FP: It seems to me that the forces on the progressive side-- the religious left and progressives who focus on opposing the religious right--can be divided into maybe three broad camps. One group believes that the religious right is a fairly significant and imminent threat to the Republic, and focuses its energies on describing and opposing this threat. Some of this group's members are religious but many are not. Another group wants to keep most discussion of religious values out of politics--whether the ideas come from the left or right. Most but not all of these folks are not particularly religious in their outlook. Finally, there is a group that wants to describe a positive progressive religious vision that includes a specifically political or at least ethical focus. Most but not all of these people are driven by their own faith and the view that our materialistic culture cries out for some kind of workable (i.e. tolerant) spiritual dimension. Obviously there is some overlap between these broad groups but there are also some inherent tensions.

First--do you agree with this premise, or would you amend these categories in any way?

FC: There are many ways of describing the overlapping factions of folks interested in these things; but I think this is one fair way of looking at it for purposes of your next question.

FP: The question then is this: how can these groups work to overcome the inherent tensions among and between them? Is a common sort of "popular front" agenda possible given our common opposition to the religious right? Does the Left Behind game reaction establish a model in this regard?

FC: I agree that there are lessons to be learned from the Left Behind game experience. The way we framed the issue was something almost everyone could get behind. And that is how any successful movement will prevail. Inherent in the framing, is a small constellation of values relating to religious equality -- that we embrace as citizens, as neighbors, as fellow Americans. Everyone gets the common sense of the evil of convert-or-be killed ideology. It runs against everything we hold dear as Americans in civil society. It resonates with the core values of most religious and non-religious people. We can agree that the game and indeed, the novels, seeks to inculcate children in an ideology of religious warfare is not good for society in general, and not good for people of other faiths in particular. It appeals profoundly to our sense of the threat to the common good.

That said, as far as I know, there was little actual communcation and coordination among those actively concerned, so that the person-to-person, and organization-to-organization stuff out of which personal and political relationships are formed, didn't much happen -- although I think that it did happen among some smaller groupings. The point is that no broad, concious coalition was ever formed. Maybe it didn't need to be because of the way that the blogosphere carried the controversy forward across so many different, and unlikely lines. But even from a distance, I think we all learned a lot. It would be great to get some people together to compare notes. But I think it is fair to say the the underlying takeaway lesson is that framing is powerful. And when you get it right, it sings, and people are able to pick up the tune with a minimum of difficulty, and the harmonies can soar.

I do think there are many things the groupings in your formulation can do to find common cause and work effectively together. The first thing is to learn how to be respectful of one another's beliefs. (Secular-baiting and religion-bashing are bannable offenses at Talk to Action, for example.) Mutual respect, or at least the recognition of the need for it, among allies and prospective allies, is a necessary prerequisite to even having a worthwhile first conversation. To achieve this, non-religious people, need to get a grip and understand that many, if not most of those they are working with, do have beliefs that are important to them -- and that this will be the case for the rest of all of our political lives. No matter how much one may wish otherwise, religion and belief are here to stay. Those who actually want to make a political difference will develop a more mature sensibility, or find themselves politically marginalized (that goes especially for cult followers of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.) Similarly, many religious people need to get over themselves. While it is normal and arguably healthy for people to think that their view of God or faith or religion in general is eminently sensible and, of course, correct -- there is an inherent risk of developing an attitude of religious supremecism, especially when expressed via groups. Non-religious people, or anyone else not in the in-group, rightfully get a bad feel off of this kind of thing pretty quickly. I might add, that for all of the dissing of the traditional New England caution about religious expression, I think there is some wisdom there, forged out of the crucible of religious strife and persecution of the colonial era and beyond. I am sorry that as a society, it looks like we are going to have to relearn some of those lessons. While I think there is plenty of room in the public square for religious expression, and indeed, the formation of a religious left, I think learning to calibrate -- to exercise good judgement -- about time and place, and consideration of those in the conversation is necessary to make it work with the least friction. This begins with a personal and civic ethos that respects the beliefs of others (even those with which we disagree, which after all, will be the majority of those we meet) and appreciates that there is a point with religion -- especially with religion -- that even the most sincere expressions are by definition rude to someone else. There are no easy answers to this, and it is easy to make mistakes, but it has to begin with an honest effort.

As a New Englander, I can't think of a candidate for office I have ever heard of who was unwilling to speak to and with and campaign for the votes of various religious groups. So frankly, I think a lot of the emerging Conventional Wisdom about some of these things is mythological at best, and an insidious corollary to the religious right framing that plagues our conversations on these matters. Having a society that is not wracked by religious tension is an important value that seems to be lost on some of the consultantocracy and the talking heads on television. And let's not lose sight of the role of contemporary public affairs TV is based the creation of conflict and tension to keep people interested. Learning to do religious pluralism well, means learning to have respect for the rights and sensibilities of everyone, even in this media environment.

