Subscribe to Posts
richard cizik and the boundaries of the reservation revealed
My friend Rich Cizik, a prominent leader of the National Association of Evangelicals resigned recently after the proverbial firestorm of protest. He candidly answered some questions posed by Terry Gross on NPR’s “Fresh Air.“ Cizik revealed the following things about his personal views when asked: that civil unions in his view are OK, that it might be wise for the government to offer contraceptives to those who can’t afford them in order to reduce the number of babies who are aborted rather than born, and that he voted for a Democratic candidate (Barak Obama) in the Democratic primary in his state.
Of course his real crime was caring for creation. As Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council put it, “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.” Perkins called it leaving “the reservation.” By “reservation” he meant American evangelicalism. The “reservation” is not a bad metaphor for Perkins’ view of American evangelicalism, actually. Pretty revealing stuff. Not Cizik’s comments but the firestorm it led to among fellow evangelicals.
What does it tell us about a movement that ejects a leader who has these perspectives? It tells us what the boundaries are. Of the reservation.
To be an effective evangelical leader on the reservation you must not stray beyond the collective conventional wisdom of the evangelical community, at least not on these matters. To be fair, it’s possible that a leader could hold some of these views, but not all. It’s too early to tell yet which views in which combination constitute the boundaries of the American evangelical movement. Actually it could be that one or another of these views places a leader outside the camp, but we know that this list roughly approximates the boundaries.
So, what do we think about that? Are those the correct boundaries? Are we “the reservation?” I think not. Evangelicalism has always been a diverse movement. I would therefore suggest a simpler set of boundaries. How about this? Jesus is our center. The Bible is our book. The gospel is our message. Love is our aim. OK. Let’s quibble on the wording, but somewhere in that ballpark. We wish to be the Jesus loving, gospel loving, Bible loving, love loving people. The good news people.
Like Billy Graham–I think he counts as an evangelical, given his focus on the gospel. I think Billy could hold all the views expressed by Richard Cizik and still be regarded as a leader in the evangelical movement, no problem. I even think he could admit to voting in either primary for any of the candidates, even though some of the candidates in each primary gave me the willies.
Charles Colson said that Cizik separated himself from “the mainstream of evangelical belief and conviction.” He did? What pillars of our faith did he undermine? The resurrection perhaps? The reliability of the gospels? Is this what we’ve come to: before someone is credibly a “mainstream evangelical” we have to know their perspective on civil unions, the value of government assistance in providing contraception in order to reduce abortions, and the legitimacy of voting for a Democratic candidate in the Democratic primary? I imagine there are so many evangelicals outside that mainstream as to threaten it’s mainstream status. I thought our shared treasure was Jesus. Wasn’t that Him on mainline?
Here’s the problem with the current boundaries of “the reservation” as evidenced by the unwillingness of the evangelical movement to accept Rich Cizik as a leader. Who are we going to find to lead us? We may find that only finger lickers apply for the openings. Leaders who lick their fingers and stick them up in the air to see which way the evangelical winds are blowing. This is not the way to proceed for a movement that worships Jesus, I don’t think.
See, I’m heartsick about this. Richard Cizik is one of my FAVORITE leaders, and I’m a baby boomer, so I’m not too keen on leaders in general. Which of course comes back to haunt me every time I lead because I so annoy myself.
Richard Cizik led the campaign to awaken evangelicals to the horrors of the slave trade. He was instrumental in getting legislation passed to protect persecuted religious minorities, including Christians around the world. If I’m not incorrect, I believe it was Richard Cizik who urged President Reagan to be more outspoken regarding the evils of the Soviet Union. Richard Cizik opened up an historic dialog between leading environmental scientists and evangelical leaders. He led an effort to awaken evangelicals to the biblical teaching on environmental stewardship.
Man, we need leaders like that! Bold leaders.
