Saturday, June 24, 2006
If you want an indication of just how much the "professional class" at the Presbyterian Church (USA) did not like the repudiation the 217th General Assembly just handed their prize issues (see: PC(USA) General Assembly ACCEPTS Committee Report -- Removes Divestment Language -- Live Blog and Presbyterian General Assembly Votes to Declare Suicide Bombing a Crime Against Humanity Over Objections of Social Witness Policy Committee), take a look at what the Moderator of the 216th GA, Rick Ufford-Chase, tried to do the day after: Ufford-Chase's bid to reconsider divestment resolution is defeated
The remnants included 216th General Assembly Moderator Rick-Ufford Chase's unsuccessful attempt to convince the commissioners to reconsider a resolution on the Middle East because it called on the denomination to restrain from telling other nations not to protect their borders.
That wasn't the way Ufford-Chase wanted the resolution to read. He said the Presbyterian Church (USA) should not abandon its prophetic right to tell nations what to do.
He was addressing one of the statements in the new General Assembly policy that replaced the 2004 resolution favoring Palestinian interests over Israel's defense of its borders, including military occupation in some Palestinian areas and a separation barrier that has been credited with significantly reducing terrorists' suicide attacks on Israeli civilians.
The General Assembly approved the policy, written by its Peacemaking and International Issues Committee. It begins with an apology for the actions of the 216th General Assembly, which adopted a resolution calling for phased selective divestment of denominational holdings in multinational corporations doing business in Israel. That resolution included no similar sanctions against the Palestinians.
The new statement also defended Israel's right to construct a barrier to protect its citizens, while the 2004 resolution condemned that barrier.
Ufford-Chase wanted the statement defending Israel's right to build the wall extracted from the committee reports. But the majority of the assembly seemed to prefer the advice of Noel Anderson of San Joaquin Presbytery, who noted that the committee carefully considered that part of the report and approved the statement almost unanimously, and asked the commissioners to reject Ufford-Chase's request. They did...
That was just the type of thing some folks were afraid of -- that the higher-ups would try to circumvent the committee report by some maneuver or other. This was a fairly weak effort, and fortunately it failed. The system worked.
Further evidence: Some Presbyterians are noting that the PC(USA) house organs are misreporting (spinning hard) what went on.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Former Moderator Tried to Amend anti-Divestment Resolution.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/6435
One has to be a moral idiot to oppose Israel's security barrier. Thank heavens that "Little Ricky" Ufford-Chase is no longer the Moderator of the General Assembly.
Please do not accuse the Presbyterian House organs of misreporting. Oh my, you folks are the "artists" of spin!!!
You certainly have perfected the "spin" so greatly from the taxi cab driver who gave me a ride to East Jerusalem to the highest ranking Rabbi...Oh, we're ready for peace...but they're not!!! You are perfectionists when it comes to projecting a 'perfect' image. Now, with the issue of divestment on the table, you're pure 'white' image has a little smudge.
But, you do have to admit that this 'talk' of divestment certainly did stop you in your tracks!!!
We all want peace. But, when the oppressed (Israel) have become the oppressors, then how can there be peace???
I'm glad to see the one-sidedness against Israel has been struck down.
Yes, the Hamas/PRC/new terrorist group attack on Israel this morning proves utterly how much the palestinians are interested in peace.
Say, if the divestment "stopped us in our tracks," howcome we're celebrating its reversal? And hey, the Episcopals reversed THEMselves this weekend, too.
Yup. That anti-divestment charge is stopped dead in its tracks. Darn. You won.
Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.
Yeah, yeah, Solly, I know, I should be a bit more grown-up in my comments, but sometimes, I just have to snark.
Snark away. Some comments are made for it.
I am an undergraduate student writing my final research paper on this topic of PCUSA divestment from Israeli companies (or the discussion surrounding the possibility of divestment). I have spent all semester in a class where the overwhelming view is that American Christians have little respect for all sides of this issue. I chose this topic in order to present what I see as the reality of the issue - that the Christian church does in fact respect all people and all sides of the issue and is discussing this issue in a respectful, mature, Christ-like way.
I have therefore been stunned to find the blogs and comments posted here. I am not taking a side personally or in my paper - except to try and prove that as Christians we approach this issue with the highest ideals in mind. I am thrown off by what I have found here.
I am nineteen and no expert on any of the theology surrounding this, though I am now very educated about the history. Regardless, how is it that you, as men and women of God, can use the language and tones I have found here. I do not mean to be disrespectful of the church, but instead to genuinely ask yourselves if the approach you are taking here is in line with the faith you claim.
Among the things I found most offensive were:
-A reference, completely irrelevant to the point, comparing a chairperson to a "Dyke on a Bike." This is the stuff of teenage bullying. I am shocked to find it here.
-A consistent parallel between Palestinians and terorists. Not only is this ignorant, denying the complexity of an issue you have clearly not studied the history of, it is a stereotype on par with the many we face as Christians. Let us not return the insult.
-Finally, I am disheartened to find such rivalry and dissent between members of the church. We are called to unity, are we not? Different parts with different roles, called to "one mind." As we become more and more like Christ, growing in love and unity, can we not have dynamic differences without the elements of gossip and immaturity here?
Please ask yourself who's voice comes out in your writing. I am not trying to be judgmental or step outside the bounds of what is acceptable for me to criticize, but I could not read these interactions and blogs without thinking of what this must look like to those outside of the Body who read what is here, or see the effects of similar patterns elsewhere. You are the leaders of the church I am a part of. Please reconsider the approach you have taken here. Just because it is in line with the dominant American thinking about the issues does not mean that should have any effect on our thinking. We are called to something higher. Let us strive for that.