Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow of the PCUSA has appointed members of a special committee that is charged with preparing a study of “Israel/Palestine.” According to the Presbyterian News Service:
The membership of two General Assembly special committees have been released, bringing the total of special committees named by the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, moderator of the 218th General Assembly (2008 ) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to three this week.
The 218th General Assembly (2008 ) also asked the Moderators of the 218th, 217th, and 216th General Assemblies (2008 ), (2006), and (2004) to “select a nine-member committee from a broad spectrum of viewpoints from PC(USA) members to prepare a comprehensive study, with recommendations, that is focused on Israel/Palestine within the complex context of the Middle East.
The Assembly said the study “should include an evaluation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s mission and relationships, including an assessment of the future for the Christian presence and witness in the Middle East; an overview of the complex interactions among religions, cultures, and peoples that characterize the region; an analysis of U.S. policies that impact the area; and steps to be taken with our partners in the Middle East and the United States to foster justice, improve interfaith relations, and nurture the building of peace toward a secure and viable future for all.”
Now, one would think that “broad spectrum of viewpoints” would mean that it would include strong supporters of both Israel and the Palestinians, as well as folks with more moderate positions. The make-up of the committee suggests otherwise:
Minister members are the Revs. Susan R. Andrews (Hudson River Presbytery), John Huffman (Los Ranchos Presbytery), Rebecca Reyes (New Hope Presbytery), Marthame Sanders (Greater Atlanta Presbytery), Ronald L. Shive (Salem Presbytery), and John W. Wimberly, Jr. (National Capital Presbytery).
Elders serving on the panel are Frederic W. Bush (Los Ranchos Presbytery), Nahida H. Gordon (Muskingum Valley Presbytery), and Lucy Janjigian (Palisades Presbytery).
Staffing the committee will be the Rev. Christian Iosso, coordinator of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy; the Rev. Victor Makari, coordinator for the Middle East, Asia Minor and the Jinishian Memorial Program for the General Assembly Council; Elder Doug Dicks, a PC(USA) mission co-worker in Israel Palestine; and the Rev. Kerry Clements, director of Communication, Development, and Technology for the Office of the General Assembly.
I hadn’t heard of a lot of these people before seeing this article, so I’ve been Googling this morning to see what I could find on them. Needless to say, I was not surprised by the results:
Susan Andrews is a former PCUSA Moderator. She was a strong advocate of the ill-fated Israel divestment policy passed by the 2004 General Assembly, and tried to maintain that the 2006 repudiation of that policy was actually a reaffirmation of it.
John Huffman, an evangelical, nevertheless supported the General Assembly’s actions in calling for divestment from Israel back in 2004. Shortly after the passage of that action, he told his congregation, “I must speak up clearly, though briefly, to support the stand of our denomination in regard to the Middle East.” He justified this by saying that “Considerations of divestiture of Presbyterian investment in companies contributing to this violence is not exclusively directed toward Israel, but a policy also suggested to be used in a number of the other troubled areas of the world,” a statement which was either dishonest or the height of naivete.
Marthame Sanders is a former missionary to the region. He has referred to Israel as a “militaristic, unjust and racist nation,” and considers the Jewish state to be a practitioner of “apartheid.” He, of course, is also a strong supporter of divestment.
Ronald Shive was an opponent of an overture at the 2008 GA that called for the PCUSA to be “non-partisan” in the issue, to not take sides, and supported a one-sided approach embodied in this overture.
Frederic Bush is a Fuller Seminary emeritus professor. He has long been an anti-Israel campaigner, and has connections both to the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and the anti-Semitic Jerusalem-based Sabeel Center.
Nahida Gordon is a professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University. She has accused Israel of seeking to ethnically cleanse itself of Arabs.
Lucy Janjigian has thanked Jimmy Carter publicly for his book calling Israel an apartheid state.
I couldn’t find any information about Rebecca Reyes.
So, near as I can tell, John Wimberly will be the only member, or possibly only one of two members, of this nine-member committee (which will also be staffed almost exclusively by PCUSA personnel who have made careers out of bashing Israel) who is not firmly and unequivocally identified with just one side in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, or supported PCUSA in its efforts to carry out the one-sided action of divestment. That, apparently, is how they define “broad” in the PCUSA.
The Reformed Pastor 
February 9, 2009 at 1:38 pm
It IS disappointing. The Moderator could have done a much better job providing some balance to this Committee. He did so with the Special Committee to study same-sex unions and marriage. Why he did not do so here is impossible for me to answer.
February 9, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I don’t have any dog in this particular fight because … well, 1) I’ve only got so much RAM, and 1) I just don’t care about this issue.
But before criticizing the selections for this or any other committee, it seems that it would be important to know whether or not people who you believe would have provided a better balance were actually nominated in the first place, eh?
One cannot appoint people unless they’ve actually been nominated. And an answer of “I’m sure someone with a more balanced view was nominated” is nothing but piling more speculation on top of speculation.
