The two leading officials of the PCUSA, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and General Assembly Council executive director Linda Valentine, have written a letter to the heads of three Jewish synagogue associations (Reformed, Conservative, and Reconstructionist) to invite them to talk about strained Presbyterian-Jewish relations:
Thank you for your frank responses to the posting of our expanded resource on “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Bias in the Pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian Peace.” It is clear that, in making the changes to its original version, we have strained our relationships with you, and awakened mistrust between us, and we regret this.
Note the title. I hadn’t even noticed until I saw this letter that the title changed, too. It used to be “Vigilance against anti-Jewish ideas and bias,” as the Google cache page shows. Now it’s “in the Pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian Peace.” Needless to say, the title change alone is evidence of a complete shift of focus from the original. And given that as late as a week ago, the letter from the Jewish organizations makes reference to the document by its previous title, it’s obvious that the re-writers wanted to try to shift the context for their revisions to make them somehow more palatable. Nice try.
In order to hear more about your responses and the concerns that lie behind them, and in the spirit of honest exploration of the close ties that do bind our two communities, we want to invite you to meet with us soon after our upcoming General Assembly.
Because getting hit on the head with a ball peen hammer is a lot more enjoyable in person, I guess.
The Vigilance resource has provoked a great deal of reaction, and many questions. We want to give more careful consideration to the issues, and to continue the process of developing a useful resource or resources on this topic.
Because after decades of Presbyterian-Jewish dialogue, we still haven’t got a clue what you people think about any of these issues.
It is important to us, and for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), to be in dialogue with you about the issues on which we have tried to speak in this resource. Giving adequate attention to contemporary instances of the Christian teaching of contempt for Jews and Judaism requires careful attention to issues and ideas that are difficult and multifaceted.
If they really want to hear about “contemporary instances of the Christian teaching of contempt for Jews and Judaism,” I have no doubt that their interlocutors will give them an earful. I suspect, however, that what they really want to do is explain how they were misunderstood, or how the Jews are being excessively touchy, or how they were simply following the path of justice, or some such approach.
Focusing on these issues in the context of our Middle East public policy advocacy is all the more difficult, since the demands for justice for Israelis and Palestinians are matters of life and death, and starkly different approaches to that situation are pursued passionately and publicly. Both of these are essential parts of our Christian commitment to justice for all people, and matters that need further conversation among us.
The vagueness and ambiguity in this paragraph is such that I have no real idea what they are talking about, except that a document that was supposed to be about “anti-Jewish ideas and bias” has morphed into yet another opportunity to bash Israel.
We hope that you will agree to join us for this conversation, and also to talk about other matters that may warrant our attention coming out of the Assembly itself. We look forward to making arrangements with you for such a get together, to talk together about who should be part of the conversation from both of our communities, and to develop a useful framework for the time we will have with each other.
I don’t know whether Rabbis Epstein, Yoffie, and Sheingold will accept the invitation. On the one hand, it would be awfully tempting to give Kirkpatrick (or his successor) and Valentine what-for. On the other hand, given the track record of the PCUSA, it would not surprise me if they decided that they had no desire to waste any more effort on trying to educate a brick wall.
(Hat tip: Will Spotts.)
June 21, 2008 at 5:47 am
Rev. Kirkpatrick’s letter rings hollow; he’s written similar letters before…
Lord, have mercy….
June 21, 2008 at 6:31 am
This does generate a sense of deja vu.
The letter mentions regret. One might be tempted to say, “bear fruit in keeping with repentance”. Frankly, it has been the PC(USA) that has persistently abused its Jewish allies (from recommending a speaker at a college who proceeded to quote from the Protocols, to comparing Israel to Sudan, to toleration of crucifixion imagery to demonize Israel, to fawning praise of Hezbollah, to comments like Rev. Van Marter’s recent quotes in the NJ Jewish News. Given the pattern of behavior, “let’s talk” falls a little flat.
June 21, 2008 at 7:52 am
This is another “we are sorry we ticked you off, but we are going to keep doing it” letter.
The anti-Israel corruption within the PCUSA leadership ranks is very deep. Anyone who thinks otherwise is woefully misinformed.
The only good news emanating from the PCUSA headquarters is the utter stupidity for their actions in publishing the initial report and then totally reversing themselves a month later. Given such ignorance the demise of the pcusa is sooner than later.
June 21, 2008 at 8:37 am
Larry: I agree save on one point. I don’t think they are the slightest bit sorry.