Instead, we may get what apparently we now deserve. Cautious leaders. Leaders who are especially careful to keep their jobs by not offending those whom they serve as leaders. Leaders who don’t make any impolitic comments on radio interviews and sound like every other spokesperson for every other organization. Who say nothing surprising, whose articulated perspectives are clearly within the box. Who above all, do not provoke anyone within the movement, because, well, every movement has it’s sacred cows and when poked they kick back hard.
Some no doubt will be glad not to have to suffer through Cizik’s provokations. Others, I think will miss him. Leith Anderson, the president of the N.A.E. is a good man, a leader I also admire. He expressed his regret and reluctance over the necessity of Cizik’s resignation. As the president of the N.A.E., he’s not in a position to decide what the boundaries are for a movement as diverse as American Evangelicalism, what comments made by what leaders lead to a firestorm of protest, what perspectives shared undermine a person’s ability to lead. That’s on us. Those of us who fancy ourselves part of the broad movement of people who are head over heels about the gospel. Do we like what we’ve decided? I don’t. It gives me reservations about the reservation, how about you?
Tags: barak obama, boundaries, chuck colson, civil unions, cultural relevance, environment, evil empire, heartsick, interview, intolerance, Jesus, leaving the reservation, love, mercy, movements, NAE, NPR, persecuted christians, politics, resign, richard cizik, ronald reagan, slave trade, soviet union, terry gross, the Bible, the gospel, tony perkins
December 14th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Seems to me that most social institutions– churches, schools, governments, etc– require leaders characterized by a healthy dose of pragmatism…. that those leaders whose causes don’t reflect their followers’ primary causes rarely make it the leadership game because they struggle to consolidate enough people behind them. It’s one way of explaining why MLK settled for non-violence instead of non-violence+socialism (which he and many SNCC folks wanted the civil rights movement to be about), why Obama settled for his health care platform instead of the one Hillary ran on (but which he philosophically prefers), and why people like Cizik (whose integration of faith and social issues resonates with me, too) get driven out of power before their time.
For a while now, I’ve considered myself something of an unorthodox evangelical. The situation with Cizik reminds me why this label still applies, and why I can be comfortable with that. Lasting change rarely comes from the top down, but from the bottom up and from the margins. That’s why I’m so grateful to be a part of a church that doesn’t worry so much whether it conforms to evangelical social orthodoxies (as exemplified by the NAE / Focus on the Family platform), but which focuses instead on the author and perfecter of our faith.
December 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Julie, Cogent perspective! Yes, we have to do our job from the bottom up and the margins. And speak up so the loudest complainers are not the only ones heard.
December 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
The forced resignation of Cizik shows us the NAE is unhealthy and dysfunctional. It has always been clear who the NAE represents and what they stand for. Cizik represents where the Rick Warrens, Bill Hybels and mainstream evangelicals are. Cizik offered the NAE a chance to allow diversity, dialogue and social justice to help shape policy, broaden the tent and bring in the next generation of evangelicals. Instead the NAE has chosen the message that they seek to shut-down dissent, ignore the voices of younger evangelicals and maintain the status-quo.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:56 am
I read the Christianity Today article and Tony Perkins blog entry that you linked, as well as the article on the Christian Post linked in Perkins’ blog entry. It seems that your view of the NAE is a view that predates the culture war era. You speak of diversity among evangelicals, but in the last decade or two, the term “evangelical” has become synonymous with social and political conservative. Some in the evangelical movement are now trying disassociate the two, but there will be injuries along the way.
In the readers’ comments on the Christian Post article, many were claiming Cizik had made comments to please the “liberal and secular media”; one claimed Cizik “has given into the enemy and is walking down the wrong path.” Many insisted he must be removed because he doesn’t represent the views of the NAE. One called his comments “divisive.”
And that’s why I say there will be injuries if the NAE is to become diverse again. Attempts to open the tent will be seen as “divisive,” (a term I see way too often to describe anyone who disagrees with the status quo), and accusations will be made that we are abandoning the truth of the gospel, or at least watering it down.
So do we put up such a fight to “take back” the NAE from the culture warriors? If Cizik had stayed on, a fight would have continued and grown. Is that healthy? Paul & Peter had it out over associating with Gentiles, but those were two individuals. It looks like the NAE may have a full-scale “church split” so to speak, like the Episcopalians, if the evangelical Left tries to assert itself. Do we really need another nationwide church argument? Can’t we just quietly pack our bags and go join the Emergents?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Oh I don’t know. I’m not calling for anyone’s job. I think Leith Anderson is an excellent leader for the NAE. I think the NAE on the whole has been a reasonably more diverse group than the more fundamentalist tendencies of the Religious Right. But those groups are a powerful voice in the entire culture, not just within evangelicalism. I think it’s important for the NAE to discern the times. Is this the time to be driven by the narrow agenda of the Religious Right groups, who tend to throw their weight around (seeking resignations, decrying the biblical mandate for creation care as “being blinded by the green light.”) Is this something we want to encourage or discourage? I’d like to discourage it. I don’t know what there is to join among Emergents…I’ve only read half of two books in that genre. At this stage, isn’t it publishing and conferences, primarily? And some online things? By the way, I think the Religious Right has a powerful influence across the Christian spectrum, including Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism. There are many in those traditions who think gay marriage, for example is a greater threat to marriage than no fault divorce (which leads to 50% divorce rate) or domestic violence, which is pretty harmful to marriage, or poverty. Let’s be Jesus people and if evangelical is good let’s be that, and if emergent has some insights on being more Jesus people, let’s be that too.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
In my lexicon, Evangelical is a dirty word. It’s a word for people who got God confused with a politial party.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
All truth is God’s truth. The bible is errant and fallible. That is the truth. The bible was written by people, not by a god. That is the truth. All truth is God’s truth.
December 17th, 2008 at 3:39 am
Hmm…I hadn’t considered the influence of the Christian Right on Catholicism and mainline Protestant denominations. So if that’s the case, it’s not just an NAE thing, and thus being more vocal about toning down some of these harsh stances of the Christian Right would speak to more than just the NAE. Doing so outside of the NAE discussion would mostly get the response of, “That’s some other group of Christians” from NAE conservatives and probably little effect on the NAE, but may be heard by others in a more positive light. On the other hand, I can’t see how doing so within the NAE, no matter how positively presented, would result in anything but flying fur.
Your comment on threats to marriage…I was just in a debate last night on Facebook on this subject. My point was, why do social conservatives cry fanatically that gay marriage will unravel society, when it would only affect about 4% of the population, while divorce, at 50% of marriages, has ALREADY unraveled society…yet there’s barely a peep about it?
December 17th, 2008 at 10:18 am
pierce the illusion
of a scattered people
at war with our shattered selves
wrestling with flesh and blood
as defiant powers
smile in their twisted ways
embracing our kindred
with their saccharine slavery
O – how do we right this wrong?
all tangled in their web
deceit weighs heavy – like iron roots
planted in an ancient bitterness
and i feel like a fly
thrashing in the ointment
of our collective stupor
as a holy storm approaches
…from afar
December 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
JLee, Yes we tend to be much more sympathetic toward struggles we have (getting along with our spouse) than toward struggles we don’t have. Hence it is easy to single out gay marriage as a threat to marriage, since it doesn’t involve most of us. It identifies us as “truly devout” that we hold this opinion, which of course, costs us nothing. The perfect wedge issue and now it is the tip of the spear of evangelical engagement with the culture. How sad.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I agree that divorce is devastating to our youth and our culture. I teach high school kids and observe the results of this sin and consequence of living without God centered in the marriage everyday. I disagree that gay unions are a threat to marriage. You can dress up sinful behavior in anyway you like but, it will never have the light of Christ in it. However, I believe the term MARRIAGE should remain between one man and one woman. One should not play with words so much that they lose meaning.
Perhaps someone could clarify for me. Sympathy does not equate acceptance of sin (true/false). Are we as Evangelicals, accepting homosexuality as appropriate? Should we not be concerned with sin in all of its manifestations? Can we lovingly accept the sinner but, not the sin? In fact, are we not called to do this?
