Q&A With Frank Page, the Obama Faith Council's Most Conservative Member

Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

Of the 25 members on President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, former Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page is easily the most conservative. Seven months after being named to the council, Page talks about his experience so far, from the shock of being invited to join in the first place and his frequent chats with White House officials to frustrations with the council's limited policy role that have him pondering resignation.

I talked to Page after we sat on a panel together about faith in the Obama White House at the Religion Newswriters Association annual conference.

What has been your experience with the faith advisory council so far, relative to your expectations?

My hope was that there would have been more time for focusing on formulating actual policy recommendations for the president. They keep saying that that's something we'll have more time for in the future. But most of our time so far has been briefings from administration officials about various government programs that are already in place.

You're a political conservative, jokingly calling yourself a "right-wing fundamentalist." Were you surprised by the invitation to join the council?

I was deeply surprised and questioned [faith-based office Director] Joshua Dubois about it. It was last Super Bowl Sunday when I got the call, so I ignored it. And when I saw that it was the White House, I said I probably shouldn't have. I called back and expressed deep surprise at the invitation. I was shocked. Dubois said the president had remembered meeting me at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College [during the 2008 campaign].

As a conservative, how have your policy recommendations been received by the White House?

There have been times when my voice and voices of others have been kindly heard, but the wish is always expressed that we need to find common ground or consensus. For example, I'm on the fatherhood task force, and there have been times when I have attempted to deal with the issue of fathers being better fathers because of their faith traditions, that they need to be true to the Bible or some other holy book about what makes a man a good father.

And they kindly listen, and then we move on to what government programs are available for fathers. It's more about how the government would like to help fathers and here's what government money is available for this problem. I feel that the key to solving those problems is not government money but the responsibility that's rooted in one's faith. Dubois and the office have been nothing but wonderful with me, but they are under strong direction on what should and should not be recommended to the president.

With all the differences I have with President Obama, the one thing I've seen that's really encouraged me is the example he sets as a man and as a father, with his girls. And the last president did that, and I deeply appreciate any president who exhibits that kind of loving example.

How involved is the White House in orchestrating the work of the council? Are you and other members free to convene conference calls to make progress in devising policy recommendations ?

The White House directs all meetings and calls and brings in all the people who they want to talk to us. There has been little opportunity for self-direction. There was going to be a chairperson named for each of the council's six task forces, but that has not occurred. That said, I do speak with the White House at least every other week.

If you don't see results from your participation on the council, would you consider quitting?

That's the point. What good am I doing? I wouldn't go out huffing and puffing but saying, "Have I made any positive contribution?" Within the next month or so I will be able to understand if my own time is well spent there. I'm praying deeply about the issue. I can't say I'm leaning either way at this point.

How much of the advisory council's existence do you think is for the White House's political benefit, versus how much is a genuine concern for bringing religious voices into policymaking?

I have pondered this, and my involvement has political overtones. The administration wants to be seen to have this very conservative person on the council, showing its open-mindedness. But I have been able to speak privately with the White House and have had some impact. There was the White House Father's Day event, and they're airing a public service announcement on fatherhood on ESPN and other networks. That was a direct result of the council. I may be being used somewhat, but it has given me a voice at the table.

• Follow Dan Gilgoff on Twitter.
• See President Obama's key faith moments.
• See a gallery of political cartoons.