Stand for Eco-Reason

A coalition of Christian groups, including the Institute for Religion and Democracy, the Acton Institute, the Cornwall Alliance, the Family Research Council, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention have put together a brief response to the burgeoning movement to radically alter human society based on junk science about climate change. The statement is called “We Get It,” and is open for signatures (the organizers are looking for a million). This is the statement in its entirety:

God Said It

God created everything. He made us in His own image, and commanded us to be fruitful and multiply and watch over His creation. Although separated from God by our sin, we are lovingly restored through Jesus Christ, and take responsibility for being good stewards.

We Get It

Our stewardship of creation must be based on Biblical principles and factual evidence. We face important environmental challenges, but must be cautious of claims that our planet is in peril from speculative dangers like man-made global warming.

They Need It

With billions suffering in poverty, environmental policies must not further oppress the world’s poor by denying them basic needs. Instead, we must help people fulfill their God-given potential as producers and stewards.

Let’s Do It

We will follow our Lord Jesus Christ and honor God as we use and share the principles of His Word to care for the poor and tend His creation.

Without going into details, it clearly stands against global warming hysteria, and warns against taking action that will certainly deepen the misery of hundreds of millions of people who are already living on the edge, all so Western eco-fanatics can feel good about themselves. The IRD had this to say about the campaign:

The reaction to climate change has reached deep into prevailing culture. Knee-jerk reactions with good intentions can harm more than help. The recent increase in the cost of food is one example of the consequence of diverting crops such as corn to the production of ethanol as a fuel source. The impact that steep corn price increases have had on food distribution to third-world countries has been profoundly negative. Keeping in mind this difficult lesson, the “We Get It” coalition offers recommendations by which we can honor and care for the environment along with the poor.

Go to the link above, watch the short video, sign the statement (I already have), and let the voice of reason be heard.

Bronx Cheer For Israel From WCC

The Rev. Samuel Kobia, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel with this less than enthusiastic notice:

Just as 2008 marks 60 years of aspirations dedicated to securing a homeland for Israelis, 2008 also marks 60 years of the disintegration of Palestinian society and dispersal of some 750,000 Palestinians as refugees. To date, the situation in the Palestinian Territories reflects the absence of peace and a continuation of occupation and conflict. While Israelis celebrate the 60th anniversary of their state, Palestinians are marking six decades of displacement and dispossession.

May this anniversary year cause us all to recommit to the goal both Israelis and Palestinians share that neither can attain without the other, namely, a just peace.

To that end, from 4 to 10 June 2008, WCC member churches and related organizations on five continents are organizing a collective public witness for peace. From Australia to Canada, Norway to Sri Lanka to South Africa, churches will observe this anniversary year with a week of awareness-raising and advocacy called International Church Action for Peace in Palestine and Israel. It is time, we believe, for both nations to share a just peace.

That’s it. No word of congratulation to Israel for surviving multiple attempts by its Arab neighbors to extinguish it, for providing a safe haven for Jews from around the world, for having the only democracy in the Middle East, or for being the only country in the region that provides anything close to equal rights for minorities. No word of sympathy for its daily suffering from terrorist attack. No recognition that the Palestinians could have had their own state 60 years ago, but instead chose to join with their Arab brethren in an effort to capture the whole enchilada and eliminate the Jews from their ancestral home once and for all. Not even a hint that the Palestinians could already be governing their own state if they’d taken Ehud Barak’s offer eight years ago.

No, for Kobia and the WCC, the only thing notable about the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel is that the Palestinians still haven’t been given everything they want, and are suffering for their lack of ability to compromise. Pathetic.

A Decision on Capetz

The Witherspoon Society, a left-wing advocacy caucus within the PCUSA, is reporting that the Synod of Lakes and Prairies has rejected a challenge to the Twin Cities Presbytery’s January action restoring clergy credentials to Paul Capetz:

In January Dr. Paul Capetz, professor of theology at United Theological Seminary in the Twin Cities of Minnesota, was restored to the exercise of ordained ministry by action of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area. As a gay man, he had laid aside his ordination in 2000, in response to the adoption of the “fidelity and chastity” requirement.

Three members of the Presbytery filed a complaint against his restoration. The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies has just dismissed the complaint, on the grounds that Capetz was not seeking ordination, but rather a restoration of ordination previously conferred. The Synod PJC found that the General Assembly and its PJC have never acted to rescind a presbytery action already taken to ordain someone, since that decision is taken properly and most knowledgeably by the presbytery.

I have previously addressed this case here, here, and here. It sounds from the Witherspoon report as if the PJC of the synod has taken a hint from the recent Jane Spahr decision and gone the route of technicality and hair-splitting to achieve the result it wanted. Can’t say for sure until I see the decision, but relying on what amounts to a historical irrelevance–that he had been ordained previously (and ignoring both his surrendering of his credentials and his publicly stated determination to ignore the ordination standards)–certainly seems to fit the bill.

Other sites that might be expected to trumpet this, such as That All May Freely Serve and More Light Presbyterians, don’t have anything on this yet. Neither do the PCUSA or synod sites. Even the presbytery site doesn’t mention it. So Witherspoon may have inside information, or it may be wrong. In any case, I’ll have more on this when it appears one way or the other.

Can We Talk?

Never let it be said that the mainline denominations don’t have a herd instinct. Since the United Church of Christ, in an act of blatant subject-changing following the Jeremiah Wright blow-up, has called on its members to ignore Trinity Sunday and engage in a “sacred conversation on race,” the Presbyterian Church (USA) has decided to say “me, too!”:

On Sunday, May 18, 2008, we invite Christians to engage and promote “sacred conversation” on the issue of race in the United States with the hope that discussion around the issues of race and racism will begin. Use the resources below to engage your congregation in dialogue on this important matter.

Because there’s never been any “discussion around the issues of race and racism” before.

The current political season has made all of us aware that racism is still a reality in our common life and that we need to renew our efforts for reconciliation across racial lines. Toward that end, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. has invited all of its member churches to make May 18, 2008 (Trinity Sunday), a day for “sacred conversations” on race in the 35-member communions of the National Council of Churches

The NCC did this in a joint letter between General Secretary Michael Kinnamon and UCC President John Thomas (who went to Kinnamon and cried, “I’m under fire! Can you give me some cover?”) on May 5. Unlike normal NCC procedure, this wasn’t trumpeted on the Council Web site, and it still isn’t there. Maybe Kinnamon ran out of ammunition? For that matter, I couldn’t find it on the UCC site, either. The PCUSA has it here. In it, Kinnamon and Thomas let us know that churches are either victims or oppressors:

There are numerous issues of pressing concern for the churches in this election year, including
continuing violence in the Middle East, a domestic economy that is squeezing the poor, the escalating price of food around the world, and the need for affordable health care and immigration reform in our own country. Alongside all of these, however, must be the issue of racial justice.

The United Church of Christ has taken a lead in calling for “a sacred conversation on race” prompted in part by the controversy surrounding Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ where Senator Barack Obama is a member. But all of our churches are affected by the persistent, appalling legacy of racism in this culture. And all of our churches are committed to the biblical truth that every person, regardless of the color of their skin, is an infinitely-valued child of God to whom Christ says: “I have come that you may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10)

With this in mind, we urge you to encourage this sacred conversation in your own communion.
Materials that may be useful in your setting, including prayers and litanies, are available on the UCC website.

Every church, of course, is different. Some of you have been victims of white privilege; others have been more complicit in the continuation of systemic racial prejudice. All of us, however, have much to contribute to, and take from, such a conversation. All of us can ask: What does our faith have to say about this evil? How can our church respond to help make this society more just for every one of its citizens? [Emphasis added.]

So which is your church? Are you a “victim of white privilege,” or have you been “complicit in the continuation of systemic racial prejudice”? They don’t mention any other possibilities, so I assume your church is one or the other. Which is it?

This is what the mainline churches have been reduced to: their clergy and laity are called to start a conversation (oops, make that a “sacred” conversation) about a subject that has obsessed them for decades, all to cover up for one loony Chicago preacher. And the PCUSA happily goes along. In the process, they all degrade what should be an utterly serious, central proclamation of the churches–that in Christ, by the power of the gospel, all the barriers that humanity has erected to divide itself have been overcome, and that in Christ there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28)–to the level of a frivolous political stunt.

Quote of the Day

“God is prepared to jeopardize the success of the God-project on earth rather than dispense with our collaboration. The God who created all, sustains all, ever after waits impotently for us to be collaborators, God’s partners.”

–Archbishop Desmond Tutu at the commencement service for the University of the South School of Theology

(Via Stand Firm.)