Then, once you’ve got the list of nominees who were not selected, who you think would have done a better job, then it seems that, before criticizing, you should know what the criteria were for selection, and why those folks were left off the committee. Perhaps you could get that information by actually asking the person who made the selections, rather than jumping to conclusions.
Just a thought. 😉
February 9, 2009 at 1:52 pm
uh, that should be “2), I just don’t care about this issue.”
As Barbie used to say, “Math is hard.” 🙂
February 9, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I need to amend my comments a little bit … the committee was not named solely by the current Moderator, Bruce Reyes-Chow, but also was constructed by two previous Moderators, Joan Gray and Rick Ufford-Chase.
To Alan … what are the odds that almost no pro-Israel voices were even nominated? Pro-Israel individuals have been willing to step forward and speak out before. I don’t think it’s wild speculation to believe that some of those individuals were available for the committee (just as conservatives were available for the Special Committee on Same-Sex Unions).
February 9, 2009 at 1:55 pm
We’ll see what they come up with, but 2 things should be remembered:
1) The fact that the PCUSA is acting like an important voice in Middle East affairs by creating commissions and holding GA votes doesn’t make it so. In point of fact, very few will be paying attention to what this commission does, because they simply lack the authority that’s needed to get people to listen – and this problem is thorougly self-inflicted.
2) Assuming the commission’s end product totes what seems be the stacked ideological deck of the commission itself, it will once again make a mockery of the ‘Unity in Diversity’ banality we often hear from supposedly open-minded ecclesiastical organs these days. To the contrary, if this commission produces yet another one-sided and completely distortive picture of the Middle East situation, the best they’ll be able to say is that there’s ‘Unity in Uniformity’. The problem is that even in the PCUSA, the one-sided uniformity of commissions like this doesn’t extend to the pews.
February 9, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I need to say something else: as disappointed as I am with John Huffman’s position, I believe he is speaking in a good faith way. I don’t understand why he holds the position he does, but I would not ascribe bad motives to him.
February 9, 2009 at 2:10 pm
‘what are the odds that almost no pro-Israel voices were even nominated?”
I’d guess — guess — the odds are small. But my point is that neither of us actually knows. So, “wild speculation”? Perhaps not “wild” but it’s still speculation.
If one were to criticize, the critique would carry more weight if it were based on actual facts.
February 9, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Alan: You’re right, I don’t know who all was nominated (though I’ve already heard from one pro-Israel person who was nominated and not selected, and I have no reason to think that in a denomination as large as PCUSA there weren’t others as well). I do know who was chosen, and that’s what speaks loudest.
Jason: You’re right that PCUSA is acting as though it has more input into such matters that it has in the past, but with the change in administration, who knows what the future will look like?
John: I should be clear that I don’t know what John Huffman’s current stance is. He may have been a supporter of the 2004 action just because he’s an organization guy (I don’t know, just speculating). And he may have changed his mind since. But if so, I haven’t been able to turn up any evidence of it.
February 9, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“I do know who was chosen, and that’s what speaks loudest.”
Meh.
Simply another way to rationalize criticism based on speculation rather than facts.
February 9, 2009 at 9:19 pm
David,
Thank you for the terrific research on this. Isn’t Google a wonderful toy.
I can’t say that the make-up of the committee surprises me one iota. The shameful aspect is to characterize the group as holding a “broad spectrum of views”, when it is clearly dominated by one perspective.
I too am convinced that these sorts of committees and the statements they produce serve only to marginalize and shame those in their respective denominations who hold opposite views and ultimately amount to nothing else.
February 9, 2009 at 11:13 pm
I hope others will join me in praying for John Wimberly to hold fast to his perspective on this issue.
February 10, 2009 at 9:59 am
The story was more fun with the sunglasses, David. 8)
February 10, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Alan –
I appreciate your point, but I think there are more salient facts to be considered. The bootom is that the moderators were tasked with forming a group with a broad spectrum of viewpoints. They failed. That is clear. Perhpas you are right – perhaps there are extenuating circumstances that explain that failure. But the fact is, they failed.
More troubling, however, are the staffing decisions. I’m not sure if this was a moderatorial choice. However, two of the designated staff have very extremely poor records in terms of presenting what could be considered (in possible universe) balanced information. A third has a moderately poor record of doing so.
The net effect of committee and staff decisions is not promising at all. This is a failure – regardless of the causes.
February 10, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Like I said earlier, on this issue, I don’t actually care. I just think that the criticism isn’t valid without any evidence to support it. Rationalizations can be made, and many already have been, but they’re just rationalizations. The criticism that the committee membership isn’t balanced, based on your understanding of who is on it; I don’t have a problem with that, assuming that the speculation about these folks’ POV is accurate. However, the implication that the lack of balance was intentional is simply the usual evidence-free whining/complaining that we all see so often on so many PCUSA/PCUSA-related blogs.
