Comments for Is the Presbyterian Church (USA) Anti-Semitic? at http://pres-outlook.net , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://pres-outlook.net Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:53:23 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/1077.html#comment-2213 Readers who, like me, found Geoff Browning's recent article about whether the Presbyterian Church (USA) is anti-Semitic intriguing, may wish to join a Ghost Ranch seminar I'll be co-teaching the week of Aug. 7 with Rabbi Jacques Cukierkorn of the New Reform Temple of Kansas City, Mo. We may begin our weeklong Jewish-Christian conversation talking about the divestment issue, but that won't be our main focus. Rather, we want to talk in depth about how Jews and Christians view the world after the Shoah, looking for our common ground as well as those places where we'll have to disagree. It should be a wonderful week of insight in a beautiful setting. Come join us - and bring a Jewish friend with you. See www.ghostranch.org. - Web Admin Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/1077.html#comment-2147 Geoff Browning's Jan. 30, 2006 article "Is the Presbyterian Church (USA) Anti-Semitic?" is excellent. As a Jewish Presbyterian I'm delighted that he's provided such a reasonable and well thought out argument against that accusation. Sometimes labels such as anti-Semitic, anti-Black, homophobic, anti-Progressive, anti-Evangelical etc., have been used as weapons with which to marginalize and silence people who hold a position that differs from that of the individual hurling the label. It's possible to have differing perspectives with all parties doing so from noble motives. If we silence people with ugly accusations we may lose opportunities to hear the Holy Spirit. In recent years I've come across the accusation from some Presbyterians, that if you hold to the opinion that Jews have need of Christ you're both not Reformed and anti-Semitic. If these things were true it would mean that Reformed theology is something other than biblical and that all Jewish believers are self-hating. I assume that the latter accusation would have to include Jesus and all the New Testament Jews who followed him. If you hear these accusations, don't believe them. They too have no basis in reality. - Leslie Fox Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/1077.html#comment-2141 I appreciate Geoff Browning's thoughtful article on divestment and anti-Semitism. I especially appreciate his logical, noncombative attempt to explain a reasonable thesis. There is much he says that makes good sense. However, there are two major points that I would think need further mention and clarification. Point #1: Browning begins with a misstatement. He described the General Assembly resolution as: 'a resolution calling for 'phased selective divestment' from companies that are profiting from the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in Israel/Palestine.' That is untrue. The G.A. resolution was a blunter instrument, not nearly so focused. It was to initiate 'a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel.' This process of divestment was so very much wider in scope, aimed not at 'companies that are profiting from the occupation' as Browning detailed it, but far more broadly at 'multinational corporations OPERATING IN ISRAEL.' This broad stroke against ALL commerce with Israel is easily construed as an attempt to weaken the country and bring it to its knees. Then, when prominently compared to how the same tactic was used against the pariah state South Africa, again, the tactic seems to be used against the very legitimacy and existance of Israel as a state. Efforts to soften and focus the intent of the resolution after the fact are probably well-meaning and much more reasonable, but the truth of the matter is that the G.A. resolution itself is not so delicate and does, indeed, point toward wholesale destruction of the Israeli economy. Point #2: The resolution places full blame on Israel and Israel alone, when it reads: 'The occupation must end; it has proven to be at the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides of the conflict.' In that compound sentence, Israel is blamed for the problem AND for the 'evil' acts committed by EITHER side. If a Palestinian suicide bomber kills dozens of Jews in Tel Aviv, it's Israel's fault. If innocent Palestinians are killed when Israel targets a terrorist leader, it's Israel's fault. This plays all too well into the ancient anti-Semitism of 'blame the Jews.' To look at such a complex situation and rule so unequivocally that it's Israel's fault is to unfairly choose sides. It would be equally unfair to place the blame entirely on Palestine (Hamas now?) for their stated aim of violently eliminating Israel altogether. The divestment resolution was poorly conceived, boosted unfairly with one-sided rhetoric, and approved by a mainly complacent General Assembly. The resolution cannot keep pace with the fast-moving events on the ground, such as Israel's withdrawal from Gaza or the election of a Hamas government. We Presbyterians need to step back out of a well-intentioned but very amateuristic little escapade into Middle East politics. It's not our strength. It's not even very just. Let's face it: We've made a muddle of the whole thing. What we've done is definitely anything BUT peacemaking. It's actually more than a little embarrassing. We can end it by approving the Mississippi overture (Overture #1) this summer at General Assembly. - James Berkley Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/1077.html#comment-2140 There's a tremendous difference between the actions taken by the Sudanese government and those of the Israeli government. I hope that everyone would agree. While I would agree with Mr. Browning that 'anti-semitism' is an unfounded and poorly worded charge in this instance, I hope that he would agree that it's completely inappropriate and inexcusable for the PCUSA to punish Israel alone in this matter. I include issues such as a public stance against Israel in my laundry list of controversial issues with which the PCUSA promotes inner strife and general disillusionment. - Michael McFarlane Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:00:00 +0100