Amy Sullivan: More Kuo Book Goodness
My longer, point-by-point response to attacks made by critics of the Kuo book can be read here, at FaithfulDemocrats.com. It should give you a good sense of the best bits of the book. But I'd also encourage you to read the book yourself. The scandalous political bits have been picked up all over the news by now, but this is not just a "tell-all" book. It's also a thoughtful, moving, and brutally honest exploration of what happens to faith when it comes in contact with politics.
That's the real meaning behind the title Tempting Faith. Yes, it's what the Bush administration tried to do in order to win more religious votes for 2004. But it's also what happens to any child of God who enters the world of Caesar. The challenge is how you deal with the seductions and temptations of power.
That's the real meaning behind the title Tempting Faith. Yes, it's what the Bush administration tried to do in order to win more religious votes for 2004. But it's also what happens to any child of God who enters the world of Caesar. The challenge is how you deal with the seductions and temptations of power.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
The mean-spirited, bitter attacks against Kuo by the Religious Right are quite telling and only bolster Kuo's thoughtful warnings against political seduction & corruption.
Are they truly so blind that they cannot see that their gospel of Caesar is not the same as the gospel of Christ? Even the most elementary reading of scripture reveals this. Are they reading their bibles?>
Posted by: Tenoch | October 17, 2006 5:20 PM
Obviously, the answer to Tenoch's question is yes, many are just that blind. For many of those in leadership on the Christian Right (for lack of a better descriptive phrase), I don't even think it's a question of whether or not they read their Bible. I will pay them the honor of believing that they know right from wrong. But the allure of access to the seats of power has proved too strong for many of them to resist it. That is what the title, "Tempting Faith", means. Rev. Billy Graham was welcomed in the White House, no matter who the current occupant happened to be, because he was always clear that he was standing outside partisan politics to challenge and comfort Presidents and advisors of both political parties. Who today fits that criteria?>
Posted by: Paul Drake | October 17, 2006 6:50 PM
I think the fact that there was really just Rev. Graham critically perusing the government says a lot. I think people like Wallis and McClaren are those people now. Let us revisit history to understand the ebb and flow of when Rev. Graham rose to national influence. WHO now has their pulse on the issues of the day like Graham did back then? It s significant to remember that Graham never began as a liberal or conservative. He went by a compassionate society. What does more to encompass the compassion of Christ than lifting up the least among us?>
Posted by: Frank | October 17, 2006 7:16 PM
Paul Drake,
You inquire about the modern-day Billy Graham. How about Bono?>
Posted by: Tenoch | October 17, 2006 10:51 PM
What about Franklin Graham?>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 18, 2006 1:33 AM
kevin s,
I'm somewhat aware of Franklin's doings and I even heard him speak once during the first U.S. strike against Iraq in the early 90s.
Generally, I'm afraid Franklin is not much like his father.>
Posted by: Tenoch | October 18, 2006 2:41 AM
It seems apparent that the "leadership" of the "religious right" has for all practical purposes for years been prostituting its spiritual integrity on genuine gospel issues [poverty, justice, etc.] to strongarm its elected officials on dubious moral issues [tax cuts, homeland security, abortion, etc]. That being said, it is a dubious tactic to invoke mere mortals like Billy Graham in bemoaning the lack of courageous, religious leadership in today's political climate. One musn't forget that Rev. Graham started out as an extremely conservative "Bob-Jones-style fundamentalist" and - at the pinnacle of his White House influence commiserated with then President Nixon about the inordinate influence of Jews in the media and commerce. It's true he had the character to recant earlier missteps, but it is a reminder that its not just our political leaders who have the capacity to be flawed.>
Posted by: John | October 18, 2006 3:09 AM
John,
Billy Graham began as a registered Democrat, and had great relationships with Dem presidents. Ironicaly, it is now liberals bemoaning the inordinate influence of Jews in media, commerce, and the military.>
Posted by: Kevin S. | October 18, 2006 4:52 AM
And no irony that you kevin are here again bemoaning and disparaging at any opportunity you can find. You've brought the thread down once again! Way to go!>
