David Kuo: "Why a Christian in the White House Felt Betrayed"?

Question

David Kuo is a Christian hired at the W. House as 2nd-in-command of Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. Kuo has a new book 'Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction'.

There is an excerpt in the current (Oct. 23) issue of Time under the title "Why a Christian in the White House Felt Betrayed."

Kuo describes how "members of senior staff mocked the plan as the 'f___ing faith-based initiative'.' Or as Kuo describes, "When I heard staff privately deriding evangelical Christians because they were so easily seduced by White House power, I raised an eyebrow but not a ruckus."

In Bush's defense, he seems sincere in his religious convictions. Bush is genuinely surprised when Kuo informs him funding for the faith-based initiative is 1% of promised. Instead, it is the Administration surrounding Bush (e.g. Karl Rove) who "milk religious groups for votes and them boot them unceremoniously back out to pasture." (Kuo's words.)

My Q: What do evangelicals think of this?

I'm basically curious as to whether people who consider themselves religious conservatives agree with Kuo's assessment.

Do you still think that things like opposing gay marriage or gay rights, or prayer in the classroom, etc. are Republican issues, even though, time after time, Republican candidates seem happy to raise these issue during elections, only to reveal that they are either unable (do to budget or constitutional issues) or unwilling to deliver on them (because they are far more useful as wedge issues that attract voters)?

Kuo is just one example of a Christian activist who feels that way.

Kuo's article in Time magazine is on p. 64 of the current issue (the one with Barack Obama on the cover).

If you can't bring yourself to buy a 'zine with Obama on the cover, the article is only three pages long ... you can read it at the supermarket.

Answer 1

Answering your question requires one to comment on a number of things. Religion and politics are each complicated, and their interactions even more so. There is no one "evangelical" point of view on anything, because there is no monolithic evangelical. Politically, studies show that religious people tend to vote along class lines more than denominational ones.

Kuo seems to be experiencing a crisis of faith--not in God, but in politics. He also sounds a lot like a battered woman, in that he cannot readily accept the evil of his political husbands, and continues to assert, in the presence of copious evidence to the contrary, that President Bush, Karl Rove, et al, are "good people."

Good people do good things; bad people do bad things. The Bible explains that you know the truth of somebody's Christian testimony based on their fruits--i.e., the visible manifestations of their behavior. Scripture also warns about false teachers, "ravening wolves," and people who call out "Lord, Lord but don't do what I say." Christianity, for those who use the Bible as their guide, clearly commands that we "love our neighbor as ourselves," and that we serve others humbly, and that we be generous with our means, and that we not turn away the poor. For those of you not personally familiar with the Bible, you may be surprised to hear this, because much of contemporary christian practice holds the view that poverty, need and suffering are some sort of divinely ordained punishment against its victims, and that we should not intervene much, if at all.

We should accept the obvious, as the Bible says: You know somebody is good and is truly Christian because they will be kind, gracious, generous and merciful, as Christ is. Merely saying "I'm a Christian" is insufficient evidence of true discipleship. People who say, "I'm a Christian" but lie to ministers about providing means to help the poor, people who belittle Christians behind their backs, people who coopt Christians to get votes then break their promises to provide aid, are false and not to be trusted.

Just as the government coopted the evangelicals by securing their votes by promising them programs and funding that never materialized, Kuo was also coopted and seduced by the power of the political powers he worked for. He clearly struggled with his conscience over the disparity between what he believed in, and what he saw others doing, and in the manner in which he had to be an official mouthpiece for the lies and manipulations of this administration. Kuo desperately wanted to believe his political superiors were morally superior as well, even when it was clear that this was not true: Kuo was guilty of idolatry.

It's amazing what people will say in defense of bad people and bad behavior. In criminal trials, for instance, one will hear family members and so-called character witnesses defending a murderer or rapist, by saying "he's basically a good person." How laughable! No they're not good people. Liars, cheats, manipulators, rapists, murderers--they are not good people. Remember all the people who came to the defense of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart? Forgive them their follies as you are commanded to do. Yet you are not required to place your faith and trust in them, nor are you required to say that thieves and philanderers are good people.

