Thursday, May 20, 2010
[The following, by Will Spotts, is crossposted from The PC(USA) on Israel and Palestine.]
Items from committees that concern Israelis and Palestinians that are scheduled to come before the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.):
These two papers, "Christians and Jews: People of God", and, "Toward an Understanding of Christian Muslim Relations", have been submitted by the General Assembly Mission Council. They were produced jointly by the Office of Theology and Worship, the Office of Interfaith Relations, and the Office of Evangelism. They are (for the most part) intended to reflect the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s self-understanding of its theology in relationship to Judaism and Islam. As such, I believe this to be a mostly internal matter to the denomination. Basically, the PC(USA) has the right to form and articulate its own theology, and it is not really the place of those of us on the outside to do so. As a former member of a PC(USA) church, I, of course, have a strong personal interest in the topic, but I only want to comment on this insofar as it impacts Presbyterian activism directed at others.
Item 08-03 "Approve the paper: 'Christians and Jews: People of God'"
Unlike the paper on Christian-Muslim relations, this paper is accompanied by only three recommendations.
1. Approve for study and reflection the paper, "Christians and Jews: People of God" and distribute it to the church electronically.
2. Commend "Christians and Jews: People of God" to governing bodies and congregations as guidance for the occasions in which Presbyterians and Jews converse, cooperate, and enter into dialogue.
3. Commend "Christians and Jews: People of God" to governing bodies and congregations as guidance for the development of programs and resources.
Unlike the recommendation from the paper on Christian-Muslim relations, this is not a call for the development of specific items. It is, however, an indication that this document is to be used as a resource when such resources are produced..
There are, however, several significant (even extraordinary) items within the paper itself that have a direct bearing on PC(USA) actions and stances on Israelis and Palestinians.
1. "The relationship of the Christian church to the people Israel is not that of a replacement, but of "a wild olive shoot" grafted into "the rich root of the olive tree" (Rom. 11:17). While the New Testament contains numerous references to God's "new covenant" in Christ, these cannot be taken to mean that "new" cancels God's previous covenants. Just as the covenant at Sinai did not dissolve the covenant with Abraham, so the new covenant sealed in Christ's blood "... does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise" (Gal. 3:17)."
This is a clear rejection of the replacement theology that has often appeared in much of the anti-Israel literature. The issue of Christian self-understanding, and the distinctions between supersessionism and replacement theology are complex. The self-evident bottom line is that Christianity and Judaism teach certain mutually exclusive things - each believes themselves to be factually correct. No Christian document can evade that fact. BUT, A REJECTION OF REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT MOVE.
To some degree this report acknowledges the necessity of historic Judaism to Christianity: "Christian faith is firmly grounded in the faith of Israel"; rejects false characterizations that have plagued Christianity: "Superficial contrasts between "the wrathful God of the Old Testament" and "the loving God of the New Testament" are not only inaccurate readings of both Old and New Testaments, but also denials of the very foundations of Christian faith"; and acknowledges that the historic Christian heresy of Marcionsism continues to be felt in the church today.
2. This paper acknowledges the continuation of Christian antisemitism. "Christian teaching of contempt for Jews and the subsequent history of ghettos, pogroms, and even holocaust is not simply a distant memory. Anti-Semitism is a continuing reality throughout the world, including within the Christian church."
It goes farther:
"The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is called to examine its interpretation of Scripture, its theology, its educational materials, and its public policy in order to avoid explicit or implicit teaching of contempt for Judaism and Jews. Continuing conversation with Jews should include faithful exploration of inaccurate and offensive characterizations of Jews and Judaism."
3. At this point the paper ventures into truly extraordinary territory. Rather than a generic rejection of historic theological anti-Jewish animus, and rather than a generic acknowledgment of continuing Christian antisemitism, here the report's authors begin to explore the antisemitic and anti-Judaic elements in the activisms of Presbyterians and their partners.
