The dishonesty of my denomination as it confronts and deals with the inescapable fact that God both chose the Jewish people as his, and upheld them in their journey of blessing the nations, is shocking. From the Jewish people came my Savior.
When the Samaritan woman at the well remarked on the controversy between the Jewish people and the Samaritans over the right place to worship (John 4:20), Jesus not only clarified that true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and truth, he also stated that, “Salvation is from the Jews.”
After all of the atrocities of this past century there are still people who name the name of Christ, yet continue to listen to the broken words of those who despise the Jewish people and nation. I have watched this scenario play out with horror. Not only are some in leadership in the PCUSA attempting to deny the nation of Israel the right to defend their nation against terrorism, they use deceptive tactics against them.
The recent substitution by the Office of of Interfaith Relations of one form of the paper, “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias,” for another form is a sign of how relentlessly some are pursuing their prey. But unlike the Hound of heaven, who pursued to his own death the sheep of his pasture, these particular individuals seem to be seeking self-preservation. 'Stay within the circle' appears to be the watchword. (See C. S. Lewis)
Moreover, the circle is so tight that those within cannot see that their present tactic has all the earmarks of a lie. (They not only added to the document, as they said, but they also changed what they said. Therefore it is a lie.) And if they fail to see the lie it is a lie coming from a hard heart.
I am ending this posting with the end of a letter that Professor Franklin H. Little wrote to the Dean of a seminary who refused to attend a conference on the Holocaust promoted by the National Council of Churches and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Dean’s refusal was based on his denial of the particularity of the Jewish people. This section of the letter may offend many. But perhaps it is time to offend. And be aware that this was written in 1970.
“The truth is that Christendom is sick, sick with so wicked a malaise that the baptized destroyed 6, 000, 000 Jews in Hitler’s Europe, so sick that many ‘Christian’ leaders were prepared to look on from the balcony while Nasser tried to carry out his threat of a Second Holocaust in June, 1967.
My earnest plea is that before you join the Neo-Nazis, Communists, and black ethnics (not to mention the American Radical Right!) in automatically considering the essential affinity of Judaism and Christianity ‘patently Zionist,’ you examine your own theological commitments. The Jews are not Cherokees, and the wrong done them by the faithless baptized is not the same thing as the white man’s injustice to the American Indians. There is a demonic quality to hatred of the Jews which makes it more than human cruelty: it is blasphemy. By the same token, the guilt of Christians and the obligation to repent and right the ancient wrong is far heavier upon us.”
May God have mercy on the Presbyterian Church (USA).
16 comments:
Viola –
It would seem that, for example, to criticize Zionism, to question the desirability of a Jewish democracy (as opposed to a democracy for all Israel’s citizens) or for Palestinians to identify with the Hebrews slaves in conflict with Egypt are out as legitimate questions. The tone and words of your blog today serves to shut down any conversation that is critical of Israel. Would you be so kind as to write an example of a “legitimate denunciation of injustices the state of Israel has committed or may commit” against the Palestinians that is not anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic.
John McNeese
John,
I am curious as to why you have not addressed anything I have written in this posting? How do you feel about the way the office of Interfaith Relations has switched paper content on the Jewish community?
Do you feel that there is an "essential affinity" between Christianity and Judaism? How do you feel about the fact that God chose the Jewish people to bring forth your Savior?
Viola
The Office of Interfaith Relations should have never issued a statement in the first place. It was unnecessary. Your title “The demonic quality of hatred of the Jewish people” in relationship to this PCUSA statement is demonic itself. There is an affinity between Christianity and Judaism, but not essential. Jesus was a Jew and was raised in its prophetic tradition which I admire and love. But Jesus as the Christ is completely incompatible with Judaism.
Harold Bloom, the Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale and a Jew has a strong opinion of the relationship Christianity and Judaism
HE writes in his book, “Jesus and Yahweh”,: “What do Jews and Christians gain by refusing to see that the rivisionary desperation of the New Testament has made it permanently impossible to identify the Hebrew Bible with the Christian Old Testament? Doubtless there are social and political benefits in idealizations of "dialogue," but there is nothing more. It is not a contribution to the life of the spirit or the intellect to tell lies to one another or to oneself in order to bring about more affection or cooperation between Christians and Jews. Paul is hopelessly equivocal on nearly every subject, but to my reading he is clearly not a Jewish anti-Semite; yet his misrepresentation of Torah is absolute. John is evidently a Jewish anti-Semite, and the Fourth Gospel is pragmatically murderous as an anti-Jewish text.”
At least he is being honest to himself. We can’t seem to honest about anything, for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic, due to our guilt at the long history of virulent anti-Semitism over 2000 years of Christianity.
John,
I believe that to say there is no essential affinity between Judaism and Christianity is to say that the God of the Hebrew Bible is not the same God as the God of the New Testament which was the mistake of the nineteenth century German liberals such as Harnack. It is also a Gnostic idea.
