GAZETTE: Religion has been on the decline in the U.S. for decades. Does the country need a new enlightenment or just more religious literacy?

DAVIS: You need to be religiously literate to understand politics in America, because religious groups exert so much influence. If you understand Evangelical apocalyptic theology, you can understand that Trump pledging to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem mattered more than anything else to them, much more than his affairs. Same with his talk of ending the Iran nuclear deal [the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action]. They don’t necessarily want peace: The end times predicts turmoil and tribulation. When we better understand why different communities believe the way they do, we’re going to have an easier time coming to democratic compromise.

Ultimately, we’re trying to empower people to be more critical about religion. We would like to persuade people that religion is more than just metaphysical propositions. Religion is a way of orienting values and communities and you can appreciate that even if you yourself don’t practice. That appreciation may help you think of secular forms that are compatible with some of those same goals. But in terms of providing community and solace, I don’t see anything replacing religion.

GAZETTE: The podcast is rife with religious concepts even when not discussing religious ideas. How do you strike a balance between treating these ideas objectively and using the podcast as a vehicle to teach religious literacy?

DAVIS: We’re coming from three traditions. Our show is about the history of ideas and why we think the way we do about important topics. We also draw from the tradition of cultural criticism or critical theory, which tries to rigorously examine what is good and bad for human flourishing. But the third tradition that we draw from is the church sermon. One way I have described what we’re doing is giving secular sermons. At its best, a sermon calls forth better versions of its listeners — it condemns and asks them to be better — but it also offers hope and strength, and I think the spirit of our show is using history to help you critically evaluate the ideas that you probably take for granted but all come from somewhere.

GAZETTE: I love the idea of secular sermons. What is the “Gospel” that you take your ideas from and that guides these sermons?

DAVIS: The show is driven by a belief that all humans should have access to a fair chance at flourishing, and that while power isn’t evil on its own, it’s very susceptible to being manipulated for its own ends. We’re enduringly interested in critiquing the expansion of market logic into matters of human relationships. The episode on efficiency is pretty near and dear to me because a culture that subordinates nearly everything to the needs of the economy is a historical development. We take it for granted when people are called human capital, but it’s actually deeply offensive.

The other gospel would be that love is not a ridiculous value to live by. We don’t talk about it in our secular context, but it’s very different to use love to direct a lot of your decision-making as opposed to using a value like professional success or economic needs. If we could find ways of incorporating the idea of love into more things, I think we’d have a society that’s better suited for our emotional and psychic needs.

And, finally, justice. We have an episode on the history of cannibalism and how the label of cannibalism was used to justify the enslavement of millions. Working on this really taught me some powerful lessons about how labels can end up doing far more damage than the thing you’re afraid of. Being aware of long periods of historical injustice can help clarify contemporary challenges and problems. If wisdom is the ability to keep a big picture without getting lost in the details, then anyone working toward justice really has to be attentive to history.

GAZETTE: How do you identify an idea that needs to be re-examined?

DAVIS: We’re driven to try to reveal the significant ideas that actually make a difference to our lives. Although we’re looking at history, we’re almost always trying to connect it to contemporary concerns. We’re certainly not afraid to take positions; any preacher has to be willing to take a stand. I think that the ideal of the centrist, neutral commentator is a problem because it can end up simply sustaining an unjust status quo. We look for how a particular idea or concept plays out in real life and whether it seems to promote what I’ve been calling flourishing but what is essentially a mixture of fairness, justice, happiness, and virtue.

If I could succeed at anything, it would be to rehabilitate vital religious terms and concepts in a way that can be adopted by our secular polity. For a long time, secularism had the better side of the argument in the public sphere, but — and maybe it’s my own bias — I think we’re closer to realizing that religion wasn’t just about trying to explain the origin of the world, but instead was about the creation of a common welfare and shared myths that could bind us together. We’re in desperate need of those, and there are many people at the Divinity School interested in what new forms this can take.

My agenda is not necessarily to get everyone to go back to church — I don’t think I could — but people should be aware of its social function, and they shouldn’t be scared to have a worldview that includes ideas of love, goodness, redemption, and grace.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Episodes of “Ministry of Ideas” can be found on their website and podcast .