When Liturgists Attack 2 (UPDATED)

Christopher Johnson of the Midwest Conservative Journal has been dumpster-diving again, and came up with a genuinely bizarre episode of “When Liturgists Attack.” In this case, it’s a meeting of Call to Action, the liberal Catholic organization that is actually an Episcopalian black ops unit. (Unfortunately, C2A is off-line at this time, since there are so many people looking for laughs that their site’s bandwidth limit has been overwhelmed.) While the original isn’t available at the moment, YouTube has a portion of it. It must be seen to be believed: liturgical dancing, giant papier-mâché puppet heads, censer-fu, a statue of Buddha in the background (the service started with a Buddhist meditation), and more. Joe Bob says check it out.

UPDATE: Welcome to folks from Little Green Footballs and Age of Hooper. I feel like I’ve made the big time!

UPDATE: I should also mention that the Call to Action Web site is back up, and it’s a real treat to browse around in–almost any proto-Episcopal semi-Catholic you can come up with (from Rosemary Reuther to Hans Kung to Charles Curran) has got stuff on it. If you’d like a place to start to get to know the weirdness that is Call to Action, try the piece by New Age nutball Matthew Fox.

Curiouser and Curiouser

My fellow Consistory member Viola Larson at Naming His Grace has noted an interesting thing about the latest controversy in the PCUSA regarding the publication of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution’s recommendations to General Assembly. She saw this post on Bob Davis’ Presbyblog, and had this response:

I was surprised by Pastor Davis’s posting. The reason I was surprised: I thought that the advisory must have been posted for several weeks on PC-BiZ and instead it was only posted on May the 6th the day of our Presbytery meeting.

I had already read the Advisory and saw how it had been used since it was a part of the papers posted on our presbytery’s web site a week ago. And it was used in the first report written by a mediating team concerning a church in our presbytery seeking dismissal from the PCUSA. The first two meetings with the teams from both the church and the presbytery were held on April the 9th and 11th. So I have two questions concerning these papers.

1. I wonder how many other mediating teams in other presbyteries are receiving this advice from Louisville or more succinctly the Office of the General Assembly before it is even voted on by General Assembly?

2. I also wonder if other mediating teams are giving out the suggestion this team did in its first report? That is, given the advisory recommendation to the Presbyteries, “We noted that these issues were the subject of a Request for interpretation from the Presbytery of Charlotte that is currently pending before the General Assembly for consideration at the June meeting, and Presbytery [Sacramento] might choose to defer making a determination with respect to those issues until the General Assembly acted on that Request.”

In other words, the suggestion was being given that our Presbytery might just want to put this off until after General Assembly. As it happened mediation broke down without this ploy being used. I am not blaming our Presbytery, I am not blaming the mediating team. I am just saying it seems like Presbyteries are becoming puppets on a string being pulled by others in Louisville. That isn’t connectionalism, its madness because it will simply further erode any small bit of trust left in the Church.

So what exactly is going on here? Is Louisville engaged in Machiavellian machinations to try to get presbyteries to wait until after General Assembly to decide about dismissal requests? Are they telling presbyteries to follow a constitutional interpretation that hasn’t even been passed by the General Assembly yet? What I think we’re seeing is simply the playing out of the logic of the Louisville Papers, and the strategy of keeping as much church property as possible. They lose the congregations, but hey, the PCUSA’s pretty big, they can afford to lose a few dozen thousand malcontents if they get to keep the loot.

Down the Rabbit Hole

The Advisory Committee on the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has made two recommendations to the 2008 General Assembly that almost leave me speechless, they are so absurd. Almost:

Recommendation 1: that General Assembly issue the following interpretation of the Book of Order G-11.0103i and G-15.0203a and b as follows:

“Presbyteries may dismiss congregations to other ecclesiastical bodies of this denomination, and to denominations whose organization is conformed to the doctrines and order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). No congregation may be dismissed to independent status, or to the status of a nondenominational congregation. It is the responsibility of the dismissing presbytery to determine whether the receiving body meets these standards, and this responsibility cannot be delegated to any other entity within the presbytery (such as an administrative commission). Thus the General Assembly may not determine in advance whether a particular denomination or its constituent bodies qualify under these standards.

