The June 9 issue of Time Magazine contains a lengthy article on Tony Blair's new "Faith Foundation." Time reports that the purpose of the foundation is "to prove that collaboration among different religious faiths can help address some of the world's social problems." Blair is quoted saying, "Faith is part of our future, and faith and the values it brings with it are an essential part of making globalization work." Blair contines, "Faith can be a civilizing force in globalization.... If you got churches and mosques and those of the Jewish faith working together to provide bed nets that are necessary to eliminate malaria, what a fantastic thing that would be. That would show faith in action, it would show the importance of cooperation between faiths, and it would show what faith can do for progress."Three things strike me about Blair's engagement with these issues:1. This approach to "faith as a civilizing force" seems to find the value of religion in its ability to grease the wheels of global action. Of course, there is nothing wrong with expecting faith to translate into social justice work. But, whose justice? We've seen the faith of George W. Bush translated into what he has intimated is divinely mandated global action in the name of progress. It may be suggested that the problem with Bush's faith-in-action is that it is not guided by the principles of Christianity, but rather, the economic and political interests of the United States (and, perhaps, his own ego). Yet, Blair's political theology seems similarly unhinged, as he says, "What faith can do is not tell you what is right but give you the strength to do it." A sentiment I'm sure Bush would echo. That faith can inspire and sustain action is no great insight, but what seems more important is that religion can and often does commend a life thought to be good. The hasty dismissal of this ethos-forming power of religion makes me worry that Blair's initiative is not going to do anymore that attempt to wrap the global agenda of the affluent West in a religious bow while, simultaneously, failing to seriously engage competing visions of the good life offered by other traditions of belief and practice.2. The doctrine of God that this view of faith seems to promote is one particularly rooted in Western Christian understandings of a personal God who is invested in the thriving of creation. Thus, the question: Whose God serves progress and whose progress does that God serve? Buddhism and Hinduism, two "faiths" that make it into what Blair calls the "big six," don't place God's interest in the affairs of this world high up on the list of divine priority. (Not to mention, most schools of Buddhism and many strands of Hinduism have nothing close to a personal God.) Similarly, it is not clear that "faith" is even a good word to use for some religious traditions, which would primarily describe themselves as traditions of practice rather than systems of belief. This also may mean that the adoption of the God who serves progress (the Western Christian God) by non-Christian religions will result in those peoples now serving the progress of the Christian West.3. I worry that in order to contribute to making "globalization work" the "faiths" that Blair's foundation seeks to engage will need to consolidate themselves into easily commodified dialogue partners. For example, when the pope speaks to the UN, the concerns of the Catholics he represents reach a global audience. Similarly, when the Dalai Lama speaks out, his constituents find a voice. But, given the fragmented and fractured nature of most religious traditions, it is unclear who will sit at the dialogue table with Blair. Even if these faiths do select a representative to bring their concerns to the world stage, how are they to be legitimated as "authentic" representatives? Aside from those mentioned, other representatives like Protestant mega-pastor Rick Warren, who is mentioned in the Time article, have book sales and donors to recommend their authority. Other choices might be Muslim leaders in the Middle East and the Jewish leadership of Israel who have the political support of nations behind them. But, what of those that have no reference to historical staying power, economic influence, or political clout to recommend their consideration by the global faith discussion?In the end, there seem to be many theological and theoretical issues that Blair will need to sort out as he takes on the task of orchestrating dialogue and action among the world's religions, and certainly, this is one of the things he intends to do in his "Faith and Globalization" seminar at Yale this fall. Beyond this, though, basic inequalities of economic and political power remain hard facts of our global world that still keep minority religious viewpoints, both inside and outside the "big six," off the table even for seminar consideration. Until these fundamental dynamics are addressed, I fear frustrations surrounding lack of conversational access will continue to manifest themselves in violent ways.