2 The Sad Truth

Over the course of my life, I have often been told “the sad truth”. The sad truth usually consisted in rehearsing my errors and sins. It was often told dishonestly – the speakers held motives of their own distinct from improving my character. It was often told hypocritically – the speakers had little room to talk. I usually responded with defensiveness and disbelief. In my mind, I quoted King Lear: “I am a man more sinned against than sinning.” And I suspect that is a common human reaction.

But it is a mistake. Whatever real or imagined motives the speakers carry, whatever hypocrisies they demonstrate, the accuracy of their charges remains unaffected. If the sad truth they are telling is indeed true, we ignore it to our peril.

There are few things we resist with such tenacity as that which we do not want to admit.

When it comes to American church treatment of Palestine and Israel there is a sort of kind collusion at work among parties on all sides of the issue. It has a form of kindness; it is amiable; but it is neither good nor right.

To a degree, I understand why this should be so. It grows out of the existence of a wide array of subtly varied agendas – most of which would not be advanced by a policy of undiplomatic honesty. For many, other issues are far more important: if it does not closely touch our hearts, why bother to take it up? For all but a few diehards, the perennial unpleasantness that surrounds everything to do with the Middle East is a powerful disincentive from even thinking about the issues involved. The usual approach is to seek a quick, easy action that will enable us to feel good about ourselves and then move on to other topics.

But I have become convinced there is a deeper factor also at work here. If we take time to examine our record as it specifically concerns Israelis and Palestinians, we might see something about ourselves – about our actions and attitudes – that we don’t much want to know. It is one of those “sad truth” moments. We will look for the ulterior motives and hypocrisies of any who raise concerns so we never have to deal with the substance of those concerns.

I have not always believed this to be the case. For me, the PC(USA)’s 2004 divestment decision was pretty much a non-issue. I didn’t support it, but I confess I lacked enough information on the topic to have a particularly intense opinion. I viewed divestment as one in a series of political decisions taken by various General Assemblies that were out of step with the views of the members and elders of most Presbyterian churches. In my experience, those members and elders tended toward moderation; and in my experience, those members and elders did not have strong beliefs about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This 2004 action struck me as a little bit extreme – even radicalized. But it remained just one of several bothersome decisions of that assembly.

It was only when I voiced this concern that things changed. Locally, I was told by fellow Presbyterian elders, “I don’t see how what Louisville says has anything to do with us.” In hindsight, I find it interesting that the vast majority of local elders I spoke with did not differentiate between Presbyterian headquarters in Louisville and a General Assembly composed of commissioners from every presbytery. At the time, I was struck by the obvious total disconnect between the national denomination and the local church.

Nationally, I was told, “Remember the Liberty …”, “You’re a biblical ignoramus …”, “Through its divestment action, the GA was speaking prophetically …”, “Divestment came because Israel has ignored our statements for almost sixty years …”, “We’re a connectional church …” [Huh?], and something about the “true-blue semites in Palestine.”

I found the reactions puzzling, confusing, and alarming.

National PC(USA) officials, meantime, were spinning the actual decision in ways that were not possible interpretations of its wording. The action itself was simple: to “initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel.” It did not (as was reported later by the Stated Clerk, the Moderator and others) “authorize exploration of a selective divestment …”; it was not directed at terrorism; it was not in any way limited to companies “whose business in Israel is found to be directly or indirectly causing harm or suffering to innocent people, Palestinian or Israeli”; it did not focus solely on the occupation.

Why the spin? What was that intended to accomplish?

Something did not feel right about this whole thing.

It was at this point I began to take a closer look at the actual statements and actions of the PC(USA) related to Israel. [And, to tell the truth, I have often wished I had not done this.] I started by reading Presbyterian News Service stories going back until before 2000. I read the statements from the Washington Office. I read statements of national officials. I read the minutes of the prior six General Assemblies. I read the back issues of the publication of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy. I explored the materials released by official PC(USA) partner organizations.

I took this approach because I accepted the argument that various news organizations might have misrepresented or mischaracterized PC(USA) actions. Critics of the organization might be giving the worst reading to events. Supporters of Israel had an agenda of their own. Pro-Palestinian activists might spin events in ways the PC(USA) did not itself intend or support. I wanted the rationales to be put in the best possible light.

I began with hope – maybe what I suspected was a fluke. Surely things could not be that bad.

But it was no good. I have to say, I have undertaken no other task that has filled me with such dreariness, such revulsion, such sadness, and such shame.

What I found in 2005 – and what the last seven years have only served to confirm, reinforce, and indeed worsen – was the presence of something unexpected, something very ugly, and something I am convinced has the potential to be very dangerous. And I knew then, as I know now – it is something I will oppose with my last breath.

Now I find myself in the unenviable position of telling the sad truth.

As an organization, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has an Israel problem. Other denominations and groups also have this problem, but the case in the PC(USA) is more extreme than most. Explain this hostility however you want, but the facts are clear enough.

For at least the last fifteen years, GA after GA, denominational officials, committees, offices have issued critical statements. Some of these were warranted; some were off-the-wall; some were calls to action; some were peculiar (even insupportable) historical assertions. In each instance, where facts have been disputed, the official PC(USA) has sided against Israel. Every interpretation of events the PC(USA) has chosen has reflected unfavorably upon Israel. The PC(USA) has demonstrated an extraordinary single-mindedness of focus. It is true, of course, that Presbyterians have criticized the actions of other nations. But when you consider the sheer number of targeted statements and actions, a pattern emerged. With the exception of the United States, Israel garners more negative PC(USA) attention than all other nations combined.

Excuse it, rationalize it, dismiss it, but you must admit, it is a peculiar phenomenon.

The spirit of criticism of Israel has prompted Presbyterians to quirky theological inconsistencies. For example, the worldwide Jewish community can be held in a special way to (Presbyterian interpretations of) the moral requirements of the Hebrew Bible, while that same community can be denied any of the biblical promises. Presbyterian luminaries have smugly asserted (alluding to an Edward Said quote, I believe), “God is not a real estate broker.” Yet those same Presbyterian luminaries frequently reference holy sites and the Christian presence in a holy land. Perhaps they meant to say, “God is a real estate broker who only serves Christians.”

Of greater concern, the Presbyterian hostility toward Israel lends itself to the propagation of classical, antisemitic themes. In the materials circulated by Presbyterians and their partners, one encounters the use of crucifixion imagery employed against Israel, Khazar arguments, claims that Jews control the US government, false accusations made directly against American Jewish organizations, the use of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as if it were legitimate history, the language of contempt.

Just this evening I was reminded of an inexplicable May 7, 2012 tweet by the Israel Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Presented without comment or context it consisted in a link to an article written by Khalid Amayreh.

To be fair, the IPMN often refers readers to articles on the Middle East. Sometimes these are articles which disagree with the objectives of the IPMN. But in those cases, the IPMN usually indicates its disagreement. If an article contains something particularly offensive – and its agenda is one the IPMN opposes, the article is usually presented to show that agenda in the worst possible light. I object to none of this. But I am left to wonder what to make of an article whose thesis the IPMN has loudly supported. The IPMN has taken it as an article of faith that “Israeli persecution forces Christians to emigrate”.

The only problem? The article informs the reader:

But the special hatred (and contempt) of Christians by Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, goes deep in history and certainly precedes modern Zionism by numerous centuries.

Amayreh quotes Yisrael Shahak:

“The very name Jesus was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable, and this popular tradition still persists. The Gospels are equally detested, and they are not allowed to be quoted, let alone taught, even in modern Israeli Jewish schools.”

Amayreh goes on to say:

Hence, one can safely claim that Jewish and Judaic hostility to Christianity is inherent and intrinsic and transcends all Christian pogroms, including the holocaust.

And:

But I discovered that even 2000 years later, many Jews are not willing to forgive Jesus and still relating rather gleefully And vengefully to his “execution.” (to be honest, we Muslims don’t believe in the crucifixion story altogether) .

A few years ago, settler youngsters near Hebron chased a number of totally innocuous Christian Peace activists, hurling stones at them and telling them “we killed your God, you Nazis”!!

Unbiased observers have to ask: What could the IPMN possibly hope to gain by linking an article of this kind? What is their thinking?

That sad truth is that there is something fundamentally flawed at work here. The sad truth is that even the most minimal standards of decency and integrity would prompt some Presbyterian somewhere to say “Enough.” Not because this unremitting hostility “isn’t positive”; not because it is “unhelpful”; not because it might “offend”; not because Presbyterian relationships with the Jewish community might “suffer”. But because it is objectively detestable.

Will Spotts

1. A Word

It is possible – even highly likely – that some Presbyterians desire a Middle East witness that is true, that is credible, that is ethical, that is fair. It is also highly likely that there are Christians in other denominations and people of other faiths who are concerned with the poisonous atmosphere created by bias and by the irresponsible use of antisemitic themes.

It is conceivable that quite a few people recognize the plight and the legitimate claims to justice of many Palestinian Christians and Muslims, but do not want to adopt the jingoism and hysterical one-sidedness that often accompanies over simplified solidarity campaigns. It is conceivable that quite a few people who recognize this will also recognize the fact that Israelis have legitimate claims to justice as well.

I know such hypothetical people exist because I have met them. I’ve met them in the United States, in Israel, and in the West Bank. I’ve met them among Muslims, Christians, and Jews. I’ve met them in the PC(USA); I’ve met them in other denominations. I’ve met them among Messianic Jews, and I’ve met them among settlers.

I know such hypothetical people exist – people whom the victims of oppression and humiliation, of unfairness and violence, of terror and threats, of hateful incitement and unfair criticism sting to empathy and compassion – people whose empathy and compassion are not limited to others like themselves or those who support the Cause – people who are willing to set aside the rigid claims of justice on their own behalf in favor of a better life for all now.

I know such people exist; I know they alone offer a true way forward. I do not know how many there are. Their voices tend to be drowned out and lost in the zero-sum contest between entrenched positions.

The frequently repeated ‘only justice’ approach that we hear in so many Christian denominations fails. It fails because the people who make the loudest appeals to justices seldom want actual justice. Instead, they want the selective application of the benefits of justice to one side only. They’ll often produce spurious but clever sounding rationales to defend their one-sidedness, but the effect is never actual justice. The ‘only justice’ approach also often fails American Christians because it serves as a shield behind which we can sit in judgment upon people (we appear not to like very much) whose lives we have not lived, and whose concerns we clearly do not comprehend.

It is my hope and my belief that some people desire a more excellent way. The thing is, there is no way to get to that more excellent way that does not begin with taking an unflinching look at where we are now. And there is no way to get to that more excellent way that does not involve a complete rejection of the flawed approach we have taken thus far.

Harbor no illusions: this will prove a very unpleasant task. Any honest examination of where we are now will uncover things to offend just about everyone. And any attempt to alter the basic framework and approach denominations have taken toward their activism on this issue – no matter how much of an improvement – will be opposed with extreme prejudice.

Let’s be frank. To attempt to measure any denomination’s Middle East witness by its disapproved divestment scheme or by its endorsed boycott would be a fool’s errand. Boycotts and divestments do not come anywhere close to addressing the height and depth and width of the problems embedded in that witness.

Divestment is an irritant. Israel will survive Quaker divestment, and Israel would survive Presbyterian and Methodist disapproved divestment proposals. Israel will survive the boycotts. The chief (though not the only) flaw in these proposals is that they marry their denominations to an international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement – of which these denominations remain mostly unaware and whose objectives these denominations could never defend.

I have to say a few words at this point. I focus mostly on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) because I was Presbyterian. The problems with the PC(USA)’s witness on Palestinians and Israelis are problems shared by many denomination. The proposals offered by the PC(USA) can hardly be called unique. However, for reasons I hope to explore, the PC(USA) is in the very top tier of anti-Israel activist churches. It also carries a significance greater than that warranted by its numbers or its assets.

I write as an outsider. Even when I was in the PC(USA), I was a Presbyterian nobody – a ruling elder in a local church. Since I was very young, I have been distrustful of grand institutions – things like national denominations. My beliefs as a Christian and (possibly ironically) as a Presbyterian lead me to reject the whole concept of insiders anyway. The idea that there are ‘key people’ or ‘important people’ or that the concerns of some should be heard while others are ignored has always been profoundly distasteful to me. Add to this the fact that I was theologically conservative and politically moderate in a denomination that strongly disfavors both positions. If the explorations of the next several weeks prove helpful to anyone, great. If not, they are still something I need to pursue.

I am writing this because I am persuaded there is a better way. I have erred in the past in not following through on that conviction. We seem always to be so focused on crisis management and damage mitigation that we never get the chance to do the work that I believe needs done. I am writing because I don’t see anyone else doing it.

Will Spotts

Where to Now St. Peter?

In Pittsburgh, the smoke clears, and the dust settles. The PC(USA) has emerged from its 220th General Assembly, having received its due flurry of media attention. Now the denomination, like a groundhog that’s seen its shadow, will recede from public notice and go about business of its own. A fair number of members and attenders of Presbyterian churches around the country remain unaware that anything even took place. At most, they will eventually receive a summary of the points someone, somewhere considers noteworthy. Observers are unlikely to get a clear picture of events.