This is not near as clear as it could be, especially given the suspicions that have been raised by the actions of certain judicatories in recent months. What I think this is saying, however, is that only presbyteries can make the final determination whether the EPC (or, for that matter, PCA, ARPC, OPC, or any other letters in the Presbyterian alphabet soup) fits the constitutional criteria (doctrine and order) for receiving a former PCUSA church. So the administrative commission that the Synod of the Sun just formed might be able to advise, but cannot require the presbytery to alter its judgment if, in its judgment, the EPC or others qualify.

“The provisions of G-15.0203 a and b do, however, require that the General Assembly, as the highest governing body of this denomination, advise its presbyteries in this matter.

So while presbyteries get to make the call, they have to take the advice of General Assembly into account. Check.

The 218th General Assembly therefore advises the presbyteries that they must satisfy themselves concerning the conformity with this denomination of a transitional presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in matters of doctrines and order. Presbyteries may facilitate the exploration of conformity by means of an administrative commission, although such commissions may not be empowered to approve the dismissal of the congregation.

So this isn’t just about a constitutional interpretation, but is about the real situation presented by the New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery. Again, presbyteries get the final say.

In exploring this matter, presbyteries should consider such questions as whether the receiving EPC presbytery is

•doctrinally consistent with the essentials of Reformed theology as understood by the presbytery;
•governed by a polity that is consistent in form and structure with that of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A);
•of sufficient permanence to offer reasonable assurance that the congregation is not being dismissed to de facto independence.

But here’s a snare that effectively renders the whole thing pointless. In practice, this still means that presbyteries can, arbitrarily and with no other reason than a dislike of the EPC’s theological conservatism, refuse to dismiss a church. Putting it this way means that every presbytery gets to decide what it considers to be the “essentials of Reformed theology,” and if one decides that belief in the unique role of Christ in salvation isn’t essential, but that supporting divestment from Israel is, there’s nothing anyone can do about it. And that last item is a way of dictating a congregation’s future action that is worthy of institutional control freaks. The fact is that once a PCUSA congregation is dismissed to another Reformed denomination, the former’s ability to dictate what the future affiliation of that congregation should be is at an end. These items are simply a slick way of telling presbyteries, “tell ‘em to pound salt if you want to–and we really want you to.”

Failure on the part of the presbytery thoroughly to explore and adequately to document its satisfaction in these matters may thus violate, however unintentionally, the spirit of the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)”

In other words, if you don’t come up with the results we want, we’re going to be vewy, vewy angwy.

Recommendation 2

“Presbyteries may dismiss minister members to transitional presbyteries of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) under the provisions of G-15.0202, provided that they have determined that such transitional presbyteries properly have jurisdiction over the work to which the dismissed minister is called. In making this determination, presbyteries should consider the advice of the General Assembly concerning such transitional presbyteries found in response #1 above. In addition, presbyteries should honor their pastoral obligation to the minister requesting dismissal by informing him or her of the General Assembly’s grave concerns over the uncertainty and impermanence of the transitional presbyteries of the EPC, and of the consequences of the dismissal for any future relationship with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A).”

And this is simply the follow-up that allows presbyteries to dismiss out of hand requests for transfer to the NWAC/EPC transitional presbytery, with the last sentence containing an implicit threat.

There’s a patent dishonesty about this that is positively breath-taking. The PCUSA is presuming to tell the EPC how to run its business, and to do so all the while acting as though it’s just dealing with internal housekeeping. “Uncertainty and impermanence” indeed! Like as if EPC doesn’t know what the transitional presbytery is supposed to lead to, and those who are entering don’t know what it is they are getting into. Oh, yeah, and it’s patronizing, too.

The ACC proceeds to a rationale for these recommendations, and it’s really too long for me to go into all of it here. But there are a couple of items that demand comment:

An ecclesiastical court is no more required than is a civil court ”to fail to know what the whole world knows.” It may take judicial notice of facts not a formal part of the record before it which lie within the common stock of knowledge. We know that this case arises out of the tragic dissidence that exists within some parts of the church. One of the tactics of the dissident elements is to seek to have churches in which they are members dismissed as entities. They perceive certain benefits in this which might not be realized by orderly individual withdrawals followed by reassociation in other ecclesiastical bodies. This judgment says that this course is not constitutionally possible under the procedures of this church. [Emphasis added.]

