Posted on 07/07/2005 6:48:10 AM PDT by SJackson
Add the United Church of Christ to the list of Protestant churches riding the anti-Israel bandwagon.
Following the example of the Presbyterian Church USA, the World Council of Churches, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church, which have in the past year all suggested divestment from Israel on some level, the UCC on Tuesday adopted two resolutions that set back relations with the Jewish people.
The first resolution calls for divestment from Israel and from American companies doing business with Israel –– companies that "gain from the perpetuation of violence, including the occupation," in the words of the resolution –– and urges the withdrawal of US foreign military aid to Israel and its neighbors.
The second resolution demands that Israel dismantle its security barrier in the West Bank, despite the fact that it has played a key role in limiting the loss of life in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. By going so far as to reject the possibility of even urging Israel to move the barrier to the 1967 border, the UCC has in effect denied Israel the right to defend itself from infiltration across any border it may ultimately have.
How to react to such an attack?
Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said it best: "The UCC has disqualified itself as a legitimate partner for a just and equitable peace in the Holy Land." Like the resolutions raised in the other Protestant assemblies, the UCC's resolutions are misguided and counterproductive. Palestinians and Israelis alike have a crucial need for foreign investment and diplomatic engagement; encouraging the diminishing of both would only deepen the sense of distress that has wracked the sides for so long.
The UCC's resolutions, however, also include several uniquely distasteful elements. One is the patronizing way in which the UCC included ostensibly even-handed language in the resolution, such as a condemnation of "violence in all its forms, including but not limited to... acts of suicide bombings by Palestinians." We say that the even-handedness is only ostensible, rather than genuine, because the original draft of the resolution did not mention the murderous wave of Palestinian terrorism that has caused enormous suffering on both sides. After all, an organization claiming to be supremely concerned with nonviolence and peace should not need convincing, at the last minute, to condemn such atrocities.
Particularly galling about the outcome of the UCC's general synod, though, is the duplicitousness with which it was effected. Hours before the vote on the divestment resolution, David Elcott of the American Jewish Committee and other anti-divestment speakers had won a commitment not to include the language of divestment in the resolution's final draft, using instead selective investment in pro-peace groups to effect change here. That divestment was reintroduced at the last minute was a slap in the face to all those who worked in good faith to present a fair and constructive resolution.
There have been many such people, too, who have sought to reach mutually acceptable positions on the emotionally charged issue of the peace process.
The UCC result makes it clear: Engaging Protestant leaders in dialogue has not succeeded in preventing political attacks on Israel. The leaders of Protestant churches who have pushed these pro-divestment resolutions through their churches' executive bodies cannot be said to be merely misinformed, either. They do not initiate biased campaigns against Israel because they have not yet heard the arguments in Israel's favor, but because they are strongly biased against Israel.
It is time, then, for organizations like the AJC, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League to stop wasting their breath on high-level meetings with Protestant leaders and turn instead to the laity and the local leadership. It is from within those ranks that voices of dissent have come, as ministers and concerned churchgoers have begun to say to the anti-Israel activists: You don't speak for us.
It would be wrong, too, to give up on Protestants as potential sympathizers, relying only on Evangelical Christians for support. Many "average" Protestants are truly interested in helping Israelis and Palestinians reach a fair settlement to the conflict. It is with them, and not with officials blinded by anti-Israel political and ideological agendas, that Israel and the Jewish community need to engage.
I am an Anglican. The Anglican Church will get no donation from me until it changes this policy.
Except for the UCC, which is a cult anyway...
..................
To be fair, I believe you are referring to the International Church of Christ, a splinter of the original Churches of Christ movement. This is not to be confused with the United Church of Christ (UCC), which formed in 1957 with the merger of the Evangelical and Reformed Church and the Congregational Christian Churches. The Congregational Churches were formed by the pilgrims and puritans in Massachussets in 1628. All of these are rooted heavily in the Calvinist reformation.
I would dare say that calling the UCC a cult is very misguided at best and slanderous at worst. Calling their congregational general synod misguided would be more appropriate (note that congregations within the UCC range from very liberal to extremely conservative)
I know it is isn't much, but if all Israel supporters on FR would BUY Israel... it would not hurt!
I think you answered my question. Do the people of the churches support this decision by their leaders? I hope not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.