June 23, 2008 at 2:00 pm
It’s just more Jew hating anti Israel bias out of the staff in Louisville. I am not surprised. The Jewish community should cut off contact with the national leadership of the PCUSA not just for this latest action, but for the denomination’s long history of hostility towards Israel and the Jewish people.
If Israel was really smart about this they would shut down the PCUSA sponsored propaganda tours to Israel by denying entry to those participating in such tours. They would also move to expel PCUSA mission staff working for Sabeel, an Arab liberationist organization with a long history of antisemitsm.
June 23, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Timothy Smith’s characterization is right. I think most people don’t really grasp exactly how bad some Presbyterian activism on the issue has been.
August 17, 2008 at 3:26 am
On the “Expanded” Presbyterian statement on “Vigilance Against Anti-Jewish Bias in the Pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian Peace.”
Mark Braverman
June 16, 2008
The revised version of the original document by this name authored by Jay Rock of the Presbyterian Church is a significant improvement over the first effort. The author (or authors) of this revised piece have responded to the criticism leveled against the original document and have produced a thoughtful piece that brings the discussion forward much more effectively. Indeed, the document deserves to be renamed from its original title, “Vigilance Against Anti-Jewish Bias,” because it corrects the fundamental problem with the previous piece, which was to put concern about anti-Semitism before the actual issue, which is justice in Israel-Palestine. This shift in focus is reflected in the very opening of the statement, which states, clearly and simply that Presbyterians “must stand unwaveringly for Justice and Peace.”
Indeed, what is most important about this new statement is that it leads with just that – a principled stand on the injustice being perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the State of Israel. And it very clearly differentiates between criticism of the State of Israel and anti-Jewish feeling or statements. The author stands his ground on the central importance for Presbyterians of opposing against any statements or positions that might partake of anti-Jewish feeling, and of the equally central importance of preserving the respectful relationship between Presbyterians and Jews. But he is respectful of this without backing off from a principled stand on the Israel Palestine situation.
It is a very careful document. And that’s a good thing, because for Christians this is a complex issue, raising highly conflictual and conflicting feelings. As such, it requires care. It also requires clarity, and this revised document achieves clarity on several key issues, issues that are often blurred and which create considerable confusion and distress as a result. There are two critical issues that the document covers well, correcting the problems with the first one:
1. First: it makes a clear distinction between the responsibility of the Israeli government and the citizens of Israel for their policies, and the Jewish people as a whole. Indeed, the Jewish establishment would do well to study this example, as Jewish organizations deliberately confuse Israel and its interests with that of all Jews.
2. Second: the statement presents a much more balanced and considered statement about Palestinian Liberation Theology. Although the author continues to insist that “most Jews” see in Palestinian Liberation Theology an “echo” of the accusation of Christ killing — a statement that I strongly challenge, and further challenge the author to provide evidence to support this claim — the author has presented a much more sensitive and sympathetic picture of Palestinian Liberation Theology. This is important because it represents a significant backing off from the specious and destructive argument relating Palestinian Liberation Theology to the ancient charge of deicide.
So this is a great improvement, one that is likely to be more helpful to Christians confronting the challenge of deciding what kind of action to take in pursuit of justice than the first version was. It is also more likely — if not now, then perhaps in the future –to promote positive dialogue with the Jewish community. Jews and Christians alike must grapple with the difficult, painful process of deciding on how to confront injustice and evil. They will not get there by focusing on the false issue of anti-Semitism. The issue here is not anti-Jewish feelings, but the injustice being perpetrated by the Jewish state. To make anti-Semitism the issue is to confuse the discourse — it leads nowhere. We must focus not on the sins of the past, but on the crimes of the present.
This statement is not the last word on these issues. What is important here is that in finding a way to grapple with these issues and the conflictual feelings they evoke, Christians do not yield to the temptation to allow the feelings to cancel one another out: “On the one hand, we abhor the actions of the State of Israel — on the other, we honor the desire of the Jewish people to overcome millenia of oppression.” The way the conflict is all too often resolved is to avoid the issue altogether, to dilute the criticism, or, as in the case of the original document, to miss the point entirely in eagerness to establish pro-Jewish credentials in the interests of “interfaith” reconciliation. When that is allowed to happen, the Presbyterian commitment to justice is betrayed. So this is a good process. Given the complex feelings raised by the situation in the Holy Land, and the history that it is freighted with, an iterative process is to be expected. This process should be honored and allowed to go forward. And it should not be allowed to degrade into shouting.
