Get E-Mail Updates

Rich Cizik, Pioneer for New Evangelicals, Resigns from NAE

Rich Cizik has been a pioneer in the "new evangelical" movement and a real hero, especially to the next generation of young believers. Rich has helped lead the way to putting "creation care" and climate change on the mainstream agenda of the evangelical movement. His pilgrimage to a deep passion for the planet that God made for us has been, in his own language, a "conversion" and an "epiphany." Because of that, he has become a powerful spokesperson for many in the Christian world who are having that same conversion.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

The agenda of the evangelical world is deeper and wider because of Rich Cizik. In addition to the environment and climate change, Cizik has also led on the fundamental moral and biblical issues of global poverty and commitments like the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), human trafficking, religious liberty, genocide in Darfur, and foreign policy issues like torture and even nuclear weapons. The NAE's critically important statement, "For the Health of the Nation", bears powerful witness to the wider agenda that is the shape of the new evangelical movement in America, and certainly around the world-especially for the next generation.

But Rich Cizik resigned this week, at the request of the NAE, because of things he said in an NPR interview with Terry Gross. The controversy of some of Rich's statements, in particular his "shifting" feelings about gay civil unions, admitting that he voted for Barack Obama in the primaries, and implying that he did so in the general election, caused so much controversy in some quarters of the NAE's constituency that the Executive Committee felt they had no choice but to suggest resignation, which Rich quickly but sadly accepted.

Rich Cizik still supports the Christian tradition of marriage between a man and a woman, which he reiterated after the interview, and that his strong pro-life commitments certainly included abortion, even though in the interview he said that pro-life commitments should include more than just abortion. He pointed out in the interview that younger evangelicals don't have all the same views on gay and lesbian rights as their parents do, that more of them have friendships with gay people, and that more are sympathetic to their equal protection under the law and issues like civil unions. Cizik admitting that he identified with those shifts created the firestorm.

All of this is very sad for many reasons. Rich has served the NAE, the evangelical movement, the wider church, and the wider world in such a dynamic, creative, and courageous way for 28 years, and for that service to end over the words of an interview is sad indeed. Already, leaders from many faith traditions, including many national evangelical leaders, have expressed great dismay at the loss of Rich Cizik in such a key role. And the Religious Right is already using Cizik's resignation to attempt to roll back the wider social justice and environmental agenda of the NAE. In a particularly bizarre statement, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said:

This is the risk of walking through the green door of environmentalism and global warming -- you risk being blinded by the green light and losing your sense of direction.

But NAE President Leith Anderson made clear that the NAE had no intention of retreating from the commitments of "For the Health of the Nation" and, while he defended the need for the resignation of Rich Cizik, said that it "saddened him" and was "personally painful."

I personally trust Leith Anderson's and the NAE Executive Committee's commitment to the wider evangelical agenda beyond just abortion and gay marriage, but also feel deeply saddened by these events. And I encourage the NAE's leadership to stay on the path they have chosen and resist the efforts of those who would again seek to narrow the evangelical agenda in unbiblical ways and make it again subservient to a conservative political agenda.

As for Rich Cizik, he will continue to be a leader in the new faith coalition that is emerging now, and that will replace the Religious Right, without becoming a Religious Left. Pioneers sometimes get into trouble and even pay a price for their explorations into new territories. But in the new moral center that is now visible, Rich's prophetic voice and leadership will continue to be heard and felt.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: junglecat

12-14-2008 @ 2:34am

The point of public funding for abortion is to increase the number of abortions. Public funding for abortions may not increase the number, but, if so, such an initiative would be a failure. Aside from that, you don't present any evidence that "economic support for families will save pre-born lives". That's not its point, and, furthermore, I doubt that most aborted feti are the offspring of a married couples (i.e. families). I anticipate you pointing to the reduction in the number of abortions during the Clinton years. This is usually what "pro-life" Democrats point to; unfortunately, there is not much evidence that this reduction resulted from any act of Bill Clinton. On the contrary, ti was the result of efforts by brave governors like Robert Casey (who opposed Clinton in the first primary and considered doing so in the second). Casey managed to strictly regulate abortion in his home state of Pennsylvania while, at the same time, having to endure the censure and mockery of his fellow Democrats--if not colleagues--at the DNC. They even held up signs with of his head superimposed on a pope outfit. Unfortunately, everything that men like Governor Casey built up is now very likely to be torn down by the new president-elect--he has even publicly expressed interest in doing so--and I suppose that all of those who, for some reason or another, thought that he was pro-life are also some of the people that Barack Obama can thank for his soon-to-be-present ability to carry out his wishes.

by: PC4Love

12-14-2008 @ 1:15pm

And lok how so wrong the "flat earth" thought was. Now that we know right from wrong, shouldn't we choose right. Abortion is wrong...there is no value in it, why then allow goverment funding to support abortion.

Should we publically fund slavery, oh wait did at one time and how wrong was that?

by: 3glassesfull

12-19-2008 @ 4:10pm

i have struggled with the idea that good shouldn't have to be rewarded. it should be a natural thing to make the right choices- taking care of a neighbor, returning a wallet, or even reporting an under-charge on a receipt. Unfortunately, society norm seems to be an attitude of entitlement rather than doing good is a reward in itself.
How did we get here? Is it the church's fault?? So sad.....

by: kevin47

12-15-2008 @ 6:28pm

Um, how could he argue with that logic? If a subsidy doesn't increase prevalence, what is the point of the subsidy?

by: kevin47

12-15-2008 @ 6:32pm

This is ridiculous. If someone asks you what will happen if they fling themselves off a cliff, and you tell them they will die, you are dispensing common sense, and using past experience (people who fling themselves off cliffs die) as a guide.

Actually, the notion of a flat earth wasn't common sense. It flew in the face of easily observed phenomena. It was also disproven. None of this is true of the non-controversial idea that subsidies for abortion will increase the number of abortions.

by: kevin47

12-15-2008 @ 6:51pm

For those who were truly seeking a new way on evangelical environmentalism, this is terrible news.

Cizik's comments (ambiguous or not) reinforce the link between "green" advocacy and a host of other leftist issues. While Tony Perkins' response is poorly considered, it does does reflect a gut reaction among those who simply see "broadening the discussion" as shorthand for "voting for Democrats instead of Republicans".

Perhaps Cizik supports legal, traditional marriage and remains opposed to legal abortion. But when he parrots the language of those who, once their cards are finally on the table, unequivocally support the Democratic party, what are we to conclude?

by: PASTOR JEFF

12-16-2008 @ 2:14am

Oh, I get it finally! The problem with the proliferation of the poor is that we keep subsidizing them; ergo "increased prevalence" of them.
Logic and common sense have overwhelmed me. I've decided to throw research to the wind. (unless it can be used to prop up my new found position, based completely in subjectivity) I see that the abortion issue is all about a group of evil abortionists and their wicked financiers sitting around and planning to murder children in their wombs for profit and the president-elect is committed to this "industry" like Bush was committed to the oil industry. What must the conspiratorial conversation of those death brokers contain? We can certainly speculate.Ain't illumination grand?

