All Comments for: Interview: NAE President Leith Anderson on Richard Cizik's Resignation | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

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.'

Interview by Sarah Pulliam | posted 12/11/2008 01:58PM

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. ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Anna	Posted: December 19, 2008 3:15 PM


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

Posted: December 18, 2008 2:52 PM


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

Tony	Posted: December 16, 2008 7:09 PM


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.

Posted: December 15, 2008 10:15 AM

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	Posted: December 13, 2008 10:20 PM

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.

travis

Posted: December 13, 2008 1:34 PM

I think the NAE needs to go away.It is not a true representative of Christ or His church to the non-Christian world.All these political institutions that operate under the auspice of Biblical Christianity are doing very little for the true cause of the Gospel.For all the money they spend, they are getting very little bang for the buck.But what else would one expect.The work of Christ in the world can only be accomplished by the Spirit of Christ at work in the Church of Christ.Politics is the work of man.

Mike Morrell

Posted: December 13, 2008 1:24 PM


Good for Cizik. I'm embarrassed for the name 'evangelical' when we can't have thoughtful discussion and voice minority perspectives. The reasons evangelicalism emerged from fundamentalism was to create just this space; now it seems to be plowed under by not just extremist rightist evangelicals like Dobson, but also by former-moderates like the NAE. Too bad for them.

Chuck Anziulewicz

Posted: December 13, 2008 9:52 AM

Reading this interview with Leith Anderson, I get the impression that evangelicals think the United States is a theocracy, that Christianity takes precedence in the formulation of public policy, and therefore the whole concept of "Equal Protection Under The Law" is irrelevant when it comes to Gay couples. But the fact remains that Anderson cannot provide ONE SINGLE justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal protections and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted. Frankly I don't care whether you call it a "marriage" or a "civil union" or a "domestic partnership," because I am not one to quibble over terminology, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly. Yet for Leith Anderson, any such compromise is completely out of the question. For him, The Golden Rule goes out the window when it comes to Gay people.

Common christian

Posted: December 13, 2008 9:20 AM


I will stop listening or considering the NAE Now.The only reasoned I paid any attention was because of Cizik.

Trierr

Posted: December 12, 2008 3:55 PM


Too bad for both Cizik and the NAE. Its clear that Cizik's adversaries are very happy about this! (Which ignore a Biblical mandate in itself.) Fosdick was right to worry about the fundamentalist winning.

Khollifield

Posted: December 12, 2008 3:25 PM

I was encouraged by Mr. Cizik's comments. Yet I am sadden that he had to resign his post. It seems to me that homosexuals are better off than free thinking evangelicals. They can come out of the closet. While we are bullied into following angry men who use the bible as a club to hit people over the head. I am not ashamed to say I voted for Barak Obama and not because I was blinded by some environmental demon. I just learned to think for myself.

Joe Chip

Posted: December 12, 2008 2:59 PM


"It would be enormously helpful if people could understand that what we are about is the Bible and personal faith in Jesus Christ." Yes. Yes it would. Perhaps you'd better get on with promoting personal faith in Christ and the Bible instead of being known for being anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti anyone who doesn't line up with your narrow theology.

Steve Fridsma AIA LEED

Posted: December 12, 2008 12:52 PM

Too bad. I had felt Richard Cizik was one of the more influential Christian voices we had going. I'm sorry to see him go, and sorry that the clarifications of his statements was not enough for him to carry on his significant work. Hopefully he will move on to an even greater role representing Christians who are also concerned with Creation Care. It is frustrating that his statements, while perhaps controversial with some of the NEA's constituents, did not neccessarily violate NEA's own broadly defined doctrinal statements. I am a passionate Jesus-follower and I resonated with his positions, as do many younger evangelicals I know.

Patrick Gann

Posted: December 12, 2008 7:51 AM


I consider myself an evangelical, and Cizik represents me. So does Ron Paul, who considers himself an Evangelical Christian. Get with the times, Anderson.

Don Bryant

Posted: December 12, 2008 5:19 AM


Anderson sounds as indeterminate as does Cizik. He doesn't sould as if he is convinced himself but merely "representing" his constituency.

Thomas

Posted: December 12, 2008 4:56 AM

Leith Anderson comment: "It would be enormously helpful if people could understand that what we are about is the Bible and personal faith in Jesus Christ." Firstly, I'm not sure that actually is the agenda of the NAE members - their agenda seems to actually be to oppose gay marriage, civil unions, and abortion. Secondly, it would even be *more* enormously helpful if the NAE members were about loving their neighbors and God well...which means they have to actually look outside of themselves and reach out with grace, peace and kindness.

mws	Posted: December 11, 2008 10:31 PM

What struck my heart most about the Fresh Air interview was Cizik's accurate observation that we should be focused more on church building than nation building. As Christians, we are in the world, not of the world. Yet, we spend so much energy trying to create heaven on earth. What futility. Our families are, in the eyes of nonbelievers in the US, no different than any other family. We marry, divorce, spend beyond our means, have little knowledge of our neighbors, etc. We need to repent and be separate and show mercy. Our politics should be the least common denominator of our reputation.

db	Posted: December 11, 2008 9:39 PM


I thought Cizik gave a great interview on Fresh Air. I thought to myself, "Wow, maybe there's hope for the NAE after all." Oops....

Bob	Posted: December 11, 2008 7:16 PM


The Nae has no events on the website and it is an old wineskin that is outdated just as the Christian Coalition that is history and no longer relevant. Jesus is the only government of which there will be real increase not Ralph Reed and Rich Cizik opportunist politricks$$$$

Deacon Steve Bailey

Posted: December 11, 2008 6:16 PM

What a brilliant account of the growing rigidity of American evangelicalism in the face of its growing diversity. Cizik has shown himself to be a man of the utmost integrity and has paid a totally unnecessary price. But such is the nature of what we're working with here -- a questionably Christian worldview that has very little tolerance for a diversity of theological and social/cultural thought. It's the same mentality espoused by the dissenters in the Episcopal church who thought it necessary to separate from that denomination to keep themselves 'pure. What a pity as well as a poor Christian example. I hope that someday American evangelicalism can free itself from its yolk of oppression.

alison

Posted: December 11, 2008 4:00 PM


This is an interesting interview, but I sure don't see the issue as "shooting your own foot soldiers." When you no longer feel like you can adequately represent an organization, you leave. That's all there is to it. I've enjoyed Richard Cizik and I will continue to enjoy him, but his departure should not been seen as being negative toward NEA. That's just silly.

Franz Franklin (Registered User)

Posted: December 11, 2008 3:48 PM

Somebody once said that ..Christianity is the only army that shoots its own foot soldiers...or something to that effect. However I guess when we worship a crucified Lord...it may be expected. After all it is a cross we are promised not a comfortable chair. I would just say that there are few evangelical leaders that I have enjoyed listening to more on a variety of issues than Richard Cizik. I sincerely hope that his voice is not silenced by this.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment