Guest Blogger: Testifying to Stephen Colbert

Thank you Patton Dodd for responding to what's *actually in* David Kuo's book and thank you Kuo for posting this. A refreshing departure from the mean-spirited, conspiratorial rumblings of those devoted to bringing you down no matter the cost.
Thank you for remindinng us that the politically-popular fundamentalist agendas of today must not be confused with enacting a way of life based directly on Jesus' teachings.
Good news indeed.

Patton, if NBC's cable news network and CBS and ABC all missed the central point of Kuo's book, that is (at the very least) a dark lining to the silver cloud that you believe is the real message of David Kuo's book. It's possible that the mainstream media choose to misunderstand and misrepresent his book because doing so helps it fit their template of a collapsing Republican leadership and their prediction/desire of depressed GOP turnout. It's also possible that Kuo's publishers are facillitating that misconception by rushing the book to press and by trying to sell the book as both a religious memoir and a political expose. But is it not possible that Kuo is at least partially complicit in this confusion? If you're right about the book's contents, wouldn't a better subtitle be, "An Account of Walking With Jesus" rather than "An Inside Story of Political Seduction"? If the subtitle wasn't David's idea, was it made against his expressed objections? And, besides, the excerpt David provided below hardly seems to be part of an autobiographical account of one man's struggles in coming to know Jesus. If -- in order to understand the book's message -- we must ignore the media's coverage of the book, the book's front cover, and even the gist of an excerpt that David himself presumably selected for this blog, then something may be seriously wrong with the way that message is being conveyed. And it might not be solely the fault of us mean-spirited, conspiratorial Christian conservatives.

Question for David Kuo. David, on pages 126-127 in Tempting Faith you reference the Duty of Hope speech Bush delivered in Indy on July 22, 1999. Do you know who was responsible for writing that speech? I believe John DiIulio had a hand in it but were there others? Did Marvin Olasky have any direct input in the drafting of the speech?
Rob Patterson

I never supported Bush. I didn t vote last cycle, will not vote in this one or the next, because I am no longer of the belief that my vote can make a difference. I am not defeated on this point. I simply do not think the future is in the hands of whoever wins political office. But I still do not like what Kuo has done here. The world did not see Jesus in Kuo s book because the part about Jesus is lost to behavior that is comprehensively without honor, faith, and charity. Jesus would never have played so central a part in this finger-pointing charade; and He never would have allowed Himself to be so abused, even writing a book wherein He presents salacious and unsubstantiated stories about others. He certainly would not have soiled His name by doing this shortly before an election, thereby making it seem He is just another spiteful knife player in a political game. The reason people are upset is because Kuo claims to be Christian while behaving very much like a typical non-believer who gains a chance to exploit others for gain. They feel betrayed because for years Kuo was happy to engaged in their sin and now thinks he can escape his sinful role by merely admitting it in a tell-all book for sale. Kuo appears to them like a thief who robbed and destroyed right along with other theives, but then who ratted on the others when he saw for himself some greater benefit in doing so. It is all so awful, and it makes the people of God, especially Kuo himself, look so petty, foolish, and lost. Thinking of the people Kuo criticizes, and of how they now are responding, I see they have a right to be angry, even if what Kuo says is true. Kuo is not honorable here, despite that so many people give him praise. His stories were intentionally presented in a way to inflame, to cause shock and anger. His victims certainly do not see Jesus gentleness in him. They do not see Jesus longsuffering compassion and concern for their souls. They instead see what they would see were David Kuo a heathen-- spitefulness and rank political gamesmanship. Many are no doubt eager to retaliate, seeing Kuo s talk of Christ as just camouflage for something that is every bit as sordid as what they themselves are being accused of. The whole thing, all of it, is depressingly false. I am not offended by the fact that Bush and Company call me names. I in fact expect lost people to behave in this way (surely we can t expect them to act kindly toward us, though we should act kindly toward them, a thing David Kuo has failed to do). Rather than stick it to them, Jesus would have sought to win their souls by exchanging love for their cynicism in the same way He exchanged righteousness for our unrighteousness. Even if what Kuo has reported is true, Kuo himself behaved falsely, in stealth, without honor, and he did this using Christian catchphrases to make his behavior seem above reproach. He is exploiting Christ in the same way he claims Bush exploits Him.

