Published by Glen G. Scorgie on 12 Dec 2008 at 04:25 am
A Sad Day for Evangelicalism
This is a sad day for the evangelical movement. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) just tossed Richard Cizik overboard. A more apt metaphor might be that some biggies in the NAE, who had been stalking him for a while, finally nailed their target. Charles Colson responded to the news of Cizik’s departure with this: “I’m not surprised. I’m sorry for him, but I’m not disappointed for the evangelical movement.” I’m not surprised either, but I’m sorrier for evangelicals than I am for Cizik. Richard can hold his head high; I’m not sure we can.
Cizik is a bright thinker, consummate communicator and courageous man who has been the NAE’s vice-president for governmental affairs for the last twenty-eight years. Through these years he has been a credible and winsome representative for evangelicals in the nation’s capital and in the national media.
Some time ago Richard attracted the ire of right-wing evangelicals for his articulate championing of the cause of “creation care,” and his insistence that Christians have a moral obligation to address the peril of global warming. Vigorous efforts were made in the corridors of evangelical power to discredit, muzzle or oust Cizik for his convictions, and his fearless expression of them. Up until now he has been able to survive.
A few years ago Bill Moyers interviewed Richard Cizik for a documentary entitled “Is God Green?” and I recall how proud I was of Cizik in his bold declaration that God is both Creator and Redeemer, and that Christians who worship and obey this God must therefore be both green and evangelistic. Since then I’ve shown the DVD version of this interview in my ethics classes on numerous occasions. Generally my seminary students have been challenged and impressed, and in some instances inspired to action. For some it was a revelatory moment to realize that Christian ethics includes environmental stewardship, and excludes irresponsible destruction of the planet. We fulfill our moral responsibilities through creation care, not simply waiting for an end-time bail-out at the Rapture.
But the opposition to Cizik caught him on an unrelated technicality. He mentioned in an NPR radio interview that he had come to believe that supporting civil unions (not marriage, mind you) for same-sex partners might be an appropriate position for an evangelical like himself who was trying to navigate the tension between biblical principles and civil rights in a secular society. Evidently this honest admission went beyond the bounds of published NAE orthodoxy. Cizik apologized and recanted, but no grace was extended. His opponents on the evangelical inside finally had their man in their cross-hairs.
No organization that refuses to take an ethical stand on global warming, but insists on making opposition to civil unions a condition of membership, can fully represent the richly diverse and historic evangelical tradition. Up until now Richard Cizik’s survival in the NAE has been a symbol that evangelicalism today is more socially engaged and inclusive than Fundamentalism ever was or is. It was an assurance that candor and independent judgment were respected within the evangelical coalition more than one’s absolute adherence to a narrowly defined and official “message.”
This news of Richard Cizik’s resignation under fire is very troubling. I have grown up within the evangelical tradition, and have embraced it as my own—warts and all. But today, upon hearing this sad news, I find myself referring to the NAE organization for the first time as “them” rather than “us.” This new pronoun that came out of my mouth startled me. Now I feel a deep sadness settling in, and I suspect that I am not the only one who does.
Jimmy on 12 Dec 2008 at 5:11 am #
Fortunately for the environment, without Evangelical support, many policies and movements will continue to grow. Unfortunately for Evangelicals, they will need to learn from nonbelievers about God’s cultural mandate.
Scott on 12 Dec 2008 at 4:53 pm #
It seems like we are reliving a kind of neo-fundamental/liberal schism. By this I mean that people are polarizing out of fear, and when people are afraid, we seek to control rather than engage in productive dialogue. It doesn’t seem very Christ-like to me.
I’m disturbed by the continuing number of people that attend our churches that only know how to react, attack, and debate—completely blind that the process is often more destructive than the issue.
I’m afraid that many evangelicals will ultimately get there wish with this approach—that is, find ourselves totally separate and cu toff from the culture we are meant to influence.
I think the “Principled Centrism” model is a far more productive and Christ-like approach to the fear-mongering and control tendencies that have risen of late. It allows one to keep his/her principles intact, while seeking to find common ground (build bridges). Wow, it almost sounds incarnational. The Christ-mass spirit must be getting to me . . . .
