Richard Cizik Resigns from the National Association of Evangelicals

Longtime lobbyist and media spokesman recently said ‘I’m shifting’ on gay unions.

Richard Cizik resigned Wednesday night as vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) during a week of growing uproar over his comments that he is shifting his views on same-sex unions.

“Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized, and affirmed our values, there is a loss of trust in his credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituencies,” Leith Anderson, president of the NAE wrote to board members today. Cizik did not return calls for comment.

Last year, more than two dozen evangelical leaders sought to oust Cizik, who has been vice president for 28 years, because of his “relentless campaign” on global warming.

“For better or for worse, Rich became a great, polarizing figure,” said Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship. “He was gradually, over a period of time, separating himself from the mainstream of evangelical belief and conviction. So I’m not surprised. I’m sorry for him, but I’m not disappointed for the evangelical movement.”

Good. If he is supporting same sex unions then he should not be a leader of the Evangelicals. He should resign as he has already done. Evangelicals do not support same sex unions and they shouldn’t. Therefore, this was a good move on his part. Now, it is time for him to repent of his unorthodox views and go back to supporting the traditional view of marriage which is the right view of marriage.

‘Evangelicals’ are not one body with a defined, unified teaching. Liberals in mainstream protestant churches are just as ‘evangelical’.

Mr. Cizik, don’t let the screen door hit your backside on the way out.

I’m not familiar with how it is in Ireland, but in America, liberal and “evangelical” are usually opposite. No, I take that back, there are a lot of liberal African American “evangelicals.”

Here’s the statement of “values” from the NEA website.


Where I live is irrelevant.
Evangelicals aren’t one defining body, like catholics. Just because an association of ‘evangelicals’ says something doesn’t mean that every evangelical must believe it.

By your impressive observance, where to catholics fit? They’re not evangelicals surely?

Don’t play the ignorance card on me because of where I live, when you seem to be ignorant on what an evangelical and indeed what a liberal actually is.

Did Mr. Cizik say he wanted CHURCHES to accept same-sex marriages?

There seems to be fundamental confusion between secular rights and religious dogma.

Ben, I don’t think Graceandglory meant to call you ignorant, rather s/he was pointing out a difference between the US and Ireland. Here in the US we have a loose collection of Christian denominations known as Evangelicals. I am no expert but they seem to be united by stressing a need to be “born again.”

In the 1970s, these churches began a campaign of expelling moderate Christians from their leadership and propounding an increasingly conservative theology. They also began encouraging their members to register to vote, which such churches tended to discourage beforehand. This all was a lead up to the US political movement called the Religious Right.

I think Graceandglory is correct that Evangelicals (I’m purposely using the capital ‘E’ because, yes, you are right too. The word ‘evangelical’ is used by denominations which are not regarded as Evangelical.) have tended to be conservative during the past thirty years. But some diehard liberals have remained (such as Jim Wallis and his Sojourners organization) and I think that the younger members of the Evangelical churches are tired of the political nature of their religion and are beginning to rebel against the conservative stranglehold.

Understood, but it is suggested that Evangelicals have some sort of defining body which determines doctrine, like the magesterium for example, when they don’t.

Where I live, Evangelicalism is usually used to mean any nonliturgical form of Trinitarian Protestantism that emphasizes the need to evangelize and participate in society. They run the gamut from Evangelical Friends (the invisible majority of friends) to Baptists to Assembly of God. Politically, they favor preserving a traditional concept of marriage, abstinence education, protection for the unborn and disabled, and are free to take any stand they want on other issues without compromising their standing in the religious community.

I prefer to call that ‘fundamentalism’ personally.
Largely due to the fact that in the anglican communion there are three major groupings: Anglo-catholic (high church), evangelical (low church) and broad church (mixture between the two, often theologically liberal). Evangelicals in this church would not be considered evangelicals by the definition of which I have called fundamentalism.
Evangelicalism includes fundamentalists, but it also includes other groups. Most orthodox protestants could be called evangelical.

No, they are just leaving the “Church” period.

Again, there is no Evangelical church called ‘the Church’

Christianity doesn’t call us to be religious right. It calls us to be anti abortion and anti euthanasia etc but it doesn’t say we have to be anti-environmentalist movement, anti deregulation.

I meant the “church” universal.

And no - it doesn’t call for us to be part of the “religious right” but certainly some of the positions found through conservatism are closer to Catholic Church doctrine than those found on the liberal side of the political spectrum. For instance, conservatism isn’t anti-environmental, but it certainly is against the environmentalism currently espoused by the left which is inherently anti-human and promotes the culture of death.

Excuse me?
Are you saying that suggesting that man has a part to play in global warming is extreme leftist and anti life?

When has the church spoken out against this?


The environmental movement is currently owned by the extreme left which is beholden to the culture of death.

For one - there is no proof man has much, if any, part in “global warming”. Yes, I do believe there may be some sort of global climate change, but there is also climate change in many areas of our universe, it is occuring on Jupiter as well, but I don’t think humans are driving SUV’s there. :wink:

I think there are already threads debating man’s involvement in global warming so you could check there for discussion or we could start another thread.

My point was that the left certainly does not own Christian morality, it may sound nice to be for social welfare, after all who really wants people to go hungry, or without medical coverage, etc., but many of the programs proposed by the left usually do more harm than good and many times deny the human dignity inherent in all of us. One shouldn’t dismiss conversative ideals because it may violate some sort of sense of one’s own wisdom.

How come the conservative party here is pro environment in a way you would call ‘extreme left’. Since when was this part of conservative ideology? It seems to be a tenet only from american conservatives.
Then again many people here think everyone is socialist in Europe :rolleyes:

In my country the global warming issue is definitely the song of the socialist left, the same people who want unlimited abortion, homosexual marriage and euthanasia.

Certainly we, as human beings must be more resonsible for our environment and do everything we can to reduce polution, reduce unecessary energy use and recycle what we can. However, the climate change lobby have lied, lied massively, about what has been happening to our climate over the years. Any scientist , and there are lots of them, who attempts to produce facts that refute the “global warming caused by humans” hypothesis is screamed down.

Here in my country the Evangelicals have traditionally stood for orthodox views on marriage, pornography, etc. However, it is true that in recent years some, who still call themselves Evangelicals, are starting to take more and more liberal views on moral issues.

Sorry I missed the give and take in this thread the last couple of days.

You’re right that the Evangelicals don’t have a defining body; but now, after 100 yrs of growth, (here in the U.S., because that is what I’m familiar with), they are realizing that they NEED a defining body, like a Magisterium, like the Vatican; only the nature of evangelical, protestantism, is very individual, and therefore fractured, and not unified. I was Catholic, then evangelical, and am now Catholic again. Only I will never cease to be evangelical in the term that we are to be lights to the world and evangelize and fulfill the Great Commission.

I see this organization, the National Evangelicals, recognizing a need to become unified, but they will never be able to do it. Talk about watering down the gospel to the least common denomination! :wink: It can’t happen. They will need a leader, a Pope. When I was evangelical, my “Pope” and the “Pope” of my evangelical friends, was Dr. James Dobson. :eek: He seemed to espouse many of our beliefs.

When I came back to my Catholic faith, Church leadership and Church Authority were some of the defining factors in my reversion. As part of my story, I like to say that we are all born with a “pope shaped void in our hearts.” :stuck_out_tongue:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit