In the current issue of Foreign Affairs Walter Russell Mead argues that a U.S. foreign policy shaped by conservative evangelical Christians should not engender dismay or despair among the largely moderate and progressive establishment. Evangelicals, Mead argues, care passionately about justice and improving the world and as evangelicals take a more prominent role in directing foreign affairs opportunities for cooperation will appear.

Liberals, whether religious or not, may want to oppose the evangelical agenda in domestic politics. For the most part, however, these quarrels can cease at the water's edge. As the rising evangelical establishment gains experience in foreign policy, it is likely to prove a valuable -- if not always easy -- partner for the mostly secular or liberal Christian establishment. Some fears about the evangelical influence in foreign policy are simply overblown. After the attacks of September 11, for example, fears that evangelical Christians would demand a holy war against Islam were widespread. A few prominent religious leaders (generally fundamentalists, not evangelicals) made intemperate remarks; Jerry Falwell, for one, referred to the Prophet Muhammad as "a terrorist." But he was widely rebuked by his colleagues.

Nervous observers, moreover, should remember that evangelical theology does not automatically produce Jacksonian or populist foreign policy. A process of discussion and mutual accommodation can in many cases narrow the gap between evangelicals and others on a wide range of issues. Worrying that evangelical politics will help lock the United States into inflexible and extreme positions is a waste of time; working with thoughtful evangelical leaders to develop a theologically grounded approach to Palestinian rights, for example, will broaden the base for thoughtful -- though never anti-Israel -- U.S. policies.

Similarly, engaging evangelicals in broader foreign policy discussions can lead to surprising and (for some) heartening developments. A group of leading conservative evangelicals recently signed a statement on climate change that stated that the problem is real, that human activity is an important contributing cause, that the costs of inaction will be high and disproportionately affect the poor, and that Christians have a moral duty to help deal with it. Meanwhile, evangelicals who began by opposing Sudanese violence and slave raids against Christians in southern Sudan have gone on to broaden the coalition working to protect Muslims in Darfur.

Certainly there reason to be optimistic about the potential for mutual cooperation on many of these issues. Many key figures within the evangelical community have urged political leaders to do more to combat HIV-AIDS in Africa, sex-trafficking, and global warming. In 2004, the National Association of Evangelicals came out strongly in support of U.S. intervention to stop the genocide in Sudan.

However, not all evangelical leaders agree with these positions. When NAE President Richard Cizik made global warming a priority during his term many other evangelical leaders did not support him.

And even when the evangelical community largely agrees on an issue, the methods often differ sharply from those progressives would employ. Take for example the Evangelical commitment in the struggle to stop the Aids pandemic in Africa. Evangelicals support providing medicine to Africans afflicted with the disease but oppose sex education and the use of contraception as tools in this fight. Evangelicals also believe in the primacy of interpersonal relationships to solve problems and place little faith in the United Nations or other international bodies. It is difficult to envision evangelicals embracing an internationalist approach to foreign affairs given this belief.

Further, a recent poll released by the Center for American Values in Public Life found that only 26% of the American public believes that the best way to ensure peace is through military strength. Among white Evangelicals that number jumps almost 10 points (35%), with 29% believing it strongly. Among self-identified liberals only 15% agree with this statement.

These differences may not be enough to jeopardize the potential partnership between evangelicals and the current foreign policy establishment but it is worth taking these differences seriously.