My only reference to R. Cizik is that which you have posted and It stands out to me that he has made the correct choice in stepping down. His views appear to mock Gods creative process on two issues.
I wonder who Jesus would’ve voted for? Or would he have abstained due to lack of any true leader.
December 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Casey, Which two issues are you referring to where R. Cizik said anything that mocked God’s creative purpose?
December 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Contraception and civil unions. God’s creative process is to bring life through sex between a man and a woman. In both practices that R. Cizik personally condones life is not a possible outcome. That appears to mock God’s creative process.
December 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Casey, I see. I think it might be a little be strong to say that these perspectives mock God’s creative purpose. Mock usually implies utter contempt. My wife and I practice contraception. We at least two of our kids while using contraception, as a matter of fact. We weren’t mocking God’s creative purpose, I don’t think. We were just trying to be good stewards of our lives and trying to not have more children than we could care for. We ended up with five, which was plenty. There are times, I think, when it’s irresponsible not to use contraception, as when a man with AIDS has sex with his wife without a condom. Even the Catholic church
agrees that there are times when it is appropriate to have sex while seeking to prevent pregnancy through birth control (the sympto-thermal method.)
On civil unions: I’m not aware that civil unions specify whether or not the partners of the union are expected to have sex (as is the case with marriage.) I believe that failure to consumate marriage has always been grounds to annul the marriage (in the case of catholic church teaching) or to end the marriage (in the case of the state’s recognition of marriage.) Again, there are church communities that have arranged for same sex people to be in a form of committed union (albeit without sexual intimacy), called brotherhoods or sisterhoods or monastaries. These groupings can be a stable family unit for adopting children. I know a catholic sisterhood that does this. In the case of “civil unions” I think the state is and ought to be uninterested in the exact nature of the relationship between the parties involved when it comes to sex or the absence of sex. Whether a Christian thinks the state should be in the business of providing civil unions or not seems to me to be a great example of a debatable issue among Christians. Some would say it’s fine, others would say it’s not a good idea. But it wouldn’t be a position that would necessarily constitute mocking God’s creative purpose, in my understanding.
December 26th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Ken, I understand that I may have been making a leap in regards to defining civil unions to include sex. Perhaps, R. Cizik did not mean to include civil unions based on sex in his comment. I can’t ascertain this meaning from the excerpt provided. Brotherhoods or sisterhoods or monastaries are indeed committed unions in terms of where they commune together but, their unions are in commitment to God more than to each other. I imagine that if two people choose to live together in all sincerity to honor God in their hearts and actions this would indeed be an appropriate union.
On contraception, I am conflicted between stewardship and following God’s word. I wonder how much of our sexual drive comes from the fall. C.S. Lewis gave the analogy of a strip tease involving a pork chop. How we might think this type of behavior odd to get excited and go about smacking our lips and thinking about pork chops all day. Lewis made the connection that our sex drive may be of the same sort of depravity and was the result of sin. From depravity we attempt to place bandages over sin in the attempt to be right with God. Condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. As Christians, shouldn’t we try to work from a position closest to the word of God as possible? Shouldn’t we be concerned with what ought to be in cooperation with Gods word. How much of that involves ignoring him and then trying to solve the problems we create. I agree the state’s concerns and our concerns as christians will ultimately be different. To say that procreation is God’s gift to us and his command to fill the earth is not mocked when we artificially prevent creation is a sort of mockery in my opinion. Again, I am conflicted and I am trying to work out my own thoughts on these matters.
Thank you, for your thoughtful responses
December 26th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Casey, “Condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. As Christians, shouldn’t we try to work from a position closest to the word of God as possible? Shouldn’t we be concerned with what ought to be in cooperation with Gods word. How much of that involves ignoring him and then trying to solve the problems we create.”