Ron Short on 12 Dec 2008 at 6:13 pm #
This confirms what I’ve been feeling for a while. For several years I’ve struggled over whether or not to continue using the label “evangelical” to describe my Christian faith. This was the final nail in the coffin. If there is no room in the NAE for an articulate, devout, and thinking person like Richard Cizik, then I am not interested in being associated with that organization or their constituency. I’m done. And this makes me very sad. I grew up Pentecostal, but they didn’t want me because I questioned whether or not everyone should and could speak in tongues. Evangelicalism became my new home. Now, for the second time, I’m homeless.
Ross Bassingthwaighte on 14 Dec 2008 at 10:02 pm #
It would appear that the NAE leadership really does want to ensconce itself in the bedrooms of the nation. What is the world to think when an august body such as the NAE shoots one of its own? What was the crime? I would conclude that I am not to seek to be honest and compassionate, while striving to balance truth and grace, if I am to be an “evangelical.” That’s ok with me… I would rather be known for associating with sinners. At least I am in good company!
brian tallman on 15 Dec 2008 at 2:09 pm #
The real issue is, “what is an evangelical?” What no one seems to be able to see is that Evangelicals have no creed–well, no Creed but Christ (like the JW’s and Mormons). And consequently, Evangelicals make stuff up as they go. This should not be all that surprising, for this is how it all began. A more helpful approach would be to take up a Creed and historic confession of the church (I would recommend the WCF). Therefore, everyone who repudiates the NAE from a non-confessional position is merely making it up as they go along and is guilty of the exact same thing they hate in the NAE. Oh, the irony. Only those with confessional moorings have the right to decry the NAE. If it makes you feel any better I have been decrying the NAE for years and stopped using the adjective Evangelical a long time ago. But I am confessional and have the moral high ground here. Maybe, Glen, you can lead the charge back to historic, confessional, Reformational protestantism.
John Mustol on 15 Dec 2008 at 6:13 pm #
This is indeed an unattractive episode for evangelicals. During his interview on December 2, Cisik did make some comments that were problematic, but on the whole his interview was honest, compassionate, and deeply humble. When some within the organization objected, Cizik apologized and sought reconciliation. They would have none of it. The NAE leadership caved and Cizik was let go. What is disturbing to me is that this appears to be simple power politics. In the NAE’s action I do not see Christ-likeness, but the behavior of “mere men” (1Cor. 3:4). There is no compassion, forgiveness, reconciliation, or humility. It appears that Cizik’s enemies were waiting for an opportunity, and when it came they pounced.
Gandhi once said that after reading the Sermon on the Mount, he was so deeply moved that he would have become a Christian . . . if were not for Christians. I, John Mustol, certainly have my share of Christ-dishonoring errors and life-patterns to account for. So I do not want to judge (Matt 7:1). But at least I am aware of these problems and seek the Lord’s help and the help of others in dealing with them. All of us mess up. But, it seems to me, that what sets Christians apart is our first-hand knowledge and experience of God’s grace and forgiveness. If we who, while we were enemies of God, were not condemned but were forgiven and reconciled to God through the precious blood of his Son (Ro. 5:10), how can we not be profoundly and gratefully humbled and compassionate toward ourselves, one another, everyone, and everything? How could we not think of ourselves as anything more than “sinners saved by grace”? Why would not this incredible love of God shown to us in Christ lead us to incredible love, compassion, reconciliation, and humility that would be constantly on display for the world to see? Cizik seems to have demonstrated this, both in the interview and in his response of humility and repentance when called to account. Instead the world has witnessed what appears to be self-righteousness and power politics. I guess the Gandhi’s of this world will remain Hindus.
Lastly, let me say that Christians have to respond to the Ecological Problem. We have uncritically participated in our worldly system of pleonexia, consumerism, self-indulgence, and excess that is destroying God’s good earth. We who claim to worship the true Creator, cannot ignore this. Richard Cizik was providing outstanding leadership in this area. Under his leadership the NAE included a section on “Creation Care” in their 2003 “For the Health of the Nation” statement. His loss is a setback. But I pray and hope that the NAE will continue to inch toward more humble and grateful attitudes and action for living within God’s creation.