Posted by: Frank | October 18, 2006 5:05 AM
You're correct, Kevin, re: Graham beginning as a registered democrat. But one must remember that in the 40's and 50's, he was a registered southern democrat - the party of Strom Thurmond and other such segregationists. I'm not intending to besmirch Graham - I wholeheartedly concur that he was a man of character and that, generally, he did see his role as offering counsel and comfort to presidents of both parties. It seems to me, however, that in this political climate we need more Jeremiahs than Billys addressing our political leaders. More prophetic voices [and I do NOT mean the John Haggee kind!] and fewer pastoral voices. And I actually kind of like the suggestion that Bono fits that role. You have to like a guy who can tell the "leaders of the free world" that their political agenda is "f****** immoral"!>
Posted by: John | October 18, 2006 2:32 PM
I am jumping back into the discussion to try to direct it back on topic. My earlier post did not say I agreed with Billy Graham on all theological or social issues. I most emphatically did not and do not. My point was that he had access to those in power, not because he was a sycophantic supporter and not because he wanted any favors from them, but based on who he was and how he was seen by nearly everyone--as a practicioner and ambassador of the Christian faith and not just another preacher, no matter what his theology. I assume and hope that kevin s was joking by mentioning Franklin Graham's name as carrying on that tradition. He is clearly a partisan in the "culture wars". Bono is an intriguing individual, but it's hard to see him in the role of offering Christian counsel or comfort to those in power. What seminary did he graduate from, and where are his ministerial credentials? That's not to say he doesn't have something to contribute to society, just that he can't really serve as a pastor to those in power if he's clearly not a pastor, and doesn't claim to be.>
Posted by: Paul Drake | October 18, 2006 7:33 PM
Franklin Graham is a Republican, but has done tremendous work through his organization and certainly has the respect of leaders of both parties.
So, no, I wasn't joking.>
Posted by: Kevin S. | October 18, 2006 8:19 PM
Interesting debate. John is absolutely right about the southern democratic party of the 40s and 50s and it's right wing extremisim. An example of this is his first mission to England. Funding was raised in the US by a series of radio ads which said that the UK was under threat of a communist takeover and that the evidence of this was the creation of a national health service. Given that Christians were a significant part of the coalition that created this, specifically as a result of their Christian conviction, this created a degree of offense! It's a measure of Graham's greatness I think, how far he moved away from these positions during his life.
I think Paul's right about Bono though. He is intriguing, and a serious and sincere man. My problem is that his position does not seem to me specifically Christian - more a sort of moral politics which has its root in Christian ethics but which doesn't really speak of Christ. Which is to an extent fine given what he is trying to do, but I don't think you could say he was a religious leader in the same way.>
Posted by: Richard ex-pat | October 18, 2006 8:21 PM
i guess i'll jump back in, briefly. kevin, as i said, it's significant to revisit history to gauge the ebb and flow at the time Graham rose to national prominence. Paul is exactly right but he doesn't go into detail. The WHOLE religious movement over the last couple of decades must be revisited. Young Franklin is on the periphery in the long and larger scheme of things. But since anything liberal or Democratic rolls off you like oil on water, you'll not acknowledge his place in history. I'm sure Franklin Graham will fit in well somewhere though. So don't worry 'bout it.>
Posted by: Frank | October 18, 2006 8:27 PM
Richard, his father encompassed greatness, not his son. BEING INSIDE and still maintaining an unprecedented presence is greatness, not distancing oneself.>
Posted by: Frank | October 18, 2006 8:31 PM
*not the son>
Posted by: Frank | October 18, 2006 8:32 PM
I am well aware of the history of the Democratic party. However, I have seen little that would connect Graham with the party's racist past (he transferred from Bob Jones on account of its fundamentalism and married the daughter of Chinese missionaries.>
Posted by: Kevin S. | October 18, 2006 9:14 PM
I'd like to bump the dialogue back to the original post if I may:
Ms. Sullivan closed by saying, "The challenge is how you deal with the seductions and temptations of power."
