Divestment Campaigns by Mainline Churches: Update  

Mark J. Pelavin

Director, Commission on Interreligious Affairs  

Report to the Union for Reform Judaism Executive Committee

September 12, 2005

1. Overview

Summertime is, I’ve come to learn, church meeting time. Over the summer months nearly every one of the major churches, including most of the mainline Protestant churches, hold their annual national meetings. The Unitarians gathered in Boston, the United Church of Christ in Atlanta, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Orlando, and the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ in Portland, Oregon. (The church receiving the most attention in past divestment updates, the Presbyterian Church, however, did not meet this summer because it only holds a biennial general assembly.) Each church was under some pressure to consider divestment, both internally and from one another.

While it is easy to remain pessimistic about this situation in which so many churches are examining the option of sanctions against Israel, our efforts have begun to bear some fruit. Local dialogue must continue and we have to keep on reaching out to church leadership.

 2. Common Themes in Church Divestment

a. Reaching out to Church Leadership

The Jewish community has been successful in reaching out both to top church leaders and “mid-level” leaders since the calls for divestment have begun. Church leaders understand why the Jewish community reacted as it did to the Presbyterians’ divestment resolutions, and they are committed to not making the same mistake. It remains to be seen, however, to what extent they are concerned about having to deal with a difficult interreligious issue, and to what extent they think the Jewish argument has merit. There is, in general, little compassion for the “Israeli narrative” of the conflict; the churches view the situation almost entirely through the eyes of the Palestinians. However, while Israel has few friends among church leaders, it does have some. And it is important that we continue to cultivate them.

b. Criticism of the Security Barrier

Even among churches that rejected calls for divestment, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) and the Disciples of Christ (DOC), their assemblies passed resolutions sharply critical of Israel’s security barrier. These criticisms range from very harsh – the United Church of Christ’s call to “tear down the wall” – to more moderate: the ELCA’s statement that was, carefully, critical of the path of the wall but not critical of Israel’s right to erect the wall.

c. Interest in “Constructive Investment”

There is tremendous interest in alternatives to divestment, or what many are calling “constructive investment.” This approach enables churches to use economic leverage but, rather than cutting off funds, find ways to use those funds to invest in Palestinian infrastructure or cooperative projects. This will present the Jewish community with a different type of challenge: a number of churches are looking for advice from Jewish leadership in moving forward along these lines.

d. The Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center

There is a great deal of discussion in the American Jewish community about the role played by the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, which has been a major force promoting divestment among the Protestant churches. The group’s director, The Reverend Dr. Naim Stifan Ateek, has spoken across North America as a guest of Presbyterian and other Protestant churches as well as at conferences hosted by the Friends of Sabeel-North America. In his attacks, Ateek uses many traditional theological anti-Semitic themes. Despite his intense criticism of Israel, Ateek has said that he condemns the suicide bombings on the grounds of faith and the belief that God is with the oppressed. According to the ideology of the center, a single binational state is the ideal solution to the conflict. (For more information about Sabeel, see the outstanding report on its activities prepared by the Anti Defamation League).

e. Calls from the Christian Community to Stop Divestment

There have been some important voices from the mainline world calling for to end divestment. Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish Christian Relations has been very active, and the International Conference of Christians and Jews meeting this summer in Chicago also issued a positive statement. In addition – and this merits a longer consideration on its own – the Evangelical Christian community has been very critical of the divestment efforts. On a local level, there is also dialogue among Christians and Jews regarding the value of divestment and its appropriateness in this situation.

 f. Other Calls for Divestment

Last spring the divestment campaign also moved out of the churches and into universities and municipalities. So far, the resolutions – in the University of Wisconsin system and Somerville, MA – have been defeated, but countering similar efforts will have to be a major priority.

3. The Presbyterian Church

The PC-USA divestment process is moving forward. The MRTI (Mission Responsibility Through Investment) committee now has named four United States companies they see as supporting Israeli occupation. The church warned these companies that it will consider selling its investments in them unless they change their company policies. The companies that were issued this warning include Caterpillar, Motorola, ITT Industries, and United Technologies. They were singled out for supplying communication, military, and building equipment to Israel. A fifth company, Citigroup, was also noted for its connection to a bank accused of moving funds to Palestinian terrorist organizations. The companies have denied that such accusations by the Presbyterian Church are grounded in fact, and that they have acted wrongly. This process marches on, notwithstanding the disengagement from Gaza and other changes in the situation.   Despite hesitations after the MRTI decision, a meeting was held in Louisville, Kentucky, with leadership from the Jewish community and PC-USA. Together with my colleague from the Conservative Movement, I spent a full day at the PC-USA headquarters in Louisville. PC-USA is interested in having someone from the Jewish community speak before the MRTI committee. They are also interested in having someone speak to the committee, which will consider any divestment resolution at their next General Assembly in the summer of 2006. They are also going to continue to promote local dialogue through programs such as “Open Doors Open Minds”. Even with these advances, however, the PC-USA appears committed to moving ahead with its divestment process despite the very real changes on the ground. I am now convinced that there are a variety of factors at play: organizational culture, ideology, and the basic rules of organizational physics (that processes in motion tend to remain in motion until being acted upon by an equal and opposite force).  

4. Conclusion

Although the campaigns are far from over – the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, and some of the International organizations are still debating divestment – we are making headway in our conversations with the various denominations. The crucial arena for us is, and remains, between congregations and their neighboring churches.

Union for Reform Judaism		North American Federation of Temple Brotherhoods		Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion		Central Conference of American Rabbis		Women of Reform Judaism