of which party holds Congress. Either way, common ground isn't for common people. It's status quo territory, a land of business-as-usual in which the lingua franca is Times-speak and the official religion is "faith" with few questions asked. That's the kind of place in which hacks like Vanderslice prosper.

So: A question from the journalist to the pastor and the activist-scholar: If I'm even half-right, how do progressives and lefties imagine a different country? And how do they describe it to a media that doesn't even realize how narrow are its horizons?

Part 3: Dan sees lack of context, independence, and accuracy in Time stories on faith in politics.

Dear Paul and Jeff:

Thanks for agreeing to participate in this roundtable. I'm always happy to hear your perspectives on these stories, and it's even better to take part in them first-hand.

A small aside: Jeff, best of luck on trying to convince American Christians that there's more than one Christ out there. You let me know how that works out for you.

Anyway, I also find myself in a strange position here. Jeff has taken up the Atrios argument, which is that we should encourage argument about the details of religious belief so candidates don't get a pass on spouting platitudes. That's a good position. I'd never want to argue against providing voters with a better understanding of what faith is and does. But at the same time, I should put in a word for the opposite view: we also need to provide voters with a better understanding of the politics surrounding faith. So here's the secular writer arguing for better religious understanding and the pastor arguing for better political knowledge.

In particular, I think we can't let the vision of history put forward in these Time articles go unchallenged. Nowhere in Amy Sullivan's column was there a mention of the role race played in bringing together the Religious Right, for example. Were it not for the Carter administration's challenge to the tax-exempt status of segregated "Christian Academies" throughout the South, it's unlikely that the Religious Right would even exist in the form we recognize it today.

Nor is there a mention of the decades-long work of the Institute on Religion and Democracy to undermine the governing structures of mainline denominations. The point of this operation - fueled by cash donated by ultra-conservative philanthropists - was to neutralize the social witness of denominations like the UCC, the Methodists, Presbyterians, or Episcopalians, to pave the way for secular Republican political gains. The Democratic "loss" of religious voters had a lot more behind it than simply not wanting to talk about abortion, in other words. I would like to have seen that reflected in these pieces.

The other curious position I find myself in is having to ask you two - among the most astute media critics out there - to take a harder look at the quality of the reporting here. Simply put, these articles are a disaster. In addition to what I've mentioned above, Sullivan spins the Time poll to say the exact opposite of what the numbers indicate, and with nary an indication that the results contradict her long-held arguments about Democrats and religion.

Gibbs and Duffy, meanwhile:

• quote an anonymous source with a clear agenda in criticizing the Democratic party
• allow Mara Vanderslice's personal story to take up a significant portion of the story
• allow Vanderslice - a consultant with a product to sell - to diagnose the party's ills
• allow Vanderslice to insert unchallenged claims, such as that faith outreach made the difference in places like Michigan and Ohio
• use Randy Brinson as an example of successful outreach - a dubious claim first put forth by Amy Sullivan
• fail to speak to any rank-and-file Democrats about their faith
• fail to speak to any Democratic candidates about their faith, or examine their practice

and on and on. This stuff is atrocious, in a word, and I'm sure I've missed a thing or two. I came away from Gibbs and Duffy's piece with the strong impression that they'd let Sullivan and Vanderslice write the thing themselves, then touched it up here and there. The entire thing is out of the same perspective they've hit time and again.

I have been harshly critical of both Sullivan and Vanderslice many times at Street Prophets. I hate to do it, if for no other reason than the three of us are almost exactly the same age and generally on the same side of things politically. But the intellectual dishonesty on full display here demands some kind of response. Like Jeff, I wonder if their purpose isn't to put together a socially conservative faction within the Democratic party. And like Paul, I wonder if they're not playing into Republican ways of describing Democrats that help the GOP convince three-quarters of the American public that Hillary Clinton is faking her lifelong faith.