This is why, to me, the response of Rabbis Yoffie, Rabbi Epstein and Dr. Sheingold, the heads of the Jewish Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements, is so shocking and disappointing. They do not like this revised statement, calling it “a new low point in Presbyterian-Jewish relations.” No – they liked the first one, the one that shouted about anti-Semitism, about the need to, above all, hold the mere suggestion of anti-Jewish feeling as a clear and present danger, a value that supersedes all others. They preferred the first statement, which promoted the specious argument that support of the struggle for Palestinian dignity and self-determination somehow leads to the charge of Christ-killers. Rabbis Yoffie and Epstein and Dr. Sheingold do not value the difficult and honest struggle of the Presbyterian Church to grapple with the issue. Rather than engage in the process so painfully entered into by the Presbyterians, they apply litmus tests, take statements out of context, and imperiously demand a kind of rectitude. Rather than honoring the process, and indeed entering in the dialogue so earnestly sought by the Presbyterians, they sit in judgment. With regard to Palestinian Liberation Theology, they preferred the first statement, the one that slandered Sabeel. We liked that one, they say, not this second version which attempts to understand the struggle of Palestinian Christians to maintain a non-violent, dignified stance in relation to their oppression.
But here is the real shocker: as all who have followed the story know, the history of this “dialogue” between the Presbyterian Church and the American Jewish establishment on the question of Israel and Palestine is the story of the enormous pressure exerted on the Church not to pursue divestment from companies involved in the illegal occupation of Palestine. Indeed, the Church has encountered what can only be characterized as a juggernaut of opposition to any notion of divestment. It was to a large extent due to pressure from Jewish establishment groups that the Presbyterian Church in 2004 removed the word “divestment” from their resolution and replaced it with a notion of “constructive engagement.” The revised Presbyterian statement makes reference to this issue by referring to the need to pursue dialogue with these companies — the word “divestment” is not mentioned — as one of several actions that should be considered as part of a principled stand against injustice. But the Rabbis and the Dr. will have nothing to do with nuance, or with principles. Ever “vigilant” about the suggestion that a church could take a principled stand through their investments, the letter – shamelessly – actually puts words into the mouth of the authors, characterizing the statement about “constructive engagement” as “veiled threats of divestment.” They want it both ways: they bully the Church into removing the word “divestment” from its resolutions, and into seeking more conciliatory (and, to some, ineffective) measures, and then accuse the Church of making “veiled threats” when it replaces the “hot button” term with an alternative strategy aimed at preserving a positive and respectful relationship with the Jewish community. How shameful, wrong, cynical and treacherous.
In closing, I address you directly, Rabbis Yoffie and Epstein and Dr. Sheingold: As a Jew, I am shamed by your letter. You want it both ways? You want it all ways? What are you after? Certainly not interfaith dialogue. To your shame, you are keeping alive the despicable notion of Jews as Christ killers, the charge that has caused such suffering for us over the ages, because it serves your purpose now in seeking to intimidate Christians from taking a principled stand against the shameful and self-destructive policies of Israel. Shame on you. You want to encourage American Christians to besmirch the noble work of Sabeel, work supported on a wide-ranging basis by Christian leaders here in the US. You want to hold progressive Christians hostage to the sins of the past — women and men, laypersons and clergy — who are trying to find a way to move beyond the horrors of Church anti-Semitism. You want to drag them back into this archaic theology through a degradation and abuse of the Israel-Palestine issue. You don’t want dialogue – you want to preach and to intimidate. For shame.
I honor the efforts of the people of the Presbyterian Church. They may not have found the answer yet, but they are grappling with the issue. And the issue is injustice. The issue is right and wrong. To them I say: do not allow yourselves to be distracted. Are there anti-Semites in your midst? Perhaps. But surely they are not steering the ship. This is a false issue, a distraction, a bullying tactic. Do not be distracted. Injustice is injustice. Wrong is wrong. Go, as you have, courageously, despite the bloodying you received in 2004, back into the fray. I applaud and support your persistence. I pray that someday the so-called “leaders” of the American Jewish community will become deserving of the dialogue you seek with them. In the meantime, continue to do the right thing: Seek justice, struggle to find your way. Rabbis Yoffie and Epstein and Dr. Sheingold do not speak for me, nor for tens of thousands of Jews who are with you in this journey. God bless you on your way.
Mark Braverman
http://www.jewishconscience.com
member, Jewish Voice for Peace