A Response to the God Squad
by Thomas H. Yorty

August 13, 2004

Dear Rabbi Marc and Father Tom,

After reading your July 31, 2004 column headlined, "Presbyterians draw fire for Israel vote," I thought of Deborah Tannen's observation that public dialogue today is characterized more by the sound of yelling than of engaged give and take. Which means, of course, it is not really dialogue at all but entrenched verbal battle.

Since you identify yourselves as clergy who offer to respond to "religious, personal and ethical questions" your use of wrong information and what appeared to be the manipulation of information in your article startled me.

When I came to church last Sunday my large congregation at Westminster Presbyterian Church was deeply perplexed by your column: what did our General Assembly do; are we really that sinister; what will this mean for our relationships with our Jewish friends and neighbors and our century old partnership with Temple Beth Zion, Buffalo's largest Reformed Jewish synagogue?

I am happy to say that I have just returned from a meeting of clergy and members of our two congregations. Our congregations have resolved to enter into a guided conversation beginning with a Jewish designed curriculum to enable mutual understanding between Christians and Jews including discussion of current issues. In addition, Rabbi Harty Rosenfeld and I are taking a page from you guys. We plan to co author a letter to the entire community in the local newspaper.

Our congregations have much at stake. As the great grandchildren of our congregational forebears who forged a friendship dating back to the 19th century we have inherited the benefits and opportunities of that friendship. And we continue to celebrate this friendship by jointly sponsoring an annual Mitzvah Day outreach with our friends from Masjid Nu'man. This ministry of caring involves over six hundred members of all three congregations in acts of service. We are proud to have received, with our Jewish and Muslim friends, a social justice award at the national meeting of Reformed synagogues in Washington last year for our Mitzvah Day project.

From my personal point of view your column of July 31st requires a response to set the record straight. The most striking feature of your comments for me was the near absence of any reference to or exploration of the main issue driving concern for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church: the. "barrier of separation" now being constructed in Palestine.

This barrier or wall, as it is called by its critics (although I realize in some places it is a fence or deep ditch) has been condemned by the world community. It brings hardship to over two hundred thousand Palestinians preventing the raising of crops, access to medical facilities, the ability to get to work, visit family members and acquire goods and services.

The existence of the wall, its trespass across established borders and the apparently clear intention of the Sharon government to continue its construction at a cost of 1.3 billion dollars, has turned the Palestinian communities enclosed by it into virtual reservation camps or ghettos. All of this against the will of the Palestinian people and much of the world community including the United Nations.

The action taken by the Assembly to condemn the wall and call for its removal is followed by the second overture, the one concerning divestment which I believe you misunderstand. This action instructs our Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee to explore the possibility of selective divestment in those companies aiding the construction of the wall. In other words, no decisions were made to divest of anything. The action simply raises the question of applying the Presbyterian "Selective Phased Divestment Policy" to this situation.

Several steps are required before any divestment policy can be implemented: first, the establishment of criteria for assessing the impact of corporate involvement in and support of unjust practices; second, the identification of a short list of possible corporations for engagement on this issue; third, talks with corporate management to explore alternatives; fourth, filing shareholder resolutions for change of corporate policy or practice if such talks fail; and finally, as a last resort, recommendation to the General Assembly to request that the Board of Pensions and Presbyterian Foundation divest holdings to subject corporations. No divestment recommendation for any corporation could even be considered before the next Assembly in 2006, if then.

Our Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick makes clear in his response this past week to the furor over the Assembly's actions that proposed consideration of Presbyterian selective phased divestment policy to Israel does not morally equate Israel with South Africa's apartheid regime the last time divestment was used in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Rather, this action merely reflects the recognition that divestment is a proven and effective tool for economic and political change. Yet, I feel compelled to raise the question if it is really possible to summarily dismiss the view that there are parallels between the plight of Palestinians disenfranchised, ghettoized, and physically endangered by the application of superior force as they are and the plight of indigenous South Africans under apartheid.

The other disturbing issue you note, which is disturbing to you and to me, as it is to many other Presbyterians, is the question of the messianic Jewish community in Philadelphia. This community was established not by our General Assembly but by the local presbytery.

One of our General Assembly committees, in the wisdom of its members after much discussion and disagreement, has chosen to support the Philadelphia project. While this venture raises concerns for many within the Philadelphia Presbytery itself and for many, like me, who are just learning about it, the project did gain needed local presbytery votes for its establishment.

That said, this venture in no way represents national Presbyterian policy or theological orientation to Jewish people. The Assembly order to study this venture and report back to the 2006 national meeting seeks to understand just what is taking place in Philadelphia's religious experiment. A diverse and balanced committee will conduct this review using our groundbreaking 1987 national study document calling for partnership with Jews and an end to proselytizing Jewish people. Yes, some Presbyterians would want to convert Jews to Christianity yet thankfully we are not a monolithic entity.

Your comments last week struck me as excoriating and "holier than thou." Perhaps bias is in the ear of the beholder and perhaps I am a little defensive but your admonition to all Presbyterians to "repent of our sins and reach out to know the heart of the Jewish people" seemed aloof and condescending. What did you hope to accomplish with such polarizing language?

I am not denying that I am a sinful person. Nor am I saying that my understanding of the "heart" of my Jewish neighbors is all that it could be. But are not all of us and each one of us in need of God's restoration and healing?

Indeed, it is usually with the awareness of our own flawed human nature that Presbyterians have turned again and again to the Hebrew prophets. One of the main attractions of the Presbyterian Church for me is its consistent attempt to let justice roll down like mighty waters and to bring integrity to our worship of God through our actions in the world. I believe that if you take time to reconsider not just the actions related to Israel and Palestine but the other business of the 2004 General Assembly especially the election of our new activist moderator Richard Ufford Chase you will see this prophetic spirit and commitment to justice and peace.

The ongoing terror in Israel, though it appears to have abated since the construction of the wall, strikes deeply and brings profound sadness to the hearts of most Americans. Since 9/11 we better understand what living with the possibility of terrorist acts is like.

On the one hand, it is nightmarish providing vivid and real images of the destruction of loved ones and community. On the other hand, it has called forth the best of courage and perseverance among the Jewish people.

The resolve of the Jewish and Palestinian people to go on with life amidst the agony of loss and death even while some of their leaders plan revenge is inspiring. It was in that spirit that thousands of visitors returned a few days ago to the newly re-opened Statue of Liberty thought to be a terrorist target. Such affirmation of life is rooted not in the desire to destroy one's neighbors but to make a place and to make peace for all of God's people.

We live in troubling and tension filled times. Our world is made smaller and moves faster than ever before by rapid transportation and communications. Shortened response time escalates the risk and consequences associated with impulsive judgments. It is more critical than ever, therefore, to offer the benefit of the doubt to those with whom we disagree; to wait to listen for and consider their response; and to take the required and precious time to gather then weigh the facts, to reflect and then to respond.

Is it not incumbent upon every religious leader and community of faith to commit to measured yet open give and take and trusting dialogue in our cities and nations and in our families, neighborhoods, schools and workplaces?

I write this letter to you picturing the persons behind those smiling and kind faces that appear each Saturday in our local newspaper atop your "God Squad" column. I hope you will consider this attempt to further the conversation about Presbyterians, Israel and Palestine in a public way, in a respectful way and in a way, that moves us closer to the fulfillment of God's dream for the human family. I encourage you to consider another column on these matters and let your readers witness what real dialogue on tough issues amon g people of faith can look and sound like.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas H. Yorty, Pastor
Westminster Presbyterian Church