But as I started out saying, you two are the experts here. So I'll toss the question back to you: how can progressives corral journalists and political operatives nominally on their side but perhaps in actuality not as friendly as they might seem? I'm all for a healthy diversity of opinion on the issues, but it seems to me that we are confronted in stories such as these with willful misrepresentations of progressives and their beliefs.

You won't be surprised to discover that ticks me off.

Thanks again for the conversation,
Dan

Part 2: Jeff calls for diligent skepticism of both progressives and conservatives.

Dear Paul and Dan,

I find myself in a very unusual position: Defending Time. The Tony Perkins quote did belong in the story, but not as the kicker.
It should have been up top, because then readers would have been clued in to what the story was really about: a new political machine. I'll venture into even stranger territory: Not only do I think Perkins belonged in the story, I think that for the most part his assessment is right. What I worry about is that Mara Vanderslice, the new Democratic "faith guru," does too, and that she's capitalizing on the good intentions of religious liberals, and the naivete of a press that thinks it's finally "getting" religion, to help build a new, socially conservative faction within the party, heir to the economic conservatism of the DLC in the 1990s.

This faction will never satisfy Tony Perkins or James Dobson, but it may make the sacrifices necessary to win over Rick Warren and Randy Brinson -- and that's very bad news for those of us who believe that queer rights and reproductive freedom aren't "special interests" or some litmus test, but fundamental to our health and well-being, not to mention democracy in general.

I think Paul is right that much of the press views conservative Christianity as sincere (if hypocritical), and liberal Christianity as so fuzzy as to be hardly worth mentioning at all. But I don't think we correct for that by granting the sincerity of liberal Christian politicians. Rather, the press ought to do what it (thinks) it does best: sift through the political image factories for signs of the real agendas. I don't want the press to take Obama's piety more seriously, I want it to take Republican piety less seriously. Not because it's all a lot of baloney (some of it is, some of it isn't), but because it's all enmeshed in political calculation (as it should be; this is politics), and that's the stuff voters need to understand to choose wisely.

That doesn't mean the press ought to ignore the professed faith of the candidates. Just the opposite. I want the press to pay very close attention. Not to "faith," which in politics is a vague and generic term, but to religion as it's lived. For instance, when my colleague Kathryn Joyce and I teamed up to do an investigation of Hillary's faith commitments and religious allies for an upcoming issue of Mother Jones, we tried to embed those questions in the context of Hillary's politics, which are dragged right by what happens to be very sincere -- and rather conservative -- faith. The folks at Tony Perkins' Family Research Council understand that, and hold a fairly realistic view about it -- just as the more honest among them admit that their big outreach to African-American Christians is simultaneously sincere and calculating, the result of the evangelistic impulse and the bet that they can peel off a crucial 5% of the black vote from the Democratic Party.

But such nuances get lost in the mythical "God gap." There's no such thing. The majority of the Democratic Party is religious, just as is the majority of the GOP; the difference tends to be in the nature of the gods worshiped. There is far more than one Christ in America, a basic theological fact lost on a press that treats God as a single prize to be wrestled over by Democrats and Republicans. Balancing out religious "conservatives" with religious "progressives" won't fix that misperception, it'll reinforce it, and that will always be to the Right's advantage, since its most powerful brokers are committed to a rough theological homogeneity. We on the Left are not. And we shouldn't pretend to be. Every time a Christian Right talking head bullies or smarms his way through an interview, he reinforces the notion of his movement as a monolith, which is to say, un-democratic and kind of scary to boot. Let them have that tactic. It does no good to respond to Cal Thomas' claim that Clinton isn't a real Christian by crying that he's not a real Christian or that he's done wrong by making his accusation. He hasn't, and they're both Christians, different kinds, and it would make the Left stronger to know what those differences mean than to fall into a trap of claiming the one true faith.

To close in agreement with Paul: I think the media's inability to really dig into those differences (and some of the surprising
similarities) is why, to paraphrase Paul, 24% of the public would say Hillary is an alien from the planet Grognak sent to suck out our brains, but only 13% recognize that she's "strongly religious," and that they'd better find out what that means.