I do speak as a Christian here, It is also to say that Jesus Christ is not God incarnate. If you do not lay the foundations of who Jesus Christ is on the bedrock of the whole scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, you will eventually have the Christ of the ‘German Christians’ of the last century.
Simply a noble hero, but not the suffering servant nor the Lamb of God who bears the sins of the world.
And you can tie that Christ, the noble hero, to any revelation you want. The Germans certainly did.
To feel bad about something that has been done long ago is good. That will make the present a better place to live in and a much better place to the progeny. But even now we find the tit for tat policy having power over any other approach. Man can not become civilized until he realizes the next man is same like him and has pleasures and pains even as he feels. Religion has been an instrument to soften man. Hereafter it should be some other thing, other than religion to take the place of religion to transport man to the next level of civilization.
nanu
nosle.com
Sorry Pilo that sounds a bit off the subject.
John,
I meant to add that when the Office of Interfaith Relations did their switch with the papers they were actually being untruthful about their attitude toward the Jewish people. I was not actually asking you about your feelings about the first paper but about your feelings about the deceptive switch.
Thanks for your continued diligence on this subject Viola. God be Praised!!!
Viola
To quietly replace the original statement with another is dishonest, but hardly demonic. The effect of the original statement is to shut down criticism of Israel and support for the aspirations of the Palestinian people.
Viola and John,
I have to say that taken at face value I don’t see any “hatred of the Jewish people” in the report you mention. In fact it seems to repeatedly underscore the need to be ever vigilant against anti-Semitism. It is redacted, true, but that is not uncommon among on-line publications. The Layman has also redacted articles on numerous occasions without explanation or apology. I truthfully don’t see why the fuss unless John is right, because the first version of the article did indeed shut down any criticism of Israel and support for Palestinians. The new article seems to try to support Israel and condemn anti-Semitism but hold a line at condemning social injustice regardless of where it comes from. It seems to me, at least at face value, that the authors are trying to do the right thing.
I also have to say that I have noticed that anybody who says anything that appears to be against the state of Israel even in passing is sticking his or her hand in hornet’s nest. Not even Nobel Peace prize-winning diplomats seem to get a pass on that one, so I see no reason to believe anybody in the PCUSA is going to be an exception.
The fact is the PCUSA is in no position to make any difference in the Arab-Israeli conflict and I personally see no valid theological side to it either. Bringing theology into the mix just throws gasoline on the fire. The offices of the PCUSA should probably just drop the subject and learn to pray the AA serenity prayer five times a day.
But just out of morbid curiosity, I guess I am still wondering if you have an answer to John’s first question. What would constitute a “legitimate denunciation of the injustices of the state of Israel”?
Carl
Carl one part of your comment caused me to laugh, I liked the AA serenity pray idea.
"The fact is the PCUSA is in no position to make any difference in the Arab-Israeli conflict and I personally see no valid theological side to it either. Bringing theology into the mix just throws gasoline on the fire. The offices of the PCUSA should probably just drop the subject and learn to pray the AA serenity prayer five times a day."
A lot of Presbyterians have been saying the same thing about a lot of the issues that the PCUSA speaks to. However, I have to say that theology does matter and in a lot of ways. If it is liberation theology such as both papers alluded to but in different ways—it places the relationship God has with a people in the context of their need and their culture. But God himself and his revelation are the true arbitrator of any situation.
Because of liberation theology and the official misunderstandings and out right fabrications of past history the nation of Israel is being looked on as the aggressor in this situation. But notice in my posting in the letter I quoted from, the professor in 1970 made this comment, speaking of the 1967 war and some ‘academic Christian’ attitudes he wrote that Christianity had become, “so sick that many ‘Christian’ leaders were prepared to look on from the balcony while Nasser tried to carry out his threat of a Second Holocaust in June, 1967.”
We have forgotten that Israel was attempting to defend herself from three Middle Eastern nations that attacked her. That is a combination of bad theology and bad history.
While I know that Israel is not totally righteous in all of her actions I will not answer the question the way you and John have asked it, because that does not address my subject at all. It mashes it altogether which is my complaint. The Office of Interfaith Relations had supposedly published a letter that was attempting to both apologize for anti-Semitism and help others avoid it. After having done so and receiving praise they kept the title and changed the content making it a paper about their perceptions of wrongs done by Israel. I will not advance their deception.
What exactly is the deception? To try to be balanced and to claim Israel is also committing an injustice, or to publish a revision without clearly pointing out it is a revision, or to use the vocabulary of Liberation theology when referring to the Palestinians?
I am just trying to understand.
I don't read it as being about wrongs done by Israel. I see it as being about relationship. And a relationship goes in both directions. In this case, three directions. The original paper could be construed as being only in one direction.
And you could argue that Western Christianity has not yet earned the right to do more than apologize for living, but that is a different topic again. So back to your point, what, exactly, is the deception?
Carl
Carl,
The deception is that finally the PCUSA apologized for their anti-Semitic attitudes toward Israel and the Jewish people and then under the same title in a truly different paper took it back. Here are some of the problems.