What just happened? What does it mean really? What road is the PC(USA) on now? How do you even evaluate a General Assembly?

Is it like American Idol? “This assembly was in it to win it”. “What we really love about you is that you stay true to yourself.” “It was a bit pitchy for me.” “That was like really bad karaoke.” “It was appalling.” Will Americans have an opportunity to call in and vote?

Or should we view a General Assembly as a contest between the forces of light and the forces of darkness? Was it from heaven or from hell?

People of a certain temperament would have it that this General Assembly was a great movement of the Holy Spirit. The more skeptical among us will see it as a naked political process; it may or may not be rife with corruption, but it certainly has considerable corruption potential.

Is a General Assembly a sociological curiosity. Is it a vestige of a time when church councils were married to power and people hung on their ever word?

Those concerned with specific issues will speak of victories and defeats and of the efforts of lobbying groups.

No matter how entertaining the evaluation process might prove, I’m going to pass. I suspect it is inevitable that the way we to choose to frame a General Assembly will say less about the thing itself than it does about us and our agendas. Instead, I would like to take the conversation in a different direction.

First, though, we must acknowledge what the commissioners actually decided. GA 220 acted on four proposals that were distinctly hostile to Israel. One of these passed. 1. The assembly declined to embrace divestment from CAT, MSI, and HPQ. The assembly declined to single out Israel for special scrutiny and criticism as a violator of religious freedom. The assembly declined to label Israel an apartheid state. The assembly DID call for a boycott of “all Israeli products coming from the occupied Palestinian Territories” and for “all nations to prohibit the import of products made by enterprises in Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.”

However one might wish to regard these actions, however one may attempt to spin them, they are what they are. We would do well to avoid the deadly twin tendencies to believe our own spin or to believe the spin of others. Anyone concerned with fair and honest dealing on Middle East issues (a concern a church organization ought to have) must avoid getting baited into a ‘who won – who lost’ argument that is bereft of substance and distracts from the work at hand.

More importantly, those concerned for fair and honest dealing must depart from our standard operating procedure.

Prior to 2004, they didn’t really pay any attention to (increasingly shrill and hostile) PC(USA) statements; the original phased, selective divestment decision put the PC(USA) on the map on this issue. That action coupled with unfortunate, publicized Presbyterian Hezbollah visits (that included an element of fawning praise for Hezbollah and a highly contentious comparison between Jewish and Muslim leaders) created a storm of reactions from people within and outside of the denomination. That dynamic guaranteed far more scrutiny of subsequent General Assembly actions on the subject.

Sadly, a self-destructive pattern has emerged.

Each successive GA has featured a list of proposals increasingly hostile to Israel – some of them truly outrageous. In each case, most of these have been rejected, but a couple (even of the outrageous items) have passed. In each case, those concerned with truth and basic fairness felt as if they had dodged a bullet, hoped that the PC(USA) was turning a corner, imagined some light at the end of the tunnel. In their euphoria, there was a tendency to downplay and ignore the hostile (often untrue and always problematic) items that were passed. And they would turn their attention to other things until the next assembly rolled around.

Their opponents – mostly institutional players, members of national committees, denominational officials, staff – on the other hand, made a sport out of regularly wresting actions away from commissioners’ clear intent and followed their own desired course.

The bottom line here is this: in spite of the efforts of many who opposed unfair and dishonest stances toward the situation of Israelis and Palestinians, the denomination has consistently moved (perhaps at a slower pace) in the same, one-sided direction.

At the end of GA 220, we are in a worse place than we were at its outset. At the end of GA 219, we were in a worse place than had been at its beginning. At the end of GA 218, we were in a worse place than we would have been if it had never taken place.

For those who oppose the anti-Israel bias and sometimes antisemitism within the PC(USA), to put down this issue now and plan on a repeat of the strategies of past GA cycles would be unwise and self-defeating. It would be to concede the truth to a death by a thousand cuts.

And, in the strongest possible terms, I urge those who actually care about these issues to refrain from putting them aside because of GA burnout and exhaustion. I urge you not to do what we have done each prior time. I urge you not to move on and ignore this – as if the results of the this GA were “good enough”. That is a recipe for ultimate, long-term failure.

Until and unless we look long and hard at three things, we will be condemned to pushing the rock up the hill over and over and over again.

First, we need to seriously grasp how we got here. What happened? How did this situation within the PC(USA) come to be in the first place?

Second, we need to understand what they want. I mean here, regardless of General Assembly actions, there is clearly an intensely strong and unremitting institutional push against the State of Israel and perhaps, at times, against the Jewish people. Now it may be that the anti-Judaic and antisemitic themes that intrude into the activism are only employed in service of the anti-Israel hostility – not the other way around. That is certainly a possibility, but those themes have historically proven themselves so dangerous that to employ them for some other end would be, at best, criminally irresponsible. The question we need to come to grips with here is this: what would satisfy them? What is the goal of the hostility? What actions by Israel, by the Jewish community, or by others are sought through this type of activism?

Third, we need to figure out what to do about it. Whether by accident or by design, this campaign ultimately affects wider attitudes toward Israel and the Jewish people. Insofar as the campaign is unfair and untrue, those wider effects must be mitigated. Is it possible to effectively counter it within the PC(USA)? Most of us just want it to end, but how might that be achieved?

It is these questions that I believe we would do well to explore.

Will Spotts

Consolation Prizes

The overture to boycott all products produced by Jews in the West Bank passed.

Of course, the effects of this will be minimal – relatively few Presbyterians are aware of or participate in denominational boycotts.

 

UPDATES (ongoing)

Plenary considering Middle East Committee issues now live-streamed here.

UPDATE:  Divestment is, for now, down – possibly for good for this GA.  GA voted to answer all divestment proposals with the positive investment action last night.  But new attempts are coming up every couple of minutes. 

UPDATE 2:  Moderator ruled continued proposals to divest out of order.

UPDATE 3:  Israel = Apartheid label rejected by the GA.

UPDATE 4:  Bigoted religious discrimination overture also shot down.

UPDATE 5:  Committee 15 business finally done.  I don’t look for anyone to reopen things at this point.  (GA 221 anyone?)

I SPOKE TOO SOON – Now someone is trying to get a relief of conscience item for divestment.  GA voted for it, but the Board of Pensions said it was impossible.

A Story

[The following is a work of fiction. It is only an imaginary meeting.]

 

Somewhere in Pittsburgh, late into the night, Divestment Presbyterians are meeting, regrouping, making plans. The heat and humidity make them irritable. The news makes them irritable. Among them are some Presbyterian heavy hitters whose combined experience of navigating and influencing General Assemblies is staggering. They are filled with wrath and malice. They have come too far and worked too long to be rebuffed by a couple of nobody commissioners from the middle of East nowhere. Who do they think they are? How dare commissioners challenge their advice? How dare the Zionist rabbis try to tell Presbyterians what to do?

The room goes silent as a man enters the meeting late. He looks benign – almost soft – a kindly grandfather. They know better. They’ve seen how very clever he can be … and how very vindictive. And they defer to him like an elder statesman. He refuses to let anger dull their cunning. Only the calm and the calculating succeed. But they must get it out first – place the blame where it belongs. “You sure made a mess of things. It looks like it’s good thing I got here when I did.”

A few seconds of hurt silence, then, “Divestment is a hard sell. There’s a lot of opposition to it. We only lost by two votes.”

“The point is, you lost.”

Someone points out that news reports are spreading already: “Presbyterians Reject Divestment”. “Ignore them – minor irritant only. We can deal with the spin later; we have work to do now.”

Still offended by his criticism, another heavy hitter replies, “You didn’t do so well in 06.”

He scowls. “We did what we needed to. Those who opposed divestment were so busy crowing their victory while their supporters moved on to other issues – that they didn’t notice we did exactly what we were going to all along.”

“It was really all we could do after the Jewish reaction to 2004. I will admit, that did surprise me. I thought we had a better handle on them. After all, we’re the only game in town – the mainlines all agree. Who are they going to hold their interfaith consultations with if not with us? The Fundies? Best of luck to ‘em.”

He waves his hand in the air as if waving off the conversation. “Anyway, that’s in the past. What matters tonight is now. What are you going to do now?”

“There’s always boycott and apartheid. Apartheid will be difficult, but even after the Methodists rejected divestment, they still went with boycott.” This is offered by a long time colleague and friend. She has often been useful in misdirecting the Jewish community, but she really doesn’t see the big picture.

He makes a noise of disgust. “No, no No NO. Divestment is the key. It has gotten all the press coverage. Boycott and the apartheid label would be nice, but a loss on divestment is a total loss.” He sees the hurt look on her face … he’ll have to smooth things over later. There isn’t time now.

“What about our religious discrimination overture?” It is asked hopefully?

He laughs for a moment, smiles, but shakes his head. “That was amusing… especially the quotes you cherry picked. Maybe that’ll teach ‘em a lesson. But it’s divestment or nothing.”

“How do we do it? They already voted it down.”

“Maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t.”

The whole room was puzzled. “Move to reconsider?”

“You have to plan out everything. They approved positive investment; positive investment is good – it makes you look like you care about the welfare of the people in the region and are actually going to put some money where your mouths are. What better combination could there be than to invest positively AND stop funding obstacles to peace?”

“I don’t understand how owning stocks funds anything … it’s not like the money goes to Israel or Caterpillar.”

He laughs. “I was wondering when one of you was to point that out. It’s a symbolic gesture. The literal truth doesn’t matter nearly so much as the framing. Put that way, owning Caterpillar stock becomes automatically immoral. There’s no possible response they can make to this assembly that will sound persuasive. ‘Many Presbyterians work for Caterpillar’ doesn’t hold much water. ‘But our friends won’t like us any more’ sounds even worse. They’re caught in a trap: whose home would Jesus bulldoze?” He laughs again, and this time it sounds distinctly unpleasant.

“So what do we do?” They look to him for a solution.

“We could always pray …” Unpleasant laughs all around fill the room. “They still have to consider related items of business – the overtures from our friends in Palisades and San Francisco calling for divestment. Then there’s the economic solidarity overture from Scioto Valley.”

“But we lost that once. Commissioners won’t want to debate it again.”

“With planning, it will work. I assume you have commissioners you can count on to speak?” He looks around the room for confirmation and sees several nods. “Choose the best ones. Tell them what microphone to get to. Give them talking points. Or better yet, write out their comments. Make them practice. Decide what color paddle they should hold.”

Looks of shock, “You mean both pro- and con?”

“Of course. You have to flood the mikes. You’ve got to minimize the opposition”

“What are our talking points?”

“Well – it would be great if one of your con speakers could say, ‘I oppose divestment, but I was deeply saddened by the way Mission Responsibility Through Investment committee members have been treated at this Assembly. All they have done is what the General Assembly asked of them. They have worked hard and followed a meticulous and thorough process. To be confronted with hurtful accusations and insinuations is shameful. Surely, as Presbyterians, we don’t need to stoop to that level of mistreatment of one another where we disagree.” People begin to smile … this could work.

“Perhaps some of our ecumenical partners could speak and remind Presbyterians how encouraged their people were in 2004 to know that their American brothers and sisters in Christ remembered them and cared about their sufferings. If they decline to act now, they will bitterly disappoint the people in their partner churches who have to live under the viciousness of occupation.”

“A wise sounding YAAD could scold the commissioners for fearing to follow their consciences.”

“Are the moderators at least on our side?” Again, he scans the room and sees a couple of shrugs. “If they are sensible and open to influence, you can indicate who to recognize.”

This continues for some time, but the mood in the room is energized.  They will work throughout the night.

Please Just Wait and See

I know patience does not come naturally to people.  Nonetheless, it would be prudent to remember that the 220th General Assembly is not yet over

It is premature to report GA actions with any degree of certainty.

C15 @ the plenary

For those interested, the plenary of the 220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) is being live-streamed here.

Committee 15 issues are scheduled for 3:00

 

UPDATE:  Looks like they got diverted by other issues – I think this should come up after dinner at 7:30 PM

Committee 15

I admit it. I’m not overly kindly disposed toward GA Committee 15 at the moment. I am persuaded that, whatever the circumstances, commissioners are personally responsible for their recommendations and decisions. I was preparing a scathing post; its working title was “Oooh, You Must Be So Proud”.

But I decided it would be unhelpful at this stage. (Not inaccurate or even unfair – just indulgent.)

Instead, I want to recommend a more enlightening post written by Viola Larson on her blog, Naming His Grace. 

“The 220th GA’s Middle East and Peacemaking Issues committee and too many controls” provides insight into the workings of Presbyterian General Assemblies. I can attest that her observations of the processes of this committee conform to what I have personally witness in other GA committees. Please read her whole entry.

Describing this committee, Larson says:

The contingent of resource people guiding the Middle East and Peacemaking Issues committee was the controlling factor. In fact, most items voted on by members of committee 15 were carefully and tightly controlled by a whole gamut of people, some interested in a one state solution, delegitimization of Israel, apartheid, the Boycott, Divestment Sanctions movement (BDS), and even people who are truly anti-Semitic.

