You know the old saying: sometimes the journey is at least as interesting as the destination.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) set sail last summer — with little warning and a not-very-clear itinerary — towards the idea of possibly divesting in some companies doing business in Israel, as a way of expressing concern about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people.
Already, it’s been a bumpy, exciting ride, and there’s still a long way to go.
Who knows what decisions involving divestiture the 2006 General Assembly might be asked to consider, or what the mood of the church will be, with a bucket of other sizzling issues on the table as well?
And who has a clue what twists and turns politics in the Middle East may take before then?
For now, all that remains cloudy, off in the distance, covered in haze. And Presbyterians are finding that the trip itself is bringing its own surprises — both blessings and discomforts. Some of what they’ve discovered so far:
-
The issue of whether the PC(USA) should continue to pursue phased divestment in certain companies doing business in Israel remains as controversial as ever — and definitely will be something the assembly will be asked to revisit next summer. Already, Mississippi presbytery has approved an overture asking the assembly to rescind the divestment action.
-
It probably won’t end there. More overtures are expected — some likely supporting divestiture, some opposing it. Some folks also are talking about trying to frame the discussion in more positive terms — for example, to make a statement about the kind of work in which the PC(USA) wants to invest its resources in the Middle East, rather than where it should consider pulling out. The session of Fourth Presbyterian in Chicago, for example, has passed a resolution saying if the PC(USA) were to sell its holdings in some companies doing business in Israel, it would encourage the denomination to reinvest that money in firms “whose business in Israel is positive, helpful and peaceful.”
-
The conversations at the ground level continue. In some communities, Presbyterians are discussing interfaith relations and debating what might bring peace in the Middle East with a passion and a depth of complexity they’ve not before experienced. Those conversations, often with Jews and sometimes with Muslims, have been both difficult and in some cases rewarding. A delegation of Jewish and Christian leaders, including Presbyterians, is planning to travel together to Israel and the Palestinian territories in September.
-
Within the PC(USA), divestment has produced some interesting bedfellows — with people who might disagree on other hot-button issues (gay ordination, for example) sometimes finding themselves on the same side of the fence on this matter, although not necessarily for the same reasons. Among those opposing the divestiture action, for example: liberals from New York and conservatives from Mississippi. Some evangelical pastors from California support the assembly’s action, others do not. “There’s no pattern,” said Vernon Broyles, the PC(USA)’s associate for corporate witness.
-
Sometimes, the side one takes on this issue — whether one thinks the assembly’s vote on divestment was exactly on-target or way off track — depends on personal relationships and congregational history. Some churches, for example, have formed especially close relationships with Palestinian Christians or with Jewish neighbors. Some Presbyterians have traveled to Israel and have been changed by what they have seen and experienced firsthand. These are, in some cases, quite personal stories.
In Mississippi, for example, the first overture the presbytery considered was submitted by First Presbyterian church of Bay St. Louis, according to Steve Ramp, who is pastor of Westminster Presbyterian in Hattiesburg and who helped write a revised overture the presbytery eventually passed.
In Bay St. Louis, the church’s well-respected organist, who was Jewish by background, resigned after the assembly’s divestment vote, saying, in effect, “I can’t be part of a denomination that treats Israel this way,” according to Ramp. “It was a big loss,” painful for both the congregation and the organist, he said, and in response the session of that church “fired off an overture about how upset they were.”
And Ramp’s own church has had a close relationship with a nearby synagogue, Temple B’nai Israel. Ramp and the synagogue’s rabbi have worked together building Habitat for Humanity houses and on interfaith issues. After the assembly’s vote, the rabbi called Ramp to warn him that some members of the Jewish congregation were unhappy and he’d likely hear from them.
Ramp went to speak to leaders of the Jewish congregation and, he said, “I was met with a fair amount of tenacity — somewhere between tenacity and ferocity,” with some contending that the PC(USA) was being unfair to Israel. “When they had finished, the waters had not been calmed,” said John Dudley, Mississippi presbytery’s stated clerk.
“I’m disappointed too” with what the assembly did, Ramp said. “I think we need to be encouraging both sides to come to the table and make peace, and I don’t think we’ve succeeded in that.”
Those kinds of conversations — about what Presbyterians want to see happen in the Middle East and about whether phased, selective divestment by the PC(USA) will encourage peace there — continue to take place. Broyles, for example, has traveled around the country explaining what the assembly did and why, and said: “I think when people have all the facts, there’s general support.”
