Read more of Kim Lawton's interview on black church activism and Darfur with Allen Hertzke, professor of political science and director of religious studies at the University of Oklahoma and the author of FREEING GOD'S CHILDREN: THE UNLIKELY ALLIANCE FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS (Rowman & Littlefield):

Can you describe the diverse faith-based coalition that came together to advocate on Sudan nearly a decade ago?

The Sudan cause emerged out of a remarkable faith-based coalition devoted to promoting human rights with the machinery of American foreign policy. Originally the movement burst on the scene because of concern about the persecution of Christians around the world. But it quickly formed allies among Jews, among Tibetan Buddhists, among a variety of religious minorities to promote the cause of religious freedom. Sudan was one of the principal countries that was the focus of concern because the regime in Khartoum, which is a militant Islamist regime, had been engaged in a two-decade-long war many of us describe as a genocidal war against its African population, made up primarily of Christians and African tribal religions. Sudan was central to the faith-based movement for global human rights.

How unusual was this coalition?

It was certainly an unlikely set of alliances. With respect to Sudan, for example, you had conservative evangelical groups working hand in hand with the liberal Congressional Black Caucus, with liberal Jewish groups, with the Catholic Church, and with an array of human rights organizations. These are groups that often don't work together, especially on domestic issues.

But black churches weren't initially part of that movement in those early days?

Black churches came late to the movement for southern Sudan. The energy behind what has been called the Christian Solidarity movement was primarily evangelical in orientation. The grassroots momentum on southern Sudan came especially from the evangelical community, which had close ties to Christian communities in Sudan and maintains them to this day. The black churches, though, were drawn into the struggle eventually, primarily because of the concern about slavery and the awareness that Africans were being abducted into slavery, thousands of them, by this regime in Khartoum. This situation ultimately drew a number of black leaders, congressional leaders and African-American pastors, into the Sudan campaign.

Why weren't black churches part of the campaign earlier? What made this start as primarily a white movement?

Originally the cause of southern Sudan was perceived as a white evangelical cause for a variety of reasons -- partly because the Christian Solidarity movement out of which it sprang was very much rooted in white evangelical churches or predominantly white evangelical churches, though not exclusively so. That association was an important factor. Also, the black community was focused on other issues. While it was a high priority among conservative evangelicals, it originally was just not on the radar screen of many black leaders, and it took the prodding of some key black leaders and pastors to actually get the wider African-American community engaged on the southern Sudanese issue.

I do think the mistrust between the predominantly white evangelical community and the black churches was a factor in keeping the black community from getting more engaged in the issue. Conservative evangelicals are predominantly on opposite sides of many issues with more liberal black churches' adherents. There was some suspicion initially that had to be overcome. The lack of relationships is crucial, and one of the contributions of the faith-based movement has been to build relationships among people who had heretofore been suspicious of one another and who found that they shared common ground on international human rights issues. There are some very dramatic instances in which new relationships were forged and people got arrested together in front of the Sudanese embassy. That helps to forge a relationship where one didn't exist before.

Joe Madison and Walter Fauntroy were crucial in pulling the wider black community into the southern Sudanese campaign. When they went to Sudan with John Eibner, head of Christian Solidarity International, and personally witnessed the redemption of hundreds and hundreds of African slaves, it so moved them that they came back and gave dramatic testimony before congressional hearings and Joe Madison went on the radio and spoke about it. He spoke to contacts he had within the black community, which are wide and deep. They helped to bring along and legitimize the issue among the African-American elite and the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP and some of the leadership of the major denominations of the African-American church.

The new crisis is Darfur, even though people are still keeping an eye on southern Sudan. What have black churches brought to the Darfur campaign?

What's intriguing is that while the evangelical churches have maintained their focus on southern Sudan, somewhat to the exclusion of Darfur, the black churches have in fact picked up the momentum and have really started to engage that issue more fully. The grassroots energy on Darfur is now coming more from the black churches in many respects than from the white evangelical churches, which were so heavily invested in southern Sudan that they haven't, in some cases, shifted course. I'm not sure we know yet how significant this will be. But grassroots pressure is absolutely crucial to maintaining focus on international relations, especially on international human rights. We know that strategic concerns, economic concerns often overwhelm human rights issues. Without a grassroots momentum and pressure, it's unlikely that a presidential administration will take hard measures or risky measures to deal with the Darfur situation. Grassroots pressure by the black community, if allied with a rejuvenated evangelical push, can help move the Bush administration to take more active measures on Darfur.

We've seen a lot of protests, vigils, petitions -- the kind of activism the black church is very familiar with.

Black churches are obviously comfortable with this kind of political activity. We know that in many respects the most politically active faith community is the African-American community. Born of the civil rights movement, this community is comfortable engaging in political activity through churches and congregations. We also know that black leaders take their cues often from the messages they're hearing from the black churches. The Congressional Black Caucus has been very involved in the Darfur issue, I think in part because they're hearing from the congregations around the country.