Funding for such unabashed efforts to convert Jews
directly threatens the very lifeblood of American
Jewry.
III. How is the rest of the Jewish Community
responding?
Anti-Defamation
League
The ADL
issued a statement on July 22: "ADL Urges
Dialogue With Presbyterian Church to Address Concerns
With Church Policy On Jews And Israel." The
statement criticizes both the PC-USA's support of
proselytization of Jews and its one-sided criticism
of Israel. Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director,
and Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, ADL Director of
Interfaith Affairs - quoted together in the statement
- proposed meeting with PC-USA's leadership for
a face-to-face discussion of these resolutions.
American
Jewish Committee
The AJC has sent a personal letter to Rev. Dr. Clifton
Kirkpatrick, the Stated Clerk of the PCUSA General
Assembly, explaining their concerns with the resolutions
and asking for a meeting not only on their behalf
but with a consortium of Jewish groups, including
the URJ. They decided not to go public with the
letter because they don't feel that would accomplish
any helpful goal. However, they did send the letter
to their colleagues in other Jewish and Christian
organizations. They are pleased that other national
Christian denominations are not coming to the defense
of the PCUSA at this moment; this is all the more
reason, in their view, that the Jewish response
must be measured: blowing the issue out of proportion
might push other churches to rally behind the PCUSA
in a divisive and destructive way.
The
AJC is also pushing its local chapters to meet with
their local presbyteries and Presbyterian churches
to maintain communication lines and see that their
local churches may not even accept these resolutions
in whole or in part. (view letter
and talking points)
B'nai
B'rith
On July 21, 2004 B'nai
B'rith issued an angry statement: "B'nai
B'rith Calls for the End of Interfaith Dialogue
With the Presbyterian Church (USA)." In this
statement, B'nai B'rith calls "on the leadership
of the Presbyterian Church USA to recant these three
hostile declarations and make a good-faith effort
to distinguish between terror and defending oneself
against it." The statement concludes that "interfaith
dialogue will one day be possible" but that
it is "up to the Presbyterian leadership to
take the next step."
IV. How is the Reform Movement responding?
The
Reform Jewish Movement has sharply criticized the
PC-USA Overtures and has immediately called for
dialogue with the PC-USA leadership in order to
address the offensive policies without disregarding
or destroying our well-established relationship
with the Presbyterian Church.
Rabbi
Eric Yoffie, President of the URJ, and Rabbi Paul
Menitoff, Executive Vice President of the CCAR,
sent a letter
on July 22 to Rev. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, the
Stated Clerk of the PC-USA General Assembly, expressing
our Movement's concerns and asking for a meeting.
Rabbis Yoffie and Menitoff denounced the PC-USA's
harsh one-sided critique of the Israeli occupation
when there is no equivalent rebuke of the Palestinian
terror structure. The PCUSA's leadership was very
receptive to a meeting to address our concerns;
it will take place as soon as possible.
Rabbis
Yoffie and Menitoff also sent their letter to our
Movement's rabbis and congregations so that they
may be aware of the events as they development.
In addition, we have developed this online resource
guide as a tool for rabbis, educators, and other
community leaders.
Union
Press Releases and Statements:
October
20, 2004
Reform
Jewish Movement Condemns Presbyterian Response to
Meeting with Terrorist Group Hezbollah
September
28, 2004
Meeting
of Presbyterian and Jewish Leaders Opening Comments
by Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie President, Union for Reform
Judaism
September
28, 2004
Yoffie
Calls Meeting with Presbyterian Leaders 'Difficult
But Productive' In Addressing Controversial Presbyterian
Policies on Israel, Evangelism
July
27, 2004
Reform
Jewish Leaders Criticize Presbyterian Church (USA)'s
Actions on Israel, Proselytization; Kirkpatrick
Agrees to Meet with Yoffie, Menitoff
V. How has the PC-USA responded?
Rev.
Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick issued a comprehensive response
to the mounting criticism of the PC(USA)'s adopted
positions (more information at www.pcusa.org/interfaith).
Read Rev. Kirkpatrick's letter: "Concerning
actions of the 216th General Assembly (2004) of
the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) regarding Israel
and Palestine and outreach to Jewish people"
In
this response, Rev. Kirkpatrick attempts to explicate
the positions taken by the General Assembly. In
the intro, Kirkpatrick explains that out of their
"faith and commitment" to making "joyful
witness" of the "transforming power of
God's love in Jesus Christ," the General Assembly
"took a number of actions concerning our relations
with the Jewish community, as well as the situation
of Israel and Palestine." The following talking
points both summarize and respond to Rev. Kirkpatrick's
letter.
A. On "Christian witness to Jewish people"
and specifically the Avodat Israel church development
project undertaken in Philadelphia by the local
presbytery:
a.
The General Assembly, with the direct support
of four presbyteries, mandated a study to "examine
and strengthen the relationship between Christians
and Jews and the implications of this relationship
for our evangelism and new church development."
b. This study will seek to examine whether certain
forms of outreach violate their theological understanding
of Jewish-Christian relations. They explicitly
state their "intention to do evangelism in
a spirit of respect, openness, and honesty."
i. A question for dialogue on this subject is
whether their outreach violates our understanding
of Jewish-Christian relations, and, if it does,
how do we communicate this to them?
ii.
Is evangelism - even when respectful, open,
and honest - problematic for Christian-Jewish
relations?
c.
The Assembly failed to adopt a proposal that would
have suspended national funding from use in local
evangelism projects like the Philadelphia funding
of the messianic Jewish church Avodat Israel.
According to Kirkpatrick, this is more of a procedural
decision to keep the authority for local projects
in the hands of the local presbyteries, letting
them decide when it is appropriate to devote funding.
i.
However, the national body does have the power
and could have made the decision to cease such
funding; but they did not.
B.
The assembly called for a reexamination of Christian
Zionism, arguing that it is theologically idiosyncratic
and politically dangerous, jeopardizing the safety
of Palestinians and Israelis.
C. The assembly denounced Israel's security barrier.
Kirkpatrick clarifies five basic points:
a.
This resolution was borne out of concern for the
barrier's impact on the economic, social, and
religious life of Palestinians, but they also
reiterate their interest in Israel's security.
i.
Our challenge to them should be to remind them
that the barrier is preventing suicide bombings
and that the Reform Movement supports it for
this reason, while recognizing that the route
should follow as close as possible to the Green
Line and minimize Palestinian hardship.
b.
They use the word "wall" because that
is a commonly accepted term.
i.
But their actual statement referred to the wall
as a "twenty-five-foot high concrete wall
meandering through mostly Palestinian lands,
plus stretches of electrified barbed-wire fence
extensions of the wall" - which is a flat
misrepresentation. The security barrier is a
wall for only approximately five miles. It is
a fence in all other places.
c. They explain that their objection to the wall
is in line with Israel's own Supreme Court ruling
as well as that of the International Court of
Justice.
i.
In fact, their overture is far more harsh than
the ICJ or the Israeli High Court of Justice
rulings. The PC-USA resolution calls for an
end to the construction of the wall, without
considering Israel's security needs or its unquestioned
right to build the security barrier on the Green
Line. The ICJ ruled that the barrier violates
international law and must be torn down only
where it exceeds the Green Line, ignoring Israel's
security concern but directing its condemnation
only to portions of the barrier which exceed
the Green Line. The Israeli High Court of Justice
found that the barrier has been constructed
for security, not political, reasons but also
ordered some changes to the planned route so
as to minimize Palestinian hardship. This decision
reaffirms Israel's commitment to democracy and
to finding the proper balance between security
and humanitarian concerns. Israel has rightly
agreed to abide by the decision of its own Court
but not that of the ICJ.
d.
They clarify that this is in line with previous
assemblies' calls for an end to the occupation.
i.
However, unilaterally tearing down the wall
will not lead directly to the peace and security
that they seek for the Middle East.
e.
They see this call for action in the belief that
"the best hope for security … may be
found in laying down all forms of aggression on
both sides…."
i.
But their resolution one-sidedly denounces the
Israeli security barrier with no complementary
denunciation of Palestinian terror and the leadership's
lack of action to curb it.
D.
The statement clarifies the divestment resolution
as one of selective divestment from businesses causing
harm, directly or indirectly, to Israelis or Palestinians.
a.
The statement goes on to explain that the resolution
calls for the initiation of a process to look
into companies investing in Israel and bring recommendations.
i.
But the original assembly position is to actually
implement divestment, not just study it. The
resolution lays out "instructions to initiate
a process of phased selective divestment in
multinational corporations operating in Israel,
in accordance to General Assembly policy on
social investing, and to make appropriate recommendations
to the General Assembly Council for action."
E.
Kirkpatrick's statement places these actions within
the larger commitment of PC-USA to human rights
and social justice all around the world.
a.
However, there is no resolution calling for divestment
from Iran, North Korea, or the many other countries
whose human rights violations are worse than Israel's.
In
addition, Rev. Kirkpatrick responded promptly to
the Movement's request for a meeting between our
leadership and theirs. The text of his letter follows:
Dear
Colleagues:
I
am in receipt of your letter expressing deep concern
about the actions of our most recent Presbyterian
Church (USA) General Assembly. I deeply regret that
these actions are painful to you and your colleagues
and fully agree that it would be very good for us
to have a face to face dialogue together on these
matters. I hope you know that the Presbyterian Church
(USA) and I personally are deeply committed to maintaining
respectful and cooperative relationships with our
friends in the Jewish community and that we strongly
support a future with peace, security and well-being
for both Israelis and Palestinians.
I
do believe that my statement of July 20 accurately
expressed the actions of our 216th General Assembly
and would welcome an opportunity for us to dialogue
together on the variety of issues raised by this
action of our General Assembly. Rather than seeking
to do that through email exchanges, I am delighted
that Jay Rock is already in conversation with Mark
Pelavin about arranging a time in which we can share
together our concerns and seek to find ways to strengthen
the ties between our two traditions. I very much
look forward to that opportunity.
All
the best.
Clifton
Kirkpatrick
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly
Presbyterian Church (USA)
VI. Where do we go from here?
Note:
Some of the materials below are in a PDF file format,
in order to download you must have Acrobat Reader.
To download Acrobat Reader for free, 