She concludes,

It is truly unfair for a committee, who has been chosen to seek the mind of Christ and vote on policies for the church, to be overwhelmed with so many institutional Presbyterian organizations all with the same viewpoints about Israel—some of course more extreme than others. Resources are good and helpful, but this was too much of a good thing.

Watch GA 220

All of the decisions made by GA committee 15 are recommendations only. To be official acts of the Presbyterian Church (USA), these must be passed by the plenary. It is often the case that committee recommendations are rubber stamped – because of the amount of business a GA must consider, only committees received testimony and examine the proposals before them in any depth. Nonetheless, on controversial issues, a plenary does sometimes depart from the committee’s advice.

 

For those interested, the plenary of the 220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) is being live-streamed here.

 

The word is Committee 15 issues will likely be acted upon on Thursday.

July 3 Updates

I caution readers against acting on misinformation – as this committee is not the General Assembly. It will only make recommendations which must then be approved by the plenary. So … none of this is final. But people should be made aware of Committee 15′s current “progress”. Yep … that’s what they call it.

First, Committee 15 has voted to recommend divestment (36 in favor, 8 opposed, 1 abstained).

Second, the committee has endorsed a boycott of all products made by Jews in the West Bank (37 in favor, 8 opposed).

At the moment Committee 15 is discussing whether or not to disavow the apartheid proposal.  Currently talk seems to lean toward the opinion that apartheid is too mild a term.

One sided hate speech abounds at this meeting.

UPDATE 2:  One has to wonder about any committee that calls Anna Baltzer as an expert witness.  Apparently Baltzer, the national organizer for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, is representing the PC(USA)’s Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns (ACREC).

UPDATE 3:  Committee 15 had voted to disapprove the Israel = Apartheid overture.

UPDATE 4:  C 15 is now discussing the worst of all overtures.  In any sane discussion it would be laughed out of the room, met with the ridicule, scorn, and abhorrence it deserves.  Somehow I don’t think that will happen here

UPDATE 4.5:  It was disapproved by a vote of 26 to disapprove – 19 -3.

 

In Between Days

149 years ago tonight, in a Pennsylvania town there was relative calm between the second and third days of the Battle of Gettysburg. Nothing had yet been decided. Few at the time on either side grasped the degree to which this was a watershed moment. It would have taken very little – a different decision here or there – for our entire national history to have been re-written.

Tonight, also in Pennsylvania, there is relative calm between the second and third days of the deliberations of the Middle East and Peacemaking Issues Committee (Committee 15) of the PC(USA)’s 220th General Assembly. Nothing has yet been decided – though things already trend heavily in one diabolical direction.

So far, committee activities seem to have a surreal cast. Observers will seldom have the opportunity to witness so many peculiar notions and odd discussions assembled in one place. Two in particular merit a closer look.

Commissioners seemed to have great difficulty with the Board of Pensions comment. The fact is the bulk of assets under discussion are pension assets. These do not really belong to the PC(USA) but to plan members. The Board of Pensions has a fiduciary duty to those members. It seems that the majority of discussion in Committee 15 so far has centered around what the committee wants to do with other people’s money.

Committee 15 also seems to be operating under the bizarre idea that people don’t like the word “divestment”. They were looking for ways to frame the exact same proposal – i.e. to divest from CAT, HPQ, and MSI – in a way that didn’t sound like divestment.

Let me make this perfectly clear: no one cares whether you call it “divestment” or “fluffy kitten tails”. It is the thing itself to which people object. Taken in isolation, Presbyterian divestment will have virtually no effect; nonetheless, its advocates hope to use the PC(USA)’s credibility to enhance their own. Of greater significance, however, divestment is a symbolic gesture, and the objection is to what that gesture represents. By divestment … even in only three companies … the PC(USA) is rhetorically placing Israel in the same category as Sudan and South Africa. Israel is cast as uniquely evil – and anyone with a sense of fairness will call foul.

Perhaps more importantly, as we move into day three, very few people seem to grasp just how much of a watershed moment this is for the PC(USA). What this General Assembly decides will shape the character of the PC(USA) for many years to come. It will shape the future of interfaith relations; it will shape the reputations of Presbyterians. It will commit Presbyterians one way or another – to BDS, to increased toleration of antisemitism, to bias and double standards, to radicalization – or to fairness, honesty, humility, and wisdom.

 

Will Spotts

Presbyterians Are Moving Up in the World

The PC(USA) has finally arrived. Proposed Presbyterian policies are getting celebrity endorsements. And I don’t mean boring celebrities, or celebrities within specific constituencies of the church. Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters has endorsed the divestment action proposed by the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) and the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC).

And a number of pro-divestment Presbyterians “rejoiced with exceeding great joy”.

At last, Presbyterians can once again start getting invites to the good parties. The cool kids will finally flock to our churches. The days of trying to rationalize 45 years of membership declines are coming to an end. We’re crossing the Jordan ….

But I would caution commissioners: maybe you shouldn’t just jump on the bandwagon of the first celebrity to look your way. Maybe you should find out what OTHER celebrities think about divestment. You don’t have to decide anything today. You’ve got to the end of the plenary after all. Even Committee 15 members have until tomorrow night before the have to make a decision – regardless of their posted schedule.

Why not conduct an emergency straw poll of celebrities to see where they stand. I mean, God forbid you get stuck with a bunch of B-listers. I’m sure some of the better tabloids would be willing to help in this crisis.

All kidding aside, I don’t generally fault Waters – or any celebrity for having an opinion and for expressing it. But I do fault people for giving more weight to celebrity opinions than they do to others. Yes, celebrities do have a certain platform – they have a fan base. But their opinions are no more likely to be right than the opinions of anyone else. It would be the height of stupidity not to treat ideas and proposals on their own merits.

Additionally, I am a little concerned that the PC(USA)’s anti-Israel proposals, rather than being about justice or peace or truth or God, are more about political fashion. There are three possibilities only: 1. The church has something to offer the world different from the world. 2. The church takes its cues from the world – and is basically kind of an appendix. 3. Neither the church or the world has any more or less likelihood of being right. Judging solely by the proposals coming to the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), I’m not seeing very much of option #1.

 

Will Spotts

Rarely Asked Questions: the PCUSA responds (inadequately) to divestment concerns

Seriously?

Really?!

That’s your story?

The PC(USA) has responded to concerns about divestment by issuing a FAQ.

Unfortunately, many of the listed questions aren’t really being asked. Even less fortunately, the format provides PC(USA) officials with a platform to pose a series of straw men objections they should be able to easily topple. But this document doesn’t succeed at that modest goal – some of the straw men remain standing.

[I apologize ahead of time for the length of this post, but this document has so many problems that it needs to be examined carefully. At least six out of thirteen items are seriously flawed.]

Like many denominational communications (PC(USA) and otherwise), the introduction is framed in quasi-religious terms designed to make whatever notion the speaker advances sound vaguely spiritual. This is, of course, a standard operating procedure. It plays well with a church audience (unless that audience already finds the advocated position morally dubious).

Which brings me to question #1. “What is the role of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) Committee?” I have never met a person who asked this question. Yes, if someone just threw the letters MRTI at them, most people (except Presbyterian polity geeks) would be stumped. But the name of the committee pretty much indicates the type of committee it is.

OK, so maybe it didn’t need to be there, but it’s unimportant … right? But the answer to even that question is misleading.

A. MRTI implements the socially responsible investing policies of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by engaging corporations in which the church owns stock.

This is technically a true statement, but it implies this activity is confined to corporations in which the church naturally owns stock. It leaves out the fact that the Board of Pensions maintains a separate account to hold shares specifically in companies the MRTI wants to engage.  This is done, of course, because the MRTI sometimes wants to “engage” corporations in which the PC(USA) holds not stock.

Question #2 “What is PC(USA)’s corporate engagement process?” Again, not a question I hear being asked, but OK.

The answer to Question #3 is far more interesting, or should I say puzzling.

Why would the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s MRTI Committee engage companies doing business in Israel and Palestine?

A. A statement urging the “…financial investments of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits” was adopted in 2006 as a result of the General Assembly’s response to numerous overtures regarding corporate engagement on Israel‐Palestine issues.

How curious. The MRTI began its corporate engage process with Motorola and Caterpillar that culminates in this year’s divestment recommendations in 2005. Yet the reader is told it stemmed from a 2006 action. Perhaps they used the MRTI time machine? Obviously these corporate engagements could not possibly be an MRTI work product based on an instruction from the 2004 General Assembly that was explicitly removed by the 2006 meeting. I mean, that would be sort of unethical.

Question #8: “Is this a blanket call to divest from all companies doing business in Israel and Palestine?” Of course it isn’t. You name three companies. The whole blanket divestment rumor only got started because of the wording of the 2004 resolution “to initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel.” [There was, of course, no Palestine fig leaf then.]. No one understood what “phased, selective divestment” meant. The confusion is understandable when you consider the fact that the Presbyterian News Service reported the action under the headline, “Assembly Endorses Israel Divestment”.

And then we come to question #9 …

If the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) divests from companies profiting from involvement in human rights violations in Israel and Palestine, why isn’t the church divesting from American companies that do business in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, Burma and many other countries where massive human rights violations are documented?

A. MRTI along with its ecumenical partners engages many other companies doing business in countries with serious human rights challenges. Not all of the human rights violations involve corporate complicity. In addition, corporate engagement has resulted in changes in corporate policies and practices. However, in other cases where companies have refused to change, the General Assembly has placed them on the divestment list until the practices were changed. Examples are Talisman Energy in Sudan or sixteen key companies involved in South African apartheid in the 1980’s.

Ohhhh. That clears it right up. Israel is in no means alone. “We have divested from companies doing business in countries with serious human rights challenges. We treat Israel just like we treated apartheid South Africa and Sudan.” Oh sure … we’re not at all inconsistent. Oh sure … there’s nothing at all problematic in that statement. This is the rhetorical equivalent of saying, “We don’t only excoriate Benjamin Netanyahu or Ariel Sharon … we also criticized Stalin and Hitler.”

Question #10: “Is the MRTI committee recommending that the PC(USA) call for an economic boycott of Israel or Palestine?”

A reader is reassured that “MRTI is not recommending a boycott with this recommendation.” That’s reassuring. And it is, precisely as worded, technically true. Yet this same general assembly is considering proposals to boycott certain products made by Jews in the West Bank, and to implement Kairos’s emphasis on boycott and divestment. These proposals are endorsed by five presbyteries, a synod, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP – which seeks a complete boycott on products made by Jews in the West Bank), and the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns (ACREC). That the combined effect of the proposals being called for is a form of BDS is really not arguable.

Question #11: “Some have suggested that MRTI’s recommendations are an example of anti‐Semitism within the PCUSA. Is this true?”

Well, of course the authors of this document are going to admit to a problem like that … yep …

A. No. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has spoken clearly against anti‐Semitism and for the worth of every individual. In no way is this recommendation anti‐Semitic, anti‐Jewish, or anti‐Israel. For over 60 years, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has called for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians. We stand against violence, by any party, against innocent civilians, whether Israelis or Palestinians.

The only difficulty with this response is that the premise is faulty. It is not the recommendations of the MRTI that are antisemitic. They may be unhelpful; they may be unfair; but they’re not automatically antisemitic. NO – THE PC(USA)’s PROBLEM WITH ISRAEL AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE is not this recommendation per se – it is a longstanding anti-Israel bias coupled with an extraordinary toleration for and indulgence in antisemitic themes. That problem preexists divestment and remains ongoing.

A reader is told that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has spoken clearly against antisemitism. But that is not meaningfully true. There was a paper produced in 1987 “A Theological Understanding of the Relationship Between Christians and Jews” that made some strides in this direction. But that paper was received and not adopted by the 199th General Assembly – and consequently, that paper is not official PC(USA) policy. In 2008 a remarkable document rejecting antisemitism was produced jointly by the Office of Interfaith Relations and the Office of Theology and Worship – “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias”. Among other things, that document confessed that “anti-Jewish attitudes can be found among us,” and offered specific examples. Within a month this document that clearly rejected antisemitism was withdrawn, and its authors were ordered to re-write it – in order to ensure that it did not criticize any possible anti-Jewish PC(USA) activity. In 2010 another paper “Christians and Jews: People of God” was presented to the General Assembly. Among other things, it raised the concern that specific teachings and actions within the PC(USA) were problematic in their elements of anti-Jewish bias. It was rejected by the General Assembly – and authors were instructed to re-write it. In that case, a communication from a mission network of the PC(USA) that falsely accused American Jewish groups of arson and sending a bomb to PC(USA) headquarters, was presented to the General Assembly as part of the rationale for rejecting the document. It is true that in 1990, a GA did reject antisemitism, but it did not do so in any way that had any impact on Presbyterian statements, beliefs, or actions.

The bottom line here is that there is NO tradition of Presbyterian rejection of antisemitism as this FAQ implies. And even the rejection of violence it touts is hobbled when the PC(USA) has also asserted in at least two separate General Assemblies that all violent actions in the region regardless of perpetrator or victim, find their root in the occupation.

Question #12 is also misleading.