Part 1: Paul provides examples and analysis of media bias against religious progressives.

Dear Dan and Jeff,

Reading this recent cover article in Time, I was struck by whom the reporters, Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, chose to seek out for comments on the topic of Democrats and religion. Some of the usual suspects were there – John Green, Jim Wallis – but they also went to the same sources they would have if they had written an article about Republicans and religion, like Richard Land and Tony Perkins. Take this passage: “‘It's a positive thing that Democrats are willing to talk about faith and values,’ says Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. ‘But they are aligned with organizations that sue to stop kids from praying and block the Ten Commandments.’ Only when the policies evolve, he argues, as opposed to the rhetoric, will the party have a chance to make real gains with Evangelicals.”

We see this over and over and over again: an article about Democrats and religion will include a quote from someone like Perkins saying, in essence, that Democrats are insincere and can’t hope to win over religious voters. But when reporters write about Republicans and religion, they feel no particular need to seek out religious progressives to criticize the GOP.

This goes back, I think, to a series of preconceptions that we can detect running through coverage of religion and politics. Conservative politicians have genuine faith, while progressive politicians’ faith can’t be taken at face value, since it’s probably just a cynical ploy to win votes; conservatives vote on their “values,” while progressives are just people with opinions; and – although this is an entirely separate topic we may not want to discuss here – the votes of religious people are good votes that you want to get, while the votes of secular people are somehow less valuable.

Alongside these kinds of ideas coming from mainstream reporters, you have the explicit attacks on Democrats’ faith coming from conservative media figures. They act as though they’re insulted that progressives – politicians or otherwise – would have the temerity to talk about their faith. “I have never met anybody less sincere than the religious left,” Tucker Carlson said on a recent show. “I mean, you think that Jerry Falwell was cloying and phony, honestly, you haven’t met the religious left.” Cal Thomas issued a blistering theological attack on Hillary Clinton, stopping just short of saying that she is not a real Christian (Hillary’s crime, it appears, is the fact that she’s a Methodist). Similarly, Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard opined that Clinton might be able to appeal to religious voters, but only those who are “religious in the way that Hillary Clinton is religious, which is to say of a very liberal Protestant sort of view, in which they believe in everything but God.” Michael Gerson, former Bush speechwriter and current Washington Post columnist, criticized Barack Obama for speaking at a gathering of his own church: “By speaking at a gathering of the United Church of Christ -- among the most excruciatingly progressive of Protestant denominations,” Gerson wrote, “he was preaching to the liberal choir. And he did not effectively reach out to an evangelical movement in transition.”

So the terms are changing – first Democrats were supposedly unacceptably secular and hostile to religion; then, when some of the major candidates talk honestly about their own faith, the conservatives say, well, you’re probably disingenuous about your faith, but even if you aren’t, your faith is the wrong faith. It’s not real Christianity, it’s a Christianity that is by definition less worthy than that of whichever conservative is talking.

Supposedly, we had moved beyond interdenominational conflict to an inclusive, ecumenical approach to religion and politics, where it didn’t matter what your faith was, as long as you had one. But I guess that applied only so long as progressives could be attacked as ungodly.

One last point, before I turn it over to you: the most devout of the leading candidates for president is almost certainly Hillary Clinton. Yet according to the Time poll, only 13% of registered voters describe her as “strongly religious,” while 24% say they know she is “not religious.” Is this just about Clinton, and you could get 24% of the public to say she is an alien sent from planet Grognak to enslave us and suck our brains, or does it have something to do with how the whole question of Democrats and religion gets covered?

