Articles

By David Blewett*

On July 1, 2004, delegates to the 216^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA voted 431 to 62 to begin a process of phased, selective divestment from certain companies doing business in Israel that harm innocent Palestinians. In adopting that resolution, the 216^th General Assembly set off a firestorm of criticism from Christians and Jews around the country and in Israel, but nowhere is the criticism as severe as it has been within the Presbyterian Church USA[1] itself. Today the PCUSA is a church in trouble.

The anger, frustration and disgust that is now surging through the PCUSA contain some important lessons for Christians and Jews, especially for those denominations considering their own divestment resolutions. One very important lesson is the reality of widespread support for Israel in the Christian churches and communities of the United States.

Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish Christian Relations (PCJCR)

Leading the opposition to the divestment resolution is Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish Christian Relations, an informally organized network of Presbyterians who are committed to fostering relations of respect and under-standing between the two faith communities. Originally organized in 1983 to help pass the church’s statement, A Theological Understanding of the Relationship Between Christians and Jews (1987), the group is again exercising important leadership in the church. Shortly after the divestment vote last July, PCJCR issued a statement in protest, Presbyterians Disagree on Israel. In part, that statement says:

“We are deeply distressed by any suggestion that divestment policies of the church relating to Israel should uniquely target that country in ways that do not apply to every other country, including Palestine. We must be careful not to attack the economic life of the Israeli people or to undermine Jewish survival in any way.”[2]

The Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish Christian Relations website (www. pcjcr.org) has their statement, several articles and sermons that present opposing views to divestment and a petition to be signed by Presbyterians. The petition is carefully written and, in accordance with Presbyterian Church policy, calls for an immediate moratorium on all divestment activity and for a vote to rescind the divestment resolution at the next General Assembly, in 2006.

As Presbyterians around the country continue to learn of the opposition spearheaded by PCJCR, many are seeking to join the group and identify with its balanced approach of opposition to the church’s divestment plans. The number of churches and presbyteries that are signing onto the PCJCR petition indicate that opposition to the idea of divestment is church-wide and still growing.

Sampling of Other Presbyterian Critics

Some delegates at the 2004 General Assembly did speak out against the divestment resolution but The Rev. Mitri Raheb, a Lutheran pastor from Bethlehem and an ecu-menical guest at the General Assembly, convinced most delegates that it was “important for churches to take direct action and stop simply issuing statements.”[3] His words gave the necessary support for divestment advocates to proceed to the vote.

Many Presbyterian leaders from across the country and from throughout the church have been expressing their outrage at the idea of divestment.[4] A sample of the reactions includes an outspoken reaction from The Rev. Mark Brewer, pastor of Bel Air Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles. Speaking to his congregation on a Sunday following the divestment vote, Rev. Brewer said:  “The [General Assembly] fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch coming down. The idea that withholding funds is going to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is ridiculous.” The standing room only crowds at each of the three Sunday morning services “greeted his remarks with applause and laughter.”[5]

At its first meeting following the General Assembly, The Session[6] of New York’s historic Brick Presbyterian Church approved a statement opposing the divestment resolution. In part, that resolution read:

“We as a Church strongly support efforts to advance the peace process in the Middle East. As residents of New York City who lived through the September 11 attack on innocent people, we especially share the pain of victims of terror . . .

“The action of the General Assembly, however well intended, undermines our balanced concern for all people in the Middle East. Its failure to expressly condemn terror does not represent the views of many Presbyterians and has caused misperceptions and pain in the Christian and Jewish communities. We are saddened that the proposed selective divestment is now being cited as support for a broader divestiture from Israel.”[7]

The Session of River Road Presbyterian Church in Richmond, Virginia, released a statement acknowledging that the action to divest from Israel was “instituted capriciously and with misguided intentions.” Their statement calls on the General Assembly “to suspend, renounce and nullify the proceedings leading to the implementation of the General Assembly action toward divestment of legitimate investments of American corporations engaged in commerce with the state of Israel.”[8]

In An Open Letter to the Baltimore Jewish Community, the signers of the letter, The Revs. John Sharp, Peter Nord and Christopher Leighton, said, “Many of us Presbyterians were surprised by these actions and wish to go on record stating that they do not fairly represent our views . . . The actions of this Assembly dealt a disturbing setback to the vitally important relationship between our communities.”[9]

The Rev. Gregg Meister, a Presbyterian pastor in Haddonfield, New Jersey, has said that the resolution does not reflect the attitude of most Presbyterians: “My experience with people in the pew, as a pastor, as one who produces educational resources, as one who gives seminars, is that people in the pews are quite strongly pro-Israel.”[10]

There is overwhelming evidence that The Rev. Meister is correct.