Some have said that these companies cannot comply with the General Assembly guidelines due to U.S. anti‐boycott laws. Is MRTI asking these companies to violate U.S. law?

A. No. MRTI is not asking these companies to engage in any boycott of Israel or Palestine, but rather to limit their activities in the region to peaceful pursuits.

Well … it is unclear. Corporations cannot control how people use their products – they simply can’t follow their customers around forever and police their activities. The desired result, then, has to be for these corporations to refuse to sell their products to the State of Israel. This can really only be accomplished in three ways. 1. A corporation could cease the manufacture of a product to which MRTI objects. That would be a PC(USA) desired response for, say, a tobacco company; that would mean that the PC(USA) concluded that the product itself was the problem. 2. A corporation could simply refuse to sell to the State of Israel because it is the State of Israel. That sounds rather boycottish; and I expect corporations that did this might potentially face legal consequences. 3. A corporation could craft a policy that did not specifically name the State of Israel but that was designed to disqualify the State of Israel from purchasing its products. This seems to be the option of choice. Basically, what appears to be desired is a boycott carried out with plausible deniability.

Personally, I would be interested in the answers to a couple of different questions. I don’t think these are well-understood, or that they have been satisfactorily explained.

1. What rubric do you apply to PC(USA) assets to determine that they do not violate PC(USA) desired policies?

2. Do you maintain information on all the corporations whose stock the PC(USA) holds that analyzes their business practices? If so, such a resource would be very valuable to Presbyterians. If not, how exactly do you give these corporations a green light?

3. If you do not analyze PC(USA) holdings in that manner, what is your source for engagement targets? Surely you are not relying on activist websites or rumors within the “advocacy community”.

These questions also are not generally being asked, but a FAQ that answered them might be a useful resource.

Will Spotts

The Wall

When people say “the wall” in the context of Israel and the West Bank, they generally mean the separation barrier. “The wall” is used for rhetorical effect: it summons ominous images of Berlin and Pink Floyd. For the more literate, it might conjure China or Hadrian. Some might even be put in mind of the Wailing Wall. The rhetorical use is often amplified by adding modifiers – things like “the apartheid wall”. For a while, supporters of Israel employed the term “fence”. It sounds almost friendly, pastoral. The thing is, portions of the separation barrier are a fence; other portions are a wall. And while less draconian than its detractors often imply, it is anything but friendly.

I am no fan of the separation of populations. I acknowledge the security issues the barrier is intended to address, but it does not bode well for the prospects of long term peace.

Then there are concerns about the route of the separation barrier. Some of these are clearly legitimate; others (seemingly intentionally) misquote UNSC resolutions.

The whole process applied to this one aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian contention is illuminating. Most people on all sides of the issue are unconcerned with what is real. It’s all about the spin; about how things sound; how they appear. It’s all about rhetorical oneupsmanship and jockeying for some imaginary moral high ground. Decisions are not made on substance, and what legitimate concerns the parities once had, become obscured in a haze of pure (or rather, impure) rhetoric.

This is how we have learned to get our own way – in personal relationships, in politics, and in church affairs. Even those who don’t start out on this dishonest marketing express quickly discover that getting on the wrong side of spin is a mortal liability.

Don’t get me wrong. Some statements on all sides of the Israeli Palestinian controversy have some basis in fact. Some are whole cloth, of course, but by no means all. Unfortunately the facts always seem to get twisted, turned around until the truth disappears into an extreme and simple-minded mirage.

Presbyterians get quite exercised about “the wall” in the West Bank. But there is another wall to which they remain oblivious. This wall is as wide and high and impenetrable as any real or imagined wall Presbyterians might oppose. There is a wall around the hearts and minds of Presbyterians that keeps them from feeling or perceiving the fact that their Middle East witness is compromised and the reasons why it is compromised. This is true of members, elders, denominational officials and staff, news outlets, and activists. It is even true of many who desire more fairness in PC(USA) Middle East policies and statements. Something interferes with their thinking on the subject. Something prevents them from acknowledging that there is a problem; and something prevents them from acknowledging the extent of that problem.

The facts are clear. The PC(USA) has a history of institutional anti-Israel bias that makes them unable to fairly treat the issues. The PC(USA) has a history of toleration for, encouragement of, and indulgence in antisemitic themes. There is no gray area in these classical antisemitic tropes. There is no doubt on these points. Both can be confirmed easily by examining the statements and actions of General Assemblies, of PC(USA) officials, of PC(USA) partners, of PC(USA) networks and interest groups. The task is unpleasant; it’s nauseating at times; but it is easily enough accomplished.

Yet the vast majority of Presbyterians – members, elders, pastors, various officials and committees, news organizations – simply refuse to do it. They will, in fact, employ mental gymnastics and tortured pseudo-moral reasoning to excuse and ignore bad behavior.

As a side note – if these actions and statements were directed at any other people group, we would not be having this conversation. There is no other ethnicity or religion that Presbyterians would feel comfortable treating in the same manner. We would not have denominational officials saying things like, “African American groups go nuts … because we refuse to be one sided,” or “I know how … viciously attacked any truth-tellers are by majority voices in the American Buddhist community,” or “The phrase “the right of Italy to exist” is a source of pain for some members of the … committee.”

Presbyterians would not be quoting people for our edification saying things like, “France acts as a spoiled child … Even though the state of France is supposed to be a democracy, it acts as a NAZI state,” or “Tibetans in the diaspora must get a life,” or “If we are not careful, Christian churches … will turn into Museums and be on tours run by Hindu tour guides as if in a theme park.”

Presbyterians would not be indulging in speculations about the blood purity and origin of Norwegians – suggesting that their ancestors were really Khazars pretending to be Norwegian.

Presbyterians would never dream of suggesting that Koreans control the banks or Congress or the U.S. media.

The reasons for this are manifold.

First, the PC(USA) does not really have the institutional bias problem against any of these groups – so it is very easy for Presbyterians to see just how wrong those bigotries would be. Self criticism is much harder. If a person is a Presbyterian, he or she has some vested interest in the label Presbyterian being a good thing. Instinctively Presbyterians know that the anti-Israel bias and toleration for antisemitic themes is objectively bad … therefore they cannot bring themselves to see the PC(USA) as participating in these things.

Second, even people who don’t agree with the direction of PC(USA) action recognize that most pro-Palestinian activists are decent people. It’s true. Their motivation is often good. They are spurred by compassion and empathy and a legitimate desire for peace and justice. Nonetheless, the bias itself, the tenor of the dialogue, the use of antisemitic tropes is not good. The motivation doesn’t matter at this point. Tragically, the history of the church has demonstrated exactly where this type of rhetoric always leads. It is objectively bad; it is objectively harmful; it is objectively dangerous. Surely, truly well-meaning folks could manage to advocate for Palestinian friends and partners and for human rights without indulging in a type of discourse that is always wrong, always harmful. And surely, when they can’t do so, the rest of Presbyterians should be able to confront the issue even though its practicers are “well-meaning”.

Third, there is another type of argument that has become common in the PC(USA). It runs a little something like this: a person will employ a well-known antisemitic theme and someone will – shocked and horrified – call them on it. The one who employed the theme will immediately respond, “Every time someone criticizes the government of Israel, he is accused of antisemitism.” A large number of people (in this case Presbyterians) who imagine they’d never personally indulge in antisemitic discourse, jump in to support the original antisemitic speaker. This notion is eventually amplified to rather strongly suggest that antisemitism and anti-Israel bias are ultimately a result of Israeli and Jewish action. As a certain PC(USA) mission network informed the General Assembly in 2010, ““This “anti-Jewish rhetoric” [referred to in the paper] does not arise out of a vacuum, or some inchoate reservoir of anti-Semitism. In fact, the case can be made that it is a reaction to the actions of the state of Israel.”

Fourth, to actually acknowledge the facts – that the PC(USA) has a long-standing institutional bias; that the PC(USA) is applying two double standards – one in how they judge Israel versus how they judge other nations, and the other in how they treat Israel, Judaism, and the Jewish people in Presbyterian actions and statements versus how they treat all other nations, religions, and ethnic groups; that the PC(USA) needs to take much greater care to avoid blatant antisemitic themes – is to damage relationships within the denomination. Even though true, very few Presbyterians will actually admit these things because it would cause offense and make future cooperation with their colleagues more difficult. Some of the most courageous do try to speak out, but even they constantly backpedal and downplay the facts.

The bottom line is that there is a wall that keeps Presbyterians from responding to something profoundly ugly, destructive, and unfair within their own denomination. If commissioners (and Presbyterians generally) want their Middle East witness to have integrity, if they want to actually help, if they want to (as they have said) break down the walls, they must first break down this will. Then Presbyterians will see clearly to break down others.

Will Spotts

BIAS

Divestment – as proposed to the PC(USA)’s 220th General Assembly – is a silly notion. If implemented, it will have little or no effect. It will not be a moral stand for justice or peace. It will, in fact, not be particularly moral at all. It is not an act of conscience or leadership. It will not display integrity or consistency. It is, in short, a non-issue. In fact, Presbyterians (like Ananias and Sapphira) can do whatever they want with their own money.

The singling out of Israel for special attention and criticism for religious discrimination is bigoted, immoral, and absurd.

But these are distractions from the main issue. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A)’s witness on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been compromised by a crippling, long-standing, institutional bias against Israel, and an excessive toleration for and occasional indulgence in antisemitic themes. Unless this systemic problem is first recognized, admitted, and addressed, any wisdom, comment, advocacy, stand, or suggestion of the PC(USA) on Middle East issues will be received only by those people who share the same biases. This is true even where the PC(USA) is most right in its observations. At the same time, the very people Presbyterians most need and desire to persuade will respond with hostility. And that hostility will be perfectly justified in the face of bias and antisemitic themes.

This is a simple fact; but it is one that will be evaded by many Presbyterians (ordinary members, GA commissioners, denominational officials, pastors, national staff) using whatever means present themselves.

For example, in Unbound, the ACSWP’s online magazine, writers have sought to inoculate commissioners against allegations of antisemitism by casting them as a reaction to divestment designed to cause conflict in the church. They have it backwards. They seem to imagine that because sometimes criticism of Israel is unjustly labeled biased or antisemitic, and because they are vocal critics of Israel, that they are somehow immune to actual bias and antisemitism. It is an astounding leap – bias and antisemitism are the actual problems encountered within the PC(USA), but they don’t have to examine those issues because they are critics of Israel?

I have said this many times before, but it needs said again. Criticism of Israel is criticism of Israel. Bias against Israel – such as holding Israel to a standard distinct from and harsher than that applied to other nations – is bias against Israel. Antisemitism – prejudices against the Jewish people generally AND classical antisemitic themes and claims – is antisemitism. The three are three distinct things. In some cases, it does happen that one motivates another; but that is not always the case.

It is clear the PC(USA) is critical of Israel. I also find the PC(USA) – at least in its national offices, permanent committees, mission networks, staff – to be biased against Israel. Additionally, I find these have a high tolerance for and occasional indulgence in the directly antisemitic. It is needful at this point to illustrate the types of things I’m talking about.

[The following list is intended as illustration, not as representation. It merely demonstrates the recurrence of certain attitudes and themes throughout the organization.]

Presbyterian Statements on Israel, Judaism, and the Jews

“What DO [emphasis in original] Moslems believe? Moslems believe in the Immaculate Conception; Jews do not. Moslems believe in the sanctity and holiness of Jesus (but not his deity) whereas Jews think of Him as an illegitimate son. Moslems today believe in Jesus as the Messiah, whereas Jews do not. Moslem s believe in Jesus [sic] second coming and pray for it in earnest, while Jews are still awaiting the first appearance of a Messiah.”

          – Israel Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA) (IPMN) slide presentation assembled in preparation for the 217th General Assembly (slide 17)

“If we are not careful, Christian churches in the Holy Land will turn into Museums and be on tours run by Jewish tour guides as if in a theme park.”

          – quote attributed to the Archbishop of Canterbury quoted in IPMN slide presentation (slide 18)

“Christian Zionists who advocate the rebuilding of the Temple are regressing into a pre-Christian sacrificial system, superseded, made redundant and annulled by the finished work (sacrifice) of Jesus Christ.”

          – quote attributed to Stephen Sizer in IMPN slide presentation

“The Jewish groups go nuts every time we make any statement they interpret as favorable to Palestine or the Palestinians.”

          – Jerry L. Van Marter, Presbyterian News Service director – quoted in New Jersey Jewish News

“We treasure the precious words of Hizbullah and your expression of goodwill towards the American people. Also we praise your initiative for dialogue and mutual understanding. We cherish these statements that bring us closer to you. 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 dialogue with Jewish leaders.”

          – Ron Stone, then Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) member, professor of ethics at PC(USA)’s Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, content editor for Church and Society, a Journal of the PC(USA)’s ACSWP

“It is ironic that, in the Judaeo[sic]-Christian milieu of this nation, the church’s appeals, for over five decades, to the convictions of faith, to the biblical mandate of justice, and to moral consciousness have fallen largely on deaf ears. But when Mammon was aroused, flood gates of anger broke loose.”