(Just thought I'd post something worthy of the points vampire)

by: jesse3

12-16-2008 @ 3:09am

Pastor Jeff,
The study Sojo publicized earlier this year found that public funding was associated with increases. So did this peer-reviewed study (Sojo's was not), which found that greater access and public funding predicted higher abortion rates: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9089921

As far as policies to reduce abortions are concerned, the evidence that social welfare policies will do so is mixed at best: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.p... . It also runs up against the fact that poor women are LESS likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy than middle and upper income women. See here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/380900... and go to Table 1 to see that poor women are less likely to abort an unintended pregnancy (42%) than those whose incomes are at 200% above the poverty line (54%).

by: BlueDeacon

12-16-2008 @ 3:15am

I live in Pennsylvania, and I can tell you that Casey did nothing of the kind. In fact, he once vetoed an anti-abortion bill because he knew wouldn't pass constitutional muster before signing a much weaker one that was upheld by the SCOTUS. And BTW, Casey hated Clinton's guts, which is why he was tearing him down at every opportunity when travelling the state in 1991. (That was the real reason the DNC wouldn't allow him to speak at the conventions.)

by: PASTOR JEFF

12-16-2008 @ 3:33am

Thank you, Jesse.

by: junglecat

12-16-2008 @ 4:39am

I just brought up the case of Casey so that no one would accuse me of being a partisan hack. Of course Casey hated Bill Clinton and the Democratic establishment; and they hated him too for opposing abortion. But if your point is that its impossible for a Democrat to be pro-life, I'll grant that it would be difficult for me to dispute that claim. If there is a single Democrat with more than a 75% rating from the NLRC, I don't know whom. Many Republicans have 100% ratings.Anyway, the main point stands: the decrease in the number of abortions was because of the actions of state governments more than any federal aid program. If you want more data on this, you should go to the Witherspoon Institute's website or check out an article by Robert George called "Barack Obama's pro-Abortion Extremism". Anyway, President Clinton did meet to thirds of his promise; he made abortion safe and legal; but he didn't follow through on the rare part.

by: BlueDeacon

12-16-2008 @ 4:48am

Casey didn't make it particularly rare, either, truth be told. Something else, too: He outright lied to get elected the second time because he knew he had only token opposition, and the state is still suffering. On top of that, in 1994 Harris Wofford, whom he hand-picked after the death of John Heinz, waffled on the abortion issue and Casey thus refused to endorse him. That's why we had Rick Santorum for 12 years. Ironically, Casey Jr. unseated him, but of course he endorsed Obama early on.

As for being a "pro-life" Democrat, probably the vast majority of Democrats in Pennsylvania outside Philadelphia are pro-life, so I don't see what the issue is.

by: junglecat

12-16-2008 @ 6:00am

Define "pro-life"

by: BlueDeacon

12-16-2008 @ 6:06am

It usually means simply anti-abortion; however, since probably the majority of Democratic politicians are Catholic they likely subscribe to the "seamless garment" philosophy (which I agree with). Both Caseys, for example, were staunch union supporters, and Casey Sr. wanted to expand state help for unwed mothers and stuff like that (if I remember correctly).

by: junglecat

12-16-2008 @ 6:08am

If you happen to check out this website http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.p... you will see that Casey did a much better job of making abortion rare than did Bill Clinton

by: junglecat

12-16-2008 @ 6:08am

If you happen to check out this website http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.p... you will see that Casey did a much better job of making abortion rare than did Bill Clinton

by: Schuh

12-19-2008 @ 8:19pm

Thank you, West! I also find a great deal of encouragement from the Sojo community around all kinds of issues but find it puzzling that so many here are willing to leave the church's 'conventional wisdom' about the Bible and homosexuality unexamined. You are absolutely right to put the emphasis on covenant rather than biology -- this, it appears to me, is the thrust of the biblical witness about human relationships.

by: junglecat

12-16-2008 @ 6:17am

Many Catholic Democratic politicians--with a few notable exceptions, like Murtha and Casey, Jr. who nonetheless don't bother challenging the establishment of their party--use the "seamless garment" as something to hide behind rather than propagate. They treat issues like the death penalty and abortion as though they were morally equivalent, whereas almost anyone at any other time in history would have known the silliness of this ideology.

by: junglecat

12-16-2008 @ 6:35am

Just noticed the link takes you to the right neighborhood but not the right page. So check out "Public Discourse" Michael New on Oct. 30th

by: BlueDeacon

12-16-2008 @ 2:42pm

Should we publically fund slavery, oh wait did at one time and how wrong was that?

You're on shaky ground here. Many of the people, especially in the South, who oppose abortion today would have supported slavery back then -- remember that the Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian churches split over the issue on regional lines. And it was the landowners who supported slavery because of its profitability.

by: WitnessforPeace

12-16-2008 @ 2:55pm

Well put. Thank you

by: WitnessforPeace

12-16-2008 @ 3:00pm

I disagree. The government has a right to regulate marriage. The tendency is to insist"No, they don't" The most obvious barrier, now being stormed, is choosing the sex of one's marriage partner. (Note that gay or straight, EVERYONE always had the option to marry a person of the opposite sex, and many did). Since polygamy has a long history, it is the next "right" to be implemented. In this case it will be a restoration. Vigorously opposed by many, but legally very logical.
Of more concern is the means chosen: diktat from the courts, as opposed to reasoned debate within legislatures. This actually concerns me much more because it is an assault on democracy. I understand that my Christian values will not always be enshrined in legislation, whether it's peacemaking, fair taxation, or protecting marriage as it has always been understood by diverse religions.

by: coreypaul

01-13-2009 @ 10:52am

What is wrong with the "Religious Left"?

People who care about others who are religious is a bad thing?

Wow.

by: coreypaul

01-13-2009 @ 12:52pm

What is wrong with the "Religious Left"?

People who care about others who are religious is a bad thing?

Wow.

by: ozdoc

12-18-2008 @ 7:20pm

I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that allowing gay marriage will lead to polygamy. I mean, polygamy came before monogamy... the OT almost entirely describes marriage as polygamous. It wouldn't be something new. (I do not intend to say that we should go toward a polygamous society, I just say it's not a "forward" looking direction.)

For that matter, the argument that marriage was Biblically defined as one man and one woman isn't that legit, seeing as how there were so many polygamists in the Bible.

by: NMRod

12-12-2008 @ 9:19pm

The reality is that given the deterioration of availability of essentials like health care, the ability to establish legal relationships among people other than marriage, in order to obtain them, has become a necessity.

There would be no need for civil unions based on humanitarian access if it weren't for the many other anomalies in how selfishly we relate to one another in our stratified, "winner takes all" society.

It's not that I oppose gay "marriage" - it's that by definition such a thing is an impossibility and "legalizing" it is equivalent to legislatures or courts pretending that Pi is 3 instead of 3.14159+.

However, people ought to be able to determine how they want to be able to distribute their assets for purposes of inheritance or providing health care to one another, and so allowing some definition of "civil relationships" that aren't necessarily based on any sexual relationship aren't out of line in a purely legal sense. In a system where we really don't provide any safety nets, we need to empower people to take care of one another without punishment, rewarding responsibility for being one's brother's keeper.

by: MWorrell

12-12-2008 @ 9:38pm

I heard the NPR interview, and I have to admit it gave me pause, only because there was no further explanation of Cizik's fairly opaque statement about gay marriage. I have firm religious views regarding marriage, but I support domestic partnerships. I believe the government needs to provide a basic civil union that everyone can participate in, and leave the definition of marriage to the church and the individual.