Others would disagree with that assessment of how much Presbyterians support divestiture.
Jerry Andrews is pastor of First Presbyterian church in Glen Ellyn, in suburban Chicago, and said divestment “was the thing that hit the radar of my members and elders more than anything, ever” in the 13 years he’s been there. People asked, “when I read this in Time magazine, is this the Presbyterian church? Is this us? I would say, ‘Yes.’ . . . Almost to a person, they didn’t like this action.”
Some are hoping the 2006 assembly will take another look at the divestment proposal — either to throw it out entirely or to somehow revise it.
The denomination’s Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee, which is working to determine which multi-national corporations in which the PC(USA) has funds invested might meet the criteria for possible divestment, will meet again in Seattle in August. To be considered for possible divestiture, a company active in Israel must be doing work that’s somehow related to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; to the construction of the 425-mile long separation barrier that Israel is building in the West Bank; or is somehow providing products, services or financial support to either Israeli or Palestinian groups that commit violence against innocent civilians.
If a company is found to meet those criteria, the process calls first for the PC(USA) to initiate conversation with them and to try to negotiate an agreement. If that doesn’t work, divestiture could be considered — but no divestment would take place before the 2006 assembly.
Some folks in the PC(USA) want all that to be revisited — although that group includes people who do see some merit in what the assembly was trying to accomplish. The questions they are raising include these: did the church think about this hard enough, carefully and prayerfully enough, before acting? If the PC(USA) wants to push for justice and peace in the Middle East, is this the best approach — or might there be a better way?
At First Presbyterian church in Boulder, Colorado, for example, the session sent a letter to the General Assembly Council saying it believed the divestment action was unwise. But the letter also says that “we sympathize with the concerns for social justice and human rights that motivated the General Assembly” and says “while we must not forget the Israelis who suffer under the threat of terrorism, we must also recognize that many Palestinian people are suffering under significant injustice. Neither side is blameless in this, nor should anyone be above criticism.”
Carl Hofmann is the congregation’s associate pastor for spiritual formation and discipleship. He has prepared materials to help his congregation understand the issue better, has led trips to Israel and will teach an adult education class in July to discuss the Reformed understanding of the role of Israel in salvation history.
“This is so complicated — it’s anything but a sound-bite,” Hofmann said in an interview. In some quarters, any critique of Israeli policy is painted as anti-Semitic. But with the assembly’s action, “we came out looking like we were against Israel,” instead of being “anti-injustice,” Hofmann said.
He said he’s wrestled with the issue theologically, “and come to a more balanced place over time,” that of seeking biblical justice for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Hofmann said he’d like to see the PC(USA) revisit the issue at the next assembly. “Let’s be even-handed,” he said, and take “an opportunity to clarify it, an opportunity to make it clear that we’re not anti-Israel, we’re not anti-anybody. We’re anti-injustice.”
Others, whether they support the assembly’s vote on divestiture or have trouble with it, do see the value in some of the fallout — in interfaith discussions that are more rigorous and honest, in helping people in the pews and in the ministry think more deeply about the difficulties in the Middle East.
In Chicago presbytery, the challenge of thinking this issue through is being taken very seriously. The presbytery held two meetings involving roughly equal numbers of prominent Jewish leaders and Presbyterians, each addressing the question of what could lead to peace in the Middle East and discussing the impact of the assembly’s action on local interfaith relationships. Chunks of time are being given at five presbytery meetings to discussing the matter — to learning about the Middle East, to hearing a variety of voices, including Jews who oppose and who support the proposal for phased, selective divestment and to Palestinian Muslims and Christians.
“Overall, it’s been overwhelmingly positive,” said presbytery executive Robert Reynolds. “People have valued digging deeper to get a better understanding” and “knowing more about Middle East issues, more about General Assembly and how it makes decisions and who makes them.”
Some of the discussions have taken place in small groups — giving presbytery members chances to get to know one another better. Reynolds said, “I don’t have a prediction on how it will come out” — the timetable calls for the presbytery to make a decision about any overtures it might want to present by the fall, and Reynolds said “we have a forceful Middle East task force in the presbytery of Chicago that’s been ongoing for 30 years.”
