|
LOUISVILLE – Although some General Assembly Council (GAC) members are squirming from the heat the Presbyterian Church (USA) is taking for its decision to divest from companies who profit by supporting the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, business here was focused on clarifying for PC(USA) congregations what the church did and what it didn’t do.
That means that high-level officials will be drafting a pastoral letter to churches to lay it all out on paper: Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase, who presided over the 431-62 vote by delegates to initiate the process; the top elected official, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick; and GAC leadership.
It was a sometimes emotional, sometimes uncomfortable, sometimes passionate conversation, where the issues on the floor – and in various committee rooms – kept switching: Does a move to divest destroy years of dialogue with the American-Jewish community? Some say yes, that’s a risk. Others say it deepens a dialogue that has deliberately avoided questions about peace between Israelis and Palestinians out of fear of stirring up too much emotion. Does it open new avenues of dialogue with Muslims? That, seemingly, was a new idea for some. Does it move justice for Palestinians from the back-burner to the front, something that’s long overdue? There were yes’s to that, too, and to voices insisting that the church needs to stick to its long history of socially responsible investing.
There was unity on one thing, clearly.
The GAC wants to correct misinformation about the divestment action, which is the concern that the Rev. Judy Angleberger of Beaver-Butler Presbytery brought to the floor. Earlier correspondence from the Presbyterian Center didn’t go to congregations – where it would be in the hands of parishioners – but to middle governing bodies only, something the Worldwide Ministries Division Committee wants to correct.
“The concern here is that there has been a big misunderstanding about what exactly was done,” she told the Presbyterian News Service. “The debate has gotten framed like, ‘You don’t like my child, so you don’t like my family.’
“We cannot change what the General Assembly has done. But we’ll do our best to interpret it and clarify the action.”
The resolution she brought to floor from WMD asks for a letter that tackles a number of complex issues, from acknowledging that the Assembly’s vote on behalf of “our Palestinian brothers and sisters” brings pain to “our Jewish brothers and sisters,” to clarifying the process and timeline for the action and to inviting Presbyterians to engage in a difficult dialogue – “where there is serious disagreement”— in order to “deepen our understanding and respect” in Jewish-Christian circles.
The latter is what the Rev. Jay Rock, the denomination’s interfaith relations coordinator, will be doing Tuesday in New York City. Rock, Kirkpatrick, Ufford-Chase and other leaders will attend a closed-door meeting with Jewish leaders, including representatives of the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism, the Central Conference of American Rabbis and the Anti-Defamation League.
“It is a closed-door conversation so that we may talk frankly about what the Assembly did and what the concerns of the Jewish community really are,” said Rock, who said that his Jewish colleagues are, largely, questioning why Israel has been singled out for criticism – now that there is more clarity about what the Assembly actually did.
Initially, he said, inaccurate information muffled the message.
For starters, the Assembly’s vote was widely viewed – in the Jewish and secular press – to be a blanket divestment from all companies doing over $1 million worth of business with Israel, considered by some to be an attack on Israel’s economic survival. That was the language of the original overture sent to Richmond, VA, by St. Augustine Presbytery; but it was modified by the Assembly to target specific companies who profit by causing harm to either Israelis or Palestinians.
It was also assumed that the church would divest of its assets in one fell swoop, rather than initiating a gradual process of approaching companies in which the PC(USA) holds stock. That is done by correspondence, dialogue, shareholder resolutions and public pressure, as a way of putting forward the church’s social vision by holding corporations ethically accountable.
In other words, if a corporation changes, the church doesn’t divest.
If, however, after extensive dialogue, a corporation “remains uncooperative or has refused to be in dialogue with the churches,” as MRTI’s guidelines say, the committee will recommend that the GAC ask the General Assembly to place the corporation on its divestment/proscription list and urge the Presbyterian Foundation and the Board of Pensions to comply with the Assembly’s action in their management of church assets.
Who will be approached and when will be determined by the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI), which will weigh corporate behavior against PC(USA) policy. Shareholder resolutions are filed with GAC approval. MRTI is currently researching PC(USA) holdings with companies doing business with Israel.
MRTI’s criteria will be set during a Nov. 4-6 meeting in New York City.
According to MRTI’s chief researcher, Bill Somplatsky-Jarman, PC(USA) policy opposes Israel’s illegal expansion of settlements, the demolition of Palestinian homes and orchards and the construction of a barrier that cuts deep into the West Bank. Israelis say it has cut down on suicide bombings; Palestinians say it ghettoizes towns and absorbs land that has not been negotiated
The divestment strategy, according to Somplatsky-Jarman, jives well with Reformed theology. Its goal is to reform the world by engaging it. In this case, it engages corporate practice.
