Over the past decade, an increasing number of scholars have reintroduced religion into the study of American politics. Included in this new wave of research is research focused on ‘social capital’ in the United States. The social capital line of research has become interested in religion in part as it is manifest in the rise of Faith Based Organizations (FBOs). While increased scholarly interest in FBOs can serve to invigorate the discussions of how religious Americans shape politics and society, we must carefully note how religion is treated in these emerging social capital studies. What role do religion and Faith play in the social capital framework? What are religion and Faith credited with doing? When are religion and Faith no longer included in the analysis? This paper will attempt to address such questions by presenting a close-reading of Mark R. Warren’s Dry Bones Rattling. The paper makes two central arguments. First, the paper argues that Warren places too much separation between the religious and the political, when in fact the political becomes religious for Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) participants. Second, and building on this distinction between what constitutes the political and religious spheres, it will be argued that although Warren readily acknowledges the role of religion in the IAF, in the final analysis he writes Faith out of the picture. The paper is organized into three sections. Section I provides an introduction to the issues at hand, attempting to address several prominent objections to the paper’s premise. Section II provides the bulk of the analysis, a detailed reading of Dry Bones Rattling text. Section II answers the question, ‘How exactly does Warren write about religion?’ Section III presents a discussion of the implications of the findings in Section II, addressing the question, ‘Why does it matter that Warren treats religion in this way?’ Section II highlights three patterns of note. First, it will be argued that Warren consistently presents a story of social activism that is ‘based’ in Faith, but eventually moves toward a more secular purpose. In one sense, this is the difference between a ‘Faith-based’ vs. ‘Faith-centered’ description of FBOs. Warren treats the idea of ‘Faith-based’ as meaning primariliy that an FBO has its foundation and origin in Faith traditions. He does not give adequate attention to the notion that FBOs are also Faith-centered organizations - always and everywhere aware of God’s presence in their lives and work. Second, and related to the first point, the paper will argue that Warren repeatedly downplays or ignores comments from his research subjects that would point toward a more central role for Faith and God in the IAF’s story. Taking a close look at the way Warren treats these God-centered quotes reveals that although Warren is willing to put the quotes in front of the reader, he is not willing to dwell on the theological content the quotes contain. Third, the paper will suggest that Warren’s references to Sacred Scripture strip the Scriptures of much of what makes them unique to the Faith traditions from which they come. In Section III, the paper will address three important implications of these three patterns in the text. First, because the IAF is not considered as a Faith-centered organization, a false dichotomy is created between the work of the IAF and the Christian Right. The theology of the IAF is not deeply probed, and the theology of the Christian Right remains unchallenged. Second, it will be argued that forcing the IAF into the social capital framework prevents the author from witnessing the whole IAF story. A brief comparison will be made between Warren’s work and Rogers (1990) Cold Anger. Third, the paper will conclude with a brief discussion of the public policy implications of Warren’s analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]