[The following, by Will Spotts, is crossposted from The PC(USA) on Israel and Palestine.]

#4 Speaking FOR Another Religion

In a variety of materials (including the reports approved by the 2003 and 2004 General Assemblies) and in a number of public statements offered by PC(USA) officials, the denomination has often spoken for Judaism in a way that is troubling. These have asserted principals of Judaism to advance their anti-Israel case, have offered their own quirky interpretations of 'what Judaism teaches' or emphasizes, or have latched onto fringe groups that supported their chosen viewpoints as if these were representative of Judaism.

For example, various Presbyterians (and others) have asserted that Jewish claims to land are null and void, but that Jewish covenant obligations remain in force. In cases they have posited an idyllic view of Jews living in the Diaspora as modeling "community life not dependent on violence to sustain it. . . [They] 'were able to maintain identity without turf or sword, community without sovereignty. They thereby demonstrated pragmatically the viability of the ethic of Jeremiah and Jesus.'" [As an observer, I must say, I'd be surprised if many Jews in the Diaspora would be particularly pleased to be credited with demonstrating the ethic of Jesus ... and I'm certain most of the people who experienced this life as a minority population subject to humiliating laws and officially sanctioned persecution would not take the suggestion well that this was God's unremitting purpose for them.]

I'm very sure that Christians would not take kindly to members of other religions exploitatively declaring "what Christianity teaches" - especially if these non-Christians asserted teachings different from those Christians actually believe. Similarly, were non-Christians to select fringe elements who claim to be Christian as if these were representative spokespersons for Christianity - I would imagine this would be profoundly offensive. Say, for example, that non-Christians were to decide that Rev. Fred Phelps were a representative spokesman for Christianity, Christians would rightly cry foul. Yet, in the service of their political activism, the PC(USA) and other church organizations are doing the equivalent thing to Judaism. I am aware of no particular rationale that has been offered to defend this practice, but I would imagine that following the (not entirely original) Christian tenet, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would preclude such statements and actions.

#5 Generic Statements Directed Against the Jews

A small but significant number of statements issued by PC(USA) offices, employees, networks, and their partner organizations (either speaking for themselves or repeating with agreement the opinions of others) involve generic statements about 'the Jewish people'. For example, article after article from the PNS - and the official Presbyterian meeting "Steps Toward Peace in Israel / Palestine", cited the chief opposition to the 2004 divestment decision as coming from Jewish groups; the "Jewish community" is explicitly credited with attempting to "stir up enough Presbyterians to change the decisions of the 216th General Assembly (2004)." Yet the PC(USA)'s Rev. Victor Makari opined (on behalf of the PC(USA)):

Since the PC(USA) officially credited the negative response to its divestment initiative to "the Jewish community" = to whom could Rev. Makari be referring in his 'aroused Mammon' statement? Who does he suppose has been aroused to anger by Mammon?

The PC(USA) has officially taken the trouble to warn people about the "emotional rhetoric that Presbyterians encounter in conversation with Jews [that] can easily derail the conversation or turn it away from issues of justice and peace." An official network of the PC(USA) has said (more precisely, provided and endorsed a power point presentation that said) that "Jews in the Diaspora must get a life." Similarly, the United Methodist Church has informed the world that it is "called to testify when oppressors use their identity as the oppressed with stories of sixty years ago but through some failure of perception cannot see what transpires now in the shadow of the Holocaust". This year, the same official Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has this to say to General Assembly commissioners:

They add a footnote to describe the threat and intimidation they credit to American Jewish organizations:

[NOTE - the above quote from the Israel Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA) is NOT discussing Zionism or the Israeli government. Instead it is specifically referring to AMERICAN JEWISH GROUPS and AMERICAN SYNAGOGUES.]

It must be observed that the PC(USA) has sometimes quietly removed more explicitly anti-Jewish statements from websites. But these midnight disappearances have rarely corresponded to any acknowledgement whatsoever that the statements were out of bounds, and if any explanation was given, it was credited to a failure to be diplomatic - not to an acknowledgment that such gross, unfair, and bigoted generalizations were actually wrong.

All of the other classes of action I have considered have possible rationalizations. I find them insufficient; I find they do not justify the actions. I find them problematic, and I find the classes of statement and action profoundly troubling. However, it is conceivable that someone could engage in them out of some mistaken sensibility, out of ignorance, or out of a failure to grasp their ramifications. I do not believe that serves as an excuse - when one chooses to take action, when one chooses to be affiliated with a group that takes actions or issues statements, then one gains a responsibility for those actions and statements. But the possibility exists - that a person is simply behaving with gross irresponsibility and not active, self-aware malice.

However, I have encountered no rationale for this fifth behavior pattern. Those who have attempted to defend it are generally rabidly incoherent, sometimes bothering to wipe the foam from their mouths, sometimes not. The fact is - at least for this class of statement, no justifying rationale is possible. It is beyond doubt that those who excuse it and defend it demonstrate themselves to be antisemitic. When a church organization fails to see this, when it sometimes engage in the practice, when it partners with people who do so, and when it fails to act to correct such practices, that places it firmly in the camp of antisemites.

So my original question remains: Which is it to be? Commissioners to the 219th General Assembly must decide. Will you be pro-Palestinian? Fair-minded people won't fault you for that. People of good will will share your concerns. Will you be anti-Israel? Will you indulge the extreme bias that characterizes a number of proposals coming before you? Or will you plunge fully into antisemitism - either through openly endorsing it or by failing to correct it when it appears in official PC(USA) statements and actions?

The line between these three is often blurred. Commissioners, even though you will have limited time to work, please, when you read the materials provided to you - sometimes by offices, officials, and networks of the PC(USA) - seriously consider the ethical issues surrounding those materials. Is there a singular focus on Israel making it unique among nations? If so, ask yourself why. Why should Israel be treated in a fashion distinct from the way in which you treat all other nations? Does the information you receive present only one view? Even if it claims to be broad-based, is there an overwhelming sense that the diversity is NOT diversity of opinion? If something sounds improbable, check it out. See if there is more to the story; see if there is another narrative you are not being given. Do you see instances where explicitly Christian imagery is used to demonize Israel and Jewish groups? If so, is that OK with you? Are there places where people are speaking for Judaism - or where Jewish groups are cherry picked from among the fringes of opinion? If so, does that strike you as fair? And are there general statements of hostility to the Jewish people and Jewish groups? Are there stereotypes and antisemitic canards being stated or assumed? Are the Jews (or, for that matter, "the Zionists" - which are not generally differentiated) being credited with controlling US policy or the media? Is the language of contempt being used? Are blood libels being mentioned?

The fact is, all of these things have appeared in the conversation within the Christian advocacy community. The fact is, the PC(USA) has sometimes participated in them to varying degrees. No - it is not monolithic, but it has occurred and is occurring. Please. Be very careful what you decide because you might very easily end up approving of highly unethical, profoundly unchristian, potentially dangerous, and morally repugnant behaviors. If you must judge a matter, make sure that judgment is fair. And even if you feel the need to be harshly critical, make certain that this odious form of bigotry is not a part of the equation.

Will Spotts

[Previous: Part I, Part II, Part III.]