The first two actions concern interfaith
relations; the latter two deal with international or interstate relations.
But the reaction indicates that these cannot be kept separate, and the
apparent linkage between them has created some intense responses.
It took several days for the Jewish
response to come, but it was an alarmed one, perhaps based at first on
incomplete information.
The Anti-Defamation League kicked it off;
then there were attacks from lawyer Alan Dershowitz and an editorial in the
Wall Street Journal. The Presbyterians were depicted as being
engaged in an assault on Jewish identity by renewing old attempts to convert
Jews, and on the state of Israel by condemning the security barrier and even
thinking about divestment. This led to charges that there was no criticism
of what was seen as the far worse behavior of the Palestinian terrorists,
and that Israel was being equated with South Africa, the target of the last
famous divestment campaign.
It would have helped if more publicity had
been given to the specific concern about Caterpillar Inc., which supplies
bulldozers, some of them armored, that are being used for the destruction of
Palestinian homes. These are paid for by the U.S. government, but neither
Caterpillar nor the U.S. government seems interested in placing restrictions
on their use.
It is important to know that these were
four distinct actions, with different histories, approved for different
reasons. It is also important to be aware that General Assembly actions are
taken under some time pressure, sometimes with incomplete information, and
by divided votes in General Assembly committees and plenary sessions. The
initiative for the first action seems to have come from the "conservative"
or "evangelical" sector of the church; for the third and fourth actions,
from the "progressive" sector. The latter two were initiated by people who
have been on the scene, interacting with Palestinians (many of them
Christians, though we often forget it), who have felt revulsion at some of
the actions of the Israeli army in the Occupied Territories.
Reaction from Presbyterian
conservatives
Presbyterian conservatives publicized
these criticisms extensively, consistent with a recent pattern of distrust
expressed by conservatives toward the General Assembly and its officers - a
pattern we regret and with which we disagree.
We are aware of no suggestions for
improving relationships, beyond condemnation of the General Assembly's
actions. There was even a proposal to reconvene the General Assembly to
overturn the Assembly's actions.
The
Presbyweb website
continues to link to a great many
opinion pieces critical of the Presbyterian action.
At the same time the Frontier Fellowship
sent its own advice to those engaged in dialogue with Jewish leaders: that
"contextualized evangelism," following the mandate to preach the gospel to
all peoples, cannot exclude Jews from its scope. This appeared in part to
justify the controversial "Messianic" congregation in Philadelphia.
On "Messianic" Christianity
We must acknowledge that fifteen centuries
of Christian pressure upon Jews, including coercion, genocide and, more
frequently, segregation or second-class citizenship, has created a hostile
context within which Jews hear the Christian message. Acknowledging this
heritage of violence, many Christians have emphasized one of the classical
views, that Israel and the Church share the same grace and the same faith,
but with different symbols, rituals, and modes of life. On that reading,
Christians need not urge Jews to abandon their heritage in order to become
full members of the Christian community when they so choose.
While we must reject certain methods of
proselytizing, especially when they define salvation as exclusively
Christian, we must also respect the affirmation of both Christian and Jewish
heritages for persons who claim both. We wish to avoid a view precluding
Christianity from being anything other than a "gentile" religion. We
understand our original church as having been Christian Jews and that Jewish
Christians were part of the Christian community into the fifth century. Some
people in the modern world believe that this combination expresses their
present faith and lived reality. However given the history of Christians and
Jews we can well understand Jewish concerns regarding this sensitive area.
Many Jews think that the very idea of
Jewish Christianity is contradictory -- that one who becomes a Christian
ceases to be a Jew, and perhaps has become an enemy of Judaism. This
unfortunately gives normative status to the "replacement theology" of the
Gospel according to Matthew, and to the much-controverted "blessing against
the heretics and Nazarenes" that took shape between 80 and 150 CE.
On Israel and Palestine
As time passed after the General Assembly,
the "Messianic congregation" issue was less emphasized and the focus moved
to the Presbyterian criticisms of Israeli policy. Jewish leaders apparently
recognized that the call for further study was a Presbyterian way of saying
that any further Messianic new church developments are likely to be
scrutinized very closely.
It is interesting that the condemnation of
Christian Zionism as incompatible with Reformed doctrine got almost no
attention, though we know that hope for the return of the Jews to Jerusalem
and their conversion to Christ is an important motivator for some
Christians, making them strange allies with some Jewish groups that have no
intention of converting in the "last times." Christian Zionists often insist
that there are no "occupied territories," since the whole area is Eretz
Israel, the Land of Israel, promised in perpetuity to Israel. We believe
this literal reading of a religious text as to how God will save the world
is inappropriately applied in this political context, and used in this way
could have dangerous and unjust consequences for the Palestinian people.
The focus has come to be upon the
Assembly's criticisms of Israeli policy. The controversy shows no signs of
cooling down. On July 21 Bnai Berith called for an end to dialogue with the
Presbyterians until these actions are reversed. Especially because of the
Wall Street Journal editorial, there were Presbyterians all over
the country who asked, "Did we really do this?"
In many communities, Jews who had engaged
in common endeavors with Presbyterians asked about it with alarm. And local
Jewish leaders all over the country seemed to be mobilizing to confront
Presbyterian ministers. It may be that group meetings should be encouraged,
as being more constructive in the long run than individual encounters.