          – Dr. Victor Makari, then coordinator for the PC(USA)’s Office of the Middle East and Europe – in “Some Disputed Barricade”, Church and Society, a journal of the PC(USA)’s ACSWP

“We’ve divested from companies involved in human rights abuses in places like the Sudan. And now, as we see those same abuses continued and being carried out in Israel and Palestine it seemed it was very important to apply that same commitment to socially responsible investment in this area of the world.”

          – Rev. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, former Stated Clerk of the General Assembly – interviewed in “Divestment from Violence”, min 4:35

“I see a church packed with Christians in predominantly Muslim Amman, Jordan—most of them from families displaced by the 1948 invasion of Palestine by Israeli soldiers.”

          – Rev. Dr. Susan Andrews, Moderator of the 215th General Assembly of the PC(USA), Middle East Study Committee (MESC) member

“The phrase “the right of Israel to exist” is a source of pain for some members of the 2009–2010 Middle East Study Committee, who are in solidarity with Palestinians who feel that the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights.”

          – MESC Report

“The way the U.S. government supports Israel is a form of terrorism. You are using government helicopters and F-16s. This is the worst kind of terror!”

          – Dr. Nahida Gordon, MESC member, Middle East Monitoring Group member, IPMN treasurer

“This “anti-Jewish rhetoric” [referred to in the paper] does not arise out of a vacuum, or some inchoate reservoir of anti-Semitism. In fact, the case can be made that it is a reaction to the actions of the state of Israel.”

           – IPMN letter to commissioners, 2010

“By neglecting the reality on the ground, this report would “make nice” with certain American Jewish organizations … that have provided … support for the Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands since 1948, and used threat and intimidation to censor debate about Israel within and without the Jewish community. A report that confesses Christian guilt for the past and calls for changes in our theology and practice but neglects to mention the contribution of American synagogues to the oppression of Palestinians over the past six decades appears to us as inauthentic interfaith dialogue.”

           – IPMN letter to commissioners, 2010

“Expansionist forms of political and religious Zionism have been major ideological forces behind the confiscation of Palestinian land and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by every Israeli administration since 1948 … recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” is one example of this ideology.”

           – IPMN letter to commissioners, 2010

“The package (a bomb?) sent to 100 Witherspoon St in 2004, the fire in a Rochester church, the picketing of the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship event at GA when Professor Norman Finkelstein was a featured speaker, and the many visits of teams of Jewish neighbors to local Presbyterian churches are examples of these tactics.”

           – IPMN letter to commissioners accusing American Jewish organizations of arson and terrorist acts that NEVER HAPPENED, 2010

“The founding narrative of the State of Israel links the modern-day Jews’ claim to the land of Israel/Palestine to their direct genealogical descent from the ancient Israelites. Recent anthropological scholarship shows that this widespread belief is very likely a myth, not historical fact. Shlomo Sand, an expert on European history at the university of Tel Aviv, and author of When and How Was the Jewish People Invented? posits that the Jews were never exiled en masse from the Holy Land and that many European Jewish populations converted to the faith centuries later. Thus, he argues, many of today’s Israelis who emigrated from Europe after World War II have little or no genealogical connection to the ancient land of Israel.”

           – IPMN website posting. Here the IPMN is not advancing an argument that is inextricably linked to the vilest forms of antisemitism. They’re only innocently talking about Shlomo Sand’s opinions.

“[W]hy were the Palestinians deemed to be an expendable people for the purpose of assuaging the guilt of Western Christianity?”

           – Dr. Nahida Gordon

“I know how … viciously attacked any truth-tellers are by majority voices in the American Jewish community… I personally plead for a reversal of the apartheid actions that now are integral to Israeli … policy. …[T]he ghastly wall … is such a reminder of the Soviet unjust endeavor to exclude. And I would hope for the negotiation of a land swap that will inconvenience the fewest possible Palestinians and Israelis in a realistic understanding that, as painful as it is, the clock cannot be turned all the way back to 1948 but that reparations can be made.”

           – John Huffman, MESC member

““Israel acts as a spoiled child,” remarked one Israeli activist. “America has helped create this undisciplined child. It depends on the U.S. for its lifeline of funding and weapons.” She continued to say “that even though the state of Israel is supposed to be a democracy, it acts as a NAZI state.” She did not feel she could live in the country much longer if it continued to be an oppressor, ignoring human rights.”

           – Lucy Janjigian, MESC member, here innocently quotes an unnamed Israeli activist

“In this season of Lent, it seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of Palestinians around him. It only takes people of insight to see the hundreds of thousands of crosses throughout the land, Palestinian men, women, and children being crucified. Palestine has become one huge Golgotha. The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily. Palestine has become the place of the skull.”

           – Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, founder of PC(USA) partner organization, the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center

“ Bereft of power to do otherwise, we stand and watch as a whole people is victimized, terrorized, debased, degraded, and even slaughtered. A madness has absorbed Israel, and a war criminal sits in its highest position of power. Under his direction, genocide is being perpetrated, and there is none able to stand against him except the desperate people who are his victims … We feel the presence of the Prince of Darkness . . .. On the day that marked the outbreak of the new Intifada his servant was grinning into the press cameras as he paraded through the Muslim sanctuary with the intention to desecrate. And that same servant went on to assert his rule over the instruments of force and coercion and degradation. His faithfulness to his master is long standing.”

           – Rev. Dr. Riad Jarjour, general secretary of the PC(USA) ecumenical partner the Middle East Council of Churches

“The efforts, often violent, to establish a Jewish homeland on land occupied for millennia by Palestinians have been a source of the resentments that lead to terrorism … Violence may quite understandably arise from within a group that presently feels it has been deprived of the use and control of the land over which it has had a long period of recent control.”

           – ACSWP document approved by the 216th General Assembly

“…the only “just” solution is ONE binational state, with equal rights for all the citizens. YES, this means NOT a Jewish state, whose idea is an anachronism, anyway.”

           – Noushin Framke, IPMN communications director, Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) member

“Kairos Palestine’s call for BDS today is as if the Jews in 1930’s Germany had been able to rise up and boycott everything German in an effort to wake the world up regarding Nazi oppression and genocide.”

           – IPMN press release

“The singular triumph of the Zionist movement is that it invented a state and a people – Israel and the Israelis – from scratch.”

           – IPMN quote from facebook page

“The modern nation of Israel resembles the ancient nation of Judah, not only in the gathering darkness, but in the greed and injustice that has corrupted the people as a whole. That greed and injustice is a cancer at the very core of Zionism.”

           – Rev Craig Hunter, opening sermon, IPMN annual meeting, October 19, 2010, Chicago, IL

Commissioners to the 220th General Assembly might be best advised to pause before making statements or taking actions that criticize, condemn, and judge others in an area where their credibility is impaired, and first set their own glass house in order.

The Moral Low Ground

Whenever issues of national or global significance are deliberated at a General Assembly, commissioners are apt to encounter a peculiar temptation. They might imagine their feet planted firmly on the moral high ground as they work to discern God’s will. From this lofty, Himalayan perch they may issue criticisms and judgments as if they were removed from the situation – as if their hands were somehow clean and their vision somehow clear.

By no means a uniquely Presbyterian fallibility, this pleasant conceit encounters one major problem: it is untrue. Sometimes it even happens that people wandering around the moral equivalent of Death Valley make proclamations and take symbolic actions they falsely believe to be forceful stands for justice or peace. This is, in fact, rather likely to happen when considering Middle East issues.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A)’s witness on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been hopelessly muddled. This is primarily a function of two factors – a crippling, systemic, institutional bias against Israel, and an excessive toleration for and occasional indulgence in antisemitic themes.

But for the sake of analysis, let us set those two factors aside for the moment. (It is likely that I harp on bias and antisemitism too much anyway. It does not persuade; those who do not perceive their presence already will be extremely slow to admit to them.) Let’s imagine that the portrait of Israel created by various officious Presbyterians is, in fact, accurate. Let’s imagine that Israel really is unique among current regimes as a violator of human rights. Let’s pretend Israel truly does provide the most egregious example of religious discrimination in the world. Let’s pretend that the Israeli-Zionist cabal really does exercise a stranglehold on the U.S. government and media. Let’s assume (for the sake of argument, of course) that Israel genuinely is the ultimate cause of all acts of violence in the region regardless of perpetrator or victim.

If we imagine this characterization to be accurate, then the actions contemplated by the 220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) would seem to amount to a powerful moral stand. But are they really?

First, it must be observed that Presbyterians who actually believe this slate of hypothetical propositions about Israel, have responded with an appalling lack of creativity. They put on their prophetic thinking caps, applied all of their talents and resources to the vexing problem of the pariah State of Israel … and came up with a subtle strategy that combined boycotts (such as those proposed to the 220th General Assembly), divestment (the corporate engagement process with its recommended divestment from holdings in CAT, MSI, and HPQ), and sanctions (such as the 2010 call on the U.S. to make all aid to Israel “contingent upon Israel’s compliance with international law and peacemaking efforts”). In other words, they are pushing a limited, anemic form of BDS.

Creativity is not necessarily a moral or ethical virtue. But it remains disappointing that when people believe they are combating a gross form of evil, the best they can come up with is a nuanced version of a tired, cliched strategy. One could be excused for expecting those who claim to speak prophetically – having discerned the message of the Holy Spirit – would birth a solution distinct from one proposed long ago from a purely secular political framework. Uncreative it may be, but at least it is a strategy … and as we all know, doing anything, no matter its potential harm, is better than doing nothing.

So what are the goals of such a strategy?There are only five possibilities. 1. It might be employed to apply a combination of economic pressure and embarrassment to the State of Israel and thus make it more amenable to the demands of Presbyterians and others. 2.It may be intended to cause such damage that it forces the current government of the State of Israel out of existence, assuming that whatever replaced it would be better. 3.It could be used to weaken the State of Israel, alienate it from its few allies, and make it more vulnerable to military and terrorist actions with the hopes of destroying it. 4.It could be intended to create financial hardship for corporations and prompt them to stop selling products to Israel. 5.Or it could be designed to preserve the tender consciences of participants who will then be able to believe that they have, at a minimum, not profited from the evil acts of Israel. Proponents of this global strategy have embraced all five of these goals.

In the case of the PC(USA), I would imagine the intent is limited to a combination of the first, fourth, and fifth goals only. Many activists within the PC(USA) are, after all, well meaning people who would not support violence to achieve their objectives and who are not looking for the overthrow of governments. The problem is, nuanced or not, one cannot be a little BDS. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement is much larger than the Presbyterian Church. When a denomination opts to fully embrace that movement, it goes into the support column. It is a binary option. The PC(USA) will be symbolically supporting the entire program with all five of its major aims – not just the three it actually intends to support. One could call it collateral damage, I suppose, and still pretend one was accomplishing more good than ill. But again we are left to wonder what good it actually accomplishes.

Sanctions are of little usebecause General Assembly commissioners cannot put them in place. They can only appeal to governments to act. Such appeals generally garner no response whatsoever. Partly because they come from people without expertise in the field, partly for pragmatic reasons, and partly because they aren’t representative of a large number of voters.

Unless it is practiced on a truly massive scale, divestment also does nothing. It does not affect either the share price or business operations of a corporation. Many years ago the Presbyterian Church divested from tobacco companies and weapons manufacturers, yet these business have continued to thrive. Presbyterian divestment has not only been ineffective but likely gone unnoticed. If one truly wanted to change a corporation’s policies, the only effective means to do so is through boycott. That is the only tool that has actual financial impact on a corporation. For the Board of Pensions at some point to possibly consider selling shares of Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions, and Hewlett Packard – as long as they can do so and still fulfill their fiduciary obligations to plan members – is a non-event.

Boycott alone is a satisfying option; and indeed the 220th General Assembly is being asked to consider boycotting items from two companies – companies that supply dates and cosmetic products. [Way to put yourself out there … how can you get by without them?]. The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) has advocated boycotting all products made by Jews in the West Bank, but even this is hardly rigorous.

Here’s the thing, if Israel really is what various Presbyterian statements have described it as being; if Presbyterians genuinely want to change Israeli policies; if these corporations truly are evil – whether in themselves or through their involvement with Israel; if Presbyterians don’t want to benefit from that evil, then Presbyterians will have to go much farther than they are contemplating at this General Assembly. That would be a minimum necessary requirement to take anything remotely resembling a moral stand.

I look at my Motorola phone and the two-way radios I use at work, and I wonder how many Presbyterians use Motorola products. This is pure profit for Motorola – and allows them to continue their untoward business practices. But I – along with all those Presbyterians – also benefit from the use of Motorola products. (Technically, when Google acquired Motorola Mobility, the phone became no longer relevant, but other Motorola products remain tainted.) When Presbyterian churches are blessed with the resources and the need to expand their facilities, or conversely, when these are damaged by hurricanes or storms, how many will use Caterpillar equipment? Not only will money be going to sustain Caterpillar in its production of D9s, but those churches will have entered into a mutually beneficial arrangement with Caterpillar. They will, in short, have benefited from the evils of the Caterpillar corporation. What about Hewlett Packard? The outrageous per page printing costs will certainly continue to support HPQ in its disapproved activities. Then there are the many Presbyterians employed by these companies. Are they not benefiting from the same evil? Are not their homes, their children’s education, their automobiles, their clothes all products partially provided by the (presumably) egregiously unethical business practices of their employers? Would not leaving such jobs be the only moral option? Of course, the commissioners making judgments (like the 2010 denunciation of Caterpillar) would likely not be directly impacted in quite the same personal way. Naturally it is much easier to take a strong moral stand that costs you nothing.

