Celebrating Our 30th Year in 2004 November 15, 2005 |
|
From Tom Hay, General PresbyterDear friends in ministry:
On Sunday you may have been met by members of your congregation and asked about reports in the Washington Post and on NPR morning news about arson threats against Presbyterian Churches. The threats, received by the Stated Clerk in Louisville said that they were in retaliation for “anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attitudes”.
The actions of the 216th General Assembly last summer concerning the State of Israel have caused a great deal of controversy in communities across the nation. Editorials have appeared in national and local newspapers condemning the denomination. Jewish action groups have already begun to call for its repeal at the 2006 meeting of the General Assembly. Now the Stated Clerk’s office in Louisville has received an arson threat against Presbyterian Churches from someone outraged over the action.
The Committee on Ministry has asked me to reflect with pastors about the issue. I want to share my own opinions about what I think the General Assembly did, why it took that action and what it means for us. I also want to refer you to the page of the PCUSA website that goes into much more detail: http://www.pcusa.org/israelandjewishrelations/
Some background: According to our government’s estimates, there are approximately 2.3 million people living in the West Bank of Israel. Most of these are Muslims, but almost 180,000 are Christians. The Presbyterian Church has had missions to these people for a hundred years and many of these Christians worship in protestant and Reformed churches.
For some time the General Assembly has spoken out against the violence that has marked this region. Two words have characterized the past statements of the General Assembly: 1) a long-standing commitment to the existence of Israel and of the Israeli people within secure and legitimate borders; and 2) a belief that the only way for Israel to have peace, is for the cycle of violence to end in the area – whether the violence of Palestinian suicide bombers or of Israelis demolishing homes and uprooting Palestinian vineyards and orchards. The General Assembly’s statements have maintained that the way to peace is justice for all the people in the area.
This summer, representatives from some of these Palestinian Christian churches appeared before the General Assembly in Richmond and asked for help. These brothers and sisters in Christ did not ask for support for the Palestinian cause but asked the General Assembly, as fellow Christians, to use its financial resources to shape the policies of the current political leadership in Israel. Specifically the General Assembly was being asked to divest funds from companies that made the tools which were bulldozing their homes.
The action of the General Assembly: The General Assembly responded by authorizing exploration of a selective divestment of church funds from those companies whose business in Israel is found to be directly or indirectly causing harm or suffering to innocent people – Palestinian or Israeli. The Assembly’s Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee was instructed to develop a process for phasing in selective divestments and to bring that plan to the General Assembly Council in March 2005.
This is not an economic boycott of all companies who do business with the government or the people of Israel. Last week, the Investment Committee made recommendations for how it will precede. Among other things, they expanded the divestment to include companies whose business is with Palestinian as well as Israeli groups involved in causing suffering and harm and to begin the process of divestment by engaging those companies in conversations about our concerns.
Some reflections:
o This is an issue over which good Presbyterians can and do disagree. Certainly not even the Commissioners to the General Assembly were unanimous in their vote. Like many social witness issues, the rhetoric around the action is much more strident than the action itself. Unfortunately there has been much outlandish rhetoric on both sides of this decision. A recent press release from a Presbyterian study group visiting the Hezbollah leadership has resulted in the termination of two General Assembly Council employees.
o This is an issue over which there is much misinformation. It is hard enough for Presbyterians to understand that an action of a meeting of the General Assembly does not bind the congregations or members of the Presbyterian Church. It is doubly hard for outsiders to understand exactly what has been done and to put it in context. For many people, their only knowledge about the issue is from editorials they have read in national newspapers.
o Much of this has been very hurtful to the Jewish community. In some areas of the country with a large Jewish population, there has been extensive dialogue after the General Assembly to try and rebuild trust. I don’t think anyone at the meeting of the General Assembly foresaw the impact this decision was going to have on Jewish-Presbyterian relationships.
o Between the time when I created the first draft of this letter and when you receive it, the news outlets have broken the story that an arson threat against Presbyterian Churches has been received by the Stated Clerk in Louisville. I have not seen the letter, but evidently it makes reference to the General Assembly’s action on Israel and gives a deadline of November 15, for taking action. It originated in the Queens area of New York and that Presbytery has been informed. I don’t think anything would be gained by raising the stress level of churches in our valleys with this alarm, but the newspapers may continue to pick up on the story and it is important that you be prepared to respond.
Final thoughts:
It seems to me that pastorally this issue is providing a very important teaching moment. We must be ready to teach those outside the church about what an action like this of the General Assembly means. And within our congregations, it can be a chance to think Biblically and theologically about Jewish-Church relationships and about the very nature of making social witness statements.
Before the meeting of the General Assembly, I was asked by one of our congregations to teach a Sunday School class. They wanted to know more about the Messianic Christian New Church Development Avodat Yisrael in Philadelphia that was the subject of an overture before the Assembly. As I prepared for that class, and we studied passages from the book of Romans and from our Confessions, I found a theological richness and faithfulness that energized the whole class. At its heart this was a discussion about salvation and the meaning of the church that the members of this congregation welcomed.
I hope that the energy flowing around the General Assembly’s action on Israel can create a similar discussion about our “attitude” (as the letter said) toward the Jews. This is a teaching moment for the church. It is a chance to talk about the role of Israel in our eschatology and encourage Spiritual growth in an area of faith seldom visited by many of the people in our churches. This may be a good time to invite Jewish communities in your area to talk about the actions of the General Assembly specifically, and peace generally.
Mary Lou and Lisa in the Resource Center have resources that can be of help. In other words this can be more than a distraction – it can be another place to build discipleship.
Please let me know something about how all of this has impacted your congregations and if there are ways we need to join as a Presbytery in response. May God bless you and the work of our congregations, presbyteries and General Assembly.
Thomas D. Hay
November 15, 2004