I was thrilled to see David Brooks’ column criticizing “Meet the Press” for having the Revs. Al Sharpton and

Jerry Falwell on, as representatives for the religious left and right,

respectively. Sharpton is a “reverend” in the same sense that Col. Sanders

was a military officer. And Falwell — well, maybe this is just me, but I

have lots of conservative Evangelical friends, and I don’t know any who

consider him a representative leader. As someone who has worked in the MSM

all my life — except for three years at the Washington Times, and that

glorious year as Kathryn’s slave at NR World HQ — I can attest to how

completely out of touch most mainstream journalists are with the world of

religion. They call Falwell and Robertson, for example, because Falwell and

Robertson are on their Rolodexes, and will show up on time.

I’m wondering, though: who does speak for Evangelicals, in the sense of

being able to explain their thinking and political behavior to somebody like

Tim Russert and his viewing audience? Brooks suggests John Stott. James

Dobson is clearly important. Who else?

An even more complicated question: who should Tim Russert call to speak for

Catholics? You really can’t say the bishops, who are in almost every case

determined to avoid controversy, and to gloss over real conflicts among

Catholics. Father Richard McBrien is a frequent TV guest, and he’s really

good on TV, but he’s also far to the left of Church teaching. That doesn’t

mean there aren’t very many Catholics who agree with him, but journalists

should be aware that he’s far from an objective source about what

Catholicism stands for. So, who else? On the Catholic right, Fr. Richard

John Neuhaus and George Weigel would count, but who else?

Send me your suggestions for good Protestant and Catholic sources, as well

as general religion sources, and not just on the right. The National

Conference of Editorial Writers is talking about inviting a panel to its

next convention to talk about faith, values and American politics. I want to

be able to give the nation’s editorial writers suggestions for who might

actually be able to give them real insight into what’s happening in American

religion, instead of the Usual Suspects peddling the same old lines.