Saturday, December 13, 2008

Is the NAE Becoming Like the NEA? Part 6


WASHINGTON, D.C. I first saw this good news in NewsBustersTim Graham’s article, “
Evangelical Spokesman Resigns After Telling NPR (Homosexual ‘Marriage’), Abortion are Negotiable.” In that news article, Graham wrote, The Washington Post reported Friday that Richard Cizik resigned his position as spokesman and vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals after he declared he was "shifting" toward supporting civil unions for homosexual couples in a December 2 National Public Radio interview. Post reporter Jacqueline Salmon explained the remark was "anathema to most evangelical Christians, who believe that the Bible permits marriage only between a man and a woman."

I received word of the Cizik resignation when I as in the midst of writing this series of articles, which I began this past Sunday, which is based on the 20 minute Rev. Richard Cizik interview on the NPR Fresh Air radio show. The series is based primarily on the God-insulting, impertinent, insolent responses of Cizik, the (now former) VP of Governmental Affairs with the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), in an interview he gave to the NPR radio show (Fresh Air) hostess Terri Gross.


I will go ahead and post the article I had originally intended to post prior to the Cizik resignation. Today’s article contains more excerpts from the NPR Fresh Air interview of Rev. Richard Cizik. I have included extensive excerpts of the words of this false witness, because they build a case against him. His words incriminate him. This article deals with same-sex ‘marriage,’ misrepresenting the Bible, and Ciziks controversial call for government supplied contraception. Any of these three insults to true Christianity would be grounds for purging this wolf from his position of leadership and authority.

My question is, “Did Cizik quit willingly, or was he forced to resign? More importantly, how deep into the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has his malignant cancerous apostasy spread? Why was Cizik allowed to represent this so-called organization that is supposed to represent Christians? How compromised is the entire organization? How complicit is NAE's President, Leith Anderson, then and other leaders in their slide to apostasy and compromise with the world?

Going into the New Year it would be most advisable for the Board of Directors of the NAE to examine and evaluate itself and its leaders and either resign or repent of their evil ways in light of the need for effective and true Christian witness to an America and a world growing morally and spiritually darker by the day. This darkness is not due to global warming, but to global ignoring of God and repeatedly spitting in His glorious face.

Here are more examples of Cizik’s, and maybe the NAE’s, own misleading positions:


The Left can never promote the perverse homosexual lifestyle enough. Terri Gross returns to the left’s favorite cause celeb with this inquiry of Cizik, “I wanted to ask you, you wanted to identify with the concerns and priorities of younger evangelical voters. And one of those priorities is more of an acceptance of homosexuality and (homosexual) ‘marriage’? A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that and two years ago you said you were still opposed to (homosexual) ‘marriage,’ but now as you identify more with the younger voters and their priorities, have you changed on (homosexual) ‘marriage?’"

Astoundingly, for a person who claims that he is a follower of Jesus Christ, Cizik blindly boasts, “I am shifting, I would have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition. I don’t think.

“We have this tension going on in the movement between what is church-building and what is nation-building. And I lean in this spectrum at times; maybe we should concentrate on building our values in our own movement. We have become so absorbed in the question of (homosexual) rights and the rest, that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself, heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to re-evaluate this, and look at it a little differently.”


Cizik continues, “I am always looking for ways to reframe issues, give the Biblical point of view a different slant, if you will. And would that we have to the whole world, literally, the planet is changing around us. If you don’t change the way you think and adapt, especially to things like climate change. scientists like Bob Doppelt, he says if you don’t adapt and change your thinking you may ultimately be a loser because climate change in his mind, and he is a systems analyst, says has the capacity to determine the winners and losers. Your life, ah, will never be the same – growing up during, I say, the great warming. Our grandparents grew up during the Great Depression, our parents, well they, ah, lived in the aftermath of that, and became probably the most, well, greediest generation ,and our generation, this young one, needs to be the greenest."


Gross interjected, “ . . . of BeliefNet raised the question, that I want to put to you, “Barack Obama supports the right to have an abortion, but he also advocates reducing the number of abortions, when possible. Will you support him in abortion reduction? Or do you see that as diversion from the work of banning or restriction abortion?"