In the PCUSA, many in leadership and various offices have taken a one sided view of the Palestinian and Jewish problem in the Middle East. They never deride the terrorist in Gaza or other places of sending rockets and suicide bombers into Israel with out also blaming Israel. But they do blame Israel without mentioning the terrorists.
They have on various occasions suggested that the media in the United States is controlled by a Jewish lobby.
They back liberation organizations which use metaphors linking the Jewish nation with deicide.
They offered a prayer list for praying for the various countries in the Middle East which listed each country separately except for Israel and Palestine. They never allow Israel to be a country separate from Palestine.
As Will Spotts put it, “An official network of the PC(USA) has said that “Jews in the Diaspora must get a life.” And in huge gathering of material on how the mainline Churches have pushed an anti-Semitic attitude see Will Spotts’ articles on his blog.
Also see this Reactions to the PC(USA)’s Revised Antisemitism Document by Will, and With an Everlasting Hatred: The Case of Israel and Corruption in the PC(USA)
Thank you for the reply Viola,
I think I get it.
I don't know if "deception" is the word I would have used. That implies malice. Certainly "out of control", "inept", and "stupid" come to mind. It looks like maybe somebody hit the "send" button before they checked with their boss or the legal department and then their boss tried to fix it. Or maybe the opposite. I am sure there is a fair amount of red faced fist pounding going on in someone's office about now.
But I thought you were talking about the final product. Is it really fair to burden it with other claims other people may or may not have made from other offices in the church? I don't know.
I don't know who this Will Spotts is and what makes him an authority on the Middle East and Jewish Christian relations, or why he has a beef with the offices of the PCUSA, but he's entitled to his opinion. Still, it is just one man's opinion.
Jimmy Carter is an expert with first hand experience. He is not demonic and he does not hate the Jews. Would you be willing to take his opinion over that of Mr. Spotts'?
Thanks again,
Carl
Carl,
Will Spotts knows exactly what he is talking about and he has been to the Middle East. I am sure President Carter is a nice man, a kind man and not demonic but I believe he is mistaken in his views of Israel. I would take Will Spotts views over President Carter's any day.
He has not written any thing on Israel and the PCUSA that isn't true.
Viola - thank you very much for your kind comments.
Carl - Personally, I don't want anyone to take my word for it. I would far prefer that people read the various statements and actions of certain officials of mainline denominations for themselves.
I believe you have hit on a singular problem in addressing Middle East issues. Namely, who does one trust? There are not 2 - but many (at least five I can think of offhand) conflicting narratives about the situation. These differ on the basic facts of the history and current happenings. All omit things that don't support their case; all color particular items differently. So how might a person discern what is true and what is not. This is possibly the most difficult situation of this kind of which I am aware.
Even citing someone like President Carter is problematic. Would you take the word of George W. Bush? Or Bill Clinton? Or Bush Senior? Or Reagan? All said different things. There has been some overlap - but they conflict. You may be inclined to grant President a particular level of competence in this area - but I think that is probably unwarranted. True, he did have one tremendous success - but one would be remiss to overlook both the great personal courage of Sadat (and the price he paid for it), and the great concession Israel was obliged to make. Without either of these, there would have no peace agreement.
Having said that, my concern is with the anti-Israel bias, anti-Jewish bias, and ocassional antisemitic themes indulged by mainline denominations and some of their partners in the Middle East. You may observe, for example, that CUFI also has a bias - and, of course, you'd be right. But one bias does not justify another on either side. And a person cannot hope to discern a wise and Christian policy without an honest attempt to hear from all sides.
My beef with the PC(USA)? A very fair question - and you are, of course, right. In general terms, I have explained my issues w/ the PC(USA) elsewhere (though this explanation has been unaffectionately termed 'tiresomely long'). I don't think Viola's blog is a good place to rehash that.
On this specific issue - my beef is with the mainline denominations that are engaging in biased practices. It is more pronounced with the PC(USA) because for many years I was a Presbyterian. Therefore my name and any money I gave to the denomination has been used for this purpose. I am obliged to counter any harm done in my name and with funds I have given ... and I believe the attitudes fostered by various offices, officials, employees, networks, etc. of the denomination cause active harm to people other than Presbyterians.
Yes - I have erred in commenting sometimes about internal matters - particularly when employing a mocking tone. These (i.e. whether you adopt the FOG, how you eventually resolve property issues, what you do about ordination controversies, etc.) are none of my business anymore. But those things that reach beyond the church to harm others are a different story.
In all honesty, had the Office of Interfaith Relations not released the first statement, the fallout from this one would have been far less. It is the juxtaposition of the two that is horribly disappointing to many people. The first statement had much to recommend it.
If, as has been suggested, the effect of the first document was to shut down activism on behalf of Palestinians - (which perception is, I believe, why a revision was issued) I'm stuck wondering what about our activism necessitates that it contain anti-Jewish bias and antisemitic themes? There are very specific ones mentioned in the first document - so why might one need them in order to advocate?
Post a Comment