Richard Cizik resigned his position at National Association of Evangelicals this week. Sounds a bit too quick to me. 28 years service and one short interview, a few words out of line with NEA and he’s out. What about some discussion? Some perspective? Some time for him to elaborate?
Best piece on this toic: Leith Anderson on CT
Technorati Tags: nea, richard cizik
I’m pretty convinced that if he was getting too political in the other direction he would not have been reprimanded. Like if he’d casually dropped in an interview that he doesn’t believe in global warming, instead of that he voted for Obama in the primaries, maybe things would be different.
I know that the interviewee from the article you linked kept saying that Cizik just didn’t represent NEAs constituency or the direction they are going in, but how could he be there for 28 years and not represent in some way the direction they are going in? They can say that his is a side of their organization that they wish to hide or ignore, but they can’t say no one is going in that direction if Cizik is going in that direction! If he is, who else might be?
Story of my life. No, you don’t fit in our organization, they tell me, but as I turn to leave, I see others who don’t either. If none of us fit, then aren’t they the ones who really don’t fit?
END RANT.
I don’t understand why evangelicals equate civil unions and Gay Marriage. Marriage is a sacrament of the church and civil unions are a creation of the state. This seems like the perfect solution to a civil rights issue. Scripture does not in any way state that Christians must legislate against behaviors they consider to be sin.
Richard has been under attack for several years, mostly from Dobson and others in the Religious Right. The religious right strongly felt that Cizik was spending way to much time talking about about environmental issues and not the important issues of being against abortion and anti gay rights. There was a petition presented to the NAE board of directors in 2007 asking that they fire Cizik signed by Dobson and other leaders of the Religious Right, none of whom were members of the NAE!
Apparently the key issue in the interview was that Richard supported civil union for gay couples.
For a good commentary on this see
http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2008/12/the-forced-resignation-of-richard-cizik-part-two.html