Posted by Beth Dahlman at 09:30 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (11)

Faith in Public LIVE is back, this time discussing one of the hottest issues for the religious community today: the environment. Chuck Gutenson is the lead blogger at Imitatio Christi, and an evangelical theologian and ethicists at Asbury Theological Seminary, Barbara Lerman-Golomb is the Executive Director of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL) and is the coordinator for the Greening Synagogues project, and Sally Bingham is the President of The Regeneration Project which runs the Interfaith Power and Light campaign

Part 9: Sally Bingham lets out an "Alleluia" for the progress made on the environment and hope for the future

I would like to say, "Alleluia" and thank you to Barbara for pointing out that all is not lost and the doomsday message may no longer relevant. I, too, sense considerable hope; hope for change and hope for new opportunity, job growth and perhaps even a second industrial revolution, but this time a clean one. Not only has the religious community begun to unite, see our declaration on www.theregenerationproject.org (Jews, Muslims and Christians) calling for our government to cut green house gas emissions, but corporations, big businesses, hospitals and schools are embracing the "green" movement. There is bi-partisan legislation in the works with some 80 bills about energy under discussion in Congress. There is a lot to be hopeful about and one of the most important sign that I am experiencing is that rather than have to explain global warming or recite the reports and Scientist that agree global warming is a problem, people are asking "what can I do"? What are the solutions? This is a very different landscape than just two years ago. Very seldom does someone say "the science is still undecided" or we cannot make changes, it would hurt the economy.

It has taken ten years and catastrophic events like Katrina to get the attention of the general people, but it seems that many if not most have realized the problem. Many, too, are making changes in their behavior. It isn't sacrifice, it is change: just like a light bulb. We are seeing congregations with solar on the roof serving as an example to the community. We needed the big corporations to voluntarily reduce emissions and show a profit besides. That is how policy is made. The folks who step up first and volunteer prove to the policy makers that it works. We did that with recycling. It took a while after programs began under volunteers, but in the end others saw that it worked and climbed on board. Those changes are happening now with conservation of energy and driving patterns.

The role that religious institutions have played is crucial. It brought ethical and moral values to the discussion and when the call to be good stewards comes from the pulpit, people understand that addressing global warming by using renewable energy, practicing conservation and efficiency, we are doing the "right" thing. It is a responsibility of faith.

Another reason for hope to just to look around and count the number of hybrid cars on the road. People are beginning to see the light and make changes. We are a moral society and at its core the environmental situation is a reflection of our concern for life itself: it is a spiritual issue. We have a lot of work to do, but in all areas of life, but particularly in the religious community, I sense a strong instinct to make up for lost time and do the right thing.

Part 8: Barbara Lerman-Golomb sees hope for the environmental movement

With all the doomsday and fear mongering generated around environmental degradation, believe it or not, some positive opportunities have arisen. One positive is that it has created an environmental faith movement that has been a source of renewal for people eager to connect in a meaningful and purposeful way to their religion. What can be more spiritual than communing with nature and literally getting in touch with our agrarian roots? If we have a better understanding of the inner workings of our planet, we'll have the tools to think creatively about how to sustain it.

Another positive is the coming together of the interreligious community. No matter what our differences or perspectives are on other issues, we all have a common calling when it comes to environmental stewardship and we understand that the only way we're going to empower our message and mission is by our working in unison. There is strength in numbers. Our shared vision and passion, is exactly what we need to movtivate our communities and policy makers, many of whom identify strongly with their faith and the obligation to be good stewards.

A third positive is that the environmental movement can serve as inspiration for political activism that has lay dormant for too long. Of course in a democracy our legislators are supposed to listen to the will of the people, but they can only do that if they hear from the people. We need to let them know that the trend in the past few years of
decimating every environmental protection measure put into place and that the attitude of Genesis 1 of having "domain" over the Earth and essentially being able to do what we want with it, can not continue. But rather we need to follow the message of Genesis 2 to "till and to tend" as caretakers of the Earth. Citizens need to reengage in the political process. With new energy bills arising every day and the presidential election looming, we need to make sure that this time around the environment and particularly energy policy, climate change, and its implications for social injustice are a major focus in our country.

Let us do right by future generations by not leaving them with the possible burden of severe life threatening environmental devastation and the legacy that we stood idly by and did nothing to protect our sacred Earth.

Or put another way...

"God led the first human begins around the Garden of Eden and said: Look at my works! See how beautiful they are--how excellent! For your sake, I created them all. See to it that you do not spoil and destroy My world, for if you do, there will be no one else to repair it." (Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:13).

Part 7: Chuck Gutenson on getting people to stop standing around and do something

What are the most productive steps in moving folks toward a greater sense of obligation when it comes to care and stewardship of God's creation? Well, as one might expect, the answers vary. Let's consider a few options.

First, and I think foremost, each of us has to come to realize that caring for the environment is a moral issue, and hence, for Christians, ultimately one of discipleship. I have a colleague who likes to say that our sense of what it means to be a follower of Jesus has not yet permeated deeply enough if it does not impact something as routine as throwing out our trash. What she was trying to capture, of course, was that our commitment to follow Jesus must impact every single aspect of our lives. Once we think of it this way, we begin to see the moral imperative to engage in environment friendly behaviors. There can be no substitute for each of us engaging this issue at a personal level.

At the same time, however, personal engagement cannot replace the need for public engagement. Education is always a central element of public engagement, since the right form of engagement cannot be determined without a good sense of where the pressure points are. After that, I would encourage each person (or, better, group of persons) to consider their own gifts and to become involved in ways that make it utilize those gifts. If I may borrow from the Apostle, those who are educators, let them educate; those who are articulate writers, let them write; those who are able to organize others, let them organize; and those who have relationships with congresspersons, let them utilize that access. There is more than enough work to be done and more than enough giftedness to go around. In the words of that old cliche: Don't just stand there, do something:>)

Part 6: Barbara gives another reason to take action for the envrionment: God is all about action; we should be too.

God is all about action. And so if we believe that human beings are created in the image of God (tzelem Elohim), then we need to be all about action too. There are many ways to motivate a community to action. Creating a communal activity often works. People feel safety in numbers--getting a group together to rally or lobby on Capitol Hill on an issue, engaging in a letter writing campaign to legislators after an impassioned sermon, joining in a neighborhood clean up, or working together with the common goal of "greening" your house of worship. A successful action is often one that is doable such as changing to compact fluorescent light bulbs to address global warming and energy consumption.

It's important to take that first simple step because the thought of taking action can feel overwhelming. We are already dealing with so many moral issues all vying for our attention--poverty, AIDS, homelessness, healthcare, Darfur, the Middle East and now global climate change. It's easy to despair or to feel like taking action is just too much trouble and that it's better left up to someone else. When it comes to environmental problems, many count on the fact that the "environmentalists" will deal with it. But we can no longer afford to compartmentalize environmentalism. We can no longer see it as "us" or "them." The Sh'ma prayer is said to be the watchword of the Jewish faith. In its opening line it tells us that God is one. All of Creation is interconnected as one and so how all of us respond and care for the world positively or negatively will have its consequences.

The words tikkun olam, to repair the world, sum up a human beings obligation here on Earth. If we are created in the image of God, than we need to step up to the plate and begin to take action by truly being partners in Creation.

Part 5: Sally says that stopping global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time

The greatest moral issue of our time......Senator Brownback says "it's abortion", former Senator John Edwards says "it's poverty", Al Gore's says it's global warming. I am a Christian and I agree with Gore. My reason's are 1) the first and great commandment: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. If we love our neighbors we don't pollute our neighbors air, water or land. Right? And if you love God, isn't it a sin to destroy what God created? Isn't it an insult to God?

2) Morality for me asks the question "what are my values?" "How do I treat my neighbor", how does society take care of the poor. Big issues, that make up social values, are what "moral" is about. What does it mean to be human, fully and wholly human created in the image of God? The image of God is kind, compassionate, inclusive, loving every child, not selectively choosing whom to love and not refusing to accept the way others were created when they are different from me. These are hard values to live by, but they are what make a moral society and moral people. How we respond to global warming answers these questions. Our response will define what it means to be human and how we respond will demonstrate love or not for God and for our neighbor.