Then there’s the next named MRTI target: Microsoft. I wonder how many Presbyterian pastors, staff, national officials, MRTI members, elders, church members will use Microsoft operating systems in the coming years? I wonder how many MRTI, ACSWP, and GAMC reports will be prepared using Microsoft programs? I wonder if the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly will use Word to compose his communications with world leaders explicitly demanded by the General Assembly. Unless Presbyterians switch to obviously more virtuous Apple products… their moral witness will remain in peril.

The bottom line is this. Many of the characterizations of Israel contained in numerous historic Presbyterian statements are false, are biased, are one-sided. But even if they weren’t, the 220th General Assembly will have trouble converting the suggested PC(USA) actions into anything approaching genuinely moral stands that do not reek of inconsistency and hypocrisy.

Information Update

In a previous post I mentioned two items related to Israelis and Palestinians slated to come before the 220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) that did not yet seem to be available on line.

They have since been posted on the GA website PC-biz.

The report of the Middle East Monitoring Group (created as a result of perceived inadequacies of the 2010 Middle East Study Committee Report) can now be found here.

And the current form of the paper, “Christians and Jews, People Of God: A Contribution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to the Interfaith Conversation” (that will not come for a vote until 2014 after a period of church-wide) can now be found here.

 

 

Divestment is Nothing

Divestment is nothing; non-divestment is nothing.

Eight years ago this July, the 216th General Assembly earned its fifteen minutes of fame when it instructed its Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI):

“to initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel, in accordance to General Assembly policy on social investing, and to make appropriate recommendations to the General Assembly Council for action.”

When the Presbyterian News Service covered the event, the headline read, “Assembly endorses Israel divestment”.

Over the years – partly in response to negative feedback – various denominational officials, staff, news outlets have made many false (less than forthcoming) claims about this action. For example, it has often been falsely reported that this was limited to those companies “whose business in Israel is found to be directly or indirectly causing harm or suffering to innocent people, Palestinian or Israeli”. That qualifier is simply not present in the item passed by the GA 216.

Like corpses in Night of the Living Dead the divestment issue has come hobbling back to every subsequent General Assembly. This year is, of course, no exception. And every two years, proponents of divestment act as if they are supporting some moral action that is any less unfair, unhelpful, unoriginal, and vapid than it was the time before. And every two years, opponents of divestment act as if they are fighting off unreasonable forces on the fringe of the church. And every two years, both sides manage to somehow or other claim victory for their efforts.

The problem is, divestment gets headlines outside of the PC(USA). It is something people can understand and react to. Meanwhile, the PC(USA)’s tortured witness on Palestinians and Israelis has far more serious problems and sinister overtones that simply can’t get traction. It is plagued by unrelenting and easily documented bias; it has at times employed (and thus legitimated) anti-Judaic themes; and it has at times crossed the line into classical antisemitic discourse. All of this gets a big yawn …. Nonetheless, I am compelled to observe that if the same types of statements and actions were directed at any other ethnic or religious group in the world, they would be met with Presbyterian outrage.

But I’ll let you in on a little secret. Divestment already happened … at least, the only meaningful part of it happened. The decision was made in 2004; the Presbyterian process of divestment – phased, selective divestment – was launched in 2004. Only one General Assembly has intervened. In 2006 the 217th General Assembly replaced the divestment instruction with the following:

“urge that financial investments of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits, and affirm that the customary corporate engagement process of the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investments of our denomination is the proper vehicle for achieving this goal.”

They appear to have intended the MRTI to set aside its work resulting from the 2004 instruction that singled out Israel for treatment distinct from and inferior to that applied to every other nation. But GA 217 seems to have figured without the MRTI – which continued its phased, selective divestment process uninterrupted. (For the uninitiated, “corporate engagement” and “phased, selective divestment” are, in PC(USA)land, one and the same.) The two subsequent General Assemblies have confirmed the MRTI in this work.

Bottom line: if the divestment recommendation passes this year, it will be nothing more or less than the successful outworking of the MRTI process initiated in 2004. It will not be news; it will not be a new decision. And, as the Board of Pensions pointed out, the PC(USA) will continue to own stock in the targeted companies AFTER the GA approves the recommendation … that is, if the PC(USA) in fact owns stock in the companies to begin with. The Board of Pensions has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best financial interests of its members: so they will not sell a holding until it is advantageous to do so. And they may, under certain circumstances, purchase an MRTI forbidden item in the future.

That is not to say that a decision to place CAT, HPQ, MSI on the PC(USA)’s divestment list will be entirely without effect. It will do some things, and it will not accomplish others.

What a GA 220 divestment decision will not do:

1. It will not harm the targeted companies. In fact, since the PC(USA) holds “a small portfolio of securities outside the Benefits Plan” solely for the purpose of proposing shareholder resolutions, since the PC(USA) insists on numerous meetings with company representatives to discuss Presbyterian criticisms, and since MRTI demands have been sometimes unreasonable … I’d imagine divestment targets would be just as happy to see the back of the PC(USA).
2. Presbyterian divestment alone will not break the back of the Israeli economy. The PC(USA) is simply too small a player for their holdings to have any significant impact.
3. Presbyterians will not suddenly have morally good investments in their pension funds and be able to sleep better at night. Presbyterians will continue to profit from harm and suffering just as they always have. Any sizable portfolio has holdings that, were they thoroughly investigated, would be found – either through their business practices, employee policies, or their products and services – to be morally dubious. In fact, the specific companies targeted by the MRTI have, in some regards, better policies than those of many companies NOT targeted.
4. No Palestinian (and no Israeli) will be helped in any meaningful way by Presbyterian divestment.

What a GA 220 divestment decision will do:

1. People outside the PC(USA) will see and recognize this as a symbolic gesture. It is kind of like a panto … in which scary looking Caterpillar products (and Israelis) appear on stage in order to get boos and hisses while courageous and prophetic Presbyterians speaking truth to power are greeted with cheers by adoring crowds.
2. The PC(USA) will be more closely married to an international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. This General Assembly is also slated to consider boycotting a couple of items; and the PC(USA) is on the record as supporting some types of sanctions against Israel. In theory, some of the goals and objectives of the broader BDS movement are incompatible with PC(USA) statements, but trying to be “just a little bit BDS” will prove an impossible line for Presbyterians to walk.

Ridiculousness

Some ideas are worthy only of ridicule and scorn. They are so false, so unbalanced, so absurd on their faces that uproarious laughter can be the only appropriate response. You could read them as farce, enjoying their entertainment value as a mildly guilty pleasure – similar to the way some people enjoyed professional wrestling in the 1980s and Beavis and Butthead in the 1990s.

But the laughter dies on your lips the moment you realize these inherently absurd proposals are intended seriously. Some of their proponents (bless their hearts) actually believe them. Others, more calculating and strategy-minded, merely make use of them; these want people to accept absurd notions solely to advance a larger cause.

The arenas of politics and religion prove very fertile for the development and propagation of ridiculousness. This fecundity is multiplied where politics and religion are joined in unholy marriage. There are a variety of sociological reasons for that, but it mostly stems from the fact that many political activists and religionists share some personality traits and are peculiarly subject to certain kinds of temptations. Both political activists and religionists can be vulnerable to self-importance, to seeking personal significance, to a misplaced and uncritical trust in those believed to share common values, to the unfortunate combination of a sincere desire to good with an exaggerated faith in one’s ability to discern good without work.

This is not intended as an indictment. The desires to do good and to make the world better are noble things; the desire to live significant lives is laudable; even faith in one’s ability to make a positive change has much to recommend it. Instead, this is a caution: potentially positive characteristics can miscarry remarkably easily. The portfolio of traits common among activists and religionists can, at times, spur bandwagonism, faddishness, closed-mindedness, unfairness, rigidity, ignorance – all wrapped in a cloak of moral “rightness”… the self-proclaimed “high ground”.

Business before the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a mixed bag. Among many proposals to be considered by commissioners, this year’s menu features a few items that rise to the level of daft. Ideally, these would be laughed out of the committees that consider them; ideally, these would provide the whole assembly with much needed levity. Alas, the kind of dynamic that often prevails at Presbyterian general assemblies prompts commissioners to miss the joke and proudly adopt such notions.

One proposal, item 15-09, stands head and shoulders above the others in terms of comedic value. “On Human Rights and Religious Freedom of Arab Christians and Other Palestinian Citizens” takes the form of an overture from the Presbytery of San Jose. No presbytery or synod has ventured to concur with San Jose, but both the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns (ACREC) and the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) have applied their keen and rigorous analytical skills and wholeheartedly endorsed it

So what makes this proposal ridiculous? I mean, concern for religious freedom is a no-brainer for a Christian denomination. Support for human rights? Also non-controversial. Factual accuracy? Parts of it are. The Christian community in Israel, Jerusalem, and the West Bank does face particular pressures that stem from actions of the state of Israel. Many Palestinian Christians have specifically cited Israel as a (or the) primary source of difficulties they experience. A desire to help, a desire to stand with them, a desire to intercede for them is admirable.

Nonetheless, this proposal reads like satire – a gentle ribbing of the PC(USA) for its all-too-common tendency to blame Israel first and ask questions later. Israel could be deemed responsible for global warming, for the earthquake in Japan, for the high price of peanut butter …. It doesn’t matter what the issue, as long as Israel can be singled out and blamed for it.

In this case, Israel is singled out – made unique among all nations – for its practices of religious discrimination. Are people executed for practicing their religions? Does conversion result in beheading? Are people jailed for their beliefs? What form must this discrimination take to warrant the special attention of the Presbyterian Church (USA)?

Apparently, Israel is worthy of special criticism because it fails to fund and protect non-Jewish holy sites, because it denies “free access to holy places of worship to both Christians and Muslims on several important occasions”, and because a rabbi in a yeshiva in the West Bank published an offensive book describing the circumstances when it is permissible to kill non-Jews according to halakhah.

San Jose’s overture asks the General Assembly to “commend the U. S. State Department for its annual published listing of incidents of religious discrimination by the State of Israel affecting the human rights and religious freedom of Arab Christians and other Palestinian citizens”. Now, I imagine they mean the US State Department’s International Religious Freedom Reports.

The Presbytery of San Jose does cite these reports in their rationale. But a brief perusal of them reveals a number of things that presbytery chooses not to mention when zeroing in on Israeli misdeeds. For example, blasphemy and conversion are punishable by death in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. In Sudan, Vietnam, Egypt, and Afghanistan Christians face discrimination, violence, and government restrictions. In China, “only groups affiliated with one of the five state-sanctioned “patriotic religious associations” (Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Catholic, and Protestant) are permitted to register, hold worship services, and apply to offer social services.” In Eritrea, “Religious prisoners were reportedly held for long periods without due process and subjected to harsh treatment, including forced renunciations of faith, torture, and deaths in custody.” North Korea reportedly “barred citizens from entering places of worship”. In Saudi Arabia “the public practice of any religion other than Islam is prohibited”.

One can only conclude that the Presbytery of San Jose, ACRED, and ACSWP must have thought it obvious that commissioners would be immediately familiar with the contents of the US State Department’s International Religious Freedom Reports. In that circumstance, commissioners would certainly not need accurate representations of them. And if, for some inscrutable reason, commissioners were not quite that up-to-date, they would surely take the time to read them together in Committee 15.

In all seriousness, focusing on religious discrimination issues in Israel is valid.  But it would only be so in the context of an assembly that directed the same level of scrutiny at other nations around the world.  Every society and every government has problems.  The practice of singling out one society and government – which, in this case, just happen to be those of the only Jewish nation in existence – implies that that particular society and government are the worst offenders.  Even in the face of significant particular problems, this implication is unfounded.  It indicates the presence of a bias that is extreme and inexplicable.

 

Majority Report: Committee 15 proposals specifically targeting Israel

At this moment, GA Committee 15 has eleven items on its proposed docket. [By this I mean to indicate GA 220 Committee 15 composed of commissioners who will deliberate on Middle East and Peacemaking Issues – not a permanent standing committee.] Of these eleven items, seven directly target Israel for criticism and/or action. One, item 15-04, supports “peaceful, diplomatic means to resolve tensions forming … between the U.S. and Iran”. It does mention Israel tangentially – but the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) makes the issue entirely about Israel and insists that the overture “points to the continued power of Israeli and U.S. political leaders and interests who favor unilateral war”. Three items recommend a different course for the PC(USA).

Israel = Apartheid Proposal

In item 15-01 the Presbytery of Muskingum Valley calls on GA 220 “to recognize that Israel’s laws, policies, and practices constitute apartheid against the Palestinian people.” This overture is supported by ACREC, the Presbyteries of San Francisco, the Palisades, the Redwoods, and by the Synod of the Covenant. ACSWP offers a modified resolution.

