Monday, February 14, 2005
Someone should remind the Presbyterian Church, USA of that principle. They seem to be caught up in a quagmire of good intentions that's going to end up drowning them in some very evil results.
Here's a very good piece by Dexter Van Zile showing the inconsistencies in the PCUSA's own position. Read the whole thing, but here's a snip.
The Washington Dispatch: Proponents of Divestment in the Presbyterian Church:
“We have to send strong messages to such companies,” said Mitri Raheb pastor at the Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church in Bethlehem, an ecumenical guest who encouraged the Presbyterian General Assembly to divest.
“Sisters and brothers, this is a moment of truth,” Raheb said.
Sadly enough, the members of the General Assembly voted to divest without a full airing of the facts surrounding the Arab/Israeli conflict. In particular, the proponents of divestment put the blame for the undeniable suffering of Christians in Bethlehem, the West Bank and Gaza at the feet of the Israelis, while ignoring enormous evidence of Arab/Muslim oppression of Christians in these areas. The narrative also gives short shrift to terror attacks against Israel by suicide bombers dedicated to Israel’s destruction.
The sad irony is that by adopting this one-sided dishonest narrative about the Arab/Israeli conflict as justification for divestment, the Presbyterians are contravening the spirit of the Barmen Declaration – one of the creeds included in the PC(USA)’s Book of Confessions. This declaration, written in 1934 by theologians in Germany during the Nazi’s rise to power warns about the dangers of Christianity being appropriated for the purposes of the state. At the time writing, Hitler was pressuring Protestant churches to expel converted Jews from their pulpits and was forcing religious leaders to embrace his obsession with racial purity as a source of revelation. Sadly enough, many church leaders who called themselves "German Christians" willingly accepted the changes and spoke of Hitler as a "German Prophet."
While the theologians who wrote the document were unable to stop German churches from handing themselves over to the Nazis, the declaration remains a powerful statement of the Church's obligation to God and its responsibility to the society in which it exists. Consequently, the declaration remains powerful influence on the outlook of many Protestant theologians and ministers, particularly in the U.S. where ministers invoke Barth’s legacy to warn of the excesses of nationalism. Indeed, the Declaration has become an important touchstone of belief for mainline Protestants in the U.S, with the Presbyterian Church (USA) including the Barmen Declaration in its book of Confessions and the United Church of Christ (UCC) regarding it as one of its historic testimonies...
...Given the centrality of the Barmen Declaration to modern-day Protestantism and the regularity with which it has been praised, interpreted, profiled, and invoked, one would think Protestants, Presbyterians especially, would be sensitive to the prospect of Christianity lending itself to nationalistic purposes, but for some reason the phrase “Palestinian Christian” evokes no ominous overtones for Protestant thinkers who tremble at the thought of “American” or “German” Christian. “Palestinian Christian” is a phrase they should recognize. “I am a Palestinian Christian” is the title of Raheb’s first book about the Arab/Israeli conflict...
The controversy over the Church's decision to divest "prompted the church to hold a meeting this [past] Thursday, Friday and Saturday (Feb. 10-12, 2005) in Louisville to revisit the issue." Van Zile then lists ten questions he'd like to see asked at the meeting.
Well, the meeting has come and gone, and far from re-visiting the issue - given the wide-spread negative reaction - with a fresh exchange of views, it sounds as though the event was held as more of an advocacy effort for one side. There was a panel held - organized, as I am told, by...Elizabeth and Marthame Sanders. You can see the issues with the Sanders in the post below. The Sanders are dedicated anti-Israel activists and, as-per the type, seem to have serious deficiencies in distinguishing the line between legitimate criticism and anti-Semitism, including using their web site to post the writing of anti-Semitic lunatic Israel Shamir and calling it the "prophetic words of Israeli Jewish self-criticism." When called on this obvious problems with mixing their own (and thus PCUSA's) views with this man's and thus drawing the rest of their motives into question, they have taken to releasing a form letter excuse. It does not change the fact that in order to achieve their political ends, they are willing to align themselves with the lowest type of characters. Is it any wonder relations between Jews and Presbyterians may be strained?
Further, is this what members of PCUSA who don't agree with the policy deserve? To be railroaded along the path to a foregone conclusion. If I had gone to the meeting with an alternative view and the desire to see it aired, I'd have been sore angry. Presbyterians, it sounds to me like your church organization is being hijacked by some people with a serious, and highly questionable, political agenda.
