Jewish Orgs Pound PCUSA

If the people in the PCUSA’s Office of Interfaith Relations thought they could revise their document on anti-Jewish ideas and bias in the way they did and have no one notice, they were sadly mistaken. Two different sets of Jewish organizations have responded to the revision, and they aren’t happy. First, from leaders of Reformed, Conservative, and Reconstruction Judaism comes this letter to PCUSA Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick:

Candor compels us to respond immediately and clearly to the “expanded” and “revised” publication of “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias,” and to tell you as plainly as we know how that the new statement marks a new low-point in Presbyterian-Jewish relations.

While we received what now seems to have been a draft of the statement with optimism and appreciation for its clear awareness of the sensitivities in the Jewish community, the revised statement that was just released is deeply troubling theologically, politically, and personally. The revised statement, which is currently prominently displayed on your website, does more to excuse anti-Semitism and foster anti-Jewish motifs then it does to dispel them. And to speak frankly, the revised statement leaves us with a deep suspicion regarding the motivations behind replacing the initial statement – which the Jewish community warmly welcomed – with a document which you surely knew would cause deep angst. Friends, or even dialogue partners, do not engage in actions that can so easily and plausibly be seen as “bait and switch” tactics.

The initial statement contained many important elements that are now absent, including: an acknowledgement of complicity in existing anti-Jewish attitudes, a deep and thorough analysis of Palestinian liberation theology and the adverse characterization it often projects on the Jewish community, and most importantly a tone that is conciliatory and reflecting the spirit of true dialogue and respect. Now we have a statement that is completely unbalanced in its appraisal of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, which contains veiled threats of “divestment”, and which completely undoes much of the positive language and progress that were presented in the initial draft. Indeed, this document reads as a blueprint for how to engage in anti-Israel activity without being accused of anti-Semitism.

On a personal level, we think the most troubling revision to the entire letter is the deletion of one sentence: “We Presbyterians aspire to build positive and respectful relations with our neighbors in the Jewish community, based on an honest exploration of the close ties between our two faith traditions and our shared concerns for peace and justice.” While we still deeply hope that this spirit is alive and well in the Presbyterian Church, the elimination of this statement surely gives us pause. If we are to “build positive and respectful relations” we need to do so in an atmosphere of trust and friendship, and in a spirit that truly encapsulates our prophetic duty to work together in honesty and in peace.

That going to leave a mark, but no more than the other one, which comes from the above three synagogue bodies as well as the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith International, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Hadassah, among others. In a statement that appears at the Religion News Service, they write:

We are deeply distressed by the revisions made to the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s recent statement calling for “Vigilance against anti-Jewish ideas and bias.”

The revised statement is infused with the very bias that the original statement condemned. We are disappointed that after taking steps toward better relations, the church has rescinded many of the positive statements it made about rooting out anti-Jewish invective. It is even more disturbing that this occurs after Jewish groups had warmly welcomed the original statement, and only days before the church’s upcoming biennial. As such, we can no longer welcome its publication and must rescind the letters and statements in which we welcomed the original document.

We resent the implication in the revised statement that some Jewish criticism of Israeli policy justifies the PC(USA)’s one-sided stances. It does not. There is legitimate criticism of Israeli policies that comes from both Christians and Jews. However, some criticism crosses the line. Sadly, many PC(USA) statements have and continue to cross this line.

A 2004 policy stated that Israeli occupation is “at the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides of the conflict.” A 2007 church teaching resource claims a two-thousand-year continued Christian presence in the Holy Land, but writes Jews out of the history until the middle of the twentieth century. A 2008 church statement termed the rockets that Hamas has fired into Israeli civilian areas as “provocative acts of retaliation.” The newly revised statement on anti-Jewish bias describes Israel as “the oppressive force in the Israeli-Palestinian situation,” dismissing the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish terror that has killed and maimed Israeli civilians in buses, restaurants, and markets. Each statement and action moves beyond legitimate criticism and rewrites history or assigns excessive blame to Israelis, even for violence directed against them.

A further example of blaming Jews for that which harms us is the revised language on Palestinian liberation theology. Gone is language recognizing that such theology presents “unique problems” and is “troubling in its demonization of Israel.” Instead, the burden is shifted to Jews who, the statement claims, “inevitably construe” calling the Jewish state a crucifying power as anti-Jewish. We know that we do not shoulder alone our horror over statements by liberation theologians such as “the Israeli government crucifixion machine is operating daily,” or “Israel has placed a large boulder, a big stone that has metaphorically shut off the Palestinians in a tomb, similar to the stone placed on the entrance of Jesus’ tomb” or “security is a pagan god that Israel worships.” Christians and all people of good will also construe such rhetoric as echoing classic anti-Jewish accusations.

The revised statement inserts a litany of church policies against Israel, including targeting corporations for “engagement” as a viable approach to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No recent church policy has caused greater harm to Presbyterian-Jewish relations. In contrast, the church has yet to take any action to “engage” corporations that foster anti-Israel terrorism through investment in state sponsors of terror, including Iran and Syria. This demonstrates a continued one-sided and distressing approach to peacemaking.

The revised statement also adds a most troubling interpretation of the biblical promise of land. The original statement recognized both a universal gift of land and one made specifically to the Jewish people. This is replaced with a re-interpretation that the Jewish covenant instead includes a promise of land to “the Jewish people and to all the descendants of Abraham.”

In June 2006, Jewish organizations broadly welcomed the call for a “new season of mutual understanding and dialogue” issued by the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). In January 2007, after the issuance of an anti-Israel PC(USA) statement, we questioned whether that new season had arrived. Today, we note with profound hurt that the season for which we continue to hope has indeed not yet arrived.

There’s been no response from Kirkpatrick or anyone else in the PCUSA, of course. I wrote to Jay Rock of the Office of Interfaith Relations earlier today to ask him how this came about, and got no answer from him, either. Anyway you slice it, this has proven to be a monumental embarrassment for the PCUSA, one which is sure to set back efforts as interfaith dialog for years to come. Nice going, folks.

(Hat tip: Will Spotts, who has more at Recovering Presbyterian.)