Evangelical lobbyist asked to resign after supporting Obama, civil unions
Friday, December 12, 2008 at 10:23 am
When a top lobbyist for the country’s largest organization of evangelical Christians publicly acknowledges he supports civil unions and voted for Barack Obama, it’s practically a sin. And it’s something that’s sent Rev. Richard Cizik, a 28-year lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals looking for a new job. After sharing his views on National Public Radio last week, he was asked by NAE president Leith Anderson, a pastor at Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie, to resign as the NAE’s chief lobbyist.
Cizik had been a lobbyist for the NAE for more than 28 years.
“In a December 2, 2008 broadcast interview on National Public Radio, Richard responded to questions and made statements that did not appropriately represent the values and convictions of NAE and our constituents,” said Anderson in a statement. “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 constituents.”
Here’s what he said in the interview with NPR’s Terry Gross:
“Two years ago,” said Gross, “you said you were still opposed to gay marriage. But now as you identify more and more with the younger voters and their priorities, have you changed on gay marriage?”
Cizik responded, “I’m shifting, I 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.”
On Obama, Cizik said, “It would be possible for evangelicals to disagree with Barack Obama on same-sex marriage and abortion and yet vote for him.”
“I happen to think in the primary he was the best choice,” Cizik added.
While Anderson said those statements weren’t appropriate for an NAE representative to make, his decision to encourage Cizik’s resignation was likely influenced by the most influential evangelical of them all. James Dobson of Focus on the Family has had it out for Cizik for years.
Response to Cizik from other corners of the religious right have been fierce.
“Richard Cizik of NAE Says Christians Can Vote for Pro-Child Killing Politicians,” read one press release. Ingrid Schlueter, co-host of the nationally syndicated Crosstalk Radio Talk Show, wrote “Richard Cizik seems more concerned about impressing NPR’s liberal audience with his broad-mindedness than being faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse said, “I think, perhaps, my dear friend Rich has been inside the Beltway for too long and has swallowed too much of the NPR and Vogue Magazine Kool-Aid.”
The American Family Association’s Tony Perkins, agreed and asked, “How else can you explain enthusiastic support for what will probably be the nation’s most pro-abortion, anti-family president in our nation’s 232 year history?”
On Thursday, Anderson explained how the remarks about Obama influenced the resignation of Cizik in an interview with Christianity Today. “Generally in America, people don’t say whom they vote for. I think in listening to the interview, it seemed to me that [Fresh Air host] Terry Gross was surprised that he said whom he voted for,” said Anderson. “And he declined to say whom he voted for in the general election. But for NAE and all of us who seek to be a bipartisan voice, it’s generally not in our best interests to declare whom we vote for.”
Ironically, just days after his fateful interview with NPR, Cizik was criticized by progressive Christians for his signature on a full-page ad in the New York Times that accused gays and lesbians of bigotry.
Photo: Richard Cizik via American Public Media’s Speaking of Faith
3 Comments
Comment posted December 12, 2008 @ 11:05 am
This just speaks so well to the mindset and fervent of the religious right. Because I don’t agree with you, screw you?! Now that’s the good christian morals that I was brought up in, yeah. I understand that as a representative of an organization, and especially as a lobbyist for them, that you don’t go around spewing statements that go against the organization’s ideals. But the venomous attacks by Dobson and others just went over the line. WTF? Pro-Child Killing Politicians? I have yet to see ANY politician run on a baby killing platform.
Throughout many people’s lives, mindsets change and they alter viewpoints to best suit their beliefs and morals. Thinking that Obama was the selection for president doesn’t seem to me to be the sin of sins and warrant the feverish pitch of some of these attacks. Sure, they’re justified in letting him go if they feel that he’s not promoting their organization’s ideals in the way they prefer, but to me, the Christian teachings seem to flow along the lines of Obama’s direction than they do Senator McAlzheimers.
Comment posted December 12, 2008 @ 11:38 am
I don’t want to hear one more word from the religious reich about the people who had to resign over Proposition 8.
This is just the same.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.






