Moderate Evangelical Richard Cizik's Resignation May Not Stop Broadening of the Evangelical Agenda
Since then, Christian right leaders have grown more vocal in alleging that Cizik has failed to represent the conservative agenda of most American evangelicals, who accounted for about a quarter of the electorate on Election Day last month.
But John Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron, expects the "branching out" work that Cizik helped spearhead for the evangelical movement to continue, even if Cizik leaves the political arena. "There are a lot of forces working at broadening the evangelical agenda, particularly evangelicals under 30, Green says. "In the long term, there will be people who become more prominent from this younger evangelical generation."
- Read more about religion.
Reader Comments
YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK
LOBBYING THE GOVERNMENT FOR MONEY..THE GOVT. HAS NO MONEY OTHER THAN WHAT IT STEALS FROM ITS CITIZENS..IF YOU WANT MONEY ASK THE PEOPLE FOR IT.DON'T ASK THE GOVT. TO STEAL IT FROM THE PEOPLE FOR YOU.
Forced Out
Related article on Edge -
Evangelicals force out moderate lobbyist
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=84834
"gay activists say the loss of Cizik will further diminish the political influence of the NAE, believing the fundamentalist movement may be teetering on the brink of political irrelevance."
"Among the things the NAE board found most objectionable were comments Cizik made supporting civil unions - Cizik noted 52 percent of evangelical youth support civil unions or marriage equality - and his own consideration of marriage equality for same-sex couples.
"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," he said during the interview."
"Marriage" is a matter of law,
not whatever any ancient scripture might land on. I applaud Cizik's stand on the environment and his considering support for civil unions is a very large step for someone of this background.
However, those claiming that they want same-sex couples to have legal protections while opposing civil marriage are on the wrong side of history. In the US, marriage is not just a matter of church law; the word "marriage" is included in family and probate law; and since there are so many people in the US who are still determined that same-sex unions will get no recognition nor respect whatsoever, sooner or later same-sex couples who thought their civil union would be good enough will be told in a hospital, workplace or court: "yes, that protection applies to married couples but not to you." And sooner or later one of these couples will have the courage and the legal ammunition to file a lawsuit and the Supreme Court will end it.
And we'll get the predictable howls of outrage that "the people" don't get to vote on civil rights, just as we did in the racially-based civil rights movement of the 1960s. As usual, the churches will get on board at precisely the moment that their doctrines are sufficiently disconnected from the larger culture as to become unreal to a critical mass of the faithful.
It'll happen. After all, even the Vatican eventually admitted that Galileo was right.
advertisement