Once again we are hearing passionate
statements about why Jews, even those who are most critical of Israeli
policies, react as they do to statements like the ones made at the recent
General Assembly. They are deeply concerned that Israel's right to exist not
be taken away. They sometimes say that they feel personally threatened, both
in their Jewish identity and in their very existence, when they hear
critical statements. These fears are deeply rooted in the history of the
Jewish people, and for many of them in personal experience as well. While we
may believe that this fear does not need to be a response to our actions and
intentions as Presbyterians, the fear exists, and it is a major factor in
Jewish-Christian encounters. Both Jews and non-Jews might recall similar
fears of indifference or hostility that other groups feel - people living
with HIV/AIDS, same-sex partners who find their contractual rights being
negated by state laws, the homeless, victims of genocide in many parts of
the world. We need to listen to the concerns of Jewish people for their
safety and their identity, and find ways to work through those concerns.
Discussions of the "security barrier" are
especially revealing. Critics call it a "wall," which Jews hear as a
comparison with the Berlin Wall. Jews often call it a "fence" -- even though
it is 12 to 15 feet high, and in many places is a 25-foot high concrete
barrier -- and they feel that it is necessary for the security of Israel. At
the same time many Jews acknowledge that the route of the barrier is a large
part of the controversy, for in places it does not follow the
internationally agreed line; even the Israeli courts have called it into
question.
Our church's statement expressed concern
about the barrier's negative impact on the economic livelihood of many
Palestinians and, more generally, that barriers between people are usually a
problem, not a solution - whether they are built by Israel or the United
States or any other nation. Jake Young reports from Springfield, Illinois, a
rabbi's declaration that, when the chips are down, Jewish survival must be
chosen over any consideration of economic hardships. At that point, when
basic differences actually were expressed, he says, his Christian colleagues
started to slip down in their chairs or look at the floor. He comments, "I
have not run into a Jewish dialogue partner who acts that way."
Often the complaint is made that the
PC(USA) did not call for a similar disinvestment from companies doing
business with the Palestinian Authority. That seems to be an unlikely
option, for two reasons. There is almost no "economy" in the Palestinian
areas, cut up as they are by the network of Israeli settlements steadily
creeping into the Occupied Territories. And any imports into the Palestinian
economy are scrutinized and controlled by the Israelis, who exercise full
sovereignty over the Occupied Territories. Supplies continue to go to
terrorists, but by clandestine means, not through open trade that could be
affected by disinvestment.
A number of participants in the recent
discussions have said that a major concern is the way some pro-Palestinian
activists fall into anti-Jewish ways of speaking, complaining about the
"Zionist press" and claiming that the U.S. Congress is "under occupation" by
the Israeli government. To counterbalance this, supporters of security for
Israel may too easily denounce as anti-Jewish all criticisms of the current
Israeli government.
As for taking on Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon, some brave Jews are doing just that. But such a stance is becoming
more difficult, because as Israel moves toward another election, there are
candidates to Sharon's right who make him look moderate. (Analogously there
are Palestinians who make Arafat look moderate, and Colin Powell is a
moderate voice in a more hawkish Bush administration.) That's the nature of
political reality: relative differences, however small, may make a great
difference in the long run.
We have heard expressions of concern from
progressive Jewish leaders at the national level, asking why there was no
conversation with members of the Jewish community before these actions were
formulated. They feel that their credibility in the Jewish community has
been made more vulnerable to attack by right-wingers, who accuse much of the
leadership of Reform Judaism of betraying Israel by even being part of
"left-wing" and "dovish" interfaith coalitions. They felt blind-sided by
their allies. It may help to make clear that these actions were not drafted
in advance by GA agencies or groups, but came to the Assembly through
overtures and commissioners' resolutions, which provided far less
opportunity for advance dialogue.
Where do we stand now?
Early in the controversy
the Stated Clerk
issued a comprehensive statement of the positions taken by the PC(USA).
And in response to a letter from members of Congress scolding the PC(USA)
for this action,
Kirkpatrick sent a reply expressing regret at the inaction of Congress,
as well as Israel and the Palestinian Authority, in carrying out
peace accords that are now more than a decade old. These and other items can
be found
through a special web page on the PC(USA) website.
Even with all the tensions over the
General Assembly actions, new efforts at dialogue are proceeding. There are
some, however, who demand a total recantation of some of the statements made
at this General Assembly. That is not likely to happen. But we may hope for
more clarification of the long-time policies of the PC(USA) concerning both
Israel and the Palestinians, explanation of the recent controversial
actions, and new statements that fill gaps and try to reduce the
possibilities for misunderstanding.
Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and
Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase
met with a group of
Jewish leaders in New York on September 28. While (as Kirkpatrick said)
"no one's minds were changed," the meeting did allow airing of concerns and
facts, and led to some basic points of agreement and suggestions for future
conversations, which Kirkpatrick laid out in
a letter to presbytery and synod Stated
Clerks and Executives.
In spite of the problems, we are hopeful
that the controversy has placed our church's concern for a just peace in the
Middle East in a clear spotlight, both within the PC(USA) and in the public
forum. We hope that this can be the occasion for a clear, positive social
witness, and for stronger interfaith dialogue.
We hope that the simple perspectives we
have outlined above might help in this important process.
