If NAE’s Rich Cizik Doesn’t Speak for Them, Who Does He Speak For?
by Tony Perkins
December 9, 2008
The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Leith Anderson, has been trying to reassure the association’s board and members that the NAE hasn’t left the reservation on the issues of life and marriage. The reason? Because NAE’s vice president for governmental affairs left the reservation – a long time ago!
In a recent interview with NPR’s “Fresh Air,” Cizik stated he voted for President-elect Obama and said, “I think it’s (faith) very important, but it is not the factor nor should it be [when voting]…” Cizik said the same thing about issues like life: “It’s possible for me to disagree with a candidate on high-profile issues and still believe that on a basis of character or philosophy he is the better of two candidates.” When asked by the host, Terry Gross, if his efforts to identify with younger voters and their priorities had caused him to change his view on gay marriage he said, “I’m shifting, I would have to admit. In other words I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don’t think.”
This revelation should not come as a surprise. This is the risk of walking through the green door of environmentalism and global warming – you risk being blinded by the green light and losing your sense of direction. How else can you explain enthusiastic support for what will probably be the nation’s most pro-abortion, anti-family president in our nation’s 232 year history?
The question, however, remains. If Cizik does not speak for the NAE, as the Rev. Anderson has said, why is he on Capitol Hill representing NAE and claiming to speak for Evangelicals? Is it possible for a human being to come with a disclaimer?
Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.
Comments
Wow, this is really, really sad. It’s too bad that certain parts of the Christian establishment cannot accept that someone could actually support civil unions. Cizik even had the gall to vote for Barack Obama…how can he even call himself a Christian?
Seriously, though, I hope that the FRC will someday acknowledge that many evangelicals see God’s will needing to be implemented on a wider variety of issues than just gay marriage and abortion. These are, certainly, important issues, but God speaks about much more.
And Tony, I really cannot even begin to understand your comment on being “blinded by the green light”.
historyguy
Squeaky and History Guy:
I would presume virtually all of us want to protect the environment, and consider it an important stewardship. But, “environmentalism” has come to mean extreme views, where the environment comes ahead of higher values, like human life. Same thing with global warming, which is repeatedly shown to be a pseudo-science with falsified statistics. And regarding civil unions, the problem with them is that as soon as they have become legalized, gays then cry discrimination and sue for “marriage.” Make no mistake, the “lies” reported in the Pro 8 ads would surely come to pass… its just the gays modus operandi to call white black and black white, the truth a lie and a lie the truth.
Thank you Tony for your insightful and kind words published in the Deseret News the other day.
I completely second Squeaky’s post: the comments about the green door of environmentalism do not make sense in themselves, but even less so as a way of discussing the Cizik interview. Please tell us, Mr. Perkins, what this comment has to do with Christianity in general and with Cizik in particular.
Your post distorts Cizik’s comments. You say he voted for Obama without making clear that it was in the primary; Cizik didn’t say who he voted for in the general election. Then you go on to say that Cizik has “enthusiastic support” for Obama, which I don’t pick up from any of Cizik’s comments.
Next, you claim that Anderson said that Cizik “does not speak for the NAE.” That is also a distortion. Anderson said that the comments in the NPR interview did not represent the position of the NAE, but that “Richard has strongly assured to me of his own support and agreement with our NAE values and positions.”
So in this brief posting of yours, you have distorted Cizik’s comments about voting for Obama and Anderson’s comments regarding Cizik. This is not the first time I’ve seen FRC distort people’s comments; I’ve learned not to trust FRC but always have to go check for myself.
“Green” does not equal “Gay.”
I don’t support civil unions, but I support stewarding God’s creation.
Your non sequiturs are quite frustrating, Tony.
Your green light comment concerns me for two reasons: I think it’s being dangerously used by the media both secular and christian alike, and I think it is short on thought. Surely as intelligent humans we can differentiate between environmentalism and other issues. We always have to be careful which doors we walk through from one issue to another, but we have intelligence in the image of our Maker and the ability to pray through discernment. The Bible is clear on caretakership of the earth. It is! And if we have to start ignoring some issues for fear that we will go astray on others…don’t we have to seriously consider the condition of our minds/spirits if that’s the case?
I hope you think this through more thoroughly. I hope you change your quote. The Earth is important. We live amongst a community of creation. Science is not the enemy. And we have got to start living like more intelligent human beings. We follow the author of genius. Let’s act like it.
What is shocking to me is when one of our brethren slips or falls rather than practicing the rights we fight so hard to maintain, we are quick to judge because we “expected” or saw this coming based on other behavior.
We should be appalled by Mr. Cizik’s declaration on NPR and we should be disgusted by his apparent about face on the issues that we hold so dear but, our response should not be to condemn him.
So President-elect Obama will “probably be the nation’s most pro-abortion, anti-family president in our nation’s 232 year history”?? With his devoted wife and two lovely children? With his wonderful model of a strong, intact Christian family for the African American community in which only 40% of parents are married? For most “anti-family president” I would nominate your hero Ronald Reagan, the first president ever who was divorced, who has a son who is gay and a daughter who was estranged from his wife for most of her life. His family was a mess, yet you consider him a “pro-family” president. How can that be? Unless, like the liberals, you separate a person’s personal life from their policies.
Propaganda like this is why the FRC and the Religious Right are losing constituents and influence daily. There is no room in your group for anyone who doesn’t hold to your exact beliefs. It’s a shame that you choose to take parting shots at Cizik instead of applaud the work he’s done to broaden the agenda of the NAE to line up more with biblical values than conservative ones.
It seems to me the bottom line of Tony’s blog is, Cizik doesn’t belong in the NAE because he doesn’t hate gay people enough. Why not focus on issues that REALLY hurt American families?
I would nominate G.W. Bush for the title of America’s most anti-family president. His policies consistently favor the wealthy at the expense of middle-class and poor families, and the resulting economic hardship has pushed countless American families to the brink of collapse. Over 4,000 American families have suffered the loss of loved ones in an unjust, ill-conceived and poorly managed war. Due to his poor management of the war, thousands of brave service men and women have suffered unnecessary physical and mental injury, and Bush has not provided adequately for the treatment of their injures when they return. And because of this lack of treatment, the divorce rate among those returning from Iraq has skyrocketed. You call this president pro-family?
In my opinion, anyone in the NAE who supported Bush should be asked to resign.
Rich Cizik admits to voting for Obama. Amazing! We all know that Jesus would vote straight Republican. By the way, what is FRC’s stance on “global warming”? As a believer for over 40 years, it’s scary to think that I might be labeled liberal because of my “green” world view. Is that what you are implying Mr. Perkins?
By: squeaky | December 12, 2008 at 7:33 pm
“This is the risk of walking through the green door of environmentalism and global warming”
Could you explain what you mean by this? I’m really curious to understand what, exactly, is so horrible about someone caring for and being concerned about God’s beautiful creation. Why is it so horrible to want to care about how we use God’s gifts and provision to us without destroying His gift in the process?
I’d also be very interested to know what, exactly, you know about climate change? What is your scientific proof that it isn’t happening?
I truly don’t understand why environmentalism and accepting the scientific evidence for global climate change is seen as so incredibly evil to you. Explain to me, clearly so that I understand, exactly how it is anti-Christian. Exactly how does it lead one down the road of sin, as you seem to strongly imply?