This article in Presbyterian Outlook describes the event and makes their slant clearly obvious. Note the tone. Condescending start to finish...Gee, we really hate to do this, we know it's tough, but gosh...we just gotta.
Palestinian stories open PC(USA) training event
That’s what a Palestinian pastor from East Jerusalem said during an early session of a national Presbyterian training event that began Feb. 10 on peace in the Middle East.
But the telling of those stories – painful and personal ones, for example, of the difficulty of teaching one’s children love for all people when those children are routinely humiliated by Israeli soldiers at checkpoints – opens the door to layer upon layer of complications.
Can the Palestinian stories be told without telling those of Israeli Jews? What about Muslims from the region? And how can Presbyterians have fruitful conversations with American Jews if the story the Palestinian Christians tell is so powerful and so negative?
This event was scheduled by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the aftermath of the General Assembly’s controversial decision last summer to approve a process of phased, selective divestment in some companies doing business in Israel, in protest over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. More than 200 Presbyterians have come to Kentucky, where the denomination’s national offices are located, to learn more about what the assembly did regarding divestiture and about the history of PC(USA) involvement in the Middle East, in part to help prepare them for conversations already taking place across the country between Presbyterians and Jews angered by the assembly’s action...
That's gonna be a helluva conversation given what kind of stuff Presbyterian attendees are being injected with. The article describes the Palestinian Christian panelists as typical and indicative of the universal experience and opinion of Christian Arabs, puts all of the blame for their problems on Israel's shoulders and gives no background or explanation for why there are things like checkpoints and security fences. "A century ago, about 30 percent of the Palestinian people were Christians; today, it’s less than 3 percent, Abu-Akel said..." leaving the impression that Jewish oppression is the problem. Left unsaid is that that the Christian population within Israel itself has approximately quadrupled over the past sixty years. Maybe there's more to this than is being provided. Maybe an informed decision requires more information.
Not surprising, given what I'm lead to understand was the composition of the panel. According to my correspondent:
One of the speakers was a Palestinian teenager, the other three are experienced anti-Israel activists who work full time for organizations that do not admit the right of a Jewish State to exist.
SAWSAN BITAR is employed by the Sabeel Center. Sabeel is a Palestinian Liberation Theology center and intensely anti-Israel. Sabeel insists on the "right of return," which is code for eliminating the Jewish State.
NUHA KHOURY is Deputy Director of the International Center of Bethlehem. This is a Lutheran-supported organization that, like Sabeel, is intensely anti-Israel. Her boss, Reverend Mitri Raheb, appeared at the GA to speak in favor of the divestment. Khoury has toured the US giving anti-Israel propaganda talks.
ALEX AWAD is a prominent anti-Israel activist and author. He is employed as a Methodist missionary, but his mission is not to preach the Gospel of Jesus to non-Christians. Awad devotes his time to “taking… tour group(s) through a Palestinian refugee camp,” and writing anti-Israel books and articles...
There's your dialogue.
Now look, I'm sure many of the Prebyterians who support divestment have good intentions, but here's what they're doing, here's just a taste of what they would get as a direct result of achieving their goals: If Israel stops all checkpoints, it means terrorists travel freely between towns. It means explosives and arms travel freely - between towns and into and out of Israel. That means people die. They get blown up. They get shot. Innocent Arabs looking for law and order won't have it because criminals can travel from place to place with impunity. If the fence comes down, it means terrorist murderers can come and go as they wish. It means Israelis will go back to living in constant fear and innocent Arabs who live in towns where the terrorists originate from will go back to suffering when the inevitable Israeli crackdowns come.
That's just a taste of the crop of blood these activists wish to sow. It's up to us, and Presbyterians of good will and common sense, to oppose them and prevent it from happening. There are many good reasons for the security fence, for checkpoints, even for a slow winding-down of the occupation. PCUSA members deserve to be exposed to them.
Finally, what is the point of all of this? Israelis and Palestinians are currently embarked on what is hopefully a historic path to peace. As commenter Jonathan Edelstein has pointed out, Ariel Sharon is putting his entire legacy on the line for a quick Gaza pullout and a partial West Bank withdrawal, trying to foster the growth of a new and responsible Palestinian Government without the need for this type of pressure. What kind of signal other than a damned if you do, damned if you don't message does this send? It makes Israelis...and many Jews...feel that there are other reasons at work - other reasons for the Israel obsession.
