No. Cizik's crime is...he's an environmentalist.

Actually, the reason they went after Cizik (rather than someone like Rick Warren) is not because he's an "environmentalist" but because he's an advocate for population control. Cizik says one thing when he's in front of the NAE crowd and another when he's in front of secular groups like the World Bank. Cizik is not very popular with evangelical leaders in D.C. precisely because he takes a position that many think is unbiblical.

If that is indeed the case--that global warming is a red herring and it's really about population control--then the Christianity Today article got it all wrong. Not one single mention of population control--it's all about global warming.

Same thing with this World article, referenced in the CT piece: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12624/

Now the letter itself does mention population control:

Mr. Cizik not only believes that global warming is an indisputable fact, but he also holds related views that he has not been willing to reveal to the membership at large. In an alarming speech he delivered to the World Bank in May of 2006, he said: "I’d like to take on the population issue, but in my community global warming is the third rail issue. I’ve touched the third rail but still have a job. And I’ll still have a job after my talk here today. But population is a much more dangerous issue to touch. We need to confront population control and we can -- we’re not Roman Catholics, after all, but it’s too hot to handle now." We ask, how is population control going to be achieved if not by promoting abortion, the distribution of condoms to the young, and, even by infanticide in China and elsewhere? Is this where Richard Cizik would lead us?

Note that it is Dobson et al. who are accusing Cizik of being pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, and pro-condom distribution, but nothing that Cizik says, at least in the quoted material, suggests that is the case. Telling that they didn't quote him actually advocating those things.

If that is indeed the case--that global warming is a red herring and it's really about population control--then the Christianity Today article got it all wrong. Not one single mention of population control--it's all about global warming.

Okay, I concede that point. The letter doesn't explicitly state why they believe focusing on the global warming controversy is "divisive and dangerous." I think that point could have been written better. Still, I don't see how they can be accused of being "brain-dead foot soldiers of the Republican party" when they are merely pointing out that Cizik is misrepresenting both his organization and evangelicals in general.

Telling that they didn't quote him actually advocating those things.

They are not saying he does advocate those things. They are merely raising the question of what methods he plans to use in order to promote population control.

It's a legitimate question to ask considering that the primary funder of the Evangelical Climate Initiative--a document that Cizik pushed but was not allowed to sign--is the Hewlett Foundation, a group that supports abortion as a means of "population control."

As for the letter, Dobson, et al, are merely pointing out that Cizik doesn't speak for all evangelicals on this issue. In fact, he doesn't even speak for his own organization. In January 2006, a resolution of the NAE Executive Committee instructed NAE staff "to stand by and not exceed in any fashion our approved and adopted statements concerning the environment contained within the Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility."

The Executive Committee took this action "recognizing the ongoing debate regarding the causes and origins of global warming, and understanding the lack of consensus among the evangelical community on this issue."

I think the issue here is not really that Cizik is an environmentalist, but that Cizik is (allegedly) something of a loose cannon. Evangelicals may be divided on global warming, but I think we're pretty united in believing that environmental advocacy should not be a primary concern of church leaders. Jesus commissioned the church to save the souls of men, not to save the penguins.

Since I do not pay attention to the National Association of Evangelicals, I have no idea who Cizik is, but unless the quote from his World Bank speech that was used by Dobson (and the others) was explained in a part of the speech that Dobson did not quote, it does look like Dobson's guesses were fairly reasonable. Cizik refused to say what he had in mind, which is the reason why he could not be quoted in favor of abortion, birth control for young people, or something like infanticide in China. However, he did give Dobson reason to assume that whatever he supports 1) would be so controversial that he could lose his job, 2) could be used in population control, and 3) is opposed by the Catholic Church. Abortion and birth control, at least, are reasonable guesses, and birth control is almost certainly one of the possibilities that he had in mind, unless that quote is misleading. (There are only a few measures that could be taken and that could achieve "population control," and he won't lose his job for encouraging abstinence, for example, so he must have been thinking of something else.) By stating that he would eventually like to talk about a "too hot to handle" controversial issue, and then indicating that his position on that issue, population control, would cause him to lose his job, I think he invites this kind of guessing.

Jesus commissioned the church to save the souls of men, not to save the penguins.

Because, of course, the condition of the natural environment only bears on penguins. Humans, luckily, are immune to the effects of a degraded environment.

Gregory, don't you realize that either God will protect the environment or, if the environment fails, that must be a herald of the end of the world and Jesus' triumphant return? Either way, the Bible explicitly gave man domain over the earth, and as such we it is our God-given duty to exploit it until the skies are noxious and the sea dead. Now let's scorth the Earth for Jesus!

Looks like we've got a couple of comedians in here...

For the record, I believe that Christians should be good stewards of our environment. Nevertheless, the primary concern of the church is evangelization and discipleship.

It is one thing to place environmental stewardship at a lower priority than discipleship and evangelization; it is another for what is increasingly a political group to shut out voices on political matters that don't sit well with Republican party activists. It only adds to the perception that evangelicals only care about conservative political issues - as David's post notes.

Chuck,

I honestly don't believe this is about shutting out a person's political voice. There are many Christians and even evangelicals who are involved in environmental political issues. However, Cizik is an officer of the NAE and allgedly "regularly speaks without authorization for the entire organization."

As I said above, evangelicals are divided on global warming, and having Cizik prominently making statements about it could provoke disunity. I believe the signers of the letter have a valid concern.

I have my doubts that those who are uninterested in saving the penguins will be successful in sanctifying souls; justification is only the beginning. The same argument of lack of concensus was used by those trying to keep the church out of issues of slavery or segregation. Slavery produced disunity of views held by Christians, but not in all ways disunity of the faith or of the church, for Christ is the unity, not shared agreement on every issue. If lack of agreement is the controlling factor, how would we ever have prophetic voices?

The assumption that human beings are to be carvbed out of the rest of creation isn't my understanding of "dominion over the earth" or of Jesus as the Lord of all Creation.

"Behold, I am making all things new" would seem to emphasize that the restoration of the wholeness of creation is larger than the saving of individual souls.

Are we really to go back to former Interior Secretary James Watts' environmental views? "The Earth is the Lord's and everything in it" doesn't square with Christians demoting the environment to a less-than-primary concern.