But so far, he said: “It’s been very congenial. Everybody is respectful and grateful for the opportunity for this dialogue. It’s not in any way been heated or destructive in terms of the dynamics. There have been a few intense conversations, but they’ve been respectful.”
Through the conversations, people also are finding that this is complex stuff — that the politics in the Middle East are multi-layered and ever-changing, that the reasons why people come out where they do in this debate, when they’re being thoughtful about it, are complicated too.
“It really is one of the few issues in the denomination right now that is crossing all the logical party lines,” said William Harter, pastor of Falling Spring Presbyterian church in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, and co-convener of Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish and Christian Relations.
“This one’s all over the map” — and positions are not necessarily being taken for theological reasons, said Charles Wiley of the PC(USA)’s Office of Theology and Worship. “You have a lot of evangelicals who are on the assembly’s side,” in part because they support Palestinian Christians, “and you have a lot of liberal Presbyterians who have spent years building up relationships with Jewish synagogues and people who are very wary of it.”
Wiley said “many evangelical leaders in the Presbyterian church support the divestment action.” But “there are also many conservatives who dislike the church’s sort of constant tinkering with politics. And, secondly, there is a big concern that what you’re doing is punishing Israel in favor of its Islamic neighbors … It’s very complicated, and it cuts across all kinds of normal divides.”
And the situation on the ground in the Middle East is constantly changing as well, with new leadership among the Palestinians, with debate alive about whether the Israelis should pull back from settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and how that should be done; with shifts in Lebanon’s political landscape. Those are just a few of the recent headlines — it’s always something.
That’s one of the things that frustrates Harter — things remain fluid and shifting on the ground in Israel, with the Israeli government showing some signs it may be willing to pull back from the West Bank and Gaza, yet the PC(USA) stays locked in to a position taken a year ago.
Harter argues that anything the PC(USA) says about Israel also should take into account the role that countries such as Syria and Saudi Arabia play in the dynamics of the region, and should consider more broadly the role of minorities in the Middle East — of the Palestinians in Israel, but also of Israel in a largely-Muslim region.
There also are questions about the extent to which theology — including views on the end times and Israel’s place in biblical prophecy — might be playing into Presbyterians’ views of the conflict in Israel. Popular books such as the “Left Behind” series speak of the role the Bible says Israel will play before the second coming of Jesus, and in some quarters Americans’ views of Israel may be colored by that.
But some in the PC(USA) contend that the “Left Behind” approach is not particularly Reformed — and some in the evangelical camp say it’s not primarily dispensational views that are driving the evangelical response to the divestment proposal.
According to Andrews, who is co-moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition, the “close-to-universal” evangelical response among those who disagree with the assembly’s vote is not theological or dispensational, but “why is the General Assembly weighing in on what it really doesn’t know about . . . Why is it we think we have the answer” to the difficulties in the Middle East.
That’s exactly what Steve Ramp and others are asking in Mississippi. Dudley, the presbytery’s stated clerk, said opposition there to the divestiture decision stems from a sense deeply embedded in the Southern church that “the church ought not to meddle in civil and secular matters” and that “Israel is a sovereign nation and has the right to defend itself against terrorism,” just as the United States does.
“The Presbyterians are telling people where they can have (security) walls and where they can’t have walls,” when that should be the right of a nation to decide for itself, Ramp said. “It’s a little cheeky to tell Israel, ‘No walls please, because Presbyterians know best.’ We squander our ability to be influential when we take those kinds of positions. We’re frittering away seed corn.”
In the South, a lot of Presbyterians have already left the PC(USA) for the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America, and “we’re kind of a minority here,” Ramp said. “It doesn’t help to have the church taking these positions that make us look even more left-wing . . . We don’t need the perception that the Louisville insiders are hell-bent on a particular angle on this and completely unwilling to listen and take a more balanced approach.”
But Ramp also recognizes the incongruity of Mississippians who are conservative on issues such as gay marriage joining forces on this issue with liberals who are concerned about Christian- Jewish relations.
“God moves in mysterious ways,” Ramp said. “We want to be moderate. We don’t want to be lumped in with right-wing fundamentalists. We know what they are like — they’re all over the place in Mississippi.”
And so, in all its complexity, the conversation continues. For those who support divestiture — and they are many and passionate too — the reasoning can be just as complex. More presbyteries will be voting on more overtures.
The long hot summer is just beginning.