Many statements and letters of protests echo the sentiments of University Presbyterian Church in San Antonio and a number of other Texas Presbyterian congregations who issued a statement that expressed their opposition to divestment. Their statement concludes by saying: “We cannot support a resolution that appears to focus blame on Israel alone.” [11]

The Session of Hope Presbyterian Church in Richfield, Minnesota, in a strongly worded open letter to Clifton Kirkpatrick, the Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church USA, that said, in part:

 “. . . We reject the General Assembly’s notion that Israel is morally equivalent to South Africa during its years of practicing apartheid. The people of Israel have endured years of terrorist attacks, at times on almost a daily basis. This does not mean that they are above criticism, but it does mean that we must grasp – and empathize with – the reality of daily life in Israel before we judge Israeli responses to terrorism.

“We ask you to remember that in the mystery and plan of God, we Christians are bound to the Jewish people and the nation of Israel in a unique way. The 216^th General Assembly helpfully focused on the plight of the Palestinians, a number of whom are our brothers and sisters in Christ. But this focus was unbalanced, and has unfairly compromised Israel’s standing in the world.”[12]

A surprisingly large number of congregations have chosen to stop funding the general budget of the Presbyterian Church, choosing instead to carefully designate how monies sent to the church headquarters are to be spent, since they no longer trust the national church leaders to decide church priorities. While continuing to support church schools, camps, foreign missionaries, welfare agencies and other worthwhile programs, they refuse to further support those programs that they perceive to damage a true Christian witness in today’s world and work against the stated objectives of the Presbyterian Church USA.

Clayton Presbyterian Church in Clayton, Georgia, sent a public letter to the Presbyterian Church USA national headquarters in Louisville on August 14, 2004, that simply said:

“We reject the Presbyterian divestment resolution against Israel and the Jewish people as being reckless and indefensible. We call for its immediate revocation, a statement of apology for the action, and a meaningful request for forgive-ness for the pain caused by this ill-conceived action. Further, as the PCUSA has chosen to withhold financial support from Israel, the Clayton Presbyterian Church, PCUSA, will withhold apportionment from the denomination until this action is reversed, and we encourage other churches to join us in this protest and the withholding of apportionment from the PCUSA."[13]

The Investment Committee of the 5,300 member Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago has put its own unique spin on divestment. The church’s Session has voted to selectively divest from the national Presbyterian Church and “seek appropriate corporations whose business in Israel is positive . . . and make appropriate investment . . . in such businesses.”[14]

The Presbyterian Church USA Reacts

Knowing that it was facing unexpectedly harsh criticism from American Presbyterians, the PCUSA organized a conference in Louisville, from February 10-12, 2005, to train Presbyterians how to speak about divestment in their home congregations and communities. Over 200 church members, representing all 16 synods of the church and nearly half of the 173 presbyteries, came to hear presentations on Middle Eastern history, Christians Zionism, divestment, and Palestinian Christians in what they expected to be fair and open discussions.

However, the bias of the Presbyterian Church soon became obvious to many of the participants. No one from Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish-Christian Relations was invited to speak at plenary sessions or on a panel, nor were any other opponents to divestment. The only Jewish voice that was heard was that of Rabbi Arik Ascherman, executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights, who spoke via phone from Jerusalem.