Cizik amazingly unequivocally and without qualification or without addressing Obama's radical pro-abortion stance, said,I will support him. I will support Barack Obama in finding ways to reduce abortions, absolutely.”

Gross pounces on the thought, “Is that controversial within the evangelical movement?”

Cizik quickly responds, “For some, yes, I have already been called one of the devil’s minions for taking this position.”

Gross clarifies, “Is it seen as compromising?”

Cizik responds, “Yes, it seems compromising. And, the fact again, the “winner take all” mentality, (which says) that you have to have it all. In politics I have learned that over many years that 'less is more.' I think finding those who are in trouble, in crisis, and helping them through this. And if need be, even supplying what government presently doesn’t do, namely, contraception is an answer to reducing, you see, unintended pregnancies.”

Gross not her ears, again giddily interrupts, “Wait, wait, I think I heard you say that that government supplying contraception? That has got to be controversial among evangelicals.”

Among some it would be,” Cizik says, “But I don’t think so. We are not, as I have said previously; we are not Catholics who oppose contraception, per se. And let’s face it, what do you want? Do you want and 'unintended pregnancy' that results in abortion, or do you want to meet a woman’s need in crisis, who frankly would by better contraception would avoid that abortion, that we all recognize as mmmmmmorally (he had a hard time saying that word) repugnant, at least it is to me.”


Cizik equates the false and deliberately misleadingly environmentalism 'going green' foolishness with real sacred and biblical virtues such as giving or joy etc. Pure poppycock!

Cizik strikes me as a man who has a form of godliness, but who denies its power.
Where is the Biblical message and mandate of abstinence and purity and saving oneself for marriage? Cizik is supposed to be representing people who follow the teachings of Jesus. Where is natural birth control and self-control, which is also a Christian virtue? No mention. A great number of unintended pregnancies happen to promiscuous youth, even young evangelicals. No condemnation of a selfish, self-centered God-dishonoring promiscuous lifestyle. Apparently because it is not politically correct? You, Rev. Cizik, are an appeaser, a compromiser, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a misleader.

Where is the spiritual guidance and admonition to be chaste and pure and virtuous, Rev. Cizik? It is not there in any of your remarks. Cizik’s words throughout the entire NPR interview reflect a spiritual and moral bankruptcy.


The NAE, itself, now may be in need of a bailout, a spiritual renewal and return to Biblical and moral basics. Cizik’s resignation will not be enough. Is he the cancer, or is he just the sore that has been exposed or has become visible on the surfaced of the body and more cancer exists in the patient?’

My advice to the NAE would be that going forward the NAE reexamine itself, its foundational beliefs thoroughly and reorder itself to be a God-honoring entity for Christ, which it is not today. Then, it needs to appoint a spokesperson who could battle on the side of God in the spiritual war, which will be protracted and will escalate in 2009 and beyond. The NAE needs to be light and salt and model that for all Christians, instead of being conformed to and being compromised by the world as Cizik most definitely was.

The NAE needs to either aggressively, lovingly, passionately and uncompromisingly stand for Christ as His and His Church’s representative, or it needs to disband as an organization. There is no common ground with Satan and evil. There is no compromise with the world.

It is obvious that Cizik viewed Christianity as merely in political terms, and not spiritual resulting exclusively from a relationship with God that unities a body of true believers or Christ-followers. True Christians, because they have a personal and intimate relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, are different. Cizik was indistinguishable from the world. I fear that the NAE is in danger of becoming, if it is not already there, more and more like the thoroughly wicked and worldly NEA.

1 comment:

  1. I agree with his statement:

    "We have become so absorbed in the question of (homosexual) rights and the rest, that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself, heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to re-evaluate this, and look at it a little differently."

    But the fact that he supports same-sex civil unions is disgusting. We need to "reframe" the issue by getting rid government rules which encourage divorce and marriage for the wrong reasons (i.e. tax breaks).

    As far as the environmental issue is concerned, there is real damage being done to the environment and many are suffering ill effects of this. But government regulations and its own pollution are more the cause of this than lack of regulations.

    I don't think that there is anything wrong with ways of preventing conception within a marriage relationship, but its disgusting to promote promiscuity by teaching unmarried adolescents and children how to do this or giving them contraceptives.