It is a huge responsibility to be human, created in the image of God. Trying to live up to that is challenging and yet something we should strive to do. We have an obligation to care for all of Creation. Adding to the pressure of the challenge, we have the ability to meet the needs of all and to solve the global warming problem if we decided to. If we could agree as a country, a society, a culture, a human, we could take the steps necessary that show we are people striving to be the best we can be. I think global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time, not because the issue is a moral one, but how we respond to it, is a moral value. I think abortion and same sex relations are issues that are personal and not to be decided by cultural trends or legislation. If I ask myself, what would Jesus do?, I have to say, based on what I know about Jesus, he would love and embrace everyone and particularly the marginalized. He would be pro life, but pro healthy: life created out of love, not conflict or without access to fresh air, food and water. The people who will suffer the most from global warming are the poor and Jesus said, "what you do to the least of them, you do to me". We are called to serve the poor, love our neighbors. Those are moral issues and global warming will hurt both the poor and our neighbors. We have a moral obligation to do something about it. Jesus would.

Part 4: Chuck Gutenson on falling in love with creation

When we talk of care for creation, we often jump, rightly I think, to ideas of stewardship and responsibility. I focused on these in my last post, and suggested that we have an obligation to care for the earth so as to give it in better (or, at least as good) shape to our children than we found it. However, I want to focus in a somewhat different place today. I wonder how often we consider the extent to which God, to put it simply, enjoys the world he has created.

In the last several chapters of Job, while the emphasis is upon correcting some bad perceptions about God held by Job's friends, I always pick up a tone of playfulness in God's language about creation. He speaks of creating the hawk so that it can rise majestically into the sky, he speaks of "playing with" the great sea creatures, and he reflects on the joys of his creation giving birth to yet more creatures. In the Psalms, we see references to the creatures that are worthy of our fear (the lion and its cubs, for example). Yet, God speaks of them with regard to his feeding them in the sort of tone we might use to describe feeding a pet from our hands.

It is hard to read these passages about God's interactions with and reflections upon his creation without getting a sense of the intimacy with which God views all aspects of the world he has created. Would it be far too anthropomorphic to say that one way to see God's relationship with the world is analogous to that of a "proud father"? God's love is over all his creation, and the more deeply we let that reality sink in, I think, the more deeply our own love and appreciation for creation will become. And, of course, it is always easier to care for a thing you love deeply than for a thing we see merely as object.

Part 3: Barbara Lerman-Golomb: we need to start building an "ark" before the floods come

So what will help guide humanity to do the right thing? Centuries of disconnect have kept us from understanding the natural cycles of the Earth, from connecting to the food we eat, to understanding how we fit into the chain. Reconnecting to our environment is the first step to appreciating the beauty and awe of the world. We need to get outside, to learn to respect nature instead of fearing it or mistreating it. The Rabbis taught: Even those things that you may regard as completely superfluous to Creation – such as fleas, gnats and flies—even they were included in Creation; and God’s purpose is carried through everything—even through a snake, a scorpion, a gnat, a frog.” (Breishit Rabbah 10:7) Once we begin to disregard nature, to disconnect from it, it's easier and easier to destroy it. If we don't fully understand that polluting the air, water, and land, will come full circle and affect our health and the quality of our lives, then we're not going to make any effort to preserve our natural environment.

If we begin to understand our ecological footprint, we'll be more thoughtful in our choices, our purchases, our consumption. We need to ask how is my lifestyle affecting or harming others? Once we begin to take steps to live a more sustainable life, then we need to demand as much from our legislators who set into motion the opportunity for real change. We can gain momentum with a coming together of consumers, the business community, elected officials, and more and more with the faith community. This is a natural place t