One attendee from the Central Florida presbytery said that he was “saddened that we didn’t have Jewish representatives here to give their side . . . It is a multi-faceted problem. How can we learn and understand if these voices are absent? How does one discern truth when critical voices are gone?”[15]  Another participant, Susan Wittjen, echoed those feelings of frustration. She told a reporter from the Presbyterian News Service that she had wanted to hear a Jewish voice. She said, “We were told that this would be a balanced presentation,” but to many participants it seemed to be nothing more than an apologetic for the Presbyterian position.[16]

Christian Support for Israel Remains High

It is understandable that most people would believe that the words of church leaders or the actions of General Assemblies faithfully represent the attitudes of church members. However, the divestment issue is an example of how wrong that conclusion can be. While Presbyterian Church leaders are promoting one idea, a surprisingly large number of local Presbyterian Church members are saying and doing things in direct opposition to the leadership’s position.

Many times when I am invited to speak, organizers have commented that they are not sure how many people will attend, but inevitably, when the topic deals with Israel, the attendance is larger than expected. This is not only my experience; I hear from many of my colleagues on the NCLCI Executive Committee that they are experiencing the same thing in their part of the country.

This Backgrounder has focused on the Presbyterian Church USA since it was the church that publicly voted to begin exploring the divestment process. Other mainline Protestant denominations are quietly drafting their own divestment resolutions and, as copies of the drafts leak out, my NCLCI colleagues and I see the same kind of turmoil stirring in each of those denominations. Across the country, support for the people, land and state of Israel remains high in local Christian churches throughout the United States – regardless of what church leaders say.

The Bigger Issue

I believe that the divestment issue in mainline Protestant churches is a symptom of a much larger problem – Christian arrogance.

Jews tend to see Israel as an issue of survival. After years of dialogue, if Christians do not understand the profound significance of Israel to their dialogue partners, they simply have not been paying attention. On the other hand, after years of dialogue, if Christians do understand the significance of Israel for their Jewish partners, and still promote the idea of divesting from Israel, their concern for their dialogue partner is quite superficial. No wonder Jewish leaders are getting fed up trying to dialogue with some Christian leaders.

In a letter sent to Protestant leaders on April 22, 2005, a number of mainstream Jewish leaders said:

“Any Protestant denomination that would consider the weapon of economic sanctions to be unilaterally and prejudicially used against the State of Israel, or those who would hold the State of Israel to a standard different from any other sovereign state, creates an environment which makes constructive dialogue almost impossible.”[17]

Christian arrogance has caught up with the dialogue and is threatening to end one of the most dynamic and enriching experiences of church history, one that has opened exciting new vistas for understanding who we Christians are and how we should be reading our Bibles. Christian arrogance is obviously still very real when it comes to Christian attitudes toward Jews, Judaism and, especially, Israel.

Dr. Barbara Wheeler, President of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York, spoke to this when she said: “We talk as if we have superior moral status, as if we are in a position to define . . . what this conflict is ‘about’ from a Jewish perspective, and even what God does or should ‘forbid’ with respect to positions taken by Jews on Israel.  Instead of delivering moralizing pronouncements and symbolic body blows, Presbyterians should offer partnership – listening, support and encouragement – to Jews, Muslims and other Christians who are working for reconciliation.”[18]

Dr. Cynthia Campbell, the President of Chicago’s McCormick Theological Seminary, told the church’s General Assembly Council meeting in Louisville this past September, “We as a Presbyterian church need to take this opportunity to really listen to why it is this divestment issue has occasioned such a negative reaction in the Jewish community . . . The divestment strategy is a strategy that has, I think, unnecessarily moved in a direction that alienates us from people that we need very seriously to be in a relationship with.”[19]

I have not found a better expression of Christian repentance than that written by The Reverend Doug Huneke, pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tiburon, California. In a letter to The Jewish Weekly of Northern California, Pastor Huneke wrote:

“My denomination must again try to earn the trust and friendship of the Jewish community. The vast majority of Presbyterians are not anti-Semitic and most are either deeply troubled or confused by the [General Assembly] actions. We are profoundly disturbed by our leaders and by the delegates who favored these anti-Israel, anti-Semitic actions. Be certain of this. We are also committed to challenging the actions of the denomination and working for meaningful sensitivity in the church and its congregations regarding Israel and the unquestionable spiritual integrity of Judaism. As I repent and repudiate those actions, taken in my name, I commit myself to continuing efforts to bring a just peace (in governance and territory) to Israelis and Palestinians, and respectful understanding between Christians (especially Presbyterians) and Jews in America.”[20]

This is the work that all conscientious Christians now have before us.