The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has received intense criticism since July of 2004 when it passed a resolution calling for “phased selective divestment” from companies that are profiting from the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in Israel/Palestine. Most of this criticism has accused the church of being anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is a problem throughout the United States and throughout the world, so the question of whether the PC(USA) is contributing to such an evil needs to be taken seriously. Yet some of the harshest criticism has come not from outside the church but from within it.
One Presbyterian minister who has been outspoken about the PC(USA)’s actions wrote what many other pastors have expressed from their pulpits, “We are profoundly disturbed by our leaders and by the delegates who favored these anti-Israel, anti-Semitic actions.” (https://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0 /module/displaystory/story_id/23583/edition_id/468/format/html/displaystory.html ) In an e-mail correspondence, one pastor went so far as to say, “The Presbyterian church must come to terms with the fact that it is an unrepentant denomination of anti-Semitism and hubris in its pronouncements.” Ouch.
Yet even if most critics within the church aren’t willing to go as far as this pastor, many more are concerned that while the church may be well intentioned, our actions may yet be perceived to be anti-Semitic. Those of us who are involved in Jewish-Presbyterian dialogs find this criticism puts us in a bit of a pickle because, while we are attempting to accurately represent the church’s position, such criticism certainly lends credence to the expressed concerns of our Jewish partners. So the question that begs to be addressed is what might it mean for the PC(USA) or the actions of the church to be anti-Semitic?
There are three ways that we might achieve such an ignominious state. The first option is that anti-Semitism motivates the PC(USA). But let’s not forget that the PC(USA) is an institution and institutions don’t have motives (anti-Semitic or otherwise), so it wouldn’t really make sense to think of the PC(USA) in those terms. On the other hand, we could say that any institution or organization that explicitly includes anti-Semitic statements in its mission or goals should be considered anti-Semitic. But again, thankfully, the PC(USA) does not fit that criterion, so clearly that is not what our critics mean either.
The second option for achieving that state would be if the denomination were made up of anti-Semites, people who are motivated by anti-Jewish bias. The PC(USA) held a conference in February 2005 called “Steps Toward Peace.” At the conference we heard from many of the people who were on the committee that proposed the divestment resolution. They all seemed like thoughtful, committed people agonizing with the issue of what to do in light of the worsening situation in Israel/Palestine. Is it possible that they were really motivated by anti-Semitism whether it was conscious or unconscious? Given at least the possibility that their motives were flawed, a majority of the General Assembly (consisting of elected representatives from across the nationwide church) had to approve the resolution that they proposed. Is it possible that anti-Semitism motivates all these people? Although it would seem less likely, we cannot dismiss this possibility out of hand. Yet, because we do not have God’s ability to see into people’s hearts, the suspicion of distorted motives is not enough. Fortunately, we have an alternative because motivation is meaningless without a resulting consequence of that motivation. For example, racist actions are the proof of racist motives whether it be discrimination in hiring or a cross burning. So the possibility of the PC(USA)’s motives being flawed by anti-Semitism is meaningless unless it is accompanied by anti-Semitic actions. So what might those actions be? That brings us to the third option.
The third option would be that the actions of our church are in some way anti-Semitic. Sadly, we know of many examples of anti-Semitic actions in the larger community that has included violence toward Jews or the vandalizing of Jewish establishments. These are clear examples of actions that are anti-Semitic. And speech that is derogatory of Jews or Judaism would be another clear example of anti-Semitism. But here again, the church has not been involved in these actions. So what could our critics mean?
It clearly has something to do with the relationship between Jews and Israel. This would fit well with other criticism of the church as having an anti-Israel bias in addition to being anti-Semitic. This argument claims that if the church takes an action that could possibly harm Israel, economically or otherwise, then it is as though the church is committing that action against Jews themselves.
It is hard to overstate the intensity of the connection Jews feel with the state of Israel. Centuries of anti-Semitism, anti-Jewish pogroms and of course the Holocaust itself have left an indelible sense of victimization. The state of Israel, for many Jews, is not only a bulwark against anti-Semitic acts of the future but a concrete assertion of their right to self-determination and self-defense. Yet, ironically, if criticism or action against Israel is to be considered criticism or action against Jews themselves, then it is a dangerous connection that reinforces anti-Semitic stereotypes. Associating criticism of Israel with criticism of Jews is to use the logic of anti-Semitism. If that sounds like a stretch, consider the following.
One aspect of all racism, including anti-Semitism, is equating an entire people with one particular view or disposition or action. For example, when Israel bulldozes Palestinian homes, it would be anti-Semitic to say, “The Jews are bulldozing the homes.” This is abundantly obvious. And yet when the PC(USA) opposes those actions and criticizes Israel, or may consider taking action to divest from companies providing the bulldozers, we are told that our criticism of Israel is criticism of Jews as a whole. So in the first instance it is anti-Semitic to associate Jews with Israel and in the second instance it is anti-Semitic not to associate Jews with Israel. Our critics can’t have it both ways. Which is it going to be? If we reject anti-Semitism in all its pernicious forms, we cannot say that criticism or actions against Israel, in and of themselves, constitute anti-Semitism.
Some of my Jewish friends respond by saying, “Of course criticism or action against Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic. But you are overlooking the fact that the PC(USA) has singled out Israel for actions and criticism that it has not taken against other countries.” The history of the church proves otherwise. The PC(USA) has a long record of not only criticizing other countries for their abuse of human rights, but of taking action to divest from companies that are profiting from such ill-gotten gains. One case in point among the many is the church’s divestment from a Canadian oil company that was doing business with the Muslim government of Sudan. The government’s complicity in human rights abuses, in the church’s view, tainted any profits the church might have received from the company.
But once again, even without the PC(USA)’s historical defense, the accusation of unfairness or anti-Semitism on the part of the PC(USA) presupposes that Israel equals Jews which, I am suggesting, is the very logic used by anti-Semites. And this equation may be the heart of the problem. Is it possible to take a stand against anti-Semitism, much less bring peace to the Middle East, as long as so many of us insist on associating Israel with worldwide Jewry? Is it possible that we are witnessing a tragic irony that perpetuates or even propagates anti-Semitism by our insistence on equating Israel with Jews around the world? When we equate Israel with Jews, are we not also affirming the logic of those who would say, “The Jews are bulldozing homes”? These questions have huge implications that deserve more thorough study, consideration, and even prayer.
The accusations that the actions of the PC(USA) are anti-Semitic are inflammatory and harmful not just to the church, but ultimately to Jews because it devalues the meaning of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is a serious threat not only to Jews but also to all of our communities. We must find a way to unite in our struggle against anti-Semitism while not devaluing it’s true meaning. The PC(USA) has many times declared its support of the existence of Israel within secure borders and in peace with its neighbors while at the same time declaring the right of Palestinians to self-determination without the oppression of Israeli occupation. Holding both of these values in tension is neither easy nor popular but at the very least, let’s not confuse the possible divestment from companies that are profiting from Israel’s occupation with anti-Semitism.
Geoff Browning is a Peacemaking Advocate in the Presbytery of San Jose (Calif.)