I heard another man some years ago on NPR's "Fresh Air", a sociologist (not a priest or pastor), expressing his apprehension at the prospect of legally redefining marriage. He was essentially saying that there is absolutely no precedent for it, and that it is indeed a huge matter to move away from an understanding of marriage which is based on ancient societal and biological imperatives, not individual actualization.

I simply agree with that, and I would hold this view apart from any faith. Beyond that, if we say right now, "Marriage is now expanded to include two men or two women", that is flatly unconstitutional by contemporary reasoning. I understand that this is an emotional issue, but you can't base your laws on emotions, even one as central as love.Marriage, for all of history, has been based on a biological reality that exists exclusively between a man and a woman. It is unique to the sexual union of a man and a woman, and it produces children in most cases.

The term "Girl Scout" means something specific, based on biology (I understand that there is a radical understanding of gender identity that would suggest that a biological male can be female in gender, but that's specious at best). When we deny boys the right to join Girl Scouts, we are not discriminating, and it is constitutional to do so. We are recognizing a separateness that is rooted in biology. When we deny girls the right to join the football team, that is another matter. You don't need a penis to play football. But if you have a penis, you cannot be a girl. You're still equal to girls, but you can't join the Girl Scouts.

With very few exceptions, we all get this, and it is a completely non-religious viewpoint.

Currently, marriage is a unique state based on unique biological facts and capabilities. That is the sole reason for marriage, historically. It is the only reason we can define it at all.

If we change that, we have stepped out of the biological and into the completely arbitrary. If we say, "These two men can get married, but not three", we have drawn an arbitrary moral boundary that infringes on the constitutional rights of a polygamist. What is the constitutional basis for that? Can I marry my uncle so that he can get health benefits on my family insurance plan, if we share a residence? If marriage grants me rights I otherwise can't have, who is anyone to exclude us as a family if we choose to define ourselves that way?

If same-sex marriage proponents categorize those concerns as absurd, they discriminate, and they find themselves imposing a personal morality on those who do not share it (sound familiar?).

I find it far more constitutionally sound to say that any group of people who want to share a residence and be a household or family unit can do so, with a domestic partnership. I don't see how any other boundary isn't exclusionary and discriminatory once we jettison the biological uniqueness of marriage.

I think younger evangelicals are coming to terms with these realities, but the transition will be rocky for some time.

by: macmania

12-12-2008 @ 9:48pm

It is for this very kind of "litmus" test with regard to a specific political stand that I departed from the religious right - much to their relief. I am also saddened by these events, yet encouraged as evangelicals move forward into a much broader and more effective conversation within the context of humanity. I also believe that Richard will have a greater impact now that he has made made this move. The NAE has been rocked of late and his leaving does create a void and reveals more of the fissures in the structure of an organization that may very well be in it's twilight.

by: conradsteinhoff

12-12-2008 @ 10:49pm

The slippery-slope arguement, in this case, that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy is disingenuous. The question is not where will gay marriage lead, but whether gay marriage is to be legalized or not. I think the consternation over this issue is transitory, since the anxious ones are mostly old people like me. Once we are dead or too old to care, the younger folks will legalize it without any visible catastrophic results, and everybody will be happy - including God, I believe.

by: erbe

12-12-2008 @ 11:58pm

Why do Christians want to get involved in a battle with secular society over the definition of marriage? Let them do what they will. Like divorce, we take our marriage vows "before" God, "for better or worse, till death do us part" and then ask a court to dissolve the marriage. What "world" do we want to live in?

by: jeffp

12-13-2008 @ 12:19am

I suppose if someone at SOJO had a conversion (Wallis's term) experience that caused him/her to no longer be compatible with SOJO this person would also resign. No Big deal. Judge not Jim, you might find yourself (SOJO) in the same position some day. You will likely want the grace from others that allows SOJO and a non-compatible friend to move on peacefully.

by: west

12-18-2008 @ 11:03pm

"Marriage, for all of history, has been based on a biological reality that exists exclusively between a man and a woman... Currently marriage is a unique state based on unique biological facts and capabilities. That is the sole reason for marriage, historically."

This is not true. Historically, marriage has not been about sex or procreation, because neither need an institution to support them. Marriage has been about social and economic relationships - caring for widowed family members, keeping wealth, gaining wealth, creating or maintaining political ties, etc. This is the cynical but true reality of how marriage has functioned as a social institution throughout history.

But marriage is more than this. It is also a sacrament carried out before God and a religious community. Marriage as a religious sacrament is not primarily about sex or procreation; it is about a relationship between two people who are making a commitment to love and cherish one another for the rest of their lives. Marriage is a holy and even miraculous event, during which, through the grace and power of God, two people become one.

Who are any of us to limit the power of God, through this sacrament, to join together two people who love each other? (And it is quite easy to distinguish two people from three or more.)

As a lesbian, it is so painful that my progressive Christian brothers and sisters would refuse me that sacrament with the person I love.

As a Christian, it is disheartening that a discussion of marriage would revolve around the biology of procreation rather than how God and a Christian community bless and support a relationship.

My experiences at Sojourners events are a large part of why I am going to divinity school. But I find myself wondering, where is my place in this movement?

by: junglecat

12-13-2008 @ 12:47am

I'm sure that Cizik's accomplishments as a leader of the NAE were substantial. (So were the accomplishments of GWB before he became president in 2000.) That being said, I have no clue how he could egregiously look the other way on Barack Obama's abortion record while condemning John McCain as anti-life for supporting military action in Iraq. I thought that Mr. Cizik was a principled individual. But he and "the New Evangelicals" (who have changed their name, even though they aren't really particularly new, or particularly evangelical) were pandered to and used by the Obama team. What are they going to get for it?

by: ando

12-13-2008 @ 12:57am

I would like Mr. Wallis to comment on how he and Sojo are not the Religious Left. Just what is it then, if it does not include Sojo?

by: PC4Love

12-23-2008 @ 1:01am

The argument is pro abortion vs. anti abortion....for those I am pro life...I am against the death penalty, I am against this war and most wars and I am against genocide.

I think most people who say that they are prolife are actually anti abortion.

by: Eric77

12-13-2008 @ 1:45am

Very well written.

I would like to clarify something Jim wrote.

Jim wrote that "The controversy of some of Rich's statements, in particular his "shifting" feelings about gay civil unions, admitting that he voted for Barack Obama in the primaries, and implying that he did so in the general election, caused so much controversy in some quarters of the NAE's constituency that the Executive Committee felt they had no choice but to suggest resignation, which Rich quickly but sadly accepted"

This statement might be interpreted to mean that Rich voting for Obama was a problem with NAE. According to the President of the NAE, Leith Anderson, it wasn't for whom Rich voted that was the problem; it was that he admitted who he voted for publicly. According to Anderson, NAE doesn't want its leaders to say who they vote for. They want to present an appearance of non-partisanship.

