I am a Presbyterian. As a matter of conscience I am persuaded that church organizations should be very slow to take sides in the dispute between Israel, the Palestinians, and neighboring countries. I say this because the issues are inordinately complex; high levels of political rhetoric obscure rational discussion and analysis of the situation; and even the most basic facts are debated. Many Americans, who, perhaps sincerely, desire peace, believe it preferable to do something . . . anything, rather than admit they lack a beneficial proposal. I do not agree: both the likelihood and human cost of error are far too high to allow for amateur meddling. Making specific policy demands, placing unilateral blame, taking action against one party in the dispute, engaging in demonization of one party using specifically Christian imagery, and presenting a highly creative (and, at points, factually absurd) history of the region will all serve to make a bad situation worse. Tragically, my denomination has decided to take these measures for reasons that remain a mystery.

I am a Presbyterian, and I consider it neither good nor wise for a church to take such an activist stand. But I have also been puzzled by an unexpected development in our discussion of Presbyterian Middle East policy statements: the offices and committees of the PC(USA), mission co-workers, numerous Presbyterian spokespersons, and even the 216th General Assembly evidently felt the need to confront Christian supporters of Israel. It is a given that one would attempt to address potential arguments against one’s desired political position and, with luck, preemptively disarm them. The fact that these Presbyterian critics of Israel endeavored to do so was unsurprising. What was surprising, however, was their choice to identify as an enemy a philosophy virtually no one actually holds. The PC(USA) has apparently overtly tied our Middle East policy decisions to our opposition to what they identify as Christian Zionism...