The resilient Religious Right -- USA TODAY, May 5, 2008

With the deaths of prominent evangelical pastors Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy last year, funeral bells began tolling for the Religious Right. Political columnist E.J. Dionne wrote Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right, and theologian Jim Wallis offered The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America. Even religious and civil liberties attorney John Whitehead, who assisted Paula Jone in her sexual harassment suit against President Clinton, joined the chorus with an article titled, "The Passing of the Christian Right."

These reports are at the very least premature, and in all likelihood dead wrong. High-profile leaders will come and go, but the strength and commitment of conservative Christians on the front lines of parish life are as strong as ever.

Roman Catholic priests still preach that parishioners must support pro-life candidates to be good Catholics, and Pope Benedict XVI, who visited the USA last month, has stressed that Catholic politicians who vote for legal abortion are subject to excommunication. Across the street from my church in Fairfax, Va., members of the Episcopal Truro Church are locked in a fierce legal battle with the Episcopal Church USA. The church is leaving the denomination over issues of scriptural authority and the ordination of gays and lesbians — particularly Gene Robinson, the gay bishop of New Hampshire. And my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA), is losing congregations every year to more conservative Presbyterian groups.

In the case of Dionne's epitaph for the Religious Right, I think he is too quick to conclude that evangelical Christianity has become disentangled from politicians who trumpet opposition to gay marriage and abortion. For instance, John McCain has moved from not supporting a repeal of Roe v. Wade in 1999 to saying today it should be overturned. Why the shift? A clear desire to secure the Republican base's pro-life vote. Wallis writes that "the monologue of the Religious Right is indeed over." Perhaps it's no longer a monologue — especially with the emergence of the Religious Left — but it's still a powerful voting bloc directed more by its moral compass than any political one.

Despite the emerging narrative, I see no convincing evidence that we are entering a "post-Religious Right America," even though Iraq, immigration and health care are the talk of this election cycle — rather than abortion and gay marriage. And that's OK. In fact, I consider it good news for all believers: conservative, liberal or moderate.

Moral clarity vs. Christian charity

Conservatives such as evangelical pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life, might be broadening their focus to include environmental issues and poverty (good developments), but their core moral convictions remain strong and steadfast. Warren draws 22,000 worshipers to Saddleback Church in California every weekend, and he packed the house when he was a guest preacher at the Washington National Cathedral in January. His book has sold 25 million copies. Hardly the sign of a waning message.

Even if we were witnessing a decline in the Religious Right, such a development would not be reason for celebration among those who might stand comfortably under the umbrella of the Religious Left. Sure, conservatives consistently see religion in terms of moral clarity, while liberals focus on Christian charity. But both are important, and a creative tension between these two approaches helps ensure that religious life maintains its vitality.

Too often, Christians focus on winners and losers — both Dionne and Wallis do this — in a way that reflects partisan political struggles, instead of seeing conservatives and liberals as siblings in the family of faith. The real truth: Churches need both. They need conservatives who demand moral clarity, but also liberals who stress God's love for the oppressed of the earth. Conversation about immigration, for example, is enriched by both clarity about legal issues and charity toward undocumented workers. The Bible says, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1)." But it also says, "You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt (Exodus 22:21)."

Unfortunately, in our politicized win-lose approach to the life of faith, critical points of view are lost when one group is judged to be a loser. When liberals are out of favor, conservative moral clarity can become an inward-looking, self-centered activity — one that neglects the work of social justice that began when God brought the Hebrews out of captivity in Egypt. But when conservatives are judged to be passe, as I fear they are now, then liberal charity can become an experience of wandering in the wilderness, guided only by feelings of compassion.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, says evangelicals will not and should not abandon their prioritization of the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage. "For evangelicals and conservative Catholics, the life issue and the marriage issue will trump all other issues," he told me. "They will not vote for pro-choice candidates who agree with them on other issues, against pro-life candidates."

Land may or may not be right. We'll see this November how many pro-life voters support the pro-choice Democratic candidate. But it's true that even though abortion is not as big a concern as Iraq in this year's election, nearly half of voters say they need to know a candidate's position on abortion before they vote. Clearly, abortion remains an important concern, one that has not disappeared from the priorities of religious conservatives. Nor has it been replaced by concerns about global poverty or stewardship of the earth.

'The whole bird'

The challenge for congregations is to take both liberals and conservatives seriously, and not write off or disparage the beliefs of either wing of the church. "I'm not left-wing, and I'm not right-wing," Warren often says. "I'm for the whole bird." Being a whole-bird Christian means accepting that moral clarity rises out of the covenant made between God and Abraham, when God said, "Walk before me, and be blameless (Genesis 17:1)." But it also requires affirming that charity is equally biblical, and grounded in the exodus of God's people from slavery in Egypt (Exodus 3:7-8). Thus, both clarity and charity should be seen as critical parts of a fully formed Christian faith.

A church can be a meeting ground — a place where people of diverse opinions and perspectives may gather, talk and even debate. I believe that church is the healthiest place for people to wrestle with difficult and divisive issues, such as immigration and abortion, because it is a community with a set of shared religious values. After a class on the importance of covenant and exodus in Christian life, church member Sharon Winstead said to me, "One side's rhetoric still makes me grit my teeth, but at least now my head is saying, 'They are being faithful to one interpretation of our religious heritage.' "

Such discussions in the church might not be comfortable, but they can lead to greater understanding.

Nearly 20 years ago, I wrote a review of Michael D'Antonio's book Fall from Grace: The Failed Crusade of the Christian Right. Despite the wishful thinking of some at the time, the Christian Right hadn't failed, and it cannot be pronounced dead today. Nor should it, because the right wing is just as important as the left wing for any bird that really wants to fly.