Mr. Kuo, I saw a pre-recorded taping of your book reading on C-SPAN2 on Sunday morning. I went and got your book several hours later and read it from cover to cover in the bookstore. I started crying about 2/3 of the way through, and continued to the end. What a bitter enlightenment it was--confirmation of truths I had begun suspecting several years ago, but wanted to deny.
I find nothing salacious or cruel in your book. I find a painfully honest biography, a wonderful testimony, and one man's viewpoint of his experiences--through the lens of his love of Jesus Christ. Thank you for being willing to open yourself up to the inevitable scrutiny and judgement that writing such a book will bring. The sad fact is, and I've been seeing it, hearing it, and reading it--that the harshest judgement will come from your fellow Christians, those who should love you the most.
Stay the course, David. The old testament prophets, like you, spoke the truth eloquently and courageously--and look what their own people did to them. God bless you and your family.

JT asked: "Was Jesus "gentle" in the face of the abuses and hypocrisies of the Pharisees?" The scriptures never calls believers to judge others as Christ is able to judge. It instead commands us not to let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
I see no shred of this motivation in David Kuo s interviews. I see none of it in his comments even on this blog concerning Jesus self appointed PR representatives. Imagine how the people he had in mind must feel upon hearing him judge them so casually, so dogmatically. They likely now dismiss him of doing to them precisely what h claims they do to others. I do not see Christian charity in his book. It is such a political play, dressed up in Jesus. There is a reason why so many on the left are so gleefully jumping aboard Kuo s ship because he has attacked so many on the right when it is probably the case that everyone is guilty. The left does not feel betrayed. Only the right feels it because it was the right that found itself in Kuo s crosshairs. I simply cannot see Jesus here in any of this. Most tellingly, the world doesn t see Jesus here either. It only sees the salacious things-- the rank politics, the curses, the alleged hypocrisy, the slander, the backbiting, the devastating revelations things that ought to have been dealt with more honorably, rather than in the sort of public hit job we are seeing here. Again, as Christians, we need to consider the lives even of those who are alleged to have slandered us. We must consider the persons even of those who failed to give us money they have promised. It is not in our power to brand them Pharisees as you imply we may do, and then judge them harshly, as Christ was able to do in His day. That sort of power is far above our pay grade, despite that some Christians are said to have executed it. We are instead called to sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with GENTLENESS and REVERENCE, keeping your conscience clear, so that, WHEN YOU ARE MALIGNED, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. David Kuo did none of this, and sadly, he is now unable to stand innocently before those he has accused. It is important that we stand innocent even before those who ridicule us. Kuo is simply engaged in a war against political enemies. I do not see Christ here. We may speak the truth - but it must be done in love, with the purpose of calling those who are wrong to redemption. All Kuo has done is caused the left to even further ridicule believers (we see it here - right before us), and made so many others feel like victims. Christ is not being elevated in all of this awfulness. His name is being maligned.

Patton Dodd... well written and timely in this whole wirlwind concerning David. I believe that Jesus and God and david are the only ones who truly know David's heart. But his bringing about so much conversation regarding Jesus is a good thing.
To Bubba and D. Simon and the rest of the Christian community who see their vision of how Christ thinks and would act, it was the religious establishment of the time who handed Him over to be crucified. He was ridiculed and denounced byt the very people God sent Him to save. There are many different ways to worship and I think that declaring that your personal approach is the one true way minimizes the whole point of this....... David has raised some very real and needed questions by sharing his struggle and opening himself up to the critics all in the name of declaring his personal love for Christ and how it has changed his life. Christ came to save sinners, not just those who feel like their way is the only way. Remember His Way is the Only Way and I believe we all need to appreciate that He speaks to each of us in terms and situations that we can individually accept.... and we should give Glory to David's reclaimation rather than critique it or even question it!