It sounds like the main reason for having to let Rich go was his ambiguous statement on civil unions. It's unfortunate it came to this.

by: PASTOR JEFF

12-13-2008 @ 2:01am

Here's a clue. Obama's initiatives re; economic support for families will save pre-born lives while McCain's support for military aggression takes lives and livelihoods.

by: Eric77

12-13-2008 @ 3:12am

Unfortunately, Obama supports public funding of abortions, which will result in more abortions, not less. Read the statement below. This is not a man who sees abortion as a necessary evil, who flinches at the idea of abortion, or hurts for the lives lost to it. He wants to be seen as a crusader for the right to abortion.

www dot barackobama dot com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php

It's either complete pandering or it's a sad remark on his way of thinking about the issue.

by: PASTOR JEFF

12-13-2008 @ 3:15am

Could you supply me with evidence that public funding of abortions leads to more of them?

by: SisterMarie

12-13-2008 @ 3:25am

This action by the NAE comes as no surprise. They have been looking for an excuse to get rid of him ever since his statements on the environment which got their leadership all ticked off. The last straw was publicly admitting that he voted for Obama.

As far as I can tell, they have not revealed who, exactly made the decision to oust Cizik. Apparently, they are a very secretive organization as their web-site lists only the 5 executive leadership and not the entire NAE Board.

by: ando

12-13-2008 @ 3:26am

So, how about two men and one woman, or two women and one man? How about two and two? If you get tired of one, there's always the other. That would lessen the number of divorces, perhaps. We could just get rid of sin, once and for all. Oh, except for sins inflicted on the poor.

Again, meet our new boss, same as the old boss.

by: Eric77

12-13-2008 @ 4:08am

Have you ever heard of a subsidy that doesn't result in greater consumption of something?

by: dlowen

12-13-2008 @ 5:21am

Can someone explain to me the statement that there is no precedent for redefining marriage, or as Mike Huckabee said recently that marriage has been defined for 5000 years as being between one man and one woman? Do we close one eye to the polygamy in the Old Testament? What about the wives and concubines of David and Solomon? Remember Solomon's foreign WIVES led him away from the Lord? Gideon had 70 sons because he had many wives. Laban tricked Jacob into marrying Leah when he wanted Rachel. No problem, just work another seven years and then marry Rachel too. Amram married his aunt. The Levite women had to marry Levites or they could not eat the temple bread. Etc.

Of course, this is not the way we look at marriage today, but none the less, the definition of marriage has changed greatly over the years and from one culture to another. I think the slippery slope starts with substituting myths for history.

"I was against gay marriage until I realized I didn't have to get one." James Carville

by: srta_jenn

12-13-2008 @ 5:33am

I think we can all be proud of Rich Cizik for his courageous, thoughtful, and Biblical views. Rather than mourn a bad situation, we should rejoice. This appears to be God at work, releasing Rev. Cizik from his position at the NAE to make him available for a new work that God has for him to do. Perhaps head of the Obama administration's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives?

by: PASTOR JEFF

12-13-2008 @ 6:06am

Thanks for the concrete evidence I can use to refute abortion supporters. How could the President-elect argue with that logic?

by: cmw47

12-13-2008 @ 1:30pm

Thank you, Pastor Jeff, for bringing some common sense to this important issue.

by: cmw47

12-13-2008 @ 1:31pm

Amen.

by: PC4Love

12-13-2008 @ 2:43pm

Pastor Jeff, I am sure you argue for gun control. However, I submit your same "common sense logic" that gun control keeps crime rates down especially that of violent crimes.

See with public(government) funded abortion you enable more people to get abortions. It should not be made easier to obtain abortion. Because the federal government has CONTROL over the abortion, they take away the rights of parents of underage minors (which is wrong).

I am not saying outlaw abortion. What I am saying the federal has no business in the abortion business (just like they have no business in the plastic surgery business) isn't it all about the choice of the individual.

Why should my tax money go to give an abortion which I personally don't agree?

Pastor Jeff your logic is not common sense or will not make sense it is your personal thoughts, your personal opinion and those opinions or thoughts should never be law.

by: PC4Love

12-13-2008 @ 2:49pm

Does every person through your personal opinions, interest, views, and experience have your own litmus test? I submit every single one of has their own personal litmus test...we have reasons why we vote for someone and why we do not vote for someone.

I vote for so and so because they are pro abortion or anti abortion (which is the truer argument) I vote for this person because they anti war or pro war. I vote this person because they believe global warming in a man made problem or they believe global warming is part of the earth cycle.

Every single person here has a litmus test, so for anyone to be upset that NAE has a Litmus test for their own organization is absurd and stupid. Pretty much you are saying screw your personal values and core beliefs and set it aside and fall in line with my personal opinion.

by: PC4Love

12-13-2008 @ 3:06pm

First of all in these cases just because these things happened did not make it right or correct, in many instances a result of sin and deception. In other instance the concubines were not defined as wives. Just because you cited those situation, this not a DEFINITION of marriage.

Marriage was/is redefined sin Genesis marriage is defined as leaving your family and cleaving to your wife. In the NEW COVENANT (TESTAMENT) marriage is defined as husbands should have one wife (not one husband or many wives). You are stuck in the Old Covenant (Testament) look at what the New Covenant (Testament) says about marriage as well.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: NMRod

12-12-2008 @ 9:19pm

The reality is that given the deterioration of availability of essentials like health care, the ability to establish legal relationships among people other than marriage, in order to obtain them, has become a necessity.

There would be no need for civil unions based on humanitarian access if it weren't for the many other anomalies in how selfishly we relate to one another in our stratified, "winner takes all" society.

It's not that I oppose gay "marriage" - it's that by definition such a thing is an impossibility and "legalizing" it is equivalent to legislatures or courts pretending that Pi is 3 instead of 3.14159+.

However, people ought to be able to determine how they want to be able to distribute their assets for purposes of inheritance or providing health care to one another, and so allowing some definition of "civil relationships" that aren't necessarily based on any sexual relationship aren't out of line in a purely legal sense. In a system where we really don't provide any safety nets, we need to empower people to take care of one another without punishment, rewarding responsibility for being one's brother's keeper.

by: NMRod

12-12-2008 @ 9:19pm

The reality is that given the deterioration of availability of essentials like health care, the ability to establish legal relationships among people other than marriage, in order to obtain them, has become a necessity.

There would be no need for civil unions based on humanitarian access if it weren't for the many other anomalies in how selfishly we relate to one another in our stratified, "winner takes all" society.

It's not that I oppose gay "marriage" - it's that by definition such a thing is an impossibility and "legalizing" it is equivalent to legislatures or courts pretending that Pi is 3 instead of 3.14159+.

However, people ought to be able to determine how they want to be able to distribute their assets for purposes of inheritance or providing health care to one another, and so allowing some definition of "civil relationships" that aren't necessarily based on any sexual relationship aren't out of line in a purely legal sense. In a system where we really don't provide any safety nets, we need to empower people to take care of one another without punishment, rewarding responsibility for being one's brother's keeper.

by: MWorrell

12-12-2008 @ 9:38pm

I heard the NPR interview, and I have to admit it gave me pause, only because there was no further explanation of Cizik's fairly opaque statement about gay marriage. I have firm religious views regarding marriage, but I support domestic partnerships. I believe the government needs to provide a basic civil union that everyone can participate in, and leave the definition of marriage to the church and the individual.

