There was a time, not that long ago, when Jews and Presbyterians — in Denver and across the country — happily broke bread together.
There were shared trips to the Holy Land, plentiful opportunities for interfaith services and activities as well as joint action on human rights and social justice issues, particularly among Reform and Conservative Jews whose progressive agenda often coincided with that of Presbyterians.
Those days — at least for the moment — are over.
A resolution narrowly passed in June at the biennial General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has become a painful wedge between the communities.
Although the resolution is actually quite narrow in focus, directing the national church to divest from three US corporations that sell military equipment which ultimately ends up in the hands of the Israel Defense Forces, Jews have taken serious umbrage to its passage.
In the wake of the 310-303 Presbyterian vote in favor of the resolution, American Jewish organizations and media have characterized the action as comparable to the activism of the BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement, as anti-Zionist, even — in a few cases — as anti-Semitic.
All of which, two Denver Presbyterian leaders told the Intermountain Jewish News last week, is dead wrong.
Had Presbyterians actually taken all the anti-Israel actions many Jews apparently believe they did, said Anne Wainstein Bond, stated clerk of the Denver Presbytery, their anger might be justifiable.
“But I think it’s based on a misunderstanding of what the action actually was,” she says.
Rev. John Bell, pastor of Wellshire Presbyterian Church, the largest congregation in the Denver Presbytery, takes it a step further.
“This is a free country with a free press and Jews are certainly entitled to have whatever reaction they want,” he says. “In this case, I believe that most of the criticism against the action that was taken is unjust, unfair and unwarranted.”
While the PC(USA) resolution did indeed order church divestment from Caterpillar, Motorola and Hewlitt-Packard, it did not call for actual divestment from Israel itself, for any kind of boycott of Israel or for any sanctions against the Jewish state, Bond emphasizes.
In fact, he adds, the wording of the resolution itself stressed those points.
“The implications of the headlines in the Wall Street Journal and other places have been that we’re anti-Israel and pro-BDS. The action that we took was exactly opposite of that. We are pro-Israel and anti-BDS. That was in writing. That’s what we voted on. That’s what passed. We’re not divesting from Israel.”
Explains Bond: “We currently have considerable holdings across our pension board and our Presbyterian Foundation, some of which are invested in these three companies.”
The divestment called for in the resolution is limited to “American corporations that profit from violence,” Bell says.
“We have a socially responsible investment policy dating back to the ‘70s. We have used our portfolio of church assets in that regard.
“We have divested over the years from gambling, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, most recently from companies that do violence in the West Bank and Gaza. We’re also taking action on private prisons and reviewing fossil fuels. This in our minds is part of that, not part of the BDS movement designed to punish Israel.”
Contributing to the assembly’s vote in favor of the resolution, Bond and Bell agree, is the fact that for more than a decade Presbyterians have called on the three corporations in question to discuss their sale of military equipment to the IDF but have never received a response.
Both Bond and Bell attended the church’s general assembly earlier this summer in Detroit. As a voting commissioner of the church, Bell voted in favor of the resolution while Bond, who is not a commissioner, says she’s “quite conflicted” about the resolution and is unsure how she would have voted had she been entitled to.
The razor-thin margin by which the resolution passed, Bell adds, illustrates that Presbyterian leaders were far from unanimous in their feelings about it. The church has faced similar divisiveness over such issues as same-sex marriage and ordination.
“To my knowledge, all voting commissioners were conflicted,” Bell says of the Israel resolution. “This was not an easy decision for any of us.”
While Presbyterians, in working papers and open letters to the Jewish community, have stressed the limited scope of their resolution, many Jews have had a hard time seeing the distinction between opposing BDS while supporting divestment from American companies that sell to the IDF.
While Bond and Bell do not say so in so many words, their comments suggest that the PC(USA) resolution’s narrow focus may be an intentional form of ambiguity, a way to express opposition to Israeli action against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza without condemning Israel directly.
While the church opposes investment in corporations “contributing to violence and destruction,” Bell says, Presbyterians also stand by Israel’s right to self-defense against terrorism. It is important to note that his comments were made well after Israel’s latest military incursion into Gaza had begun.
“Israel has a right to defend itself and whether or not that is what is happening today, I’m not an Israeli military advisor,” he says. “Is that what’s going on today? I’m in no position to comment.”