This is a pretty important statement that has ramifications, which most people overlook. The seductions and temptations of power; you have power if you are a parent, business owner, spouse, professional (fill in the blank). Just because we are these things doesn't mean much of anything. It's how consistently we exemplify what we do. And I think if the average American took a hard look in the mirror, what they d have to conclude is that temptation and seduction has settled in way more than anyone would rather admit. And I ll take it a step further and say that nobody will pick up on David Kuo s fast from politics idea either. I try to put myself in his shoes. Can you even imagine being a 30 something year old person in such an incredible position? And then come out and say we need to fast from this for awhile? He has seen the real belly of the beast, more than anybody who will ever read these words on this or any other blog. He wants to set the right example because HE KNOWS THE SCALE OF WHAT IT WILL TAKE FOR US TO GET BACK ON THE RIGHT TRACK.>
Posted by: Frank | October 19, 2006 4:58 AM
I just got done watching Kuo on the Colbert Report on Comedy Central. I thought he handled, what could have been an awkward situation, (humorous role-play on such a somber topic), extremely well. He did a great job sharing the overview of his book without sounding vindictive or mean spirited. I especially appreciated his clear distinction between Christ and any partisan agenda.>
Posted by: Jeremy Christiansen | October 19, 2006 7:28 AM
In Philippians 3, we are told:
"Brethren, JOIN IN FOLLOWING MY EXAMPLE, AND OBSERVE THOSE WHO WALK ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN YOU HAVE IN US. For many walk of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who SET THEIR MINDS ON EARTHLY THINGS.
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eargerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself."
Follow the example set by Jesus and the early disciples. What did they do? Seek earthly power? Hardly.
What they did was help the poor, the sick, the hurting - and share the good news about the forgiveness available in Jesus Christ!
Why is it that current Christianity in America looks so NOT-AT-ALL like that example we are supposed to be following?
To quote musician Todd Agnew, "Which Jesus do we follow? Which Jesus do we serve? Who is this that we follow - this creature of the American Dream? If Jesus were here would we walk right by on the other side, or fall down and worship at His holy feet?"
May we seek for God to make us more like the Jesus in the New Testament, the exact representation of God.>
Posted by: Amazon Creek | October 19, 2006 7:55 AM
Amazon Creek, do you think anything will come out of this "boycott" of the secular conservative (which is really as detrimental as old liberal individualism) culture we've muddled through in this country for years?>
Posted by: Frank | October 19, 2006 11:09 PM
I always tought Jimmy Carter's losing the 1980 election was also an example of what happens to a "child of God who enters the world of Caesar". I've wondered since then if it's ever possible to be both a faithful Christian and a political leader.>
Posted by: Mary Stainton | October 19, 2006 11:20 PM
If this is true, Mary, it's really astonishing that we've let 26 years go by without coming close to figuring that out.>
Posted by: Frank | October 20, 2006 1:12 AM
Hi Frank!
I'm not against political involvement. I've been very involved - but it wasn't to seek power. It was to offer a compassionate voice, to add a Christian perspective (although not necessarily a right-wing voice).
That is not the aim of the religious right. It is to seize power. To control.
I cut my involvement because it was taking up too much time. Because I'm a good organizer and a good speaker, I wound up leading things. We only have 24 hrs in a day. And just because I might choose to spend 3 hrs a week on something - doesn't mean it is equally as productive to spend 20 hrs a week in that arena.
It boils down to priorities at that point. Which is "good", "better", or a "best" use of our time. I wanted to directly serve the poor and hurting. But all politics brought me was schmoozing with powerful politicians - who mostly cared about keeping the rich and powerful happy. They'd lie to your face - even the so-called Christian politicians.
In the end, I felt too isolated from anyone I wanted to minister to - which is my true desire - to minister and share the good news.
I think we can offer a voice. But it's the seeking of the power that gets pointless. We can alleviate pain in individuals in this world. But we can't truly FIX this world. It's BROKE. Only Jesus Christ can do that.>
Posted by: Amazon Creek | October 22, 2006 11:15 PM
Just a note to Kevin: Ruth Graham is the daughter of missionaries to China, not Chinese missionaries. There's a bit of a difference.>
Posted by: Kay Shively | October 24, 2006 3:49 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?