Casey, If I understood you correctly, I think we’re not supposed to take into account how it is that people got themselves into trouble so much as helping them out of it. Missionaries in Africa face people suffering from AIDS all the time and have to decide how to help them. Unless the parable of the good Samaritan means nothing. And of course, many of those who have AIDS received it through various means–children whose mothers were infected themselves become infected, and then marry, and then yes, if they need condoms, they should be given just as we’d give a hungry person a piece of bread. The gospel of Jesus is the good news for the poor. I think God’s word is absolutely clear about love requiring us to care for our fellows according to their needs.
December 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Ok. So how we got ourselves into trouble is not a determining factor in how or when we give assistance and care. I guess this is a matter of what kind of care one should provide. The alcoholic is encouraged to go through a process that will lead to abstinence and we should support that effort in all possible ways. The alcohol in itself is not evil but, because of the users condition one drink could be opening the flood gates for more problems. I would not say to this person, “you got yourself into this mess now get yourself out”. I would not question him in order to determine if he is worthy of help. But, I would take great care in the prescribing of assistance that does not address behavior. A hungry person needs bread because the body requires food to repair and maintain itself. How does food for the hungry and condoms for the sexually active relate at all to each other?
Perhaps, after assisting the beaten man and providing food and shelter, the Samaritan finds the same man on the road in the same condition. At that point we provide assistance and maybe suggest an alternate route. We are caring for not only his physical needs at this point and are now moving in the direction of guidance.
I am speaking philosophically about things that ought to be and I appreciate you taking the time to work through these things with me. I understand that in the current situation it is impractical to consider battling the AIDS epidemic without providing condoms. I am not a missionary and I certainly don’t know what I would do if I were in that situation facing such despair.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 am
Ken, you’re really ducking the whole civil unions issue, aren’t you? Please: talking as though it had nothing to do with homosexual sex. Comparing it to convents and monasteries! Please! Do you think we’re dumb? You’re either extremely naiive or you’re downright dishonest because you aren’t willing to risk your pastoral credentials and say you don’t think homosexual sex is a sin! You’re a typical left wing Christian who wants to ignore God’s commands when you disagree with them.
January 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Brenda, Gee whiz! So much to respond to. What makes a person a “left wing Christian”? Left wing, as in politically left leaning? Is the inference that Jesus is “right wing” meaning politically conservative? As defined by whom? Is Jesus, for example a Republican? Does that mean he supports the entire Republican platform? What’s a typical “left wing Christian?” Is there a typical “right wing Christian?” I’m either extremely naive or downright dishonest, you say. Are there no other options? If a person thought that the state should only perform civil unions and let marriage be something that is performed by churches and religious communities, would that be outside your circle of orthodoxy? I said what I wanted to say about civil unions which is that someone that thought they were a good idea for whatever reasons shouldn’t be excluded from evangelicalism.
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
What is outside the circle of orthodoxy-if orthodoxy means right belief-are beliefs which are not right. Like the belief that sexual union is not reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. The Bible should be the foundation for what we believe is right and wrong. No? So to believe that sexual unions between two men or two women (or “civil unions”) are okay, like Cizik says, is a wrong belief. Why isn’t abortion okay, or does he think that to? He, and you, don’t say that homosexual sex is wrong. But that’s completely contrary to what the Bible clearly says about it. What I mean by left-wing Christian is those who believe that truth is relative. God’s Word is true for some situations but not for others. Some Scriptures are true and should be followed and others are false and should be ignored. Putting human intellect and reason above God’s Word-so that a smart person with a big vocabulary can decide that God cares more about global warming than about abortion and homosexuality, or that parts of the bible are too old-Fashioned for our modern sensibilities.
January 2nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Brenda, I don’t believe truth is relative. Truth is truth. Of course our take on the truth is affected by many factors that are relative (our cultural lenses that affect our interpretation–for example the fact that societies that had slavery read the Bible as supporting slavery). I believe Cizik simply said that he thought the state could allow civil unions. I don’t think the state even cares whether people in civil unions are gay or straight. He didn’t say anything about what the church should do. Currently the state allows serial marriages that in many cases amount to ongoing adultery something, that the Bible clearly forbids. But enough on that