And a theological and political hot-potato.
In his opening remarks, Kirkpatrick told the GAC, “I’m not sure that we’ve ever been presented a better opportunity to witness for some of the things that we cherish most … I was struck as I looked at 5,000-plus emails last month. The majority were supportive of our work. I’ve heard not only deep anguish from Jewish organizations, but words of affirmation from others, like Jewish Voice for Peace that works for peace in the Middle East.
“We have, obviously, received appreciative words from our partner churches in the Middle East. I have received letters and communications from churches in Europe, and churches across this country, wanting to know how they may begin to work with us in this process.”
Kirkpatrick said 14 Congressional leaders are trying to lobby the PC(USA) to scuttle its divestment efforts (See related story) and he is hoping to get appointments with them to say that the church’s interest is more in Middle East peace than divestment, and, “if we can be in partnership with you, we can start to make that happen” – a remark that drew applause.
“Yes, this is a huge problem. There’s a huge measure of anxiety. There’s a measure of concern from many of our members. But, if we do it right, it is a huge opportunity to stand with God’s justice and peace in the Middle East,” he said, stressing longtime PC(USA) ties to the Middle East. “It is an opportunity to make a witness for peace, not only for Palestinians, but also for the Israelis … to instill a culture of peace with a negotiated settlement. It is an opportunity, even in the midst of great anger to make a witness to our commitment to interfaith relations.
“And it is, indeed, an opportunity to show leadership to the world Christian community.”
The Rev. Cynthia Campbell, however, the president of McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago, isn’t sure the church’s divestment action is the way to accomplish those goals – and she said so on the GAC floor. “The divestment strategy, I think, unnecessarily alienates us from people we need, very seriously, to be in relationship with – the American Jewish community …
“We, as the Presbyterian church, need to take this opportunity to really listen why it is that this divestment issue has occasioned such a big reaction in the Jewish community,” she said, supporting a pastoral letter to congregations that urges them to listen closely to Jewish voices.
Former Moderator the Rev. Susan Andrews of National Capital Presbytery is more circumspect. Andrews’ Bethesda, MD, congregation shares worship space with a synagogue, and she is wrestling with the tensions created by the Assembly’s action.
“As Presbyterians, we have two very deep commitments at stake. One is our passion for justice, particularly the occupation of the Palestinian people. The other is our deep, affectionate relationship with our Jewish brothers and sisters,” Andrews said.
“I hope, as we proceed, that we do not pit those two deep convictions against one another. We have to figure out a way (to hold both) … and not water down either one,” she said, acknowledging, “It is a hard balance.”
At work on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting with national Jewish leaders, Rock is optimistic, but not naïve. This time, he said, the PC(USA)’s decision to act – rather than issue another statement -- put an uncomfortable issue on the table in an unavoidable way.
Rock said many Christians avoid conversation with Jews about Israel/Palestine because it is so complicated.
It is an emotionally-loaded subject. It upsets Jewish-Christians coalitions who are otherwise working easily on other justice questions. Christians fear being called anti-Semitic, what Rock called, “a real dialogue-stopper.” What’s more, Christians and Jews have different understandings of the fundamentals that make for peace in the Middle East: How do land and religion go together? What kind of shared vocabulary is necessary to talk?
“Now,” he said, “we have to talk about what is just? What does security mean? How are we actually going to get to peace? The elephant is in the room. It has always been in the room.
“Now it has grown so big that we have to talk about it.”
But that doesn’t make it easy.
“I didn’t hear dissent, as a whole, on the action of the Assembly,” said the Rev. Linda Knierimen of Grand Rapids, MI, who chairs WMD’s Ecumenical Partnerships sub-committee. “Its been a little bit like playing tug-of-war … When you know you’ve done the right thing and it causes pain, you always question yourself. The Body is just in a place of real discomfort. We don’t like to see our friends in pain. And we don’t like to choose what friends are in pain.
“So we’re in the position of standing for what we believe is justice … when it is our instinct to be reconcilers.
She paused. “There is great sensitivity here to the disturbance this has caused in Jewish-Christian relationships. What we can do as a GAC is speak to that. More importantly, we can speak to our own churches who may not have all the information that they need.
“There is so much misinformation out there.”
|