 

Divestment Proposals

Items 15-03, 15-08, and 15-11 call for the PC(USA) to place Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions to be placed on the General Assembly Divestment List. (Oddly, item 15-03 from the Presbytery of San Francisco enumerates only Caterpillar but mentions the other two companies in its rationale.)

This divestment proposal is advanced by the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) and the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC). It is endorsed by the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns (ACREC), ACSWP, the Presbyteries of New Brunswick, North Puget Sound, Scioto Valley, San Francisco, and Palisades, and by the Synod of the Covenant.

 

Boycott Proposals

Item 15-02 is an overture from the Presbytery of San Francisco calling for the boycott of certain products from the Occupied Territories. It is supported by ACREC, ACSWP, the Presbyteries of New Brunswick and Scioto Valley, and by the Synod of the Covenant.

In item 15-06, the Presbytery of Scioto Valley calls for a response to the Kairos document, particularly in its emphasis on boycott and divestment. This overture is supported by the Presbyteries of Genesee Valley and Northern New England, and by the Synod of the Covenant.

 

Other (Astonishing) Criticism

Item 15-09 is in a class by itself. In this curious overture, the Presbytery of San Jose urges the General Assembly to:

1. Commend the U. S. State Department for its annual published listing of incidents of religious discrimination by the State of Israel affecting the human rights and religious freedom of Arab Christians and other Palestinian citizens.
2. Commend the U. S. State Department for reporting on the failure of Israel to protect Christian Holy sites throughout Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
3. Urge the Israeli government to end any and all religious discriminatory practices.
4. Urge the Israeli government to enforce its own legal obligation to protect Christian holy sites throughout Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
5. Direct that the Stated Clerk contact President Obama and the Israeli ambassador to the U. S. asking them to assist in ending all religious discriminatory practices and to protect religious groups’ holy sites in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

ACREC and ACSWP support this overture.

As observers consider this docket, a very warped picture emerges. The fact that the climate is so weighted in one direction will dictate the tenor of the conversation in Committee 15. It is true that commissioners have less actual material to consider than they did two years ago. At the same time, it is clear that the institutional weight of the PC(USA) supports a particular, lopsided viewpoint. Commissioner depending on information from PC(USA) sources will be hard pressed to hear opinions that differ from what is effectively a majority report.

I’m tempted to say they might as well just place these proposals on the consent agenda for GA 220′s giant rubber stamp and have done with it.

Alphabet Soup (a PC(USA) primer)

A PC(USA) General Assembly is often not a user-friendly thing. It takes non-Presbyterians (and I suspect it takes a fairly large majority of Presbyterians uninvolved in national denominational politics) a while to get their bearings.

Endless tinkering has rendered the process increasingly Byzantine. Modifications that have, on their surface appeared good – the desire to increase representation and responsiveness, the desire to create a worshiping rather than deliberating governing body, the desire to lessen conflict – have had the combined effect of introducing needless complexity and making it far harder for all but a very few to know what is going on. Then there is a tendency toward insider speak – a preference for language that is less standard English and more PC(USA) English. Add to that a peculiar taste for ever changing abbreviations and acronyms … YADs, YAADs, GA, OGA, COGA, GAC, GAMC, MRTI, ACSWP, ACREC, ACWC, MEMG, MESC, PNS, BOC, BOO, GANC, GACOR, ACC, ACL, BOP, PCCEC, OTW, TWE, COTE, GAPJC, PILP.

When people pepper their speech with insider jargon and obscure acronyms, they do not generally mean to exclude and mislead, but their words often have that effect. Actions emerging from a General Assembly of the PC(USA), statements by various officials, agencies, services, committees, councils, and news reports can leave observers bewildered. Differentiation between official policy and policies that have the support of national staff and various committees or even of interest groups can often prove difficult. This creates a climate where statements can be made as if they were true and representative if unchallenged, but that allows excessive room for plausible deniability when those statements miscarry.

Since I am commenting on a General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), I think it prudent to offer a few very simplified tips and definitions in the hope of helping the uninitiated navigate these perilous waters. This barely scratches the surface, but I mention these items because they are likely to come up on this blog. I would refer readers to the PC(USA)’s website for more information, but I find it rather unhelpful in untangling the web.

Presbyterian: a form of church government – government by presbyters (or elders). There was an envisioned collegiality among ruling (laity) and teaching (clergy) elders. The idea was profoundly anti-clericalist and anti-hierarchy. All elders are elected by church members.

Session: the governing body of a local church. It consists of elected ruling elders, and it is usually moderated by a teaching elder (formerly called a minister of the word and sacrament, formerly called a teaching elder). It is responsible for the day to day business of a congregation.

Presbytery: a (smallish) regional meeting of representatives – ruling and teaching elders – from local congregations. These together usually make decisions that are wider in nature than the concerns of a local church. The presbytery exercises some oversight of local congregations.

Synod: a curious creature. It’s composed of several presbyteries – and it is a higher governing body. Nonetheless, most Presbyterians are mystified by its exact nature and responsibilities.

GA (General Assembly): the national meeting of representatives from presbyteries (not synods). The only people who can vote at this assembly are ruling and teaching elders commissioned for the task by their presbyteries. A commissioner is one of these. How such commissioners are selected remains a mystery – the process varies greatly among presbyteries.

It is important to note: the General Assembly is, in theory the highest governing body of the PC(USA). There is, however, a great gulf fixed between theory and practice. Commissioners operate at a gross disadvantage. For the most part, they are amateurs … they tend to have day jobs. They can be easily swayed by the pros … national staff who eat, sleep, and breathe national PC(USA) politics; national committee members, interest groups, even single issue activists – all have more information, more consistent strategies for getting their ways, better communications, the ability to spin GA decisions to their liking. More importantly, non-commissioner participants tend to be perennial – they have the luxuries of experience and long term thinking – while commissioners tend to come to GA for a week and go home. It is fairly rare for a person to serve as a commissioner more than one or two times.

OGA (Office of the General Assembly): the office of the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly. It is responsible for planning the General Assembly meeting, constitutional services, church statistical reporting and other duties. The OGA is overseen by the COGA (Committee on the Office of the General Assembly).

GAMC (General Assembly Mission Council): a GA agency responsible to “lead and coordinate the total mission program”. Its members are members of the board of directors of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) corporation. It is responsible for basically all aspects of the mission of the PC(USA) – though it is theoretically accountable to the GA. It has oversight of things like Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program, Evangelism and Church Growth Ministries, and World Mission.  Until recently, the GAMC was known as the GAC (General Assembly Council); this year they propose renaming themselves Presbyterian Mission Agency.  [As an aside, I can't help but wonder if we'll have a PMA - not to be confused with PDA (Presbyterian Disaster Assistance).]

ACSWP (Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy): a permanent committee “responsible for the process of developing and recommending social witness policy to the GA.” Members are elected by the GA.

MRTI (Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee): a permanent committee that views itself as implementing GA “policies on socially responsible investing (also called faith-based investing) by engaging corporations in which the church owns stock.” Its priorities are determined by GA referrals and ecumenical consultation.

ACREC (Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns): a permanent committee that theoretically “advocates for full access for all racial ethnic/immigrant groups to all programs, ministries, middle governing bodies and congregations in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by monitoring implementation of policy and corresponding actions, decisions and issues of racial ethnic concern.”

ACWC (Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns): a permanent committee that advocates “for full inclusiveness and equality in the church and in society,” and views its role as providing “a prophetic witness to and for the church on existing and emerging issues of women’s concern.”

ACC (Advisory Committee on the Constitution): a permanent committee of the GA that advises that body on the constitutional implications of various business items before it.

Special Committee to Review Biennial Assemblies: a temporary committee which offers recommendations about adapting to the recent change from annual GAs to biennial ones. A little noticed group, they have brought proposals that have the potential to dramatically alter the Presbyterian balance of power. They have also recommended extending their mandate …

IPMN (Israel / Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA)): a mission network focused on Palestinian advocacy. It was created by a GA, it enjoys the tax-exempt status of the PC(USA), it has access to PC(USA) distribution and information pathways, it is supported by PC(USA) staff. Nonetheless, national PC(USA) staff and officials claim they can exercise no oversight of this network.

NMEPC (National Middle Eastern Presbyterian Caucus): an officially recognized caucus of the PC(USA). Its nine-member executive committee speaks for Middle Eastern Presbyterians to the denomination’s General Assembly, synods and presbyteries.

All committees listed here were created by one or another GA. They all theoretically operate under the auspices of the GA – though many claim some form of independence. They are all theoretically accountable to the GA, and through the representative GA, they are all ultimately accountable to Presbyterian members.

That’s a long enough list to go on with. I will try to use the full name of any office, committee, network, or group the first time it comes up; I will only subsequently employ the alphabet soup acronym. I will doubtless fail in some instances – so I apologize in advance for excluding the uninitiated.

Disneyland for Presbyterians: a GA Overview

In a little less than a month, Presbyterians from around the country – commissioners from 173 presbyteries, young adult advisory delegates, ecumenical representatives, national staff, denominational officials, observers, interest groups, activists, and seminarians – will descend on an unsuspecting Pittsburgh. A General Assembly is an event. Even in years of controversy and high drama, it has a festive element. I have heard it aptly described as “Disneyland for Presbyterians”.

Alas, in the midst of the festivities, commissioners will face a daunting slate of proposals and business items to consider. For those unfamiliar with the PC(USA)’s version of Presbyterianism, a GA works something like this. Commissioners will spend most of their week focused on a fraction of the total assembly business. That business is divided among several committees with names like, “Mission Coordination”, “Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations”, “Social Justice Issues”, and “Church Polity”. Each commissioner is assigned to serve on one. The committee will have the only in depth opportunity to consider the issues before it, and that committee will recommend a course of action to the whole assembly. Now the whole assembly will have to vote, but in most cases they will follow a committee’s lead.

This year commissioners will bandy about ideas like the overture from the Presbytery of Grace, “On Calling for An End to the Practice of Corporal Punishment in Homes, Schools, and Child Care Facilities”, or “On Supporting the United Nations” from the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta. Commissioners will be soberly counseled by permanent committees of the church, advised by young adult delegates, and ultimately vote.

All kidding aside, a number of these business items actually interest me. You can follow along at home by visiting the PC(USA)’s General Assembly site, PC-biz.  Proposals are helpfully organized by the committee which will consider them.

Several proposals are coming before the 220th General Assembly that directly concern Israelis and Palestinians. Most of these will be addressed by Committee [15] Middle East and Peacemaking Issues.  (I will look more closely at several of these in subsequent posts.)

When you examine the business before Committee [15] all resemblance to Disneyland ends. The most obvious thing you notice is that there are two contradictory types of proposals. On one side you have arrayed the General Assembly Mission Council, the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, the Advisory Committee on Racial Ethnic Concerns, the Presbyteries of New Brunswick, North Puget Sound, Scioto Valley, San Francisco, Palisades, San Jose, the Redwoods, Genesee Valley, and Northern New England, and the Synod of the Covenant all calling for various schemes of divestment, boycott, apartheid labels, and a peculiar criticism of “religious discrimination by the State of Israel affecting the human rights and religious freedom of Arab Christians and other Palestinian citizens”.

In contrast to this comparative Goliath, three lonely presbyteries – New Covenant, Philadelphia, and National Capital, – have sent overtures recommending taking a different course. All three would reject divestment. National Capital would expressly reject the BDS movement. Philadelphia would reject the label of apartheid.

Two other issues related to Israelis and Palestinians are supposed to come before this GA, but at this time I cannot locate them on PC-biz. Both of them are referrals from the 219th General Assembly. “Christians and Jews: People of God” was to be re-written, and part 3 of the Middle East Study Committee report was to be replaced by narratives and a bibliography.

 

 

What You Can Expect

My purpose in this blog is to offer observations and opinions.  Readers can do with them what they want.  My focus is chiefly PC(USA) actions on Israel and Palestine, but I reserve the right to post on other topics that capture my interest.  The opinions expressed here are solely my own.

I have given up strategic and tactical considerations.  I was never very good at them anyway.  More importantly, as long as I’m thinking about how something I say might be used or misused by people with agendas of their own, a particle of falsehood will intrude into the equation.  My adventures in Presbyterianism have taught me that those with agendas will, in fact, do this no matter what approach I take.  So I here and now abandon thinking about it at all.  I do not go to cause offense, but I refuse to worry about it if I accidently do so.

Comments are welcome; abusive comments are not.  For instance, within the confines of my blog universe, an idea or an action may be stupid or evil; a person may not.  Possible motives of others may be suggested; absolute motive may not be declared.  False statements about and false characterizations of people are also off limits.

I will make two commitments for this site.  I will always be honest and candid in my opinions; and I will make every effort to be accurate and fair.  By accurate and fair I mean I will try not to misrepresent the actions and statements of others.  I will not impute motives unless they are stated.  I have no intention, however, of framing issues as their advocates might prefer:  the framing is part of the argument, not the thing itself.  As such, the framing is inherently biased.  I also have no intention of skirting foreseeable bad consequences or reads of proposals – even if these are unintended.

