The National Association of Evangelicals is once again in the news for the resignation of one of its leaders. This time it was the Rev. Richard Cizik, who formerly served as the Vice President of Governmental Affairs, the head of their Washington office, and, for all practical purposes, the second in command at the NAE. The reason that is most often cited for the abrupt end to his 28 year tenure with the NAE is the comments he made on an interview with NPR concerning his shifting opinions on civil unions for homosexuals. In reality, however, tension over Rev. Cizik’s work at the NAE has been building for quite some time, mostly as a result of his efforts on global warming.
In recent years Cizik has come to national prominence due to his advocating for what he deems “Creation Care.” Cizik has been at the forefront of an evangelical movement to fight against global warming, which led Time Magazine to recognize him as one of the 100 Most Influential People of 2008. But his efforts were not appreciated by everyone in the evangelical community. In March of 2007 a group of leaders on the religious right (including James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer and many others) wrote an open letter to the NAE, requesting that the board somehow keep Cizik from advocating for the environment and taking focus off the issues of “the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.” (Read the letter) The board of directors for the NAE promptly ignored the letter’s suggestion that Cizik be encouraged to resign, and instead showed a great deal of support for his role in the NAE. Nevertheless, Rev. Cizik’s continual focus on the environment, and his obvious liberal tendencies, did not sit well with many of the NAE’s constituents. His most recent comments seem to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, and the NAE is now without a leader in their D.C. office.
The question is now percolating, and rightly so, as to who the board of directors will anoint as Cizik’s replacement. On December 16th, another letter was sent to the NAE, not by the conservative heavyweights of the previous letter, but by a group of influential evangelical centrists. (Read the letter) They encouraged Leith Anderson, the President of the NAE, to ensure Cizik’s replacement continues the “vision of a broad moral agenda,” presumably in line with the NAE’s groundbreaking document, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility", which set the NAE’s policy agenda to include both historically conservative and liberal issues.
At a deeper level, the resignation of Rev. Cizik is not about a few controversial statements, rather, it is indicative of the giant struggle going on within evangelicalism as a whole. This bit of contention comes while leftists such as Jim Wallis are gleefully proclaiming the death of the religious right, and conservatives such as Tony Perkins and James Dobson are trying to maintain their control over the vast majority of evangelicals, and while centrists such as David Gushee fight to be heard. Cizik, while clearly leaning to the left, could have been placed in the centrist camp, someone who is still pro-life, but is willing to consider other issues as part of a holistically biblical approach to politics. His forced resignation can be seen in one of two ways, it is either a result of the strangle hold the religious right has on evangelicalism, or it is merely the growing pains of a new evangelical camp, the centrists, as they try to find an adequate balance between left and right in this intense political climate.
As the NAE moves on from the Cizik era, we hope that they will take the advice of those who believe they should hire someone who fully embraces the concept of this holistically biblical approach to politics. Pragmatically it might be more effective to find someone with proven conservative credentials, but who is passionate about all the issues identified in For the Health of the Nation. A prominent figure such as J.C. Watts or Rick Warren would be great, but more likely they will have to draw from the ranks of lesser known individuals. Whomever they choose, we all pray that the NAE will be able to faithfully represent the whole of biblical truth to a nation that so desperately needs it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Interesting move of events. What sway does the NAE hold over the broader evangelical community? Is this simply a political movement, or will this have implications for churches as well as the lobbist groups?
I think at the heart of many of the issues facing the Christian political community is the question of prioritization of issues. Is the enviornment an issue that needs to be fought for under the termonology of Creation Care, or should that money be spent elsewhere? I would argue that it is, not only as a moral issue, but as an issue of loving others. We Care for the world because we know that what we do has consequences not only for us, for others in the world, but for future generations. How can we say that we love our neighbor as our self as we use up all of the natural resources, punch holes in the ozone, and pollute the oceans and sky, causing harm to those who come after us. The quesiton must be answered is how much money and effort do we want to spend on policical means to fix it, versus how much to spend on the historically Moral issues (eg. abortion). Further discussion on the topic of the enviornment would be great.
Post a Comment