Dexter Van Zile (dvz at davidproject dot org) emails:
While at the meeting, I obtained a copy of the May/June 2004 issue of Church and Society, a magazine published by the Presbyterian Church.
It includes an article written by a UCC pastor (that’s my denomination). His name is Robert Hamerton-Kelly.
It begins with the following passage:
"On deep cable a few weeks ago, there was a semi-propaganda movie of the kind we see more and more as the religious violence of the State of Israel becomes more egregious. It is about a Polish village, whose inhabitants were all Jews, and their dreadful fate during the 1940s. One scene sticks in my mind: an avuncular rabbi, a cross between Santa Clause and "Fiddler on the Roof" tells the story of the exodus to ten or so angelic children aged about six through nine. No scene could warmer and more engaging, more full of love and beauty, and then the narrative begins. This genial old man asks the children, "Why do we celebrate Passover?" He then answers his own question: "Because God killed the firstborn children of the Egyptians and told us to mark the doorposts of our houses with the blood of the lamb so that the angel of death might pass us over." I was appalled and thought immediately of two things: 1) That this gave the children permission to kill those who were not like them, and 2) That the Apostle Paul had been such a child and then such a rabbi."
This passage is one of the most offensive I’ve seen in all my life. Take a look at the magazine for yourself to verify the quote. If you want I can mail you a copy. I have called the magazine’s editor Bobbi Hargleroad to register my complaint. I’ve called twice and sent her a message via the PC(USA)’s website:
When confronted with a passage such as this, it's hard to decide what to begin unpacking first -- the sloppy scholarship or the unmistakable hostility toward Jews. The scholarship, if it can be called that, is terrible. What is 'deep cable' and exactly what was the name of the movie Kelly is using as the point of departure for his essay?In this passage, Kelly offers a sidelong glance and a wink to his ideological allies as if to say "Just let them accuse me of anti-Semitism. If they can't tell the difference between criticism of Israel and hostility toward Jews, that's their problem." The problem is that Kelly's unproven accusation of religious violence by the state of Israel is combined with the familiar anti-Jewish stereotype of the Jews controlling the media (because how else can we explain the appearance of such "semi-propaganda" at such a convenient time?) and an assertion that the rabbi's story gave his listeners the permission to kill. Really? How exactly? Did the children act on this permission in this piece of semi-propaganda Kelly can't be bothered to name? And is Kelly implying their is a connection between the Book of Exodus and religious violence of the state of Israel Kelly can't be bothered to detail? Between Kelly's intellectual sloppiness and his undeniable hostility, it's clear he is a man used to being listened to as he speaks from the pulpit, but not one used to being interrupted with inconvenient questions from his listeners.
Imagine if a similar passage was written about Islam or the Arab world. People would be outraged.
This is shameful. Absolutely shameful. What makes this passage even more shameful is that it was putatively edited by Ronald Stone. Ronald Stone, you may recall, was the individual who met with Hezbollah in Oct. 2004 and said the following:
“As an elder of our church, I’d like to say that according to my recent experience, relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialog with Jewish leaders.”
Shocking. Shocking. Shocking.
Ah yes, the "egregious" violence of the State of Israel must be supported by late-night movie propaganda - or is the Jews' violence caused by lessons of racial superiority? Both? I've lost track. Who knew the Ten Plagues were so exciting? Exodus Ubber Alles! Whatever, is it any wonder that some of us suspect dark motives behind this compulsive focus on one democratic state struggling to survive? Perhaps PCUSA could focus its energies on preaching against violence and terrorism, helping Palestinian Arabs to develop a real civil society, stop the preaching of hate and...most of all...stop substituting tired cant like "stop the occupation" for real solutions - solutions that show responsibility is a word that works in two directions. All their tired old tactics can possible accomplish is continued violence and bloodshed there and bad feelings that will not be soon in fading here at home.
Update: Another article on what went on at the meeting is here. Examining what was presented as a listing of facts to help Presbyterians understand the issue, it quickly becomes no wonder that they are finding a whole lot of hostility when they try to engage outside their own ranks. The narrative they are being given is simply a collection of propaganda and pseudo-factoids devoid of real, unmanipulated context and it's leaving them totally unprepared to understand or engage on the issues.