I heard another man some years ago on NPR's "Fresh Air", a sociologist (not a priest or pastor), expressing his apprehension at the prospect of legally redefining marriage. He was essentially saying that there is absolutely no precedent for it, and that it is indeed a huge matter to move away from an understanding of marriage which is based on ancient societal and biological imperatives, not individual actualization.

I simply agree with that, and I would hold this view apart from any faith. Beyond that, if we say right now, "Marriage is now expanded to include two men or two women", that is flatly unconstitutional by contemporary reasoning. I understand that this is an emotional issue, but you can't base your laws on emotions, even one as central as love.Marriage, for all of history, has been based on a biological reality that exists exclusively between a man and a woman. It is unique to the sexual union of a man and a woman, and it produces children in most cases.

The term "Girl Scout" means something specific, based on biology (I understand that there is a radical understanding of gender identity that would suggest that a biological male can be female in gender, but that's specious at best). When we deny boys the right to join Girl Scouts, we are not discriminating, and it is constitutional to do so. We are recognizing a separateness that is rooted in biology. When we deny girls the right to join the football team, that is another matter. You don't need a penis to play football. But if you have a penis, you cannot be a girl. You're still equal to girls, but you can't join the Girl Scouts.

With very few exceptions, we all get this, and it is a completely non-religious viewpoint.

Currently, marriage is a unique state based on unique biological facts and capabilities. That is the sole reason for marriage, historically. It is the only reason we can define it at all.

If we change that, we have stepped out of the biological and into the completely arbitrary. If we say, "These two men can get married, but not three", we have drawn an arbitrary moral boundary that infringes on the constitutional rights of a polygamist. What is the constitutional basis for that? Can I marry my uncle so that he can get health benefits on my family insurance plan, if we share a residence? If marriage grants me rights I otherwise can't have, who is anyone to exclude us as a family if we choose to define ourselves that way?

If same-sex marriage proponents categorize those concerns as absurd, they discriminate, and they find themselves imposing a personal morality on those who do not share it (sound familiar?).

I find it far more constitutionally sound to say that any group of people who want to share a residence and be a household or family unit can do so, with a domestic partnership. I don't see how any other boundary isn't exclusionary and discriminatory once we jettison the biological uniqueness of marriage.

I think younger evangelicals are coming to terms with these realities, but the transition will be rocky for some time.

by: MWorrell

12-12-2008 @ 9:38pm

I heard the NPR interview, and I have to admit it gave me pause, only because there was no further explanation of Cizik's fairly opaque statement about gay marriage. I have firm religious views regarding marriage, but I support domestic partnerships. I believe the government needs to provide a basic civil union that everyone can participate in, and leave the definition of marriage to the church and the individual.

I heard another man some years ago on NPR's "Fresh Air", a sociologist (not a priest or pastor), expressing his apprehension at the prospect of legally redefining marriage. He was essentially saying that there is absolutely no precedent for it, and that it is indeed a huge matter to move away from an understanding of marriage which is based on ancient societal and biological imperatives, not individual actualization.

I simply agree with that, and I would hold this view apart from any faith. Beyond that, if we say right now, "Marriage is now expanded to include two men or two women", that is flatly unconstitutional by contemporary reasoning. I understand that this is an emotional issue, but you can't base your laws on emotions, even one as central as love.Marriage, for all of history, has been based on a biological reality that exists exclusively between a man and a woman. It is unique to the sexual union of a man and a woman, and it produces children in most cases.

The term "Girl Scout" means something specific, based on biology (I understand that there is a radical understanding of gender identity that would suggest that a biological male can be female in gender, but that's specious at best). When we deny boys the right to join Girl Scouts, we are not discriminating, and it is constitutional to do so. We are recognizing a separateness that is rooted in biology. When we deny girls the right to join the football team, that is another matter. You don't need a penis to play football. But if you have a penis, you cannot be a girl. You're still equal to girls, but you can't join the Girl Scouts.

With very few exceptions, we all get this, and it is a completely non-religious viewpoint.

Currently, marriage is a unique state based on unique biological facts and capabilities. That is the sole reason for marriage, historically. It is the only reason we can define it at all.

If we change that, we have stepped out of the biological and into the completely arbitrary. If we say, "These two men can get married, but not three", we have drawn an arbitrary moral boundary that infringes on the constitutional rights of a polygamist. What is the constitutional basis for that? Can I marry my uncle so that he can get health benefits on my family insurance plan, if we share a residence? If marriage grants me rights I otherwise can't have, who is anyone to exclude us as a family if we choose to define ourselves that way?

If same-sex marriage proponents categorize those concerns as absurd, they discriminate, and they find themselves imposing a personal morality on those who do not share it (sound familiar?).

I find it far more constitutionally sound to say that any group of people who want to share a residence and be a household or family unit can do so, with a domestic partnership. I don't see how any other boundary isn't exclusionary and discriminatory once we jettison the biological uniqueness of marriage.

I think younger evangelicals are coming to terms with these realities, but the transition will be rocky for some time.

by: macmania

12-12-2008 @ 9:48pm

It is for this very kind of "litmus" test with regard to a specific political stand that I departed from the religious right - much to their relief. I am also saddened by these events, yet encouraged as evangelicals move forward into a much broader and more effective conversation within the context of humanity. I also believe that Richard will have a greater impact now that he has made made this move. The NAE has been rocked of late and his leaving does create a void and reveals more of the fissures in the structure of an organization that may very well be in it's twilight.

by: macmania

12-12-2008 @ 9:48pm

It is for this very kind of "litmus" test with regard to a specific political stand that I departed from the religious right - much to their relief. I am also saddened by these events, yet encouraged as evangelicals move forward into a much broader and more effective conversation within the context of humanity. I also believe that Richard will have a greater impact now that he has made made this move. The NAE has been rocked of late and his leaving does create a void and reveals more of the fissures in the structure of an organization that may very well be in it's twilight.

by: conradsteinhoff

12-12-2008 @ 10:49pm

The slippery-slope arguement, in this case, that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy is disingenuous. The question is not where will gay marriage lead, but whether gay marriage is to be legalized or not. I think the consternation over this issue is transitory, since the anxious ones are mostly old people like me. Once we are dead or too old to care, the younger folks will legalize it without any visible catastrophic results, and everybody will be happy - including God, I believe.

by: conradsteinhoff

12-12-2008 @ 10:49pm

The slippery-slope arguement, in this case, that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy is disingenuous. The question is not where will gay marriage lead, but whether gay marriage is to be legalized or not. I think the consternation over this issue is transitory, since the anxious ones are mostly old people like me. Once we are dead or too old to care, the younger folks will legalize it without any visible catastrophic results, and everybody will be happy - including God, I believe.

by: erbe

12-12-2008 @ 11:58pm

Why do Christians want to get involved in a battle with secular society over the definition of marriage? Let them do what they will. Like divorce, we take our marriage vows "before" God, "for better or worse, till death do us part" and then ask a court to dissolve the marriage. What "world" do we want to live in?