Don’t you just love the sleight-of-hand here? They use the word “dissident” (a word that the PCUSA normally loves) to imply that those seeking to take churches out of the PCUSA and into the EPC are minorities who are
using some kind of illicit machinations to get their way. Here’s the interesting thing: the clear implication of the highlighted sentences is that churches can’t be taken out of the PCUSA–only individual members can. The provision in the constitution that allows the dismissal of congregations as a whole (not to mention all the gibberish in the recommendations) goes right out the window. Incredible.

But this takes the cake:

Does the theology of the EPC “conform to the doctrines … of this denomination?” The EPC General Assembly action requires that

“All churches and pastors entering the EPC on a transitional basis must affirm “Essentials of our Faith” without any reservations.”

In both our polity and in the theology on which it is founded, we have long recognized that “reservations” and points of disagreement in some matters of faith are not only inevitable but ultimately nourishing for the health of the church. Moreover, we have resisted listing the “essential tenets of the Reformed faith” (W-4.4003c), precisely because such lists tend to confine the theology of the church within the narrow strictures of the historical moment in which the list was created, robbing it of its life and liveliness. For this reason, we have deemed it wise to have not one confessional statement but a Book of Confessions (Part I of this denomination’s constitution), in which are registered multiple statements of faith that stand in both mutual support and occasional tension. Can such theological suppleness be said to characterize the doctrines of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church?

In other words, unless a denomination’s theological standards are as vague, amorphous, and undisciplined as the PCUSA’s, they can’t dismiss congregations to them! Unless a denomination conforms to the “cafeteria” model of theological standards, they don’t meet the lofty standards by which the PCUSA judges “theological suppleness”! And on top of it all, this passage embodies the approach to the faith from which the fleeing congregations are trying to escape. The inanity of this passage rivals anything I’ve ever seen out of a mainline denomination.

There’s more, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue. Take a look at it if you are so inclined, and marvel at the chutzpah found therein.

(Hat tip: Pastor Steve Bryant.)

South Louisiana Departure

It’s not a direct response to the action of the PCUSA Synod of the Sun last week, but the timing may well be. A church in the South Louisiana Presbytery decides it’s time to go, and the pastor, Consistory blogger Bill Crawford, posts a statement from the congregation on the Bayou Christian:

The First Presbyterian Church of Thibodaux at its duly called congregational meeting on May 4th, 2008 voted unanimously to disaffiliate from the Presbyterian Church (USA) and voluntarily affiliate with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Of its 91 voting members 47 were present and all voted in the affirmative to disaffiliate and all voted in the affirmative to seek admission into the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

It is with great expectation that we announce what we consider this to be our return to our roots in orthodox Christian practice by joining our sister churches in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). Already one of the congregations we had the honor of planting many years ago (First Presbyterian Church of Houma) is a member of the EPC with them and others we are taking a firm stand for the Essential Tenets of the Christian Faith as articulated in the EPC Constitution.

For decades we have watched with alarm as the PC (USA) has drifted from its roots and its clear proclamation of Jesus Christ as Lord. We do not perceive this so much as our leaving the denomination as our recognition that it left us. With that realization came a desire to return to our long lost family in the EPC. As a Christian Church in the Reformed tradition we hold dear to the teachings of the Bible and its call upon our lives (see the possition papers section). In this action we choose to remain Presbyterian in our polity (church governance) and Biblical in our beliefs while affirming that actions as well as words matter.

This moment is made bittersweet by the many friends that we leave behind in the PC(USA) but we know that we must follow Jesus above all other relationships. We also live in the hope that our friends will realize that we have not changed; merely our institutional affiliation has changed. We will continue to pray for the PC(USA) but it is time for us to move forward with joy and expectation into our new life in Christ.

Godspeed, brothers and sisters. I’ll be praying that you don’t get caught up in the politics of the situation, and that your departure will go smoothly. Meanwhile, from the EPC, welcome!

Fresh Air–From PCUSA!

There’s a remarkable article at the PCUSA Web site that speaks to the presence of anti-Semitism within the denomination. It is as self-critical a piece as I’ve ever seen from an official mainline source regarding the conduct of a denomination:

However, we are aware and do confess that anti-Jewish attitudes can be found among us. Our conversations with Jews in the last several years have renewed our concern to guard against anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish motifs and stereotypes, particularly as these find expression in speech and writing about Israel, the Palestinian people, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and steps toward peace. Once again, many Presbyterians have become aware that strains of an old anti-Jewish tradition are present in the way we ourselves sometimes speak and in the rhetoric and ideas of some writers that we may read regarding these matters.

