Google+
from-church-web-site-to-church-web-presenceFrom church Web “site” to church Web “presence”
Neil MacQueen
from-profession-to-professing-the-churchs-educational-ministryFrom profession to professing: the church’s educational ministry
Mark D. Hinds
the-louisville-momentThe Louisville moment
Jack Haberer, Outlook editor
benedictory-that-irksome-parableBenedictory: That irksome parable
Michael Lindvall
Breaking News: GA 2010-Open letter to the Presbyterian Church regarding the report of the Middle East Issues Committee
Written by The Presbyterian Outlook   
Posted as a courtesy by The Presbyterian Outlook
A week ago, it looked as if the Presbyterian Church (USA) was going to enact a version of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within its own body, so divided were we on all sides.
For some of us, the Middle East Study Committee’s report was a long-awaited recognition of the suffering of the Palestinian people, particularly our Christian brothers and sisters, and a stirring call to action and solidarity.  For others of us, the report seemed indifferent to Israeli concerns for a secure homeland and the Church’s ongoing relationship with the Jewish community.  Coming into the Assembly, some of us were lined up to push the report through; others of us were determined to defeat it.
Today, we still have disagreements on items in the report, on methods we should pursue, on arguments we should make.  But today, by God’s grace, we have discovered that together, we may actually be more faithful and effective in seeking peace with justice for both Palestinians and Israelis than separately. To that end, we stand together in support of the report as amended by the Middle East Issues Committee as witness to a new way of approaching this intractable problem and, indeed, a new way of being the Church.  
We have learned that we do not have to choose between our commitments.  We have learned that we can risk trusting people with whom we were afraid to engage.   We have learned that addressing the conflict in the Middle East cannot be a question of winners and losers.  We must model how the conflict itself will be resolved:  if someone loses, everyone loses.  Beyond any expectation, we find ourselves discovering a new model of ministry together, a model committed to seeking, hearing, and responding to the fullness of narratives and commitments with the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, Jews, Christians and Muslims.  
Through Isaiah, God says, “See, I am doing a new thing!  Now it springs forth; do you not perceive it?  I am making a way in the desert and rivers in the wilderness.”   Let us all give thanks for this new thing that God is doing and commit ourselves anew to work together for peace with justice.

Bill Harter, Co-Convener, Presbyterians for Middle East Peace

Carol Hylkema, Moderator, Israel/Palestine Mission Network

Katharine Henderson, President, Auburn Theological Seminary

Ron Shive, Chair, Middle East Study Committee
 

Comments  

 
#8 Anna 2010-07-15 09:40
I agree catherine sellers. I think the church like so many organizations been infiltrated by liberal parties who have their own agendas and are not concerned with the welfare of Christians or the Church or even America. I mean when Jews and Muslims gather for their meetings do they anguish over how to best promote the welfare of the United States and Christianity? It's absurd that these issues should even be discussed but I suspect those who are really in charge plan on an exodus of membership in order to make room for more liberal leaning traitors.
Quote
 
 
#7 catherine sellers 2010-07-15 08:13
I will never understand why the GA thinks it should publish position statements on political issues such as Arizona's immigration law and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that can never truly reflect the opinions of a diverse church membership. The only thing these statements do is alienate people and cause an exit of more people from the church. If one were to form an impression of the Presbyterian Church(USA) from the statements and recommendations of the GA, one would think he/she was viewing writings from the leftist ideologues. Apparently, someone influential in the GA organization has a political agenda, and it's different from mine.
Quote
 
 
#6 Salina Hassan 2010-07-14 17:12
Anne, I just apologize - I just wrote a very lengthy reply which I lost with the stroke of a key. I truly admire and appreciate what you do, and my comment was in no way meant to reflect badly on your tremendous effort and truly stunning success in modifying the report from its previously horrific draft. I wrote what I did is to let the Israel-haters (I won't say 'pro-Palestinian' as these people couldn't care less than what happens to the Arabs so long as Israel is destroyed) that despite what they may smugly claim are their magnanimous concessions by removing the most overtly anti-semitic parts of the report, it is in no way unbiased, fair, or evenhanded, and while a break in relations between the two groups may have been avoided, on an individual level many Jews and certainly most observant Jews are horrified by the defamatory, racist and anti-semitic views expressed therein. In my opinion and that of many of my compatriots, the church has aligned itself with the genocidal and totalitarian philosophy of radical Islam and has gone from passively observing to actively supporting the expected eventual demise and possibly elimination of the Jewish people.

