ReligionDispatches.org

Religious progressives ought to be having a field day. Obama is as close to a fellow traveler as has occupied the White House in decades, and the cultural tide is turning their way. Same sex marriage —check. Environmentalism—check. Moderated policies on abortion and birth control—check.  Transparency in government—check. Closing down Guantanamo and ending government-sanctioned torture—check.  

But the recent announcement of advisory council members to the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships set off a debate over who the real progressives really are.Over at Religion Dispatches, a rash of recent posts made public the progressives' in-house fight. Mark Silk began the thread by citing differences between the "rabble rousers" and the "DC-based 'Religious Industrial Complex" prompting Frederick Clarkson to chide him for trivializing the "longer-term power struggle between progressives and centrists who want to pull the Democratic Party to the right." That left it to Delwin Brown to explain the historical context of disagreements between "accomodationists" and "purists" and Diana Butler Bass to call for an addenda to Brown's typology. Fact is, events continue whether or not religious progressives have folks lined up to speak truth to power or, better yet, deliver a savvy sound bite. Truth is, a spectrum of strategies can ensure change in both the short and long runs. What's needed now is a compelling narrative to frame what progressives want to happen as well as spokespeople to communicate the vision. The American Values Network is an example of what not to do. Pastor Dan has a thoughtful critique of Burns Strider's new site so I'll just go for the gut. The site looks amateurish and the text is thick with platitudes. Here's a story I'd like to see: why do religious conservatives always "get" the media (that is, master its use as well as attract its attention) while religious progressives seem flummoxed by public communication?Diane Winston