Kuo says that many of these people are good because they treated him well during his illness. Luke 6:32: "Even sinners love those who love them." One would not expect those who worked with Kuo to abandon him when he found out he had a brain tumor. Indeed, because Kuo did the bidding of his political masters, they supported--aka "loved"--him. This is no proof of their goodness. One must be clear that jailhouse romances, Stockholm Syndrome, and the sacrifices of political expediency are pale, pale substitutes for the love of Jesus Christ, and the love that He commanded us to show one another.

Kuo, who often seems to defend his shattered idealism in a manner similar to a dog licking a wound repeatedly, tries to convince himself and us that Bush is somehow not culpable for what happened to the faith initiatives. Bush is The President of the United States. He has the power and the means to make certain that his promises are carried out. That is, if he wants to; that is, if he thinks its important or worthwhile; that is, if he truly cares about what Christian faith has to say about keeping one's promises and about serving the needy. Whether Rove is the one who "did" anything is really not the point. Rove did the bidding of his employer, The President of the United States. Frankly, as one man, President Bush does not have the time or energy to break all the promises, to pull all the Machivellian levers and to spin all the spin that constitutes the evil of a day in the U.S. presidency--of course he has help. This doesn't remove him from responsibility.

Christians are as guilty as everybody else in sucking up to power. Except, as followers of Christ, it is a sin for them, because their Lord is Jesus, not politicians and initiatives. Many Christians will shoot the messenger here (Kuo), because they don't like their pandering and naive idolatry being exposed. Christians often display this knee-jerk reaction against any kind of negative talk, claiming that as Christians, we cannot say anything bad about anybody. We should never say anything bad that is false or unfounded, true; however, it is abundantly evidenced in scripture that people of God spoke out against evil practices and evil people in service of God.

The fact that Christians (and non-Christians) idolize religious and secular power cannot be overlooked in this analysis, whether they admit it or not. Kuo got sucked in; then he got spit out. Thank God he got a bit wiser after being kicked around awhile. That's why I like Kuo's suggestion in his book that Christians lay off the politics. How did Christians, in the U.S. at least, get the idea that the apotheosis of their faith is in forcing the government to bend to their will? My Christian faith is not dependent upon the decisions the government makes about abortion, sexual practices, and other things. Legally enjoining a woman from having an abortion does not make the woman a christian if she was not already one, and it does not make her a better christian if she is one already.

Christians should be using their faith and means to create compelling social alternatives based upon the expression of their faith. Were so-called Christians to practice love, generosity and succor to the extent Christ asked us to, we would be an irresistable force of good in the world, and our testimony of the lordship of Jesus Christ would be one of unassailable rapture. Instead, people numbly hand over their money in baskets each Sunday to pay for church buildings and upkeep, and to support pastors, sometimes in lavish style. Very little goes to help the needy in most congregations. Were we to heed Jesus' commandment to love others *as we love ourselves*, people would be far less underemployed, sick, poor, or afflicted in any way. Our church membership is passive; we do not use our congregations or personal faith practice to perform personal acts of charity or ministry to others. We live far from the truth of our calling as Christians, and we waste a lot of time trying to play politics.

And because this is so, we get the leadership we deserve. Truly, we get leadership that is like we are--dissembling, evasive, manipulative, and double-minded, practicing a form of godliness while denying its full power and truth. It is good to pray for righteous governance, and also good to remember to obey God with humility, without trying to hide one's faults, greed, and lack of true concern for the poor. Obey God through the exercise of your own faith and works, rather than trying to prove your Pharisee-righeousness by legislating morality.

Answer 2

The office of faith-based initiative is nothing more than a propaganda organization pandering to the religious conservatives.

Bush and his cronies are no more Christians than Osama Bin Laden and are just as dangerous if not more so.

They are just using Christians to further their political goals.

Answer 3

Where's Jimmy Stewart when you need him?