:: In.a.Mirror.Dimly ::

Richard Cizik has “stepped down” from his post vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals all because he used the words “I’m shifting” in response to a question from Terry Gross about same sex civil unions, not to mention strongly hinting he supported Obama. When doing so, he used the first person pronoun. He also shared that he speaks more for the younger Evangelicals in the movement.

He was ultimately pressured to resign because he supposedly did not properly represent the Evangelical movement. When it comes to gay marriage, Cizik is not allowed nuance. He still strongly believes that marriage should be defined in terms of a man and a woman. It was only in the case of civil unions that he found some room for his “shifting.” This was apparently too much for the majority of the NAE constituency, even if he truly was representing many, such as myself, who found his nuanced approach a breath of fresh air.

However, when Cizik is speaking of something a little less controversial, such as the environment, he’s apparently allowed to speak for himself and not the the movement. He’s allowed to represent the minority views, having lobbied within the Evangelical establishment for a solid 20 years to put creation care at the top of our agenda, to say nothing of other issues. And by the way, Cizik has consistently been ahead of the curve. But now grace has been withdrawn. Check out this interview with NAE president Leith Anderson at Christianity Today:

CT: “Cizik has been a strong advocate for creation care and has gone into specifics about whether global warming is manmade and issues like that. Some have said he hasn’t been representative of the constituency on that front. What would be your response?

LA: “For the Health of the Nation” does state that creation care is one of our priorities. It does not state in that document that we have a specific position, because we don’t, on global warming or emissions. So he has spoken as an individual on that. However, to most of our constituents, marriage and related moral issues are of greater importance and significance than specific stances on the climate.”

When asked for a specific NAE position on the topics in the Gross interview such as same sex civil unions, Anderson didn’t know. In fact, he said that Cizik did a poor job of representing the views of the NAE, but then was reluctant to list them.

CT: “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?

LA: “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.”

Am I the only one seeing a double-standard here?

So why was Cizik canned? He’s been allowed some latitude with the environment. He’s been allowed to speak his mind and to openly share the perspectives of minority groups within the movement. It seems that as spokesman he has traditionally been in a minority position on some issues, but keep in mind that the NAE represents more than just a group fighting abortion and gay marriage. In fact, what this controversy shows is the NAE is defining itself according to these two issues, even if an Evangelical is defined by broad theological categories related to salvation, scripture, and God. Have a look at the statement of faith from the NAE web site:

• We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

• We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

• We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

• We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

• We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

• We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

• We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Cizik did not violate any of these. He didn’t even betray traditional marriage. His offense was offering civil rights to homosexual couples who otherwise would have no way of sharing healthcare or legally caring for one another.

Gay marriage should not be the make or break issue for any Evangelical. There may be a majority position, but if a spokesman says he’s shifting a bit on that issue, big deal. There are plenty of other issues in which Cizik is representing the majority. The truth is that we’ve chosen this one issue to make or break our movement. It’s convenient to hide our anti-gay bigotry behind Biblical commands, and with Cizik out of the way, we need not trouble our conscience with the possibility that someone can actually hold a nuanced position that doesn’t approve homosexuality in a moral sense, but allows it to exist in civil society.

Being an Evangelical is no longer about the inspiration of scripture or salvation through Jesus. We have made homosexuality our litmus test, and to be frank, it’s sickening. We have crowded out diversity in our camp and exiled those who raise uncomfortable issues. And as such, we will continue to become more insular and combative as we lose touch with our world and continue to wage culture wars, instead of thoughtfully engaging with the major issues of our time.

How can we ever expect to evangelize while fighting civil battles such as gay marriage? Where is the Gospel in this? This is not an evangelical practice. This is a fight to impose morality on our nation, rather than share the love of God in the Gospel message.

We have in fact, become anti-gospel, by making the abolition of gay rights a goal. If we really want to see our nation become moral, which is a dubious goal without the Kingdom of God, we should preach the Gospel and encourage discussion about complicated issues such as same sex civil unions. It is in Christ that we find our unity, and unless that happens, the Evangelical movement will fall short of its commission to go and make disciples.

For another response to this, see Jim Wallis.