by: erbe

12-12-2008 @ 11:58pm

Why do Christians want to get involved in a battle with secular society over the definition of marriage? Let them do what they will. Like divorce, we take our marriage vows "before" God, "for better or worse, till death do us part" and then ask a court to dissolve the marriage. What "world" do we want to live in?

by: jeffp

12-13-2008 @ 12:19am

I suppose if someone at SOJO had a conversion (Wallis's term) experience that caused him/her to no longer be compatible with SOJO this person would also resign. No Big deal. Judge not Jim, you might find yourself (SOJO) in the same position some day. You will likely want the grace from others that allows SOJO and a non-compatible friend to move on peacefully.

by: jeffp

12-13-2008 @ 12:19am

I suppose if someone at SOJO had a conversion (Wallis's term) experience that caused him/her to no longer be compatible with SOJO this person would also resign. No Big deal. Judge not Jim, you might find yourself (SOJO) in the same position some day. You will likely want the grace from others that allows SOJO and a non-compatible friend to move on peacefully.

by: junglecat

12-13-2008 @ 12:47am

I'm sure that Cizik's accomplishments as a leader of the NAE were substantial. (So were the accomplishments of GWB before he became president in 2000.) That being said, I have no clue how he could egregiously look the other way on Barack Obama's abortion record while condemning John McCain as anti-life for supporting military action in Iraq. I thought that Mr. Cizik was a principled individual. But he and "the New Evangelicals" (who have changed their name, even though they aren't really particularly new, or particularly evangelical) were pandered to and used by the Obama team. What are they going to get for it?

by: junglecat

12-13-2008 @ 12:47am

I'm sure that Cizik's accomplishments as a leader of the NAE were substantial. (So were the accomplishments of GWB before he became president in 2000.) That being said, I have no clue how he could egregiously look the other way on Barack Obama's abortion record while condemning John McCain as anti-life for supporting military action in Iraq. I thought that Mr. Cizik was a principled individual. But he and "the New Evangelicals" (who have changed their name, even though they aren't really particularly new, or particularly evangelical) were pandered to and used by the Obama team. What are they going to get for it?

by: ando

12-13-2008 @ 12:57am

I would like Mr. Wallis to comment on how he and Sojo are not the Religious Left. Just what is it then, if it does not include Sojo?

by: ando

12-13-2008 @ 12:57am

I would like Mr. Wallis to comment on how he and Sojo are not the Religious Left. Just what is it then, if it does not include Sojo?

by: Eric77

12-13-2008 @ 1:45am

Very well written.

I would like to clarify something Jim wrote.

Jim wrote that "The controversy of some of Rich's statements, in particular his "shifting" feelings about gay civil unions, admitting that he voted for Barack Obama in the primaries, and implying that he did so in the general election, caused so much controversy in some quarters of the NAE's constituency that the Executive Committee felt they had no choice but to suggest resignation, which Rich quickly but sadly accepted"

This statement might be interpreted to mean that Rich voting for Obama was a problem with NAE. According to the President of the NAE, Leith Anderson, it wasn't for whom Rich voted that was the problem; it was that he admitted who he voted for publicly. According to Anderson, NAE doesn't want its leaders to say who they vote for. They want to present an appearance of non-partisanship.

It sounds like the main reason for having to let Rich go was his ambiguous statement on civil unions. It's unfortunate it came to this.

by: Eric77

12-13-2008 @ 1:45am

Very well written.

I would like to clarify something Jim wrote.

Jim wrote that "The controversy of some of Rich's statements, in particular his "shifting" feelings about gay civil unions, admitting that he voted for Barack Obama in the primaries, and implying that he did so in the general election, caused so much controversy in some quarters of the NAE's constituency that the Executive Committee felt they had no choice but to suggest resignation, which Rich quickly but sadly accepted"

This statement might be interpreted to mean that Rich voting for Obama was a problem with NAE. According to the President of the NAE, Leith Anderson, it wasn't for whom Rich voted that was the problem; it was that he admitted who he voted for publicly. According to Anderson, NAE doesn't want its leaders to say who they vote for. They want to present an appearance of non-partisanship.

It sounds like the main reason for having to let Rich go was his ambiguous statement on civil unions. It's unfortunate it came to this.

by: PASTOR JEFF

12-13-2008 @ 2:01am

Here's a clue. Obama's initiatives re; economic support for families will save pre-born lives while McCain's support for military aggression takes lives and livelihoods.

by: PASTOR JEFF

12-13-2008 @ 2:01am

Here's a clue. Obama's initiatives re; economic support for families will save pre-born lives while McCain's support for military aggression takes lives and livelihoods.

by: Eric77

12-13-2008 @ 3:12am

Unfortunately, Obama supports public funding of abortions, which will result in more abortions, not less. Read the statement below. This is not a man who sees abortion as a necessary evil, who flinches at the idea of abortion, or hurts for the lives lost to it. He wants to be seen as a crusader for the right to abortion.

www dot barackobama dot com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php

It's either complete pandering or it's a sad remark on his way of thinking about the issue.

by: Eric77

12-13-2008 @ 3:12am

Unfortunately, Obama supports public funding of abortions, which will result in more abortions, not less. Read the statement below. This is not a man who sees abortion as a necessary evil, who flinches at the idea of abortion, or hurts for the lives lost to it. He wants to be seen as a crusader for the right to abortion.

www dot barackobama dot com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php

It's either complete pandering or it's a sad remark on his way of thinking about the issue.

by: PASTOR JEFF

12-13-2008 @ 3:15am

Could you supply me with evidence that public funding of abortions leads to more of them?

by: PASTOR JEFF

12-13-2008 @ 3:15am

Could you supply me with evidence that public funding of abortions leads to more of them?

by: SisterMarie

12-13-2008 @ 3:25am

This action by the NAE comes as no surprise. They have been looking for an excuse to get rid of him ever since his statements on the environment which got their leadership all ticked off. The last straw was publicly admitting that he voted for Obama.

As far as I can tell, they have not revealed who, exactly made the decision to oust Cizik. Apparently, they are a very secretive organization as their web-site lists only the 5 executive leadership and not the entire NAE Board.

by: SisterMarie

12-13-2008 @ 3:25am

This action by the NAE comes as no surprise. They have been looking for an excuse to get rid of him ever since his statements on the environment which got their leadership all ticked off. The last straw was publicly admitting that he voted for Obama.

As far as I can tell, they have not revealed who, exactly made the decision to oust Cizik. Apparently, they are a very secretive organization as their web-site lists only the 5 executive leadership and not the entire NAE Board.

by: ando

12-13-2008 @ 3:26am

So, how about two men and one woman, or two women and one man? How about two and two? If you get tired of one, there's always the other. That would lessen the number of divorces, perhaps. We could just get rid of sin, once and for all. Oh, except for sins inflicted on the poor.

Again, meet our new boss, same as the old boss.

by: ando

12-13-2008 @ 3:26am

So, how about two men and one woman, or two women and one man? How about two and two? If you get tired of one, there's always the other. That would lessen the number of divorces, perhaps. We could just get rid of sin, once and for all. Oh, except for sins inflicted on the poor.