Of course I am in no way directing this at you personally, and I apologize for including the entire church in my earlier comment. I unfortunately can't write any more tonight, but I do want to express my profound admiration and appreciation for your unbelievably hard work, for the many sacrifices not only of effort and time but of relationships, professional advancement and reputation that supporting Israel often entails, and by your eloquent writing.

Kol ha'kavod, Anne.

Salina
Quote
 
 
#5 Anne Schaeffer 2010-07-13 17:30
Yes, for me it's one sided too. But we have to start and start again somewhere. The spin/slant/narrative associated with advocacy for Palestinians is so vitriolic, anti-semitic and distorted that to mouth such propaganda is to turn Palestinians into two dimensional victims rather than complex human beings just like others who wish to determine their own futures, just like the Israelis or you or me. I was part of that group that went "wow" when the amended version was adopted by the Committee unanimously and passed the Assembly by 82%. I think the letter is the best we can do for the time being. All the signers (and they'll score me for it I'm sure) sweated with both sides so that doors could stay open and dialog begin on as even a playing field as could be had at this time. All the folks I met who were involved were deeply committed. But some of us, signers and yours truly, were given to justice and fairness for both Israelis and Palestinians or, if you like, Palestinians and Israelis. We have a long way to go. But this report, rather than the original version, can start us off.
Quote
 
 
#4 Salina Hassan 2010-07-13 10:21
The report is an offensive, one-sided and biased document that omits important historical facts (the explusion of 850,000 Jews from their homes in Arab countries and the presence of extermination camps in Northern Africa, the false contention that the state of Israel was founded primarily because of the Holocaust, the ignoring of pre-1967 terrorist attacks, the truly insane notion that Israel's security concerns are a result of 'trauma', etc). The fact that the report quotes the founder of the anti-semitic Sabeel,accepts portions of the Kairos document, and incredibly, seems to lament the fact that they could not speak with Hamas (!) to get 'their side of the story' - all these, among many other things, shows the complete lack of any historical knowledge of perspective and complete disregard for both international law (the 'West Bank' is not "occupied", it is disputed territory acquired by Israel during a defensive war), the safety of the Jewish people, and a lack of understanding of and disregard for Judaism as a religion.

The fact that the Jewish community had to go to great lengths to convince the church (the small "c" is deliberate, as I do not recognize or honor Presbyterian dogma) to 'soften' the report shows the immense bias and prejudice of church leaders, and their disregard and disrespect for Jewish life.

No wonder that most Jews consider the Presbyterian and other 'mainstream' churches the worst anti-semities around, after Muslims and the KKK. Thank goodness your membership is shrinking rapidly and you will soon be obsolete. As far as I'm concerned, due to the actions of the Middle East Committee, it can't happen soon enough.

For a much more elegant and musical version of the above, Yadida Freilich does a wonderful job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaGHUZ-8DWw
Quote
 
 
#3 Robert Quigley 2010-07-12 11:48
The article seems to assume that some kind of compromise settlement of Palestinian-Israeli differences is possible. Perhaps Israel might agree to a compromise, but the Palestinians want nothing less than the elimination of Israel. No matter what they may say to contrary (and their word is meaningless) the Palestinians will not compromise. I think the report produced by the Middle East Study Committee is a retreat into cognitive dissonance. All the embellishments about "a new model of ministry" can't hide the fact that what they are in fact doing is throwing Israel under the bus.
Quote
 
 
#2 Lowrie Beacham 2010-07-12 06:02
Bingham Graves writes, "This article or statement makes no sense to me."

Then I submit that it has achieved its purpose.
Quote
 
 
#1 Bingham Graves 2010-07-11 17:10
This article or statement makes no sense to me. I would like to know more about the amendments to the report and why they were made. And I would like to know why the authors think that "together, we may actually be more faithful and effective in seeking peace with justice for both Palestinians and Israelis than separately." Please say more.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh