The document "Breaking Down the Walls: Part Two: Recommendations, written by the The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Middle East Study Committee is filled with political recommendations that extend far beyond the Israel and Palestine problem.
Yet the committee initially blames all problems on the Israeli and Palestinian issues writing “The undue influence of outside forces continues a history of colonial interference throughout the Middle East. Yet most expert observers and popular opinion polls confirm that the Israeli-Palestinian struggle is playing a central role in exacerbating region-wide grief and grievance.” If I wrote, that having said the above the committee is blaming most of the problems in the Middle East on Israel, most readers would exclaim that isn’t what they said.
But what does the paper “Our Witness: ‘What We Have Seen and Heard’ say? “Inexcusable acts of violence have been committed by both the powerful forces of the Israeli military and the Jewish settlers in the West Bank, as well as, the Palestinians, of whom a relatively small minority has resorted to violence as a means of resisting the occupation.” (Italics mine)
And “As the MESC traveled throughout the region, the overwhelming consensus of all members was that Israel’s occupation of the West bank and Gaza is a sin against God and fellow human beings. While there are subordinate factors that contribute to the lack of a just peace in Israel-Palestine, the major issue for a just peace is the continued occupation that has been ongoing for the past forty-three years.”(Italics mine)
This is the problem throughout most of the Recommendation Document. Recommendations are in many cases stated in what seems to be a fair even handed way but when they are tied to the other documents written or recommended for study by the committee they are almost always pointing toward Israel.
A whole list of human rights and moral principles are affirmed under section I. And few would quibble with most of them yet tied to the other documents and the accusations made by those documents readers will understand that the committee believes Israel has broken most of these human rights and moral principles. Therefore the section on human rights is largely about Israel although the recommendation does not say so.
For instance under the rights section is this, “The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) affirms-The moral goal for nations to create a nuclear-free world and toward that goal, to sign and comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other relevant treaties.” When the reader looks at the paper “Our Witness: “What We Have Seen and Heard” they read about Iran’s attempt to develop a nuclear warhead and then they read this, “While this growing fear [by the Israelis over Iran’s plans] is a deep concern, an equal concern is the number of nuclear warheads that Israel currently stockpiles and thus the growing sense of Iranian vulnerability and insecurity.” (Italics mine)
Another problem with the recommendations is the attempt to make equations that are unequal. For instance equating the use of anti-Semitism in the Middle East with Islamophobia, and the attempt to equate the Holocaust with the Nakba (the loss of homes and exile by around 750, 000 Palestinians during the 1948 war that secured the new Jewish State of Israel). The recommendation, listed under IV. “Urgent Actions for a Comprehensive Peace with justice in the Middle East” is:
“Calls all parties in the Middle East to cease rhetoric and actions that demonize others, whether that takes the form of anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, as well as rhetoric and actions that threaten the well –being of another nation or people. This includes threats by Iranians and members of Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel, sponsorship by Iran of Holocaust-denial conferences, Israel efforts to deny the Nakba and threats of mass transfer (expulsion) of the Palestinians into Jordan or elsewhere, and perpetuation of maps and textbooks that deny the existence of internationally recognized borders, states, and occupied territories.”
There appears to be a lot of excellent thought put into that statement. However there is a vast difference between Holocaust denial and the denial of Nakba. I will explain. The Holocaust in all of its horror is undeniable, but the Nakba has a mixed history. Few Israelites would deny that the 1948 war caused untold trauma because of the dislocation and, yes, even massacre of Palestinians. But that isn’t the complete story. Jewish people were also massacred and not all refugees were ‘forced’ out of their cities and homes.
My other thought is that in the Middle East there is a vast disparity between the use of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Palestinian television even has children’s programs that use gross anti-Semitism. So while both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are terribly wrong the recommendation does not address the real issue. And totally left out of any of the equation is any mention of anti-Zionism which is now the new anti-Semitism.
Perhaps the most troubling part of the Recommendations document is two places that address the Kairos Palestine Document and another which would allow the General Assembly to receive the report A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis.
Under “For the Witness of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” the 219th General Assembly (2010) the Kairos Palestine Document is recommended “in its emphasis on hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation,” and the recommend includes lifting up the document “for study and discussion by Presbyterians.” This also includes providing a study guide.
In another posting I have shown that this is not a pacifist document. Not only does it blame Israel for any terrorist acts by Palestinians it also commends all of those who died in service to their country which could include those who died committing suicide attacks. But the most damming part of the Kairos document is its move toward turning Israel into a non-Jewish state. I have quoted from the document in a different posting:
“Trying to make the state a religious state, Jewish or Islamic, suffocates the state, confines it within narrow limits, and transforms it into a state that practices discrimination and exclusion, preferring one citizen over another. We appeal to both religious Jews and Muslims: let the state be a state for all citizens, with a vision constructed on respect for religion but also equality, justice, liberty and respect for pluralism and not on domination by a religion or a numerical majority.” (Emphasis mine)
My answer to that is “A Jewish state is not by necessity a religious state, and notice the term “numerical majority” has been slipped into this equation. All of this is to say that the Kairos Palestine Document is asking that there no longer be a Jewish State in the Middle East.” I wrote that the Kairos Palestine Document attempts to unravel the idea of a Jewish State and substitute the idea of a sacred land for diverse faiths. The posting is Presbyterian Middle East Study Team & "The Kairos Palestine Document" no longer a Jewish Nation?
The Kairos Palestine Document also has the possibility of being ‘received’ by the denomination under part VIII. “Engaging This Report.” There it asks the 219th General Assembly to receive the Appendixes and other documents which includes the Kairos Document. But, as I stated above, there is another troubling document the committee is asking the Assembly to receive “A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis.” This document not only begins with a manipulative and untruthful early history for Israel it ends suggesting that a one state solution is the only possibility.
So a whole series of documents, at least one reminding the readers, that a two state solution has always been the policy of the Presbyterian Church includes one with this statement:
“An objection to a one-state solution is the fear that Israel will cease to be a Jewish state. However, Mark Satin, claims that the majority of those proposing a one-state solution do not question Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state but rather ‘they question the wisdom of its existing as a specifically Jewish state when Jewish life and culture could be equally well (arguably more securely and benignly) preserved in the same region in a secular, democratic state that was constitutionally sensitive to the needs of all its peoples. …” (46) (Italics the author's)
The paper goes on to speculate on such things as “The state would have to be bilingual with both Arabic and Hebrew signage and all legal documents. The issue of what to call the country can be resolved.” (47)
This in the face of several statements by the Study Committee that the time is almost past for a two state solution and their use of authors such as Ali Abunimah who proposed a one state solution in his book, One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse, is troubling.[1] Taken altogether the many documents compiled, written and recommended by the PC(U.S.A) Middle East Study Committee represent an assault on the Jewish State of Israel. If the General Assembly votes for these documents they will have broken faith with the Jewish people both those who make up the state of Israel and those who are citizens of the United States and elsewhere.
[1] (For a posting about Ali Abunimah and his speech at a Presbyterian Church see Is an overture for a one state solution looming on the horizon?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Middle East Study Team-a one sided story
Commentary on "What We Have Seen and Heard" and some "recommendations":
Two of the main new and final documents released by the Presbyterian (U.S.A.) Middle East Study Committee are D. What We Have Seen and Heard the last section of part 1 and Recommendations. The third part consists of Notes from a Humanistic, Liberal Zionist: A Personal Narrative, A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis and the Appendices.
In this posting I want to mostly address “What We Have Seen and Heard,” which I believe allows the reader to understand not only why the study committee formulated their theology, letters and recommendations the way they did, it also proves that as far as issues about the Middle East go they are not a diverse group. I will also look at a few of the recommendations. My next posting will focus on only the recommendations which I find, in some places, grandiose and in other places vague.
I may do a later posting on “A plea for justice: A Historical Analysis” by Nahida H. Gordon and Frederic Bush, two members of the committee. This is a very long paper and as I began to read it I found their early history of modern Israel was a one-sided incomplete history that gives a slanted view to the rest of the paper. It deserves a fuller review.
But the first and most important point I want to make in this posting, and the next, is that despite the insistence in the recommendations as well as in the theology paper that the study committee agrees that Israel has a right to exist the focus of the committee is on an Israel that would not be a Jewish State.
For instance, one of the recommendations under the subtitle “III For the Witness of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” is f. “Endorses the Kairos Palestine document (“A Moment of Truth”) in its emphasis on hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation; lifts the document up for study and discussion by Presbyterians; and directs the creation of a study guide for the document through the appropriate channel of the General Assembly Mission Council.” As a have explained in another posting the Kairos Palestine Document encourages the existence of a non-Jewish Israel.[1]
Our Witness: ‘What We Have Seen and Heard”: The methodology as explained in the first part of the paper “has been to engage as many representatives from a spectrum of perspectives on the Israel-Palestine conflict and to embrace the witness and concerns of our Christian partners in the region.” But the resources used proves that the perspectives were generally all pro-Palestinian and certainly not toward a Jewish Israel.[2]
Two Unparalleled Experiences: The paper is shaped by the thoughts of Avraham Burg the author of The Holocaust is Over; We Must rise from its Ashes. (correction see below)* The idea is that both the Jewish and Palestinian people are suffering from “psycho-trauma” and that is affecting the way they react to one another. The Jewish people are reacting to the six million people killed in the Holocaust and the Palestinians are reacting to what is called the Nakba (the Catastrophe) the losses suffered by 750, 000 Palestinians who became refugees from their homes and lands during the 1948 war for Israel’s independence.
Using a different author, Steven R. Feldman, the committee members quote his very coarse words:
“The emotional baggage of the Holocaust and the displacements of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians affect people’s perceptions of the objective reality of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, a reality in which people are being killed. One side may perceive the blowing up a bus or a disco as justified retaliation; the other side may perceive the isolation of Gaza and the killing of far greater numbers of Palestinians with tanks and F-16s as justified retaliation. The objective reality remains the same: people are dying.”
There are at least three things wrong with these thoughts:
1. Such words as ‘emotional baggage’ used to describe the affects of the Holocaust on the Jewish people is insulting.
2. Equating the Nakba with the Holocaust is demeaning and over simplistic. Historically we know that some Palestinians were forced out by some Israeli troops. We also know that some fled and others were encouraged to leave by the Arab states that started the conflict.
3. Attempting to use emotions evolving from the Holocaust as the reason for Israel’s actions in defense of her citizens is Orwellian and scary.
And here is a clearer explanation of that last thought. The blowing up of buses in that paragraph above is made to seem less than “the killing of far greater numbers of Palestinians with tanks and F-16s.” But the blowing up of a bus is meant to kill innocent civilians while the tanks and F-16s no matter how awful, and they are awful, are meant for defense. This part of the paper is a propaganda piece which belongs in the pages of such books as Animal Farm.
Vignette: In the paper four members of the Presbyterian Middle East Study team give personal accounts of their feelings as they travel in the Middle East and as they dialogue with each other and various representatives of the region. One of the stories is by Nahida H. Gordon. She is an American Palestinian who was born in Jerusalem and lived in Jaffa.[3] Gordon mourns the loss of her home in the 1948 war and asks the question, “-why were the Palestinians deemed to be an expendable people for the purpose of assuaging the guilt of Western Christianity?”
Lucy Janjigian is also an American Palestinian born in Jerusalem. She begins her troubling story by writing that “Around 1946, militant Zionists began blowing up British soldiers and policemen. July 22, 1946 was Palestine’s Sept 11." There is nothing in her personal story about the horrible accounts of Arabs killing Jews during this time but it happened as well. Janjigian manages to find quotes and references to Israel’s actions as Nazi like and the separation wall as an apartheid wall.
Susan R. Andrews who was past Moderator of the General Assembly writes about several Middle East Countries and persons, including an “elder-physician from Iraq and a pastor from Iran. She also reveals her perspective on the history of Israel’s early beginnings with this statement, “I see a church packed with Christians in predominantly Muslin Amman Jordan—most of the families displaced by the 1948 invasion of Palestine by Israeli-soldiers.” (My emphasis.)
The last person is an Evangelical Pastor, John A. Huffman, who has some good things to say about Israel as a sign of God’s keeping power. But he does not seem to understand the problems Israel faces and called for divestment before he was chosen to be on the committee and calls for divestment now. I have two main reasons for pointing to these vignettes.
The first is they show that the members of this committee were not diverse in their feelings about Israel. The second is that in the recommendations the committee is asking to continue on for two more years shaping the policies of the PCUSA in the Middle East.
Once again under the subtitle “For the Witness of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” the committee recommends:
“The 219th General Assembly (2010): …Authorizes the creation of a Monitoring Group on the Middle East for the next two years that will consist of the members of this study committee to assist the appropriate General Assembly Mission Council offices and the Middle East staff team in monitoring progress and guiding actions to ensure adequate implementation of policy directions approved by the General Assembly, given the growing complexity and interrelatedness of issues in the region.”
If we are going to keep attempting to guide the continuing conflicts in the Middle East specifically that part which belongs to Israel and the Palestinian people we need a far more diverse group of people. Not necessarily diverse in theology although that is good, but diverse in their feelings and attitudes about Israel. And not just one or two pro-Jewish-Israel people but as many as there are pro-Palestinians. (In this committee there was only one pro-Israel person who left because of discouragement)
As I have stated before and will again, may God have mercy on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A).
[1] See Presbyterian Middle East Study Team & "The Kairos Palestine Document" no longer a Jewish Nation?
[2] See Appendices “List of Contacts Made by Middle East Study Committee”
[3] The theological paper presented by the committee had within its footnotes, for the sake of the two American Palestinians on the committee this thought, “The phrase ‘the right of Israel to exist’ is a source of pain for some members of the 2009-2010 Middle East Study Committee, who are solidarity with Palestinians who feel the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights.”
* I have attributed One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israel-Palestinian Impasse to the wrong author. The author is Ali Abunimah.
Two of the main new and final documents released by the Presbyterian (U.S.A.) Middle East Study Committee are D. What We Have Seen and Heard the last section of part 1 and Recommendations. The third part consists of Notes from a Humanistic, Liberal Zionist: A Personal Narrative, A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis and the Appendices.
In this posting I want to mostly address “What We Have Seen and Heard,” which I believe allows the reader to understand not only why the study committee formulated their theology, letters and recommendations the way they did, it also proves that as far as issues about the Middle East go they are not a diverse group. I will also look at a few of the recommendations. My next posting will focus on only the recommendations which I find, in some places, grandiose and in other places vague.
I may do a later posting on “A plea for justice: A Historical Analysis” by Nahida H. Gordon and Frederic Bush, two members of the committee. This is a very long paper and as I began to read it I found their early history of modern Israel was a one-sided incomplete history that gives a slanted view to the rest of the paper. It deserves a fuller review.
But the first and most important point I want to make in this posting, and the next, is that despite the insistence in the recommendations as well as in the theology paper that the study committee agrees that Israel has a right to exist the focus of the committee is on an Israel that would not be a Jewish State.
For instance, one of the recommendations under the subtitle “III For the Witness of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” is f. “Endorses the Kairos Palestine document (“A Moment of Truth”) in its emphasis on hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation; lifts the document up for study and discussion by Presbyterians; and directs the creation of a study guide for the document through the appropriate channel of the General Assembly Mission Council.” As a have explained in another posting the Kairos Palestine Document encourages the existence of a non-Jewish Israel.[1]
Our Witness: ‘What We Have Seen and Heard”: The methodology as explained in the first part of the paper “has been to engage as many representatives from a spectrum of perspectives on the Israel-Palestine conflict and to embrace the witness and concerns of our Christian partners in the region.” But the resources used proves that the perspectives were generally all pro-Palestinian and certainly not toward a Jewish Israel.[2]
Two Unparalleled Experiences: The paper is shaped by the thoughts of Avraham Burg the author of The Holocaust is Over; We Must rise from its Ashes. (correction see below)* The idea is that both the Jewish and Palestinian people are suffering from “psycho-trauma” and that is affecting the way they react to one another. The Jewish people are reacting to the six million people killed in the Holocaust and the Palestinians are reacting to what is called the Nakba (the Catastrophe) the losses suffered by 750, 000 Palestinians who became refugees from their homes and lands during the 1948 war for Israel’s independence.
Using a different author, Steven R. Feldman, the committee members quote his very coarse words:
“The emotional baggage of the Holocaust and the displacements of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians affect people’s perceptions of the objective reality of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, a reality in which people are being killed. One side may perceive the blowing up a bus or a disco as justified retaliation; the other side may perceive the isolation of Gaza and the killing of far greater numbers of Palestinians with tanks and F-16s as justified retaliation. The objective reality remains the same: people are dying.”
There are at least three things wrong with these thoughts:
1. Such words as ‘emotional baggage’ used to describe the affects of the Holocaust on the Jewish people is insulting.
2. Equating the Nakba with the Holocaust is demeaning and over simplistic. Historically we know that some Palestinians were forced out by some Israeli troops. We also know that some fled and others were encouraged to leave by the Arab states that started the conflict.
3. Attempting to use emotions evolving from the Holocaust as the reason for Israel’s actions in defense of her citizens is Orwellian and scary.
And here is a clearer explanation of that last thought. The blowing up of buses in that paragraph above is made to seem less than “the killing of far greater numbers of Palestinians with tanks and F-16s.” But the blowing up of a bus is meant to kill innocent civilians while the tanks and F-16s no matter how awful, and they are awful, are meant for defense. This part of the paper is a propaganda piece which belongs in the pages of such books as Animal Farm.
Vignette: In the paper four members of the Presbyterian Middle East Study team give personal accounts of their feelings as they travel in the Middle East and as they dialogue with each other and various representatives of the region. One of the stories is by Nahida H. Gordon. She is an American Palestinian who was born in Jerusalem and lived in Jaffa.[3] Gordon mourns the loss of her home in the 1948 war and asks the question, “-why were the Palestinians deemed to be an expendable people for the purpose of assuaging the guilt of Western Christianity?”
Lucy Janjigian is also an American Palestinian born in Jerusalem. She begins her troubling story by writing that “Around 1946, militant Zionists began blowing up British soldiers and policemen. July 22, 1946 was Palestine’s Sept 11." There is nothing in her personal story about the horrible accounts of Arabs killing Jews during this time but it happened as well. Janjigian manages to find quotes and references to Israel’s actions as Nazi like and the separation wall as an apartheid wall.
Susan R. Andrews who was past Moderator of the General Assembly writes about several Middle East Countries and persons, including an “elder-physician from Iraq and a pastor from Iran. She also reveals her perspective on the history of Israel’s early beginnings with this statement, “I see a church packed with Christians in predominantly Muslin Amman Jordan—most of the families displaced by the 1948 invasion of Palestine by Israeli-soldiers.” (My emphasis.)
The last person is an Evangelical Pastor, John A. Huffman, who has some good things to say about Israel as a sign of God’s keeping power. But he does not seem to understand the problems Israel faces and called for divestment before he was chosen to be on the committee and calls for divestment now. I have two main reasons for pointing to these vignettes.
The first is they show that the members of this committee were not diverse in their feelings about Israel. The second is that in the recommendations the committee is asking to continue on for two more years shaping the policies of the PCUSA in the Middle East.
Once again under the subtitle “For the Witness of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” the committee recommends:
“The 219th General Assembly (2010): …Authorizes the creation of a Monitoring Group on the Middle East for the next two years that will consist of the members of this study committee to assist the appropriate General Assembly Mission Council offices and the Middle East staff team in monitoring progress and guiding actions to ensure adequate implementation of policy directions approved by the General Assembly, given the growing complexity and interrelatedness of issues in the region.”
If we are going to keep attempting to guide the continuing conflicts in the Middle East specifically that part which belongs to Israel and the Palestinian people we need a far more diverse group of people. Not necessarily diverse in theology although that is good, but diverse in their feelings and attitudes about Israel. And not just one or two pro-Jewish-Israel people but as many as there are pro-Palestinians. (In this committee there was only one pro-Israel person who left because of discouragement)
As I have stated before and will again, may God have mercy on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A).
[1] See Presbyterian Middle East Study Team & "The Kairos Palestine Document" no longer a Jewish Nation?
[2] See Appendices “List of Contacts Made by Middle East Study Committee”
[3] The theological paper presented by the committee had within its footnotes, for the sake of the two American Palestinians on the committee this thought, “The phrase ‘the right of Israel to exist’ is a source of pain for some members of the 2009-2010 Middle East Study Committee, who are solidarity with Palestinians who feel the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights.”
* I have attributed One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israel-Palestinian Impasse to the wrong author. The author is Ali Abunimah.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
"Witness of the Scriptures: A Biblical Theological Reflection: A Reformed Christian's response
The Presbyterian Study Committee on the Middle East has released their second section, “Witness of the Scriptures: A Biblical Theological Reflection.”* In their earlier release of an introduction and letters they stated that the biblical reflection would be a Priestly one. I disagreed with their term in my posting on the first part of their work, Report of the Middle East Study Committee to the 219th General Assembly: Is it priestly? I still have disagreements.
And so let me begin by stating first of all to my Jewish friends, my response to the study paper with be from a Christian point of view. It is necessary that it be from that viewpoint because this is a paper that will be voted on by a Christian denomination. It must be thought about from a Christological point of view. It is because I am a Christian, devoted to Christ, but also it is because you are my friends that I take the view I do.
One more qualification. I again state I must come from a Christological view and therefore from a biblical view, so I must disregard the Muslim texts used in this paper, not out of disrespect for Muslims, but because their sacred texts are not for me holy Scripture.
The Committee with this theological reflection looks at Justice, Zion, Covenant and Land, and Reconciliation all from what they perceive to be the Old and New Testament viewpoint. They have wisely used many biblical texts, but they have not always used them wisely.
Reconciliation and my foundation: The under girding of my response: Jesus Christ is Lord and it is his life, death and resurrection that not only shapes our view of scripture, which is his word, but it also forms our relationships with others and in particular our relationship to the Jewish people. So I will turn to the last subject of this paper to retrieve the most important connection the Christian has to God. I will look first at reconciliation.
The authors take the New Testament verse Eph 2: 14, “For he himself [Christ] is our peace, who made both groups [Jew and Gentile converts] into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,” and apply it as a universal principle to the Middle East situation.
They write that although the early Christians saw the verse as dealing with hostility between Gentile and Jewish converts, the Holy Spirit has led twenty-first century Christians to understand it to mean that the death of Christ has “broken down the dividing wall of hostility between any two peoples or groups within God’s creation.” Biblically, in the setting of this particular text their statement is not true.
The verse is preceded by Paul’s thoughts that now the Gentle believers have been brought into the “commonwealth of Israel” which includes its covenant and promises. But what has brought them in? What has reconciled them to God? The blood of Christ. The cross has been applied to the lostness of the Gentiles and they have come home to the Father.
The authors attempt to validate their interpretation of Eph 2:14 by using Col. 1:19-20, which they refer to as “cosmic” theology. But what they are actually doing is universalizing salvation. They also see Jn. 12:23, 32 and Romans 5:10 in this way, moving away from any kind of orthodox view of the atonement that connects Jesus’ death distinctly to the church.
Christianity is about a particular relationship with God through the saving death of Jesus, to attempt to apply this to Islam, Judaism or any other religion as a mediating principle is dishonest. As I stated in my posting on the introduction, to be priestly as a Christian is to function as one who is united to Jesus Christ because of his redemption. It is to proclaim in an honest manner that Christ is Lord.
It is important then to look at the several subject matters the committee has addressed and see them from a true Christological position:
Justice: The first subject the committee addresses is justice. They bring to the paper a great deal of Scripture and important thoughts on justice, both from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. They define who must do justice and to whom it should be done. This is good.
But they disconnect from Christology and in doing so some texts are misused. For instance when attempting to define what justice is they write, “The Bible in general and Jesus in particular answer in this way. Justice is promoting truth; …” and then in reference to Jesus' ‘answer’ they use Mt. 22:16 and John 18:37-38. Mat.22:16 is Jesus’ enemies trying to trap him with a question about giving tribute to Caesar and they flatter him by saying that he is truthful and “teach the way of God in truth.” They were probably not sincere and there is no definition of truth in the verse.
The other verses, John 18:37-38, contains Pilate’s question about Jesus being a king. To this Jesus answers “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” And what did they leave out—that Jesus is the Truth. (John 14:6)
So proper Christology is missing and because of it justice flounders. Biblically believers can only do justice because they have been redeemed and transformed. This is the believer’s message to the nations. Christians believe they must pursue peace and justice but it can never be outside of the parameters of a biblical theology that upholds the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Justice belongs to God and not only must he define it (and he does in Jesus) but it flows from his own work. The paper makes doing justice a universal law that is disconnected from a redeeming, transforming Savior. And so it disconnects and distorts needs in the Middle East.
Zion & justice: The committee makes the distinction between physical Jerusalem and the New Testament’s vision of Zion the heavenly Jerusalem. They posit acts of justice as that which allowed the people to remain in Zion or Jerusalem. They give the reader a great deal of texts to prove their point. And they are not wrong but they are incomplete.
Israel is connected to Zion because of her faithfulness to the law which includes justice, but it also includes this “You shall have no other gods before me.” Doing justice and being faithful to the God of Israel are never severed in the biblical texts. Israel was unjust in her forgetfulness of God. She followed the Baals and other foreign idols whose tenets and ways were full of injustice.
Yet the study paper hints that other religions worshiping on ‘Mount Zion,’ Jerusalem, was to be part of the final reconciliation. The common bond here is only justice. After hinting of this the authors write, “It is thus noteworthy that while Jerusalem has indeed become a place holy not only for the Jews but also for Christians and Muslims the longed for age of peace and reconciliation has yet to come.”
Almost all of the references to both spiritual Zion and physical Zion that are found in the New Testament are offered in the paper and finalized by writing that early Christians “fully transferred the locus of God’s concrete presence in the world of space and time from the place of Zion—that is, Jerusalem—to the person of Jesus, who had been crucified and raised from the dead just outside Jerusalem.”[1] They then ask the question, “So what do Christians make of the claim that a link endures between God’s covenant with Abraham and the promise of land?”
“Covenant and Land—and Justice”: Here the theological study rubber meets the Christological road and bounces—off the road. First the author’s ply the reader with the constant refrain “Presbyterians …” So we move from biblical theology to what Presbyterians believe or not. And references are constantly given to a 1987 paper that was not adopted by the 199th General Assembly but simply received and commended for study.
But the important thoughts in this section are, according to the committee, that land for the Jewish people is more than a gift it is a “leasehold” with a set of responsibilities. And we can’t be sure what the land boundaries are because it has changed over thousands of years since God gave his promises to Israel. As it is put in the document, “Thus, Presbyterians believe that one cannot define ‘the land of Israel with any kind of religious specificity. The varying boundaries of ‘the promised land’ have always been more a matter of ‘Realpolitik’ than of theology.”
We have an aside that Presbyterians approach with something like “horror” the Old Testament passages that state that God told the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites. A Jewish scholar is used to suggest that not only does a strand of anti-Semitism run though the New Testament but some parts of the Hebrew Bible hold “unsavory” and immoral ideas. But this all fits into a mold with contradictions.
We are told that the Christian and Muslim Palestinians have lived in the land for a long time and therefore they have rights, as well as responsibilities, to the land. The authors quote, “Now, ‘Byzantine Palestine was, for Christians, a Holy Land but [it was] also a homeland, a place where men and women tilled the ground and planted orchards, built homes and raised families, bought fish and sold olives, buried parents and grandparents.’ And when Jerusalem was captured by the Persians in the seventh century of the Common Era, it was the Christians, not the Jews, who sang a lamentation over the Holy City.”[2] (It should be stated at this point that the Jews have lamented over Jerusalem for two thousand years.)
So because the theology is not grounded in a Christology that reflects Christianity the paper basically places the Palestinians in the land on the grounds that they have lived there, truly lived there, it is their life, while keeping justice is emphasized for the Jewish people. (There is even an apology to the Palestinians for using the term “The right of Israel to exist.”)[3]
Rather than connecting to the coming Christ the paper connects to a spirituality of land and place. The authors write, “We have set forth the biblical emphasis on Zion as a place for all nations and peoples to worship the God of justice and learn war no more and as a place where people’s covenant responsibilities are to be fulfilled and God’s justice is to be practiced toward all persons.”
A theology of land as a means of some kind of final reconciliation may replace Christian Zionism but it also replaces any sense of the rule of law, the need for defense against enemies by a secular state, which happens to be Jewish, or even the demand that a two state solution is a commonsense practical undertaking. This is spiritual blackmail, not Christian blackmail, but spiritual blackmail. If voted for by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) it will be Presbyterian blackmail.
The biblical approach to a Jewish Israel and the Jewish people for the Christian is to see them as a sign of God’s faithfulness. God made promises to keep his chosen people and he has kept his promises. Israel as a Jewish nation is about God’s faithfulness. God chose the Jews to bring forth the Messiah. As Jesus said, “Salvation is from the Jews.”(John 4:22b) The Palestinian Christians are our brothers and sisters through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But none of us can forget that “from the standpoint of God’s choice they [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and calling are irrevocable.” (Romans 11: 28b-29)
* Download Witness of the Scriptures: A Biblical Theological Reflection
[1] It is interesting here, as well as alarming that the authors refer this belief to the early Christians. Perhaps I am reading too much into their words, but after seeing references to the Koran used as sacred text in this paper I have to ask if the committee fails to see the locus of God’s presence in Jesus Christ?
[2] Robert Wilken, No Religion is an Island: The Nostra Actate Dialogues, ed. Edward Bristow (Fordham University Press, 1998) 133.
[3]“The phrase ‘The right of Israel to exist” is a source of pain for some members of the 2009-2010 Middle East Study Committee, who are in solidarity with Palestinians who feel that the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable rights.” This is proof of how badly this committee was stacked toward those who are pro-Palestinian.
And so let me begin by stating first of all to my Jewish friends, my response to the study paper with be from a Christian point of view. It is necessary that it be from that viewpoint because this is a paper that will be voted on by a Christian denomination. It must be thought about from a Christological point of view. It is because I am a Christian, devoted to Christ, but also it is because you are my friends that I take the view I do.
One more qualification. I again state I must come from a Christological view and therefore from a biblical view, so I must disregard the Muslim texts used in this paper, not out of disrespect for Muslims, but because their sacred texts are not for me holy Scripture.
The Committee with this theological reflection looks at Justice, Zion, Covenant and Land, and Reconciliation all from what they perceive to be the Old and New Testament viewpoint. They have wisely used many biblical texts, but they have not always used them wisely.
Reconciliation and my foundation: The under girding of my response: Jesus Christ is Lord and it is his life, death and resurrection that not only shapes our view of scripture, which is his word, but it also forms our relationships with others and in particular our relationship to the Jewish people. So I will turn to the last subject of this paper to retrieve the most important connection the Christian has to God. I will look first at reconciliation.
The authors take the New Testament verse Eph 2: 14, “For he himself [Christ] is our peace, who made both groups [Jew and Gentile converts] into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,” and apply it as a universal principle to the Middle East situation.
They write that although the early Christians saw the verse as dealing with hostility between Gentile and Jewish converts, the Holy Spirit has led twenty-first century Christians to understand it to mean that the death of Christ has “broken down the dividing wall of hostility between any two peoples or groups within God’s creation.” Biblically, in the setting of this particular text their statement is not true.
The verse is preceded by Paul’s thoughts that now the Gentle believers have been brought into the “commonwealth of Israel” which includes its covenant and promises. But what has brought them in? What has reconciled them to God? The blood of Christ. The cross has been applied to the lostness of the Gentiles and they have come home to the Father.
The authors attempt to validate their interpretation of Eph 2:14 by using Col. 1:19-20, which they refer to as “cosmic” theology. But what they are actually doing is universalizing salvation. They also see Jn. 12:23, 32 and Romans 5:10 in this way, moving away from any kind of orthodox view of the atonement that connects Jesus’ death distinctly to the church.
Christianity is about a particular relationship with God through the saving death of Jesus, to attempt to apply this to Islam, Judaism or any other religion as a mediating principle is dishonest. As I stated in my posting on the introduction, to be priestly as a Christian is to function as one who is united to Jesus Christ because of his redemption. It is to proclaim in an honest manner that Christ is Lord.
It is important then to look at the several subject matters the committee has addressed and see them from a true Christological position:
Justice: The first subject the committee addresses is justice. They bring to the paper a great deal of Scripture and important thoughts on justice, both from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. They define who must do justice and to whom it should be done. This is good.
But they disconnect from Christology and in doing so some texts are misused. For instance when attempting to define what justice is they write, “The Bible in general and Jesus in particular answer in this way. Justice is promoting truth; …” and then in reference to Jesus' ‘answer’ they use Mt. 22:16 and John 18:37-38. Mat.22:16 is Jesus’ enemies trying to trap him with a question about giving tribute to Caesar and they flatter him by saying that he is truthful and “teach the way of God in truth.” They were probably not sincere and there is no definition of truth in the verse.
The other verses, John 18:37-38, contains Pilate’s question about Jesus being a king. To this Jesus answers “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” And what did they leave out—that Jesus is the Truth. (John 14:6)
So proper Christology is missing and because of it justice flounders. Biblically believers can only do justice because they have been redeemed and transformed. This is the believer’s message to the nations. Christians believe they must pursue peace and justice but it can never be outside of the parameters of a biblical theology that upholds the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Justice belongs to God and not only must he define it (and he does in Jesus) but it flows from his own work. The paper makes doing justice a universal law that is disconnected from a redeeming, transforming Savior. And so it disconnects and distorts needs in the Middle East.
Zion & justice: The committee makes the distinction between physical Jerusalem and the New Testament’s vision of Zion the heavenly Jerusalem. They posit acts of justice as that which allowed the people to remain in Zion or Jerusalem. They give the reader a great deal of texts to prove their point. And they are not wrong but they are incomplete.
Israel is connected to Zion because of her faithfulness to the law which includes justice, but it also includes this “You shall have no other gods before me.” Doing justice and being faithful to the God of Israel are never severed in the biblical texts. Israel was unjust in her forgetfulness of God. She followed the Baals and other foreign idols whose tenets and ways were full of injustice.
Yet the study paper hints that other religions worshiping on ‘Mount Zion,’ Jerusalem, was to be part of the final reconciliation. The common bond here is only justice. After hinting of this the authors write, “It is thus noteworthy that while Jerusalem has indeed become a place holy not only for the Jews but also for Christians and Muslims the longed for age of peace and reconciliation has yet to come.”
Almost all of the references to both spiritual Zion and physical Zion that are found in the New Testament are offered in the paper and finalized by writing that early Christians “fully transferred the locus of God’s concrete presence in the world of space and time from the place of Zion—that is, Jerusalem—to the person of Jesus, who had been crucified and raised from the dead just outside Jerusalem.”[1] They then ask the question, “So what do Christians make of the claim that a link endures between God’s covenant with Abraham and the promise of land?”
“Covenant and Land—and Justice”: Here the theological study rubber meets the Christological road and bounces—off the road. First the author’s ply the reader with the constant refrain “Presbyterians …” So we move from biblical theology to what Presbyterians believe or not. And references are constantly given to a 1987 paper that was not adopted by the 199th General Assembly but simply received and commended for study.
But the important thoughts in this section are, according to the committee, that land for the Jewish people is more than a gift it is a “leasehold” with a set of responsibilities. And we can’t be sure what the land boundaries are because it has changed over thousands of years since God gave his promises to Israel. As it is put in the document, “Thus, Presbyterians believe that one cannot define ‘the land of Israel with any kind of religious specificity. The varying boundaries of ‘the promised land’ have always been more a matter of ‘Realpolitik’ than of theology.”
We have an aside that Presbyterians approach with something like “horror” the Old Testament passages that state that God told the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites. A Jewish scholar is used to suggest that not only does a strand of anti-Semitism run though the New Testament but some parts of the Hebrew Bible hold “unsavory” and immoral ideas. But this all fits into a mold with contradictions.
We are told that the Christian and Muslim Palestinians have lived in the land for a long time and therefore they have rights, as well as responsibilities, to the land. The authors quote, “Now, ‘Byzantine Palestine was, for Christians, a Holy Land but [it was] also a homeland, a place where men and women tilled the ground and planted orchards, built homes and raised families, bought fish and sold olives, buried parents and grandparents.’ And when Jerusalem was captured by the Persians in the seventh century of the Common Era, it was the Christians, not the Jews, who sang a lamentation over the Holy City.”[2] (It should be stated at this point that the Jews have lamented over Jerusalem for two thousand years.)
So because the theology is not grounded in a Christology that reflects Christianity the paper basically places the Palestinians in the land on the grounds that they have lived there, truly lived there, it is their life, while keeping justice is emphasized for the Jewish people. (There is even an apology to the Palestinians for using the term “The right of Israel to exist.”)[3]
Rather than connecting to the coming Christ the paper connects to a spirituality of land and place. The authors write, “We have set forth the biblical emphasis on Zion as a place for all nations and peoples to worship the God of justice and learn war no more and as a place where people’s covenant responsibilities are to be fulfilled and God’s justice is to be practiced toward all persons.”
A theology of land as a means of some kind of final reconciliation may replace Christian Zionism but it also replaces any sense of the rule of law, the need for defense against enemies by a secular state, which happens to be Jewish, or even the demand that a two state solution is a commonsense practical undertaking. This is spiritual blackmail, not Christian blackmail, but spiritual blackmail. If voted for by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) it will be Presbyterian blackmail.