Again, meet our new boss, same as the old boss.

by: Eric77

12-13-2008 @ 4:08am

Have you ever heard of a subsidy that doesn't result in greater consumption of something?

by: Eric77

12-13-2008 @ 4:08am

Have you ever heard of a subsidy that doesn't result in greater consumption of something?

by: dlowen

12-13-2008 @ 5:21am

Can someone explain to me the statement that there is no precedent for redefining marriage, or as Mike Huckabee said recently that marriage has been defined for 5000 years as being between one man and one woman? Do we close one eye to the polygamy in the Old Testament? What about the wives and concubines of David and Solomon? Remember Solomon's foreign WIVES led him away from the Lord? Gideon had 70 sons because he had many wives. Laban tricked Jacob into marrying Leah when he wanted Rachel. No problem, just work another seven years and then marry Rachel too. Amram married his aunt. The Levite women had to marry Levites or they could not eat the temple bread. Etc.

Of course, this is not the way we look at marriage today, but none the less, the definition of marriage has changed greatly over the years and from one culture to another. I think the slippery slope starts with substituting myths for history.

"I was against gay marriage until I realized I didn't have to get one." James Carville

by: dlowen

12-13-2008 @ 5:21am

Can someone explain to me the statement that there is no precedent for redefining marriage, or as Mike Huckabee said recently that marriage has been defined for 5000 years as being between one man and one woman? Do we close one eye to the polygamy in the Old Testament? What about the wives and concubines of David and Solomon? Remember Solomon's foreign WIVES led him away from the Lord? Gideon had 70 sons because he had many wives. Laban tricked Jacob into marrying Leah when he wanted Rachel. No problem, just work another seven years and then marry Rachel too. Amram married his aunt. The Levite women had to marry Levites or they could not eat the temple bread. Etc.

Of course, this is not the way we look at marriage today, but none the less, the definition of marriage has changed greatly over the years and from one culture to another. I think the slippery slope starts with substituting myths for history.

"I was against gay marriage until I realized I didn't have to get one." James Carville

by: srta_jenn

12-13-2008 @ 5:33am

I think we can all be proud of Rich Cizik for his courageous, thoughtful, and Biblical views. Rather than mourn a bad situation, we should rejoice. This appears to be God at work, releasing Rev. Cizik from his position at the NAE to make him available for a new work that God has for him to do. Perhaps head of the Obama administration's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives?

by: srta_jenn

12-13-2008 @ 5:33am

I think we can all be proud of Rich Cizik for his courageous, thoughtful, and Biblical views. Rather than mourn a bad situation, we should rejoice. This appears to be God at work, releasing Rev. Cizik from his position at the NAE to make him available for a new work that God has for him to do. Perhaps head of the Obama administration's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives?

by: PASTOR JEFF

12-13-2008 @ 6:06am

Thanks for the concrete evidence I can use to refute abortion supporters. How could the President-elect argue with that logic?

by: PASTOR JEFF

12-13-2008 @ 6:06am

Thanks for the concrete evidence I can use to refute abortion supporters. How could the President-elect argue with that logic?

by: cmw47

12-13-2008 @ 1:30pm

Thank you, Pastor Jeff, for bringing some common sense to this important issue.

by: cmw47

12-13-2008 @ 1:30pm

Thank you, Pastor Jeff, for bringing some common sense to this important issue.

by: cmw47

12-13-2008 @ 1:31pm

Amen.

by: cmw47

12-13-2008 @ 1:31pm

Amen.

by: PC4Love

12-13-2008 @ 2:43pm

Pastor Jeff, I am sure you argue for gun control. However, I submit your same "common sense logic" that gun control keeps crime rates down especially that of violent crimes.

See with public(government) funded abortion you enable more people to get abortions. It should not be made easier to obtain abortion. Because the federal government has CONTROL over the abortion, they take away the rights of parents of underage minors (which is wrong).

I am not saying outlaw abortion. What I am saying the federal has no business in the abortion business (just like they have no business in the plastic surgery business) isn't it all about the choice of the individual.

Why should my tax money go to give an abortion which I personally don't agree?

Pastor Jeff your logic is not common sense or will not make sense it is your personal thoughts, your personal opinion and those opinions or thoughts should never be law.

by: PC4Love

12-13-2008 @ 2:43pm

Pastor Jeff, I am sure you argue for gun control. However, I submit your same "common sense logic" that gun control keeps crime rates down especially that of violent crimes.

See with public(government) funded abortion you enable more people to get abortions. It should not be made easier to obtain abortion. Because the federal government has CONTROL over the abortion, they take away the rights of parents of underage minors (which is wrong).

I am not saying outlaw abortion. What I am saying the federal has no business in the abortion business (just like they have no business in the plastic surgery business) isn't it all about the choice of the individual.

Why should my tax money go to give an abortion which I personally don't agree?

Pastor Jeff your logic is not common sense or will not make sense it is your personal thoughts, your personal opinion and those opinions or thoughts should never be law.

by: PC4Love

12-13-2008 @ 2:49pm

Does every person through your personal opinions, interest, views, and experience have your own litmus test? I submit every single one of has their own personal litmus test...we have reasons why we vote for someone and why we do not vote for someone.

I vote for so and so because they are pro abortion or anti abortion (which is the truer argument) I vote for this person because they anti war or pro war. I vote this person because they believe global warming in a man made problem or they believe global warming is part of the earth cycle.

Every single person here has a litmus test, so for anyone to be upset that NAE has a Litmus test for their own organization is absurd and stupid. Pretty much you are saying screw your personal values and core beliefs and set it aside and fall in line with my personal opinion.

by: PC4Love

12-13-2008 @ 2:49pm

Does every person through your personal opinions, interest, views, and experience have your own litmus test? I submit every single one of has their own personal litmus test...we have reasons why we vote for someone and why we do not vote for someone.

I vote for so and so because they are pro abortion or anti abortion (which is the truer argument) I vote for this person because they anti war or pro war. I vote this person because they believe global warming in a man made problem or they believe global warming is part of the earth cycle.

Every single person here has a litmus test, so for anyone to be upset that NAE has a Litmus test for their own organization is absurd and stupid. Pretty much you are saying screw your personal values and core beliefs and set it aside and fall in line with my personal opinion.

by: PC4Love

12-13-2008 @ 3:06pm

First of all in these cases just because these things happened did not make it right or correct, in many instances a result of sin and deception. In other instance the concubines were not defined as wives. Just because you cited those situation, this not a DEFINITION of marriage.

Marriage was/is redefined sin Genesis marriage is defined as leaving your family and cleaving to your wife. In the NEW COVENANT (TESTAMENT) marriage is defined as husbands should have one wife (not one husband or many wives). You are stuck in the Old Covenant (Testament) look at what the New Covenant (Testament) says about marriage as well.

by: PC4Love

12-13-2008 @ 3:06pm

First of all in these cases just because these things happened did not make it right or correct, in many instances a result of sin and deception. In other instance the concubines were not defined as wives. Just because you cited those situation, this not a DEFINITION of marriage.