But I suppose without stuff to complain about, what would most folks do with their blogs?
February 10, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Alan –
Maybe I disagree with you less than I thought.
I’m less concerned with intent than with effect here. I’m observing that the committee is not balanced based on past history of the members and staff. It is surely possible that these will come up with a balanced result – people aren’t fixed in their opinions necessarily. It might be that an intent to be balanced would trump personal history of public statements.
In this particular instance, I’m not complaining yet – I’m concerned. I don’t see the makeup of the committee fulfilling the stated intent. This does not necessarily mean that the motivation of the moderators was bad.
I’m not PC(USA) anymore, so the process is your own affair. However, I do think that if the committee is not balanced – representing a broad spectrum of viewpoints – this indicates a significant flaw in the process.
Having said that, my only concern here is with the results when they are made public. [I say this because the churches’ public stances affect people outside of their own denominational structures. Yes, I may overstate that – but that is the whole point of making public pronouncements, IMO.]
February 10, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Will,
In what way do you see these kinds of statements or public stances affecting people outside of the denominational structure?
My opinion as I wrote before, is that they only serve to shame those in the denomination who hold opposing views.
February 10, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Adel –
I’m not entirely sure David wants to go on that tangent – so, sorry in advance. But I’ll try to explain how I meant that.
1. On their face, any public statement, call on governments, letters to officials, calls for international action are attempts to affect national and international policy. Now we all know that the ability of the mainlines to do this directly is limited, but clearly calling for policy changes does affect others. (Personally, if the suggestions are good, productive, fair, etc. I don’t object. But if they aren’t, then I have no choice but to oppose them. That’s a personal conviction – and I understand have very opinions on policy. Nonetheless, such calls are attempts to affect people outside of the denomination in question.)
2. The PC(USA) and several other ‘mainlines’ have, with varying degrees of official imprimatur, crossed the line between criticism of Israel and anti-Judaic themes. This affects people far beyond those denominations because it uses whatever credibility those denominations may have to render anti-Judaic attacks acceptible in the broader culture. The reasons for this are complicated, but that is the chief danger. This organization and others are legitimating certain criticisms of the Jewish people as a whole in the interest of advancing their specific advocacies. The thing is, they would not do so with any other religion or ethnicity. That is, in itself, alarming.
So – insofar as the results of this advocate governmental policies that are harmful, or insofar as they legitimate anti-Judaic bias (as opposed to pro-Palestinian advocacy), then they are toxic and, IMO, have to be opposed by people of good will – regardless of their denominational affiliation.
February 10, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I’m standing with Alan in that I don’t care much either but I agree with his points. Some of the “evidence” is from 2004 or 2006 and circumstances and opinions change and it is not uncommon for people tasked as a representative to a committee to act outside their own opinion. I don’t know enough about these people to know the difference and it seems no one else does either. The results will tell the story I suppose.
February 10, 2009 at 8:10 pm
David,
Your assessment of the positions for the folks selected to this committee are in agreement with my knowledge of where they have stood in the past.
Thus, I would expect the special committee to issue a pro-Palestinian position paper so as to support the the fringe elements in the PCUSA who are anti-Israel.
February 10, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I’m not entirely sure David wants to go on that tangent – so, sorry in advance.
Actually, Will, that’s at least part of the reason I write about some of the stuff I do–because I think what the mainline denominations do does have an effect outside of their own bailiwick (though rarely the one they intend, I suspect). So by all means, proceed.
February 11, 2009 at 9:48 am
One minor point re: Cameron’s comment.
These folks are not representatives. They’re commissioners. Unfortunately these days no one much knows or cares about the distinction, but there is a significant difference between the two. That said, I hope these commissioners know the difference too.
February 11, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Alan,
I didn’t think about it and meant whatever they are but now recognize the distinction.
February 11, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Yeah, I assumed it was just a slip of the er … keyboard. 🙂 But I think the distinction often goes unrecognized and is relevant to the conversation nonetheless.
February 11, 2009 at 3:11 pm
David,
Maybe your concerns with the “broad”ness could be communicated to Bruce, or could be communicated by concerned others; I don’t know Bruce but he seems like a guy open to this kind of accountability.
February 11, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Cameron: I appreciate your suggestion, and I agree with your assessment of Bruce, at least as much as I can tell from what I’ve read by and about him on the Web (his willingness to engage folks on blog comment threads is genuinely amazing!). I don’t think I’m the one to do so, not being in the PCUSA, but there are several commenters on this thread who I think would do well to take up your suggestion.
February 11, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Not being in the PCUSA didn’t disqualify you from publicly opining on his broadness, I think it is entirely appropriate for you to take it up with him directly.
February 23, 2010 at 12:05 pm
[…] spectrum of viewpoints” within PCUSA–actually are. This is from my post, “What the PCUSA Means by ‘Broad’“: Susan Andrews is a former PCUSA Moderator. She was a strong advocate of the ill-fated […]