Mike: Remember His Way is the Only Way and I believe we all need to appreciate that He speaks to each of us in terms and situations that we can individually accept.... and we should give Glory to David's reclaimation rather than critique it or even question it! Unless you want to argue that David Kuo's book should be canonized as an authoritative part of Scripture, we fellow Christians ought to be allowed to criticize it where we think doing so is necessary or at least appropriate. We ought to do so in love, but the New Testament is clear that sometimes we must rebuke our brothers (see Mt 18:15-17 and I Tim 5:19-20). If it's the case that David's book is being seen by NBC's news network and CBS and ABC as more of a polemical against Bush than a testimony of Christ, then maybe some of the responsibility for that lies with the writer. Afterall, the book's subtitle isn't "A Testimony of Walking with Jesus." It's "An Inside Story of Political Seduction."

Mike said : "and we should give Glory to David's reclaimation rather than critique it or even question it!" The issue here does not concern worship. It concerns conduct. If Kuo had issues with Christians and Bush, he could easily have done it in such a way that it was truly above reproach. Currently, he looks to be a small player in a rather large and ugly political game. That is why very many are being led to ridicule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LANaUYuPfxA - here Kuo is party to using our Lord's name in mockery) and few, if any, are being led to the message of Christ. I must reject your view that we ought not critique or even question Kuo.

Why is it that "Christians" as so many like to put us in quotations are the only group of people that it is politically correct to bash?

Does cadejo4 believe that the teachings of Christ include a call for socialized medicine, gay clergymen, and abortion on demand?

Bubba | Homepage | 10.25.06 - 3:14 pm I have no idea what Christ might think of political issues, like how we pay for our health care, or what kind of gas mileage our cars get. I do believe he cared for the sick and downtrodden, even cured a few sick folks, as I recall from Sunday school. Here's my simple test for whether an act is "Christian" or Christian. I substitute the word Christ-like for Christian. In other words, could I imagine Christ doing it? I don't think we need Jim Caviezel pretending to be Jesus (and speaking bad Aramaic to boot) to tell us what to think about stem cell research. I believe you'll admit it's not only absurd, it's un-Christ-like.

Thanks, Bubba. And, you're right. "Shrill hate-monger" was overstated. We'll never get anywhere if we don't start listening to each other. I'm glad we could talk.

Isn't a story about being politically seduced a story about one's walk of faith? It isn't serving the political realm well, but it is his story.

Dale asks: Is this charge that this is a political maneuver not playing the very same game you say you abhor?
No. It is not. I make no charge. I think Kuo s motives are suspect, that his behavior is not above reproach because it is mere he said/she said hearsay, with no hard evidence of truth behind it. It is offered with ridicule that implies evangelicals need Kuo to point out there is a difference between George Bush and God Almighty. It also comes at a time when it can do maximum political damage to the very people he criticizes. And, lastly, it is done for cold cash. None of these sorts of things apply to me. None are like anything Jesus has done or would do, based upon His prior example. They all apply to Kuo, and demonstrably so. Dale said: The fact that you can (and even want to) hurl charges of "salacious and unsubstantiated" belies your entire premise, and places you squarely in that camp.
The definition of salacious I used was an indecent gesture or comment. The definition I used of the word unsubstantiated was unsupported by other evidence. When Kuo claims Karl Rove said I don t care. Just get me an F**king Faith-based thing , he offers us both a salacious and unsubstantiated comment. It may all be true. But without evidence, it still mere political gossip, and it does not become a believer. My position stands. Dale said: While I am not convinced that Kuo is totally free of this fallacy either, you seem blind to your own participation in the very same games.
Perhaps, but I do not think so.

David, congratulations on your new book being published, and finding your faith fresh and anew, amidst quite a roller coaster ride inside the Beltway!