Examples of such an anti-Jewish theology can unfortunately be found in connection with PC(USA) General Assembly overtures, such as the overture on Confronting Christian Zionism, adopted by the 216th General Assembly in 2004. Some of the authors cited in the rationale of that overture make use in their writings of arguments suggesting or declaring that the Jewish people are no longer in covenant with God, or make statements that echo the medieval Christian claim that the Jews are to blame for the crucifixion of Christ. The rationale and background sources cited in any overture are not General Assembly policy, but Presbyterians need to read such materials with awareness of these themes of classic anti-Jewish teaching.

When our analysis or critique of the Israeli-Palestinian situation employs language or draws on sources that have anti-Jewish overtones, or clearly makes use of classic Christian anti-Jewish ideas, we cloud complicated issues with the rhetoric of ignorance or subliminal attitudes, or the language of hate, and undermine our advocacy for peace and justice. Critical questions such as ending the occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel or the future of Jerusalem are complex and difficult. It does not help to import stereotypes, anti-Jewish motifs or classic ideas of Christian anti-Jewish theology into our discussions.

Similarly, in a few materials that have been circulated by Presbyterians, one finds characterizations of Zionism that distort that movement. They do not accurately present the history of the Zionist movement or acquaint readers with its internal debates and ethical concerns. Instead, Zionism is often presented as a monolithic force or merely as an extension of European colonialism and result of anti-Semitism, and nothing else. In such materials, the problems and suffering of the Palestinians are attributed solely — and inaccurately — to Zionism alone. The origins, development and practices of Zionism and its relationship to the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian situation are much more complex than such a picture presents.

I’m especially amazed because this critique is directed entirely at liberal elements within the PCUSA. The piece then goes on to criticize the anti-Semitic overtones of much of what comes out of Palestinian sources, and while there is no mention of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, there’s no doubt that it is among the foremost targets:

When the perspectives of liberation theology are used to understand the situation of the Palestinian people, Christian theological ideas and metaphors are used to speak about the Palestinian people and their experience in relation to the policies of the state of Israel. So, for example, some Palestinian liberation theologians identify the Palestinian people with Jesus. Some liken the Palestinian experience to the passion of Jesus or describe the Palestinian people as being crucified as Jesus was crucified.

This is understandable, given the situation in which Palestinians are living. However, applying this reading of the passion narratives to the Israeli-Palestinian situation brings unique problems: moving beyond legitimate denunciation of injustices the state of Israel has committed or may commit, some writing from this theological perspective indict the state of Israel as a crucifying power. The introduction of such an emotionally and theologically “loaded” interpretation may vividly express and give meaning to the suffering of the Palestinian people, but it is troubling in its demonization of Israel and the Jewish people and its echoes of ancient Christian anti-Judaism.

Most Jewish readers feel that in theological statements such as this the Jews as a people are once again being charged with deicide. For Jews this is terrifying, because the narrative of the passion and crucifixion has been used as a theological basis for the ghettoization, denigration and killing of Jews for nearly twenty centuries. Especially when combined with sharply worded arguments that God’s gift of land to ancient Israel is to be understood only as a universal gift to all peoples and not as a particular gift to a particular people (the Jews), this kind of statement raises the specter of the anti-Jewish tradition in Christian thought.

Again, what such Palestinian theologians say offers Presbyterians in the United States an important theological reflection on the Israeli-Palestinian situation from the perspective of Christians affected by it. Yet it remains our responsibility to critique — and not to accept — those statements or ideas within it that are anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic.

The ongoing connections between Sabeel and other less than savory anti-Israel groups and some Presbyterian activists (for instance, the Witherspoon Society has frequently cited Sabeel and its obnoxious director, the Rev. Naim Ateek, as sources for information and opinions regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations) and even official PCUSA has long been a sore spot that has strained relationships with Jews. They’ve also given rise to the suspicion that anti-Semitism may have been behind at least some of those connections. It’s astounding to hear an official PCUSA agency–the Office for Interfaith Relations–recognize and warn against this.

Kudos to the folks in the OIR for an astute and much-needed article that is truly a breath of fresh air.

(Via UCCTruths, whose estimable blogger, James Hutchins, saw this before I did.)