"However, Presbyterian commitments to justice and peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike can only stand if we base these commitments on strong support for justice for all people.This means that, in our work for Israeli-Palestinian peace, we must be sure to seek justice and security for both peoples. We must also reject and not make use of the history of Christian anti-Judaism and all of the stereotypes and prejudices that accompany it.
Whenever our critique of the Israeli-Palestinian situation employs language or draws on sources that have anti-Jewish overtones, or makes use of classic Christian anti-Jewish ideas, we cloud complicated issues with the rhetoric of ignorance, subliminal prejudices, or the language of hate. This undermines the church's 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. We must not make them more difficult by importing anti-Jewish motifs into our discussions.
Arguments suggesting or declaring that the Jewish people are no longer in covenant with God, or statements that echo the medieval Christian claim that the Jews are to blame for the crucifixion of Christ, employ classic themes of anti-Judaism. Presbyterians should be alert to occurrences of these themes and question any assertions that are based on them.
Characterizations of Zionism that distort that movement can all too easily demonize Jews. When Zionism is presented as monolithic or univocal, or solely as an extension of European colonialism and a result of anti-Semitism, the Zionist movement's history, internal debates, and ethical concerns are distorted. The problems and suffering of the Palestinians are not due solely to Zionism. Many Israelis working passionately for peace are motivated by forms of Zionism. 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.
Critique of the state of Israel and its policies is always legitimate and is not, in itself, anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. It is common among Jews and Christians; Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans. However, critique by Christians can sometimes come close in tone or content to a denunciation of Judaism or the Jewish people. Polemic that identifies Israeli officials with Jewish authorities in the time of Jesus is especially problematic, and clouds an accurate understanding of the current situation. In addition, citizens in democracies such as Israel and the United States are responsible before God for the actions of their governments. The citizens of Israel, not the Jewish people as a whole, are responsible for the conduct of Israeli state policy.
Christian liberation theology embraces the Exodus narrative as a story of God's liberation for all oppressed people. This theology reflects on the experience of an oppressed people and its liberation in light of the experience of ancient Israel. Broad theological use of the Exodus narrative does not abrogate its continuing centrality in the faith and self-understanding of the Jewish people. The biblical stories of liberation, like those of God's gift of land, are at one and the same time particular narratives regarding God's relationship with the Jewish people, and also descriptions of God's intention to free and provide a home for all peoples.
Some expressions of Christian liberation theology tend to describe the Palestinian experience as oppression by "Jews" or "Zionists" rather than by Israeli state authority, or liken the passion of Jesus to the sufferings of the Palestinian people. Responsible theological critique of state policies should not characterize a whole people as oppressors or "Christ-killers." Such a characterization of the situation can easily sound like an echo of the classic anti-Jewish accusation that all Jews everywhere are guilty of killing Christ. 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. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is attentive to Palestinian Christians as they speak theologically about what is happening to them. At the same time, Presbyterians are called to discern echoes of the historic condemnation of Jews as "Christ-killers," and to eschew any such anti-Jewish teaching.
Clearly, the relationships of Presbyterians (or any Christians) and Jews should neither depend on, nor dictate, particular positions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian situation or its resolution. Our relationships with Jewish neighbors do not necessitate approval of Israeli state policy. Speaking out respectfully against actions of Israeli authorities and groups, or of Palestinian entities, is to be expected among Christians and Jews. Disagreements about the dynamics and possible solutions of the Israeli-Palestinian situation are to be expected as well. Jews and Presbyterians may be surprised by the similarity of their critiques of Israel's actions as well as by their shared hopes for the aspirations of Palestinians and Israelis alike."
While I believe there are several more anti-Judaic and antisemitic elements within the activisms of the PC(USA) and its partners, and while I believe biased and one-sided information is an unaddressed problem of great concern, I have to admit that this paper does raise a lot of the issues I find objectionable, dangerous, and just plain wrong within that advocacy.
Will Spotts