More generally, if we are going to more effectively engage the religious right we have to 1) recognize that the way we have done business over many years hasn't worked. We lost tremendous ground, and we need to own that, and identify our mistakes so we can learn from them 2) We need to arrive at some common bases of knowledge and some basic terms and concepts. Without these things, it is not possible to have much more than a superficial conversation, let alone thoughtfully assess tactics and strategy. 3) We need to be prepared to consider new leadership to take us where we need to go. 4) We need to be directly engaged in electoral politics, across the election cycle, and not wait to be called to a phone bank two weeks before the election. By then, it is too late to make any of the important differences. We can no longer leave politics and government to the experts. Very simply, if we abandon the playing field, it will be dominated and controlled by those who have not.

FP: Is there anyone on the progressive side who has done a good job in recent years of expressing what a positive values-based or spiritually charged progressive agenda would look like from your perspective?

FC: The short answer is no. And I say that even though there are many people I greatly respect and admire. But I hold back because there are important missing pieces from the approach taken by all of the religious progressives that I have seen -- granted, that I may have missed any number of fine people or giving insufficient credit to those I am familiar with. But I want to make a point. I am glad to see that there has been progress made in reconnecting with the social gospel tradition, and rearticulating it for our time, but I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we are anywhere close to what is needed at this point. For example, both Jim Wallis and to a lesser extent, Michael Lerner, as much as I appreciate their lifetimes of thought and action in areas of social justice, both falter in their preposterous and divisive secular baiting in their respective recent books and their various public statements. I hope that they abandon that approach, and that no one else follows in their footsteps in that regard. This is far more limiting intellectually and politically than they, and their supporters seem to think. We cannot seriously engage an authentically and religiously plural movement -- without a clear grasp and articulation of what that means -- in the civic, political context where the rubber meets the road. It is in that more general sense that I think much more work needs to be done to clarify and articulate the meaning of values based citizenship itself and not only the pressing issues of the day. This is something the Christian right has done exceptionally well. The notion of conservative Christian citizenship in America is generally cast in the revisionist narrative of the once and future Christian Nation. And as I have written many times, the religious right is doing as well as they are, in large part because they have organized themselves to win elections, and they sweat the details. Figuring out how to answer the religious right, in ways that are appropriate to our communities, is one of the central tasks of our time.

The way we frame a civic and political vision among those of us who support religious pluralism and separation of church and state, is necessarily something different than the way that Christian nationalists will frame their agenda. That said, there are things we can learn from the Christian nationalists and the religious right -- I know I have -- but one cannot learn anything from what one knows little to nothing about. I recommend that people read 3-5 books about the religious right itself. (And no, books by Wallis, Lerner, Dawkins and Harris do not count.) Beyond that, arriving at our own narrative of the meaning of citizenship and where we stand in history, past and future, together is a large task that has hardly been done. Rev. Barry Lynn does some great work on this aspect in his book Piety & Politics: The Right Wing Assault on Religious Freedom.

Here are a few thoughts about what I think will make for effective leaders of a possible religious left beyond restatements of the frankly obvious traditions of Christian and Jewish notions of social justice and the obvious disconnects with materialist corporate culture. As important and central as they will be, our country has many traditions, even within Christianity. I think that effective leaders of a possible religious left will be well within their respective traditions, and resonant with much wider audiences. I think that effective leaders of a possible religious left will be able to speak knowledgeably, authentically and convincingly about religious pluralism, and its foundational components, religious freedom and separation of church and state. And they will be able and willing to challenge the secular-baiters and those progressives who have unwittingly internalized important elements of religious right ideology. I think effective leaders of a possible religious left, will not be invented inside the beltway. I think that effective leaders of a possible religious left, will have a clear sense of the meaning of citizenship, and recognize that the goal of a movement is to acquire enough power to make their values real in public policy.

FP: Thanks for participating in our series. Are there two or three blog posts you are most proud of?

FC: I think I'll settle for just one if that's alright; one quite different from what you might expect. Back when my personal blog was active, and before the launch of Talk to Action, I wrote about a commencment speech at Oberlin College by the head of Amnesty International, William Schulz. He told a story that for me is about the meaning of unity and moral courage. And for me, it puts a lot of this stuff in perspective: The Courage to be Rwandan.

Interview With The Blogger, Part 2

Interview With The Blogger, Part 1