New Evangelical Manifesto [3] -Cizik changes his mind

For those of us who aren't USAmerican Evangelicals, Richard Cizik had worked for a number of years for the National Association of Evangelicals until he was resigned (just so: sometimes a resignation is not freely offered but coerced) because of remarks he made on a radio show. This prompts a reflection on changing ones mind. His remarks were that he could support gay unions and government funded contraception as a way to avoid abortion. He was also suspected of voting for Barack Obama and had been talking about the need to embrace the climate change issue but not as denialists.

This resignation led to him being dropped from other organisations and speaking engagements and to numbers of former colleagues and 'friends' ceasing to be in contact. He reflects that although he got support from a number of people, most Evangelicals who dissent over political matters with the party line have little or no support and face a lonely time. Cizik notes that Putnam -a sociologist- thinks that there is evidence that USA Evangelicals choose their church by its politics not its theology. Cizik argues that this points up the problem for USA Evangelicalism: it has been captured by conservative politics and the Gospel has been made subservient to that.

From this background he develops ideas about what  'new Evangelicals' might be. He notes the word traces back to 'good news' and feels that USA Evangelicals have become bad news, noting that they have become marked by being against things: anti liberal; anti-social gospel; anti-communist; anti trends. In doing so, the baby is often thrown out with the bathwater.

Cizik sees the 'new' bit of 'new Evangelicals as, firstly, a concern for building bridges beyond narrow sectarian boundaries -such as with scientists over climate change.  Secondly it's about not politicising the church. This is about engaging for the common good. I think he means by 'politicisation' what I might call 'becoming party political': I make this distinction because, in the end, 'political' is pretty much everything that we do in the public arena; the difficulty is when particular party disciplines, lines and loyalties are invoked to the detriment of building bridges and trying to identify commonalities -which is the political in the sense of 'the art of the possible'.

The fact that many USAmerican Evangelicals might label these characteristics as 'heretical' is a sad indictment of the party-political captivity of USA Evangelicalism. And this hurts us all: if I identify as Evangelical, I have to spend time explaining that this is not a cipher for USAmerican political nastiness (because that's what most people I interact with in GB think it is -rather like many Brits think the Conservative Party has a tendency to be the 'nasty people's party' because of the self-righteous, selfish and uncaring attitudes of its members).

And the 'nasty people's party' epithet is not irrelevant: Cizik's own experience is of being on the receiving end of personal attacks -not to mince words; unloving attitudes and hateful behaviour. The unrepentant unchristliness of those who are supposed to represent Christ is deeply hurtful and offensive.  Cizik spends some wordage explaining his thinking and the actualities of his positions and it is revealing, not least as it uncovers the actual disagreements of sections of the Evangelical community in the USA with the [tea-] party-political 'official' line; Latinos, African-American and often younger Evangelicals are likely not to sit square -or even comfortably- with some (or more) of the agenda.

This article is a cri de coeur for religious liberty and a proper separation of church and state: ironic given USAmerican history and foundations. Odd and disturbing that Evagelicals of the USA should so desire a Christendom model and to act in ways that are decried when they proceed from papacy.

The important remedy he identifies is that space must be created for people to be heard: for Evangelicals to dissent from the 'party-line' and to raise their concerns coupled with a willingness to be corrected. Of course the implication is that it also needs to create a space for people to change their minds; something that is excoriated in the political sphere. Surely a Christian public discourse should count on the need to repent -literally to change ones mind and more than that; to celebrate it.