June 26, 2008

American churches frequently appear to have made much progress in their attitudes and relationships with Jews. Yet it now seems abundantly clear that unless the Jewish community is constantly on its guard, there is no reason to assume that progress can, does, and will continue. Friends of Jews in the mainline churches with whom serious and honest bridges have been built do not have personal Jewish history as a guide to instruct them to be eternally vigilant for the next outbreak of anti-Semitism, even within their very own church. Furthermore, they do not comprehend that an expression of anti-Israel feeling (as opposed to disagreeing with the policies of the Israeli government, as many Jews do) is usually anti-Semitism by another name. Any effort to suggest it is not anti-Semitism is generally deceptive.

It is in this light that the recent actions and behavior of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is so distressing, disappointing, and frustrating. Four years ago at its General Assembly, in the wee hours of a plenary session, the assembled delegates passed a resolution to actively initiate a process to consider divestment from companies doing business with Israel, and to report back at the next GA in 2006 whether the church should begin a process of divestment.

As a result of extensive work between the Jewish community and the Presbyterian Church in venues throughout the country, the 2006 GA essentially rescinded the 2004 overture (proposal) on divestment. As was the case a few months ago when the Methodist Church met, it was expected that the divestment issue would be discussed at the Presbyterians’ 2008 GA this week in San Jose, Calif., but would not precipitate a major confrontation.

Similarly, until the end of May a position paper, “Vigilance Against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias,” from the church’s interfaith office was largely applauded by Jewish leaders as underscoring much of the concerns and sensitivities that Jews had voiced to the Presbyterians for some time. But approximately two weeks before the GA, a new position paper was posted, replacing the conciliatory paper with an inflammatory paper expressing one-sided attacks on Israel and pro-Israel policies.

This revised paper followed a major equally unacceptable Middle East study resource guide that suggested, among other things, that anti-Semitism was a form of racial prejudice and that, unlike Christian and Muslim historical claims, Jewish claims to the land of Israel began only 60 years ago. It cut deeply into theological and historical questions as to Jewish claims to Israel, differentiated between anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic attitudes, and inserted dialogue concerning ties with Muslims into the midst of expressions of concern for Presbyterian anti-Jewish bias.

While this paper is not precisely an overture on divestment, at this writing it is expected to be the basis of considerable time and discussion at the GA. In addition, it is likely to elevate and encourage pro-divestment forces within the PC(USA). Based largely on the positions of Palestinian Christians in Israel and their followers in the States, this rhetoric is shocking to most Jews, who have worked so hard to improve attitudes and policies toward Jews and Israel within the Presbyterian Church. This direction gives further credibility to the continuing connection difference between the church and Jews and Israel — that being anti-Israel is indeed being anti-Semitic.

On the other side of Protestantism are the evangelical and fundamentalist churches that have become Israel’s best friend in the Gentile world. In most cases these churches have championed Israel’s cause, have visited Israel, and, in many cases, lobbied Congress on behalf of the State of Israel. While much of their domestic and social policy agenda in the United States is anathema to most Jews (as well as to most of the mainline churches as well), many segments within the Jewish community, especially on the Right, have embraced these churches.

For American Jews there ought to be a genuine red flag here as well. First, the motivation for the support proffered in support of Israel by evangelical ministers like the Rev. John Hagee ought to be suspect, since his writings — as well as some of his past sermons — express a very clear manipulative, theological basis for his support for Israel.

Second, the U.S. Jewish community ought to be far more alert to some of the dangers to American liberties inherent in much of the fundamentalist churches’ message. The State of Israel ought to gather friends wherever it can. As Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin said to those who protested the Likud Party giving the Rev. Jerry Falwell the Jabotinsky Award: “When the Messiah comes I will deal with the problem of welcoming Him or welcoming Him back! As for now, Israel needs friends.” American Jews, however, ought to want to consider the larger American agenda.

Beyond the venom on the one hand and the suspicious behavior on the other, one obvious lesson rings loud and clear: Jews and their communal leaders, their clergy, and their professionals can never take anything for granted. Even good Christian friends of the Jewish community do not have the same sensitivities running through their blood or the same sense of history as Jews. The Jewish community cannot rely on others — even friends — to prevent future public attacks and denunciations of Jews and Israel. It is not enough to worry about “If I am only for myself, what am I?” Jewish leaders must ensure that that they never forget as well the first part of Hillel’s aphorism in the Ethics of the Fathers: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?”

Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn is a professor of political science at Kean University in Union.

• Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com