Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
login | my account
February 9, 2012

Home > 2008 > December (Web-only)Christianity Today, December (Web-only), 2008
Interview: NAE President Leith Anderson on Richard Cizik's Resignation
'If he did not appropriately represent NAE, then he has lost credibility as a spokesperson.'




Richard Cizik resigned today as vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals after he told National Public Radio that he is shifting his views on same-sex unions. Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, explained the turn of events to Christianity Today.

Was Cizik asked to resign?

There was a discussion and a consensus that his credibility as spokesperson for the NAE was irreparably compromised. It was out of reporting that discussion to Richard Cizik that he and I discussed together and mutually concluded that his resignation was appropriate.

What exactly in NPR's Fresh Air interview caused concern?

His role as a spokesperson is to advocate for NAE's values and positions, and that did not appropriately come through in what he said or the way he said it, and it was on several fronts.

Cizik said in the interview, "I'm shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. I don't officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don't think." Is that the part that caused concern?

What you're asking for is specifics, and I don't think that our discussion was primarily parsing words. It was whether or not he in this interview adequately was a representative for NAE and our constituency, and the conclusion was that he was not. The NAE's position on gay marriage is not shifting. And we are not advocates for civil unions, although many evangelicals recognize the reality that civil unions have become law in many states. But we're not advocating for them.

Most of the interview was about the environment.

It was not the part about the environment. As far as the environment is concerned, NAE, in its "For the Health of the Nation" statement, clearly says that creation care is one of the values that we do espouse.

Cizik has also been criticized for telling NPR that he voted for Barack Obama in the primary. Was that also a concern for the NAE?

Generally in America, people don't say whom they vote for. I think in listening to the interview, it seemed to me that [Fresh Air host] Terry Gross was surprised that he said whom he voted for. And he declined to say whom he voted for in the general election. But for NAE and all of us who seek to be a bipartisan voice, it's generally not in our best interests to declare whom we vote for.

Did he say something in that interview that NAE doesn't support? For instance, is there anywhere in the NAE documents that says the NAE doesn't support civil unions?

I don't know off the top of my head, because [civil unions are] a relatively recent phenomenon. We have had resolutions passed that have clearly declared that our understanding of biblical marriage is one man to one woman. I think … that the role of an NAE spokesperson is primarily on behalf of what we have said, not on behalf of what we have not said. It's also to represent our constituency, and our constituency does not favor civil unions.

He also said in the interview that he would support the government providing contraception. Do you know where the NAE stands on that?

I don't recall that the NAE has ever adopted a specific position on that. What we have strongly spoken to is that abortion on demand is not moral, it is not right, and it should not be legal. We have not weighed out a political or other plan for ways of doing that, except we would call people to not have abortions, to abstain from illicit sex, and to value lives.

In the interview, did he misrepresent himself, or did he misrepresent the NAE?





Christianity Today


  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

Displaying 1–5 of 22 comments

Anna

December 19, 2008  3:15pm

How about a prayer for the NAE and its leadership. God expects charity from us all. The NAE is swatting at gnats and can't feel God pulsing in its heart. I'm sad. Pray for the evangelicals who are estranged from the NAE. Take away their frustration and loneliness as they struggle to obey and spread the Good News. God is there for them.

Keith

December 18, 2008  2:52pm

Leave it to Leith Anderson to once again project a condescending and arrogant tone.

Tony

December 16, 2008  7:09pm

Cizik is a great loss. Could the person interviewed have been any more vague? 28 years and one rather mild comment and he's out? Come on NAE, get a grip! Where is the charity?

Michele M.

December 15, 2008  10:15am

I hear Mr. Anderson say that the NAE is about "the Bible and personal faith in Jesus Christ", that they are not primarily a political organization, and yet NAE members are referred to as a "constituency" and these issues are necessarily being discussed in the public square. Mr. Anderson states that he has no idea or hasn't thought about the response or perspective of the Religious Right with regard to representing the views of the evangelical "constituency", when asked to comment on their role in this very public discussion, which is a non-answer (avoiding the question) as far as I can tell. Another troubling answer has that the NAE only speaks about defined positions (nothing original here), and not potential solutions to the problems they're taking stances on (Biblical marriage, abortion on demand, creation care). Let's acknowledge the public square, the influence of evangelicals (positive and negative) and posit some workable solutions that line up with Biblical teachings.

pat

December 13, 2008  10:20pm

I heard the original interview of Cizik by Terry Gross on NPR last week. I was a bit surprised that he was willing to go out on a limb like that on civil unions. I get the idea that when people like Cizik are on NPR they think that nobody from their camp is listening, or at least not the hardliners, but in this case it seems like the hardliners (Modern day Pharisees? )were looking for any misstep they could find and got him on this one. Cizik is correct that the younger Evangelicals are re-thinking the issue of civil unions. The government should get completely out of the marriage biz and leave that to the churches, synagogues & mosques. The government should issue civil unions for all couples (gay or straight) and the Church should issue the marriage certificate. The future of Evangelicalism doesn't belong to the Dobsons or Robertsons - it belongs to the younger Evangelicals. The old guard needs to stop trying to control and instead trust that God is doing His work.

You must be a Christianity Today subscriber or have created a FREE registration to post comments
[Browse More Christianity Today]



Search
Search
Search
Scripture Search
Go Deeper

Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Kyria.com
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com