The biblical approach to a Jewish Israel and the Jewish people for the Christian is to see them as a sign of God’s faithfulness. God made promises to keep his chosen people and he has kept his promises. Israel as a Jewish nation is about God’s faithfulness. God chose the Jews to bring forth the Messiah. As Jesus said, “Salvation is from the Jews.”(John 4:22b) The Palestinian Christians are our brothers and sisters through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But none of us can forget that “from the standpoint of God’s choice they [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and calling are irrevocable.” (Romans 11: 28b-29)
* Download Witness of the Scriptures: A Biblical Theological Reflection
[1] It is interesting here, as well as alarming that the authors refer this belief to the early Christians. Perhaps I am reading too much into their words, but after seeing references to the Koran used as sacred text in this paper I have to ask if the committee fails to see the locus of God’s presence in Jesus Christ?
[2] Robert Wilken, No Religion is an Island: The Nostra Actate Dialogues, ed. Edward Bristow (Fordham University Press, 1998) 133.
[3]“The phrase ‘The right of Israel to exist” is a source of pain for some members of the 2009-2010 Middle East Study Committee, who are in solidarity with Palestinians who feel that the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable rights.” This is proof of how badly this committee was stacked toward those who are pro-Palestinian.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Report of the Middle East Study Committee to the 219th General Assembly: Is it priestly?
Part of the “Report of the Middle East Study Committee to the 219th General Assembly was released on the 5th of March. “Breaking Down the Walls,” so far simply consists of the introduction and letters to various communities. The theological part will be released on the 8th and the rest on the 10th.
In the introduction the committee states, “Our voice is one, which is priestly, prophetic, and pastoral. The first voice that will be heard in this report is a priestly voice speaking of our theological understanding of justice, Zion, the land and reconciliation.” They go on to suggest that they will be priestly, prophetic and pastoral in letters, biblical & theological reflections, experience and recommendations.
We do not know the meaning of any of this except what that means in letters to various groups including the Jewish people of the United States and the people of Israel. We will wait awhile longer, perhaps the study team hopes, we will soak in the words of the letters so as to be prepared to accept the rest.
This statement alone makes me apprehensive; “The first voice that will be heard in this report is a priestly voice speaking of our theological understanding of justice, Zion, the land, and reconciliation.” But a priestly voice belongs not to the knowledge of theological issues or even biblical ones. It isn’t about knowledge or even experience. It is about God’s work of setting aside a whole people and making them the elect, the holy.
It belongs both to the Jewish people, set aside on the mountain, and to the Christian believer set aside by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And the priestly voice is not the voice of a few but of a whole people. John H. Elliot in his commentary on 1 Peter in the Anchor Bible series writing of 1 Peter 2:4-10 (about the priesthood) stresses the continuation of the Christian believer with Israel but it is on the basis of what God has done. My point is how can nine people offer to the whole world (and the letters almost do that) a priestly word? Even more importantly how could a General Assembly offer to the whole world a priestly word?
Well truthfully they could but it would be the word of a people set apart by God, united to their great high priest Jesus Christ. And so the word would be true proclamation. The word would be the words of Jesus that he is Lord and that word would be spoken not only to the Jew and the Christian but also to the Muslim. So … this word spoken by these nine people must be a different word. It must be a secular and religious word but not the gospel and certainly not priestly.
So what are they saying…that is not the proclamation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ? What is this secular and religious word? (Once again for the time being it can only be what is known from the letters)
Here are a few things of what can be known: In the letter to the Ecumenical community we know that there are some differences of opinion but we do not know what the differences are. We know that the Kairos Palestine document is commended and that this document that pushes for a non-Jewish state is considered so important that “we ignore” the voice of the authors “at our own peril.”
So how does this fit with the letter to Israel. It would seem that the agreement with the Kairos Palestine Document would be a contradiction in the letter to Israel. But it isn’t. They state “We are fervent in our hope that Israel would continue to be a homeland for the Jewish people.” Oh, please, please notice this is not the same as saying “We are fervent in our hope that Israel would continue to be a Jewish nation.” They do not care for the continued existence of a Jewish State.
And notice the authors of this letter will stand against anti-Semitism, but what about the new anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism. That is not at all a part of the letter.
And then they go on to suggest that in the conflicts that are happening “the number of casualties may give evidence to the imbalance in the conflict; however each person is created in the image of God.” Yes, and if each person is created in the image of God then the intents of the heart are very important. If the weaker between two peoples is intent on destroying the stronger their evil is far worse than the stronger.
Now I am not saying that the Palestinians are intent on destroying Israel. But I am saying that Hamas armed by Iran is. Two peoples are the victims here, the Israelis and the Palestinians. But this letter does not say so.
And what about the letter to American Jews? Once again they support Israel’s existence as a home for the Jewish people. (See above) Once again anti-Semitism is addressed but not anti-Zionism. And then the authors point out that they are able to work for justice in Israel using local networks rather than Jewish national organizations. And they refer to those groups that agree with their positions such as the new J-Street, B’Tselem and Jewish voices for Peace.
And then once again they refer to Israel as the most powerful party in the conflict. “Our analysis, both through careful research and through our experience of being in the Middle East, is that Israel is the most powerful party to the conflict. Therefore, Israel has both the responsibility and the ability to reverse the course of the current precipitous decline throughout the region.”
This is my thought. It turned out that in World War II the United States was the most powerful party in the conflict and that was a good thing. It’s true that sometimes the most powerful party is the evil party, but thankfully that wasn’t true. Although we are all bad guys, sinners, the most powerful in a conflict is not necessarily the worst or always the one picking the fight. Such a complex situation is not so easily solved.
I will skip a lot in order to say a good word about the letter to the Palestinians. I am glad that they stated that they were alarmed by the “increased targeted violence against Palestinian Christian institutions, be they from traditional or evangelical communities.” That has needed to be said for a long time.
I am waiting, we are all waiting to hear ……
In the introduction the committee states, “Our voice is one, which is priestly, prophetic, and pastoral. The first voice that will be heard in this report is a priestly voice speaking of our theological understanding of justice, Zion, the land and reconciliation.” They go on to suggest that they will be priestly, prophetic and pastoral in letters, biblical & theological reflections, experience and recommendations.
We do not know the meaning of any of this except what that means in letters to various groups including the Jewish people of the United States and the people of Israel. We will wait awhile longer, perhaps the study team hopes, we will soak in the words of the letters so as to be prepared to accept the rest.
This statement alone makes me apprehensive; “The first voice that will be heard in this report is a priestly voice speaking of our theological understanding of justice, Zion, the land, and reconciliation.” But a priestly voice belongs not to the knowledge of theological issues or even biblical ones. It isn’t about knowledge or even experience. It is about God’s work of setting aside a whole people and making them the elect, the holy.
It belongs both to the Jewish people, set aside on the mountain, and to the Christian believer set aside by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And the priestly voice is not the voice of a few but of a whole people. John H. Elliot in his commentary on 1 Peter in the Anchor Bible series writing of 1 Peter 2:4-10 (about the priesthood) stresses the continuation of the Christian believer with Israel but it is on the basis of what God has done. My point is how can nine people offer to the whole world (and the letters almost do that) a priestly word? Even more importantly how could a General Assembly offer to the whole world a priestly word?
Well truthfully they could but it would be the word of a people set apart by God, united to their great high priest Jesus Christ. And so the word would be true proclamation. The word would be the words of Jesus that he is Lord and that word would be spoken not only to the Jew and the Christian but also to the Muslim. So … this word spoken by these nine people must be a different word. It must be a secular and religious word but not the gospel and certainly not priestly.
So what are they saying…that is not the proclamation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ? What is this secular and religious word? (Once again for the time being it can only be what is known from the letters)
Here are a few things of what can be known: In the letter to the Ecumenical community we know that there are some differences of opinion but we do not know what the differences are. We know that the Kairos Palestine document is commended and that this document that pushes for a non-Jewish state is considered so important that “we ignore” the voice of the authors “at our own peril.”
So how does this fit with the letter to Israel. It would seem that the agreement with the Kairos Palestine Document would be a contradiction in the letter to Israel. But it isn’t. They state “We are fervent in our hope that Israel would continue to be a homeland for the Jewish people.” Oh, please, please notice this is not the same as saying “We are fervent in our hope that Israel would continue to be a Jewish nation.” They do not care for the continued existence of a Jewish State.
And notice the authors of this letter will stand against anti-Semitism, but what about the new anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism. That is not at all a part of the letter.
And then they go on to suggest that in the conflicts that are happening “the number of casualties may give evidence to the imbalance in the conflict; however each person is created in the image of God.” Yes, and if each person is created in the image of God then the intents of the heart are very important. If the weaker between two peoples is intent on destroying the stronger their evil is far worse than the stronger.
Now I am not saying that the Palestinians are intent on destroying Israel. But I am saying that Hamas armed by Iran is. Two peoples are the victims here, the Israelis and the Palestinians. But this letter does not say so.
And what about the letter to American Jews? Once again they support Israel’s existence as a home for the Jewish people. (See above) Once again anti-Semitism is addressed but not anti-Zionism. And then the authors point out that they are able to work for justice in Israel using local networks rather than Jewish national organizations. And they refer to those groups that agree with their positions such as the new J-Street, B’Tselem and Jewish voices for Peace.
And then once again they refer to Israel as the most powerful party in the conflict. “Our analysis, both through careful research and through our experience of being in the Middle East, is that Israel is the most powerful party to the conflict. Therefore, Israel has both the responsibility and the ability to reverse the course of the current precipitous decline throughout the region.”
This is my thought. It turned out that in World War II the United States was the most powerful party in the conflict and that was a good thing. It’s true that sometimes the most powerful party is the evil party, but thankfully that wasn’t true. Although we are all bad guys, sinners, the most powerful in a conflict is not necessarily the worst or always the one picking the fight. Such a complex situation is not so easily solved.
I will skip a lot in order to say a good word about the letter to the Palestinians. I am glad that they stated that they were alarmed by the “increased targeted violence against Palestinian Christian institutions, be they from traditional or evangelical communities.” That has needed to be said for a long time.
I am waiting, we are all waiting to hear ……
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Two anti-Semitic Overtures coming to the Presbyterian (U.S.A.) General Assembly from San Francisco Presbytery (Update)
After finding out that San Francisco Presbytery has passed a couple of horrendous overtures, one calling Israel an apartheid State "SanFran-Apartheid" and one commending the Kairos Palestine Document "SanFran-Kairos" (Both found here Report #9 )* I have wondered about the possibilities of demonstrations at the 219th Presbyterian (U.S.A.) General Assembly. Will The International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian protest group, show up, in step with San Francisco Presbytery? Will groups seeking rights for LGBT people demonstrate? Or will that awful family group, Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church show up to insult the more progressive presbyteries like San Francisco while agreeing with and applauding their anti-Semitism.
The overture calling Israel apartheid, “On recognition that Israel’s Laws, Policies, and Practices Constitute Apartheid Against the Palestinian People,” is attempting to put it in such a manner that the United Nations would state that Israel is committing crimes of Apartheid. “The General Assembly directs the Stated Clerk of the PC (U.S.A.) send this overture to the United Nations, encouraging them to find the state of Israel is committing the crime of apartheid and to take appropriate actions.”
Included in the overture is the need to not only push Israel back to her borders before the 1967 war but back to her borders before the 1948 defensive in which the new state defended herself against at least five Arab nations. The link to that suggestion in the rationale is on a site, Palestine Think Tank, whose authors insist that “Zionism is wrong. Zionism is racism. For Zionism to happen, it means the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of the land of Palestine. We accept nothing about Zionism as being positive …”
The site also has a section for videos, this is one of them:
The link also provides the reader with titillating cartoons and articles. One cartoon with an article is a caricature of President Obama dressed as Prince Machiavellian. Another is a picture of the Star of David stuck in a Jewish menorah which is stuck in a gun.
The rationale for the overture is huge with maps included, some from the above site. Many of the end note links go to the Booklet Steadfast Hope: the Palestinian Search for a Just Peace,” published by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I have pointed out in several postings the anti-Semitism of this particular booklet.
It suggests that the Jewish people who immigrated to Israel are not the descendents of ancient Israelites. It states that the Jewish media in the United States and Israel controls government and world policies. It considers the Israelis liars who are not defending their country but are instead attempting to commit genocide.[1]
Another site that is used for information and as a link is mainly involved in encouraging the academic boycott of Israel. That kind of boycott is always a bad idea as it is a direct attack against academic freedom. On that site is an article tying the cause of academic freedom to the Enlightenment and insisting that philosophers like Immanuel Kant thought that, “At best academic freedom was perceived as the right to ask troubling questions. At worst was the right to harass whomever asked too much.”
The author, Anat Matar, believes academic freedom simply gives power to rulers rather than citizens. But, if I want to read an academic paper from Israel, or hear an Israeli professor speak at a nearby university and I can’t because of an academic boycott, not only is the professor’s freedom curtailed so is mine. So are the freedoms of Israel and the whole world.[2]
The Overture “On recognition that Israel’s Laws, Policies, and Practices Constitute Apartheid Against the Palestinian People,” with its rationale appears to be full of facts but they are all one sided facts taken mostly from sites and persons who are only interested in the Palestinians. There is nothing at all about the needs of Israel.
The second Overture, “On Commending “A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith and Hope from the Heart of Palestinian Suffering” as an Advocacy Tool is not any less anti-Semitic than the apartheid one. I have already written about the “On Commending “A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith and Hope from the Heart of Palestinian Suffering” which is also referred to as the Kairos Palestine Document.
The biggest problem with the document is that it calls for a non-Jewish state to replace the Jewish State of Israel. There are many other problems and you can read about them at Presbyterian Middle East Study Team & "The Kairos Palestine Document" no longer a Jewish Nation? This past week the Simon Wiesenthal Center sent out a press release stating that the Presbyterian Church was ready to declare war on Israel.” Amazingly they had not yet seen these two overtures. If these two overtures pass war will have been declared and there undoubtedly will no longer be any relationship between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Jewish people in the United States. May God have mercy on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Update:* The overtures are not yet on the 219th GA site-but they are on the Presbytery of SF site. I have linked to them so you get the whole packet of overtures. I am not sure if they were changed in any way. But they look the same as the ones I have in my e-mail.
[1] See Naming His Grace: Were Holocaust victims linked genealogically to biblical Israel?
[2] The overture uses this site to point to a quote by Ariel Sharon in 1998. The gathering of such quotes can be suspect since they are many times out of context.
#Every so often blogger makes it look look like I have deleted a comment by changing the number down. So check before thinking I deleted you.
The overture calling Israel apartheid, “On recognition that Israel’s Laws, Policies, and Practices Constitute Apartheid Against the Palestinian People,” is attempting to put it in such a manner that the United Nations would state that Israel is committing crimes of Apartheid. “The General Assembly directs the Stated Clerk of the PC (U.S.A.) send this overture to the United Nations, encouraging them to find the state of Israel is committing the crime of apartheid and to take appropriate actions.”
Included in the overture is the need to not only push Israel back to her borders before the 1967 war but back to her borders before the 1948 defensive in which the new state defended herself against at least five Arab nations. The link to that suggestion in the rationale is on a site, Palestine Think Tank, whose authors insist that “Zionism is wrong. Zionism is racism. For Zionism to happen, it means the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of the land of Palestine. We accept nothing about Zionism as being positive …”
The site also has a section for videos, this is one of them:
The link also provides the reader with titillating cartoons and articles. One cartoon with an article is a caricature of President Obama dressed as Prince Machiavellian. Another is a picture of the Star of David stuck in a Jewish menorah which is stuck in a gun.
The rationale for the overture is huge with maps included, some from the above site. Many of the end note links go to the Booklet Steadfast Hope: the Palestinian Search for a Just Peace,” published by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I have pointed out in several postings the anti-Semitism of this particular booklet.
It suggests that the Jewish people who immigrated to Israel are not the descendents of ancient Israelites. It states that the Jewish media in the United States and Israel controls government and world policies. It considers the Israelis liars who are not defending their country but are instead attempting to commit genocide.[1]
Another site that is used for information and as a link is mainly involved in encouraging the academic boycott of Israel. That kind of boycott is always a bad idea as it is a direct attack against academic freedom. On that site is an article tying the cause of academic freedom to the Enlightenment and insisting that philosophers like Immanuel Kant thought that, “At best academic freedom was perceived as the right to ask troubling questions. At worst was the right to harass whomever asked too much.”
The author, Anat Matar, believes academic freedom simply gives power to rulers rather than citizens. But, if I want to read an academic paper from Israel, or hear an Israeli professor speak at a nearby university and I can’t because of an academic boycott, not only is the professor’s freedom curtailed so is mine. So are the freedoms of Israel and the whole world.[2]
The Overture “On recognition that Israel’s Laws, Policies, and Practices Constitute Apartheid Against the Palestinian People,” with its rationale appears to be full of facts but they are all one sided facts taken mostly from sites and persons who are only interested in the Palestinians. There is nothing at all about the needs of Israel.
The second Overture, “On Commending “A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith and Hope from the Heart of Palestinian Suffering” as an Advocacy Tool is not any less anti-Semitic than the apartheid one. I have already written about the “On Commending “A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith and Hope from the Heart of Palestinian Suffering” which is also referred to as the Kairos Palestine Document.
The biggest problem with the document is that it calls for a non-Jewish state to replace the Jewish State of Israel. There are many other problems and you can read about them at Presbyterian Middle East Study Team & "The Kairos Palestine Document" no longer a Jewish Nation? This past week the Simon Wiesenthal Center sent out a press release stating that the Presbyterian Church was ready to declare war on Israel.” Amazingly they had not yet seen these two overtures. If these two overtures pass war will have been declared and there undoubtedly will no longer be any relationship between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Jewish people in the United States. May God have mercy on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Update:* The overtures are not yet on the 219th GA site-but they are on the Presbytery of SF site. I have linked to them so you get the whole packet of overtures. I am not sure if they were changed in any way. But they look the same as the ones I have in my e-mail.
[1] See Naming His Grace: Were Holocaust victims linked genealogically to biblical Israel?
[2] The overture uses this site to point to a quote by Ariel Sharon in 1998. The gathering of such quotes can be suspect since they are many times out of context.
#Every so often blogger makes it look look like I have deleted a comment by changing the number down. So check before thinking I deleted you.
Monday, March 1, 2010
"God's New Family" and fleshing out the answer
Sitting in college classes I would hear a professor answer someone else’s answer with the words, “could you flesh that out a little more.” Now I knew what they meant but I didn’t like the words, too much of a cliché I thought. But listening to the fourth video in the More Light Presbyterians series, “God’s New Family,” I started thinking in those terms. But my thoughts were centered on the Incarnation.
There are four Presbyterian speakers, besides Michael Adee the MLP Director, on the video. The two ordained ones, Rev. Hal Porter and Rev. Jack Rogers both made mention of Jesus Christ as the lens through which we understand the Bible. Porter states:
“No one expounded the heart of God more than Jesus Christ. No one saw God’s unbounded love for person’s more than he was, so we need to look at God the same way he did.”
Rogers stated:
“The number one guideline is clearly read the Bible through the lens of Jesus Christ's redeeming life and ministry. … Jesus is the best interpreter.”
They are right.
But they don’t seem to be listening to their own words. And this is where my memories about fleshing out the answer entered my thoughts. Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, is the one who is fully human and fully God. In fact in Colossians Paul writes that in him “all the fullness of Deity dwells.” And so when we read of Jesus and his words in the New Testament, we find that he is fleshing out all the questions and answers found in the Old Testament. He even refers his disciples back to the Law, the Writings and the Prophets which explain “the things concerning himself.” (See Luke 24:25-27, 44)
He is the God who creates the universe. (Genesis 1:1, Col. 1:16) He is the God who stills the ocean and the storm. “He caused the Storm to be still, So that the waves of the sea were hushed.” (Psalm 107:29) “They were fearful and amazed, saying to one another, ‘Who then is this, that he commands even the wind and the water, and they obey him” (Luke 8:25)
He is the God who cares for the widow, the orphan and the stranger. He is the great sacrificial lamb that all other sacrifices point to. He is the fulfillment of the law. He is the living Word of God and all the words of Scripture are his; they are, after all, the written words of God. Jesus Christ has fleshed out the word of God. He has fulfilled the will of God written in the Law, the Prophets, the Writings and the New Testament. In every way, he moved beyond the cultural understandings of past days, his day and all days upholding the words of God.
In his temptation by Satan, who would misquote Scripture, Jesus simply quoted back his own words, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4b) (Jesus is quoting Deut 8:3)
God’s word, the Holy Scriptures, speak of the redeeming and transforming God. He redeems and transforms the sinner. That is what Jesus is about. He fleshes out the redeeming and transforming work of God. And one must understand that the goodness of God spoken about in the video can only be that goodness (righteousness) that Jesus gives to the sinful because of his life, death on the cross and resurrection.
Since the MLP video is about homosexuality and same gender sex, and those churches which advocate for such practices, then it must be said that Christ’s forgiveness and goodness is a gift to the repentant homosexual as well as all other sinners. In him, Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of the Father is unbounded hospitality for the repentant sinner.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
My Eyes Have Seen HolyWritten by Bebo Norman and Jason Ingram
Am I unfit for You
Remember me, the one who turned from You
I come in rags tattered by the Fall
And all the earth, a witness to my crime
Mercy, weep over me
Let Your tears wash me clean
Majesty, be merciful with me
For my eyes have seen Holy
Hear my prayer at night
Let the morning find me alive
For I am tired and weakened by the Fall
Let all the earth bear witness to my cry
Let the Amen sound from Heaven as You lift my soul
Let the Amen sound from Heaven as You lift my soul
Let the Angels sound from Heaven, Holy is the Lord
© 2006 Appstreet Music/New Spring
My husband, the Steinway tuner...
I can't resist. I love my husband and I am always proud of him. So here is a newspaper article that came out in the Sacramento Bee Sunday, February, 28. The title is "Q&A with Mondavi Center piano tuner Brad Larson." It is by Bee writer, Edward Ortiz and is a series of questions he asked my husband. (So he is a little younger in my picture)
It begins:
When pianist Leon Fleisher sits down at the 9-foot-long Steinway at the Mondavi Center, few realize that a tuner has slaved over the voicing and tuning of that instrument that same day. Brad Larson, who is nearing his 50th year in the business, keeps the Mondavi's three concert Steinways in tip-top shape. The Bee caught up with the 67-year-old piano tuner.
When did the passion for tuning begin?
At home. My first attempt at tuning was in my early teens when I purchased an autoharp and spent hours upon hours trying to tune the darned thing. From that I learned to hear the difference between pitches that were in tune or synch with each other.
Continue here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)