Having said these things, I invite you along for the 220th General Assembly ride.  With any luck it will prove interesting.  At the very least, it should be entertaining.

About 2012

This is a blog about the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). More specifically, it is about that organization’s biennial national meeting, the 220th General Assembly. Even more specifically, it is about that assembly’s business that concerns Palestinians and Israelis.

I write as a former member and ruling elder in a PC(USA) congregation. For a variety of reasons, I still attend services with that congregation. But I gave up my membership in the PC(USA) when it became clear I could no longer, in good conscience, be a part of a national organization that indulged behaviors and attitudes I found morally repellant. Figuring prominently among these behaviors and actions was the PC(USA)’s long term posture toward Israel and Palestine.

I want to make a few things perfectly clear. First, I have no objection to examination and criticism of the State of Israel or of Israeli policies. I have no objection to examination and criticism of US policies that relate to Israel and the Palestinian Territories. In fact, these can be beneficial in an open society. Like most people (at least those I know), I long for peace in the Middle East. I long for solutions that will benefit all Palestinians and Israelis.

I recognize that many Palestinians have been victimized and live in conditions I would hate. I recognize that Israeli actions have contributed to that situation. Those are facts. People immediately jump to rationalizing and defending and appealing to historic contexts – and sometimes they raise valid points, but it doesn’t change the basic facts. It is understandable that Israelis and Palestinians alike tend to argue only one side; it is extremely difficult for people to see those truths that don’t advance their cause – that may, in fact, hinder it.

I have no interest in apportioning blame. As an outsider, I see a multiplicity of blameworthy actions coming from a variety of sources. What interests me is looking toward positive ways forward; anything that offers that, I support, and anything that does not I remain neutral or oppose. (My response depends on the specific action – some cause harm, some simply do no real good.)

The PC(USA) has frequently tried to support Palestinians – particularly Palestinian Christians. That is a laudable emphasis. But the PC(USA)’s stance has often been morally problematic.

I admit, I have allowed myself to be distracted in the past by issues of process – whether GA actions have been followed by employees and permanent committees of the denomination either in spirit or in letter; whether PC(USA) officials egregiously misrepresented those actions in an attempt to get the best spin; whether incomplete, false, or misleading information was provided by employees and committees to voting commissioners; whether PC(USA) statements and actions reflect the beliefs of ordinary Presbyterians. All of these can be argued, but they’re irrelevant.

Exponentially more important are three things: 1) The PC(USA) has demonstrated an extraordinary degree of bias. In order to take moral stands, a modicum of fundamental fairness is needed. That has been noticeably lacking. 2) The PC(USA) has provided non-factual information. For a stand to be moral it must be based in truth. 3) The PC(USA) and its partners have often trespassed into the realm of classical antisemitism. Of these, the first two are problematic; the third is reprehensible.

Commissioners to the 220th General Assembly have another opportunity. They can choose to embrace bias, to embrace untruth, to embrace classical antisemitism. They can choose to reject these. Or they can choose to pretend all three are not happening.

In the past I have erred. I have sought to persuade… I have argued… I have pled… that denominational officials do something about bias and particularly antisemitic discourse, that commissioners take their responsibilities seriously and insist on full information before they vote on anything to do with the Middle East, that ruling and teaching elders get involved, that members and attenders pay attention and require basic fairness from their denomination. At a minimum I had hoped that antisemitic discourse would not be regarded as an acceptable norm within a 21st Century US denomination. And I believed that presenting information would have an impact. For the most part these pleas have reached deaf ears, have been met with yawns and hollow denials.

I won’t do that any more. My role now is to observe. Denominational officials, commissioners, members, ruling and teaching elders, members, attenders: do what you want. Do what seems good to you. I can’t pretend I don’t care; and I certainly won’t stop commenting. But I won’t plead anymore.

Posts about the 2010 General Assembly can be found at the PC(USA) on Israel and Palestine 2010.

Not the Post I Planned

This is not the post I planned to write.

That post was called “From Fictions to Lies:  Institutional Support for the MESC”.  It was a scandalized reaction to recent official and semi-official Presbyterian strategic moves to push forward the anti-Israel agenda at the General Assembly.  I found myself thinking about how best to persuade, how best to counter, how to even get a hearing from commissioners.

Then I remembered a line from the 1968 movie, Lion in Winter:

I’m vilifying you.  For God’s sake, pay attention.

(I admit it; I’m a sucker for quotes.)  When I thought of this, I laughed out loud.  It struck me as eminently appropriate; it described both what I was doing in my intended post (and what I have done in one or two others), and what the MESC, the ACSWP, the MRTI, the IPMN, and some presbyteries are doing to Israel and to the Jewish people.

I’m no good at strategy; I detest marketing; I don’t even particularly like politics – except as a study in human behavior.  I’m just a guy with a blog, spending way too much time (I don’t really have), hoping to dissuade people I actually care about from embracing something ugly, harmful, and untrue.  At that point, I realized there was nothing I could do to improve the situation – the 219th General Assembly was going to do what it was going to do, and my best response was to wait it out.

So here we are, several days later.  The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has adjourned.  For good or ill it has completed its work.  And for the next few weeks a variety of interested parties will attempt to interpret their actions – both to Presbyterians and to people outside the denomination.

How did they do?

My first reaction is to say, “The lamps are going out in Presbyterian churches all over America; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”

But that is unjust.  It is not an accurate reaction.  It is no more true than the statements that celebrate the miracle at the Minneapolis Convention Center.

More accurately, the 219th General Assembly attempted to split the difference.

They seem to be seeking the illusion of safety by carefully steering a course between the virulently anti-Israel, the occasionally anti-Judaic, the sometimes openly antisemitic on one side and the less virulently anti-Israel and moderately prejudiced on the other.  At this point commissioners do not seem to have realized that the coveted middle ground is only middle ground within the context of business items overwhelmingly skewed in one direction.

What they did that was good:

1.  They rejected divestment.

2.  They rejected the use of the word “apartheid”.

3.  They elected to only receive the first section of the Middle East Study Committee Report. As such, it has no real status in the PC(USA) – so its statements criticizing American Jewish groups, its quirky theology, its patronizing letters, and the peculiar vignettes (whose status was never clear – as these were randomly interspersed in this section) aren’t PC(USA) policy.  Nonetheless, receiving this section and using it as rationale for the large number of approved recommendations gives it some authority.

4.  They altered the language on the Gaza blockade from blanket opposition to this:

Calls on the Israeli and Egyptian governments to limit their blockade of Gaza solely to military equipment/devices and to guarantee adequate levels of food, medicine, building supplies, and other humanitarian items, and to allow free commercial exchange in and out of Gaza, and calls on the U.S. government to end any support for the blockade that interferes with the adequacy of such items or such exchange.

5.  They explicitly re-affirmed “Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and internationally recognized borders in accordance with United Nations resolutions.”

6.  They rejected the call for the MESC to become a permanent monitoring group. Instead, they call for the creation of a seven member group selected by the current and immediate past moderators (Elder Cynthia Bolbach and Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow).  This group must include at least one but no more than two MESC members; the total membership must “together comprise an authentic balance representing the fullness of the spectrum of commitments within the PC(USA) toward the people and issues in the region”.

7. They rejected part 3 of the report with its extremely one-sided history. Instead they solicited eight narratives of comparable length, four “from the range of authentically Palestinian perspectives” and four “from the range of authentically Israeli perspectives” to take its place.  These narratives and an additional bibliography are to be approved by the monitoring group.

Clearly, the GA made some improvements to the MESC Report, and clearly the GA chose to avoid extremity in a couple of business items.  Nonetheless, a great deal now hinges on the good faith of the current and immediately past moderators to select an authentic balance of participants in the new monitoring group.  It should be pointed out that a similar requirement for balance was in place when the original, highly unbalanced MESC was selected.

There is one other positive outcome I must mention – in order to be fully honest and accurate.  A large number of clearly moderate and even very pro-institutional Presbyterians (with regular critics of Israeli actions among them) recognized that the Middle East Study Committee Report went too far – was too unfair – and needed a greater degree of balance.  Even two members of the committee supported some change in this regard.  Some people place great hope in this change of heart; I am not among them.  But it is a development worth watching.

What the 219th GA did that was neutral:

1.  They switched the order of words in their partial endorsement of the Kairos document. Perhaps this helps to clarify the intent of the MESC recommendation.  Yet it still leaves an open question:  what exact elements of the Kairos document are indicated by, “emphases on hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation”?  [For those unfamiliar with the document, it should be mentioned that (among other things) it supports boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel, and it rejects the concept of a Jewish state.  The bottom line:  the moral character of this endorsement depends entirely what exactly it is interpreted to entail.]

2.  They passed resolutions criticizing the U.S. for its military aid to Israel, and calling on the U.S. to make all aid to Israel “contingent upon Israel’s compliance with international law and peacemaking efforts.” [I have listed this as neutral because it is not a new action for the PC(USA); prior General Assemblies have made comparable demands.  Yet the modified MESC report replaced the original report's "military aid" with the broader phrase "U.S. aid to Israel".]

What the 219th GA did that was bad:

1.  They referred the paper, “Christians and Jews:  People of God”, for a re-write. [Rejecting the paper was not necessarily bad in itself - one could have had legitimate reasons to do so.  Nonetheless, the instructions the GA gave for the re-write, the overture to which it responded, and the fact that it passed the paper, "Toward an Understanding of Christian Muslim Relations" add up to an extraordinarily negative decision.  Among other things, this rejected paper included a Presbyterian rejection of Christian antisemitism.]

2.  They approved the inexcusably unbalanced ACSWP Human Rights Update 2010. [This committee was tasked with

Identify[ing] Violations of the Civil Rights of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the United States and Other Areas of the World, Along with Other Incidents of Violation of Religious Freedoms, as Part of the Regular Human Rights Report to the General Assembly.

The only nation the ACSWP saw fit to mention by name as a violator of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim civil rights and a violator of religious freedoms was Israel.]

3.  They denounced Caterpillar. [Although stopping short of divestment, as symbolic gestures go, I'm not sure Israel-based denunciation is any better.]

4.  They approved the rest of the recommendations of the MESC report. [See here for a more detailed listing of problematic items contained in the modified report.]

5.  They approved the Belhar Confession [which is being used by anti-Israel activists as a (false) justification for church condemnations of Israel.]

6.  They rejected the proposal to amend the process for forming PC(USA) social witness policy [which would at least have broadened Presbyterian participation in decision making.]

A great many people will try to put the best face on this set of outcomes.  Yet I cannot call the 219th General Assembly’s actions good.  The PC(USA) is in a worse position than it was two weeks ago.  It is more anti-Israel; it has taken steps to affirm biased, anti-Israel, and even anti-Jewish statements on the part of its staff, its networks, and partners; it has once again taken the lead position among anti-Israel U.S. denominations.  Yes, there are glimmers of hope:  it was not as bad as it threatened to be; the moderators may do a fairer job at selecting Middle East monitoring group members; influential Presbyterians may have started to see that there are limits to how far the PC(USA) should actually go.

Is the glass nine-tenths empty or ten percent full? I guess it depends on your perspective.

What I do know is this:

The situation of Israelis and Palestinians is very complicated.  It is not, as it is often cast, solely a justice issue with Israeli perpetrators and Palestinian victims.  There are injustices certainly – and these need to be corrected.  But this cannot be done by unjustly hearing only the concerns of one side.

It is possible to be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Israel.  It is difficult, but it is a worthwhile effort – especially for church organizations.  This requires a greater degree of creativity and work than that exhibited thus far within the PC(USA).  Yet it is a failing shared among the pro-Palestinian advocacy community and those Presbyterians committed to fairness and accuracy.

Antisemitic and anti-Judaic themes are NEVER OK.  They are ugly, dangerous, and unworthy of followers of Jesus Christ.  [Given the history of Christian antisemitism, this is an area about which Christians should be vigilant.]

Holding Israel to a standard different than that to which you hold all other nations is bias, it is prejudiced, it is unjustifiable – and it is being done here.

Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism.  Antisemitism is antisemitism.  Criticism of Israel can be biased – in which case the critic is guilty of anti-Israel bias.  Some critics of Israel also happen to dabble in antisemitic themes.  Bias is a problem, but it is the antisemitism that is THE problem – not the criticism of Israel.

The PC(USA) (like many groups involved in Middle East advocacy) has a systemic problem of anti-Israel bias, the employment of anti-Judaic themes, and the occasional use of classical antisemitic arguments.  This problem remains unaddressed by the 219th General Assembly – not so much by silence but by actual choice on the part of commissioners to reject anything that might limit it.

The penultimate Presbyterian fiction is this:  that Presbyterians in the pews are not accountable for the actions of the national organization.  It is easy to regard this as the product of eight days in Minneapolis, an event of which many Presbyterians took little notice and which has little effect on them.  But six years have passed since the PC(USA) emerged into the public consciousness with its divestment initiative.  Three General Assemblies have come and gone.  Much press coverage has been lavished on the PC(USA).  By this point, the policies of the national organization on Israel and Palestine are the property of ordinary Presbyterians – whether they agree with them or not.

Will Spotts