Balance and Dialogue as a Substitute for Advocacy and Justice?

Advocacy by Christian Leaders: Recently, Palestinians lost 170+ lives in Gaza and Israelis lost 5+ in a wave of violence, and just averted a war with a tense ceasefire, while the United Nations has granted the Palestinians observer status as a state and Israel has announced plans to build settlements that would be the last nail in the coffin of a two state solution.  Meanwhile, back at the ranch that is sometimes called the Episcopal Church (TEC), there has been considerable consternation that TEC declined to participate in an October 5 letter to Congress calling for hearings on foreign aid to Israel. All the major denominational leadership signed the letter: Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, the United Church of Christ and others. The decision to sit this out is a critical blow to TEC’s advocacy in the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict built over three decades and reflects not just on TEC leadership, but on the whole Church.

The mainline denominations that wrote and signed the letter includes the Christian membership of an eight year Jewish/Christian dialogue of which the Episcopal Church is a founding member (2004).  The decision not to participate in the letter put the Episcopal Church in the lonely position of being the only Christian member of that dialogue to abstain.

And it is not as if TEC lacked policy. The General Convention held in July in Indianapolis voted (A-015) to reaffirm the 1991Resolution A149, which “require(s) the State of Israel to account to the Government of the United States for all aid to Israel…in compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act.”  This is precisely what the letter to Congress is about!  Yet the Episcopal Church chose not to participate despite the invitation to do so. The Church’s own policy base has been thwarted.

Dialogue AND Advocacy: The letter to Congress is issued in the context of eight hard years of this dialogue with the mainline Jewish organizations in the United States, who have as a primary objective the defense of the State of Israel. That’s different than a commitment to a just peace.  This is not a criticism, just an observation of an important dynamic. Having participated in five of the eight years of that dialogue, and having organized for the Christian membership an historic joint Jewish/Christian trip to the Holy Land in 2005, I am aware of the deep gulf that separates the Christian witness for justice of these denominations versus the Jewish organizations perspective of solely defending the “Jewish state” of Israel.  While we were respectful of each other we rarely were able to find consensus.   Nonetheless, the experience was invaluable and revealing.  And I enjoyed a number of friendships in those Jewish organizations despite our differences, and they even defended Desmond Tutu from charges of Anti-Semitism at my request.  But it felt to me as if the Jewish organizations were more interested in managing us than in serious dialogue that would lead to a joint justice oriented position to end the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Now, the letter to Congress has emerged. The Jewish organizations have predictably howled, saying they were blindsided and not consulted ahead of time, as if the signers violated some protocol.  For years, Jewish organizations have asked that TEC share resolutions being prepared for General Convention or Executive Council.  They actually suggested they should have some kind of censorship role.  Of course, when we asked how they'd respond to us reviewing their many web postings on the conflict prior to publication they would demure.  Instead, one issued a fund raising appeal naming mainline denominations as villains against Israel. But we didn't walk away from the table.

I discerned from these organizations that there are certain lines over which we as Christians could not be allowed to cross, for example, any sort of boycott, divestment or sanctions, or making comparisons to Apartheid, or as in this case, questioning Israel's use of foreign aid.  The Church must always be “balanced” as if this conflict is between two equal parties. Justice is to be sidelined in favor of balanced statements, neutrality, silence and polite dialogue. If this had been the methodology of the Churches towards South Africa, Apartheid would still be alive and well. Israel has been oppressing the Palestinian people during 45 years of Occupation, to say nothing of the second class status of Israel’s Palestinian citizens.  In this context, dialogue has its place and can be an important component of peacemaking, but it cannot be a substitute for advocacy and the pursuit of justice.  There has to be a both/and approach.  The latest issue of Cornerstone from Sabeel is devoted to interfaith dialogue and contains important insights.

An emergent Jewish critique: Marc Ellis, an American Jewish scholar, recently offered these insights on Jewish/Christian dialogue and the letter to Congress:

It seems late in the Israel/Palestine political game – and it is late indeed – but the mainstream Churches are breaking… the interfaith ecumenical dialogue, the post-Holocaust place where Jews and Christians have mended their relationship. Israel was huge in this dialogue. Christians supported Israel as repentance for anti-Semitism and the Holocaust….

Just as aspects of Jewish support for Israel are dropping off, liberal Christian support is ebbing…. I’m thinking specifically of the October 5 letter that a group of prominent Church leaders sent to Congress. In the letter, Church leaders admonish Congress for allowing Israel to skirt and in some cases violate American law. They are direct and to the point, especially highlighting American foreign aid to Israel…. In a stunning departure, interfaith relations are secondary to the immediate needs of the Palestinian people who are under assault by Israel.

Reading the letter out loud I marvel on the distance traveled. Despite the pressure and with support as well, is there any way back to the pieties of yesteryear for these Church leaders?

Strange, looking on the internet for commentary on the Church leaders’ letter, one site had the letter opposite a quotation from the Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel: ‘Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.’

It seems that the Church leaders have finally learned the central lesson of Christian complicity in the Holocaust. It was taught to them by Jews in the personal witness of Elie Wiesel.

The lesson: The ultimate sin is silence in the face of injustice.  

Conclusion: The letter to Congress is a watershed moment.  While the denominations have separately held similar policy positions over the last few decades of which Ellis may not be aware,  joint letters such as this have been rare, making this one all the more poignant.  And for some troubled Episcopalians committed to a just peace, the decision not to sign the letter has cast a shadow over the conscience of the Episcopal Church.

The Reverend Canon Brian J Grieves, Former Peace and Justice Officer,  The Episcopal Church, 1988-2009

December 2012