But what stood out most dramatically was the model of Southern Baptists and other Christian evangelicals, Muslim and Jewish leaders asking questions of these two mainline Christian presidential candidates, asking them questions about abstinence as the way to combat AIDS in Africa, about sacrifice to afford global climate change, and “interrogation techniques that shock the conscience.”

This is the kind of religiously pluralistic debate to which we should be aspiring in this country.

The two hosts, Campbell Brown of CNN and Jon Meacham of Newsweek and On Faith, tended to ask the more traditional religious questions about the beginning or end of life or about the way faith sustains them in life and politics and also campaign related controversies.

What was so in evidence, however, was how much each of the candidates was a product of his or her denomination; Clinton talked like a Methodist and Obama like a member of the United Church of Christ.

Methodists tend to have a kind of individual piety and a good works approach to faith; Clinton focused on her prayer life and also on how faith informs her desire to ‘help people.’ The only question that really seemed to throw her was from Jon Meacham, who asked how a loving God could allow evil and suffering to exist. She couldn’t run away from the theology fast enough and went back to the good works answer. She answered that the suffering caused by evil demands that the person of faith respond by alleviating the suffering—good, but not exactly deep.

The United Church of Christ also relates faith and works, but does so much more explicitly about social justice issues than the Methodists, and Senator Obama did not let down our church in his responses. He went right after torture when he was asked about it, denounced it from a faith perspective and added that not only is torture wrong from a faith perspective, but “subcontracting” torture is morally wrong. He actually added the theological point that his faith teaches me “not to operate out of fear, but out of hope and faith.”

The exchange on science was also interesting. The UCC has recently opened a dialogue on science and Obama expanded a question on what he would teach his children about the “six days” in the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis into a discussion of evolution and then went on to discuss the faith dimensions of care for the environment. Richard Cizik, nicknamed the “green evangelical”, was called upon next and he joked that Obama had already answered his question.

Overall, Obama was less pietistic and more theological than Clinton (though I cannot, in good conscience, claim that all UCC adults are adept at theology!) and clearly very comfortable with a deeper faith reflection that is not only personal but national and even global. Again unprompted, he rejected the “Clash of Civilizations” thesis about the relationship of Christianity and Islam.

The one comment that I thought most distinguished the faith perspectives of the two candidates was Obama’s reference to the fact that just because we have faith doesn’t mean we can’t be wrong. He did not give faith a license to be “self-righteous.” Clinton was less introspective in that regard. She seems very inclined to individual piety and not toward confessional reflections.

It was the format itself, however, with religiously diverse questioners engaging candidates for president with a wide-ranging series of questions on controversial issues, that was the true success of the evening. We may have gotten a glimpse of the kind of pluralistic religious debate in the public square an increasingly diverse America can model to itself and to the world.

I really hope John McCain accepts an invitation to participate in a “Compassion Forum”. This is a very positive format for candidates and the American people.