The Audacity of Hope

fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility, and the
sense of reverence all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.
I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology or
that we abandon the fight for institutional change in favor of “a thousand points of
light.” I recognize how often appeals to private virtue become excuses for inaction.
Moreover, nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith—such as
the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps (off
rhythm) to the gospel choir or sprinkles in a few biblical citations to spice up a
thoroughly dry policy speech.
I am suggesting that if we progressives shed some of our own biases, we might
recognize the values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the
moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to
sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of “thou” and not
just “I,” resonates in religious congregations across the country. We need to take faith
seriously not simply to block the religious right but to engage all persons of faith in the
larger project of American renewal.
Some of this is already beginning to happen. Megachurch pastors like Rick Warren and
T. D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influence to confront AIDS, Third World debt
relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Self-described “progressive evangelicals” like Jim
Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the biblical injunction to help the poor as a
means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing
inequality. And across the country, individual churches like my own are sponsoring
day-care programs, building senior centers, and helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives.
But to build on these still tentative partnerships between the religious and secular
worlds, more work will need to be done. The tensions and suspicions on each side of the
religious divide will have to be squarely addressed, and each side will need to accept
some ground rules for collaboration.
The first and most difficult step for some evangelical Christians is to acknowledge the
critical role that the establishment clause has played not only in the development of our
democracy but also in the robustness of our religious practice. Contrary to the claims of
many on the Christian right who rail against the separation of church and state, their
argument is not with a handful of liberal sixties judges. It is with the drafters of the Bill
of Rights and the forebears of today’s evangelical church.
Many of the leading lights of the Revolution, most notably Franklin and Jefferson, were
deists who—while believing in an Almighty God—questioned not only the dogmas of
the Christian church but the central tenets of Christianity itself (including Christ’s
divinity). Jefferson and Madison in particular argued for what Jefferson called a “wall
of separation” between church and state, as a means of protecting individual liberty in
religious belief and practice, guarding the state against sectarian strife, and defending
organized religion against the state’s encroachment or undue influence.
Of course, not all the Founding Fathers agreed; men like Patrick Henry and John Adams
forwarded a variety of proposals to use the arm of the state to promote religion. But
while it was Jefferson and Madison who pushed through the Virginia statute of religious