The second criteria, as I see it, is whether it is fail-safe. That is, there is no guarantee that a faith-based means toward an end will work. What if it fails? What would be the consequences? In the case of Dr. King, he risked and eventually lost his life, but his nonviolent approach limited the possible harm to his community even in the case of failure.

How do Lerner and Bush's visions stack up against this criteria? Are they fail-safe? I do not believe that either pass this test. Lerner's approach to terrorism seems to me more Tolstoyan than Gandhian, in that America was attacked by faith-based radicals who might respond to weakness by hitting us harder. The use of military force as a tool to spread democracy may work, but any project which involves the taking of human life requires a high level of justification.

Another question is whether the faith-based approach can only work in certain circumstances and for a limited duration. Perhaps people are not up to living faithfully for extended periods of time. A religious left is trying to revive King's old-time prophetic religion. I do not believe the time is ripe for their movement. The sins of racism and segregation were manifest after the crimes of Nazi racism was exposed in the death camps. In contrast, the moral arguments for and against war in our present day are at best muddled. Rather than appealing to the views of a majority of Americans (outside the South) as Dr. King did, the new Religious Left expresses views outside the mainstream. Many prophets are content to be voices in the wilderness, and that may be the fate of the new Religious Left. King, by contrast, was a rare prophet who achieved success in his own lifetime and in its aftermath.