I suppose one has to consider this kind of discussion by Democratic candidates to be refreshing, when compared to the cluelessness of Howard Dean and John Kerry on the subject of faith and politics the last time around.

John Edwards certainly came across as extremely articulate--and authentically so--but if he hit a home run, the others hardly got beyond first base. One longs for the kind of brilliant employment of theological categories that Abraham Lincoln consistently displayed. But, alas, that seems to be the kind of vision we can no longer expect in our national leaders, even from those whose church attendance far exceeded Lincoln's patterns!

And even when we get a candidate like Edwards who obviously knows what he is talking about, he is forced to respond to silly questions like the one posed by a prominent journalist about Edwards' patterns of sinning. I am not one to trash "the liberal media." I have spoken to too many well-informed folks who cover the religion beat to engage in that kind of stereotyping.

But it would be a wonderful change if one of these days we could see a match-up between theologically articulate candidates with equally articulate questioners!

I am less surprised by the Pope's declaration than I am by the shocked responses of many Protestant leaders. The Pope has not said anything that was not there all along. What is good about his recent statement is that it keeps with the changes formulated by Vatican II. While we Protestants are not examples of Christ's "fullest" desires for his church, at least the Catholics let us into the ballpark these days, if only as somewhat defective participants.

Ecumenical relations will not flourish apart from an honest statement of what each church body believes. Pope Benedict has now reminded us that there is no easy path to unity. The most helpful response that we non-Catholics can offer is to make it clear where we in turn disagree with his declaration. So let me state my basic contention. While I love my Catholic friends and have learned much from them, I firmly believe that Catholicism holds to specific teachings--about churchly authority, about Mary, about the sacraments--that are seriously mistaken. From my Protestant evangelical perspective, the Pope has his work cut out for him if he is to bring his church up to speed as a full--to say nothing of "the fullest"--expression of what Christ desires for his church. But my saying that would not surprise Pope Benedict. This means that we are still at the point where we have been for a long time: much in common, but also much to argue about.

Jesus’ statement that “the poor you will always have with you” has often been misused—as if he were telling us to make sure that we always have some poor people around! But his admonition is in fact a basis for Christian realism.

If our motivation is to “cure” poverty—and all disease and homelessness—we are bound to become disillusioned. But knowing that in our sinful world we will always have these horrible problems should not discourage us from working at addressing the issues—both by meeting immediate needs, and by seeking to correct the systemic factors that make them such enduring curses on the human condition. Indeed, to know that our efforts as believers will not be assessed in terms of immediate results is a powerful basis for keeping at the task. For followers of Jesus, “success” in serving the needy will happen when we hear our Savior say, on the Last Day, “Well done! In serving them you served me!”