Bond says that this summer’s resolution was more about applying ethical standards to the church’s investment policy than taking a stance on specific military or human rights issues involving Israelis and Palestinians.
Asked whether, on a considerably larger basis, Presbyterians support the idea of Israel as a Jewish state – and, by implication, whether it favors a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – these church leaders were clear.
“We are very much in favor of a two-state solution, very much in favor of a Jewish sovereign state that has the right to defend itself,” Bell says.
“It’s my opinion and that’s the way the vote went. The Presbyterian Church has officially never wavered from that position.”
“I think that the majority of Presbyterians would agree,” affirms Bond.
Over and above the resolution itself, Jewish anger at Presbyterians gained additional fuel from several developments that shadowed the general assembly debate.
One was the appearance of a Presbyterian publication that many Jews saw as stridently anti-Zionist, if not anti-Semitic. The publication, “Zionism Unsettled,” was temporarily available on the national church’s website.
Articulating a firm anti-Israel stance, reminiscent of the positions adopted by many BDS activists, the document apparently originated with extreme-left activists within PC(USA) and was ultimately rejected at the general assembly.
Bell acknowledged that “Zionism Unsettled” could be fairly characterized as anti-Zionist but emphasizes that “it was rejected as not being representative of our view.”
Another volatile factor contributing to the Jewish-Presbyterian confrontation were the spoken and written comments of a Presbyterian minister, Larry Grimm, whose participation in the national debate added a bizarre Denver dimension to the story.
Although apparently retired in official terms, Grimm holds the title of parish associate at Capitol Heights Presbyterian Church in East Denver. In comments online and to the Forward newspaper, and in a recent op-ed in the Denver Post, Grimm excoriated Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, especially in the recent Gaza conflict.
In addition to other unusual suggestions, Grimm advised Jews in Israel to move to the US as a means of ending the Middle East conflict.
Among the many who loudly protested the minister’s words were Rabbis Abraham Cooper and Yitzchok Adlerstein of the Simon Wiesenthal Center who, in a written response in the Post, accused Grimm of anti-Semitism and advised him to move to Gaza City.
Grimm, Bond says, “does not represent this denomination or the church as a whole. He is a retired minister. He is what we call a parish associate, not an active minister at that congregation.”
Grimm repeatedly made it clear that he was speaking only for himself and not the church, Bond adds, “and by and large, the church does not agree with him.”
Bell suggests that renegade clergy aren’t unknown in other Christian, and in Jewish, denominations.
“If you take the width and breadth of the Jewish opinion on all these subjects you’ll have some radicals as well,” he says, “but I’m personally not aware of another minister who shares Larry’s views in the Denver Presbytery.”
In the end, Bell and Bond insist, neither “Zionism Unsettled” nor Grimm’s views indicate that anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism dwells to any significant degree within the Presbyterian community.
“Is anti-Semitism prevalent among church leaders?” Bell asks. “The answer to that is no, in my opinion.”
“I would say adamantly no,” adds Bond.
“There are probably pockets, in the same way that you would find racism against African American people or any other people. But it’s not at all rampant and actually much the opposite.
“There are an awful lot of our churches which either have partnerships with or have had really good relationships with members of the Jewish community.”
Since the passage of the divestment resolution, contact between Denver-area Presbyterians and Jews has been quite limited.
“Aside from what has been in the newspapers,” Bell says, “I’ve met with one local rabbi and had some Facebook-email exchanges with a couple of others.”
The rabbis all expressed indignation and opposition to this summer’s Presbyterian action.
At the moment, those attitudes are likely to preclude serious interaction between the two faith communities, the minister says.
“I think at this point the anger is significant enough that there is not a lot of interest in having official communications.”
Bell considers that unfortunate, in light of the once robust dialogue between Denver Jews and Presbyterians.
“I consider these folks as friends and colleagues and I would not say that my feelings toward them have changed, but I would say that they’re quite frustrated and angry with us,” he says.
“I would like my Jewish friends to understand the action that actually was taken and not the headlines which are dominating. We took action to say that we are pro-Israel and anti-BDS. That is the actual motion that was passed.
“I regret the rift which seems to have developed between my Presbyterian colleagues and my Jewish colleagues and I do hope and yearn for that painful issue to be behind us.”
Copyright © 2014 by the Intermountain Jewish News