Marriage was/is redefined sin Genesis marriage is defined as leaving your family and cleaving to your wife. In the NEW COVENANT (TESTAMENT) marriage is defined as husbands should have one wife (not one husband or many wives). You are stuck in the Old Covenant (Testament) look at what the New Covenant (Testament) says about marriage as well.

by: dlowen

12-13-2008 @ 4:01pm

Because polygamy was accepted as a standard practice does not mean it was a definition of marriage? I am not saying it is a correct definition. The point is that it was most certainly contained within the definition of marriage.

Of course the New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant. (The relationship between God and man has been redefined.) Regarding the New Covenant, Jesus did not condemn the practice of brothers marrying a deceased sibling's wife to give him an heir, He merely stated that in heaven, no one is married, but all are like angels. The only other place the NT addresses marriage is Paul's admonition not to. The only reason to marry is if one can't restrain oneself, even from molesting one's own daughter. (My interpretation of acting unseemly toward.) Marrying will only cause trouble according to I Corintians chapter 7. (Of course the disciples said it is better not to marry if just looking at another woman causes you to commit adultry, as will divorcing your wife.)

In a bit of irony, one polygamous old cheiftan told the missionaries who chastised him for having multiple wives, "Americans have many wives too; just not at the same time."

My point is not what is the correct definition of marriage, but rather that the definition has most definitely changed across the expanse of time and culture. At one time in most of the South, marriage was not allowed across races, but this has changed with the passage of Civil Rights legislation.

My point is that the definition of marriage changes, and that much of what Americans accept as what the Bible teaches has more to do with our culture than the meaning of the Bible. One thing that I am most certain the Bible teaches is that we are to love our neighbor and to offer correction in love. God loves and accepts each one of us as we are whenever we come to Him. As His children, we are to do likewise for our brothers and sisters.

(Sorry for preaching.) Peace on Earth, good will toward all.

by: dlowen

12-13-2008 @ 4:01pm

Because polygamy was accepted as a standard practice does not mean it was a definition of marriage? I am not saying it is a correct definition. The point is that it was most certainly contained within the definition of marriage.

Of course the New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant. (The relationship between God and man has been redefined.) Regarding the New Covenant, Jesus did not condemn the practice of brothers marrying a deceased sibling's wife to give him an heir, He merely stated that in heaven, no one is married, but all are like angels. The only other place the NT addresses marriage is Paul's admonition not to. The only reason to marry is if one can't restrain oneself, even from molesting one's own daughter. (My interpretation of acting unseemly toward.) Marrying will only cause trouble according to I Corintians chapter 7. (Of course the disciples said it is better not to marry if just looking at another woman causes you to commit adultry, as will divorcing your wife.)

In a bit of irony, one polygamous old cheiftan told the missionaries who chastised him for having multiple wives, "Americans have many wives too; just not at the same time."

My point is not what is the correct definition of marriage, but rather that the definition has most definitely changed across the expanse of time and culture. At one time in most of the South, marriage was not allowed across races, but this has changed with the passage of Civil Rights legislation.

My point is that the definition of marriage changes, and that much of what Americans accept as what the Bible teaches has more to do with our culture than the meaning of the Bible. One thing that I am most certain the Bible teaches is that we are to love our neighbor and to offer correction in love. God loves and accepts each one of us as we are whenever we come to Him. As His children, we are to do likewise for our brothers and sisters.

(Sorry for preaching.) Peace on Earth, good will toward all.

by: letjusticerolldown

12-13-2008 @ 5:54pm

Thanks. Listen to the interview if you have not. No mystery here as to why NAE would remove him--although it greatly saddens me.

I don't buy for a second that it was obscure statements about gay marriage that was a sole issue. That is the lightening rod issue used when necessary for all manners of decisions. He is running counter to the "Evangelicals-as-conservatives-as-Republicans-as-Religious-Right-as-Bush-supporting-military-backing-as-questioning-global-warming-as-winner-take-all" movement.

He can't represent that because he doens't represent that.

So does Cizik represent a changed Evangelicalism? Has Evangelicalism changed because some of these voices are louder?

Does the chief lobbyist of NAE determine the views of Evangelicals? Does Leith Anderson determine that? On what basis does the NAE determine the socio-political positions they choose?

If the NAE says "We canned our lobbyist because he entertained thoughts that Evangelicals might need to think about gay unions/marriages differently" -- then what is communicated to the broader society and to gay persons is that we are every bit the hateful bigots many accuse us of being.

i.e. If we cannot entertain a leader giving empathetic consideration to the lives/realities of gay persons and how as a society we respond --instead of responding with a simple dogma that is heard as bigotry -- and we say we shut him down for that simple thought -- be deserve to be seen as bigots.

And our case will never be heard.

If we cannot listen, if we cannot connect, if we cannot communicate an abiding love-- we will not be heard--regardless of how right our dogma might be.

I am concerned about NAE's willingness to jump on the gay marriage issue as the reason. Cizik fundamentally repudiates much of the way in which many Evangelical leaders have leveraged their voices/power within the Republican party and the manner in which they have advanced a cause. The NAE's willingness to pile all this fundamental socio-cultural difference between Cizik and the 'old guard' onto the 'gay issue' as if that is the firestorm issue around which all Evangelicals will rally demonstrates to me a very cynical willingness to close ears to gay persons.

This is very sad.

by: letjusticerolldown

12-13-2008 @ 5:54pm

Thanks. Listen to the interview if you have not. No mystery here as to why NAE would remove him--although it greatly saddens me.

I don't buy for a second that it was obscure statements about gay marriage that was a sole issue. That is the lightening rod issue used when necessary for all manners of decisions. He is running counter to the "Evangelicals-as-conservatives-as-Republicans-as-Religious-Right-as-Bush-supporting-military-backing-as-questioning-global-warming-as-winner-take-all" movement.

He can't represent that because he doens't represent that.

So does Cizik represent a changed Evangelicalism? Has Evangelicalism changed because some of these voices are louder?

Does the chief lobbyist of NAE determine the views of Evangelicals? Does Leith Anderson determine that? On what basis does the NAE determine the socio-political positions they choose?

If the NAE says "We canned our lobbyist because he entertained thoughts that Evangelicals might need to think about gay unions/marriages differently" -- then what is communicated to the broader society and to gay persons is that we are every bit the hateful bigots many accuse us of being.

i.e. If we cannot entertain a leader giving empathetic consideration to the lives/realities of gay persons and how as a society we respond --instead of responding with a simple dogma that is heard as bigotry -- and we say we shut him down for that simple thought -- be deserve to be seen as bigots.

And our case will never be heard.

If we cannot listen, if we cannot connect, if we cannot communicate an abiding love-- we will not be heard--regardless of how right our dogma might be.

I am concerned about NAE's willingness to jump on the gay marriage issue as the reason. Cizik fundamentally repudiates much of the way in which many Evangelical leaders have leveraged their voices/power within the Republican party and the manner in which they have advanced a cause. The NAE's willingness to pile all this fundamental socio-cultural difference between Cizik and the 'old guard' onto the 'gay issue' as if that is the firestorm issue around which all Evangelicals will rally demonstrates to me a very cynical willingness to close ears to gay persons.

This is very sad.