More Heresy from Rev. Cizik - At Least According to IRD

Thanks to the good folks at Faith in Public Life.org, I found this piece at Christian News Wire, the on-line news service of the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD). For those not in the know, as it were, IRD is a Scaife-funded organization that exists for the sole reason of attacking Christian liberals, progressives, and even moderates, in the name of Biblical and doctrinal purity. One of the their biggest operations is "The United Methodist Project", headed up by Mark Tooley. Most UMs have heard the name, even in passing, for years; he has been relentless in attacking the UMC on just about everything from its statement on the sacraments to calling Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, Pres. Bill Clinton's pastor at Foundry UMC in Washington (and a former professor at Wesley Theological Seminary, one of my alma mater's) a liberal heretic. Void of serious scriptural or theological knowledge, the attacks tend to be based more in a shallow, popular understanding of what the church is and what it does, and most leaders in the UMC look upon Tooley and his group as ab annoyance rather than a serious threat to the denomination.

Now, Rev. Richard Cizik, who I spoke of yesterday in regards to his position of what the NAE calls "Creation Care" (good position, good name), is being attacked in the run-up to the NAE board meeting in Minneapolis because he has spoken out against torture. Yes, that's right - a group claiming to uphold Christian principles is attacking the leader of the largest Evangelical Association in the US because he has criticized the US acquiescence to and use of torture against terrorist suspects. The following from the IRD press release is the key:

Cizik has . . . used his NAE title in endorsing a petition against torture that alleges that the practice 'is condemned in word but allowed in deed' by the Bush administration. Yet the same petition makes no mention of torture being practiced by any country other than the United States.

As should be clear to any thinking person reading this particular passage, the real concern of the IRD is that the President of the NAE - straight, doesn't consort with prostitutes, doesn't take meth - is critical of the policies of the Bush Administration and refuses to say anything about the use of torture by other states. One wants to pat their hand and say, "There, there, it will be all right," but in truth, the issue is simple. As an organization representing American evangelicals, and speaking for American evangelicals, and as Americans themselves, one would think the point plainly obvious to anyone, but I shall make it here. The reason the NAE is speaking out against the use of torture by the United States (that particular phrase needs to be removed from the lexicon as soon as possible, by the way) is because they are an advocacy group for American evangelicals. What possible influence on the conduct of other states could they possibly have? As an American umbrella organization, however, they can wield influence over policy here in the US, and perhaps make moves to ending the practice. Unless there is some supranational organization that allows people who live in America to seriously influence the policies and practices of, say, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, or other states that use torture, I suggest that the IRD stop blowing smoke and remember that it is here in the United States that Americans must work, and for the US, its integrity, the restoration of some semblance of constitutional and legal protections for persons not even charged with crimes; and it is here and only here that they can be most effective. It is all too easy to point at others and say, "Boy, you torture. That's baaaaad!" It is more important to do actual work to end torture here in the US, and the NAE is one organization with some clout that could actually make a difference.

Of course, religion has little to do with the IRD's statement. They don't like the fact that the current President is critical of the Bush Administration. This is crass politics - and schoolyard politics at that - masking itself in religious language, offered on behalf of nameless members of the NAE. The NAE should be lauded for its principled stance, not criticized by a bunch of hoodlums masked as clergy.