This week, SoF contributors were asked to consider responding to an article entitled, “Presbyterians Against Israel” posted last week by Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper in the Wall Street Journal. As a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and as someone who has researched the denomination’s involvement in this Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I decided to risk more words on this highly inflammatory topic. While I have a strong opinion on this issue that I may explain later, right now I am only concerned supporting following claim: there is a need for a method of interfaith dialogue that can endure strong difference.

In article linked above, Hier and Cooper point to statements by the PC(USA) on Israel as contributing to the deterioration of Jewish-Christian/interfaith relations worldwide. There are two problems with this:

First, Hier and Cooper, in their assessment of the PC(USA), are occasionally misinformed. Several statements are taken out of context, or are not the accurate and current view of the denomination – and I will go into this briefly.

Second, and more importantly, is their assumption that interfaith relations hinges on, or can only be maintained through, glossing over major differences between religious groups.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) and Israel

While Hier and Cooper claim that the Presbyterians are harming Jewish-Christian relations, neither writer seem to pay much attention to arguing this in such a way that will further interfaith relations, which is what they claim to be concerned with.

For example, they quote a unpublished statement made by the PC(USA) Middle East Study Committee in February without explaining the actual official actions taken by the governing body of the denomination later in the year. They also imply Presbyterians are anti-Jewish because they have critiqued the State of Israel’s actions, failing to admit that some within the Jewish community have similiar critiques. There are several other instances where I notice departures from what I have read in PC(USA) statements, or would take issue with their argumentative structure, but I will stop here. The point is that, from my perspective, this is a polemic against the convictions of the PC(USA), not a good analysis of the denomination’s stance on the Israel.

I should add that while I don’t think Hier and Cooper do the denomination justice, the PC(USA) is far from flawless in its official dealings with Israel and the Jewish people. It is not just far from flawless – at times it has been dangerously flawed. Regardless, the denomination has shown evidence of being aware of its mistakes and has worked, and continues to work, to balance its convictions and external relationships.

Having made all of these caveats, I think it is quite evident that the denomination has deep convictions regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict and has presented critiques of Israeli policy and military actions towards Palestinians. While I continue to question the value of making denominational statements, I support this conviction within my denomination. (Again, I may choose to explain my personal perspective on this issue later.)

More info: There are decades of history on this, but here is a recent report, “Breaking Down the Walls”, passed by the General Assembly of the PC(USA) and, if you are just interested in a summary of this report, click here.

On the need for inter-religious dialogue that endures difference

If religious groups cannot openly share their convictions and listen to one another, then inter-religious dialogue does not actually exist. Hier and Cooper seem not only to be incorrectly reporting on Presbyterian views, they also seem to deny that religious group the right to express their convictions. They claim doing so would only destroy interfaith relations; however, if open and honest sharing of convictions is all that is needed to “destroy” interfaith relations, then said relations were superficial in the first place.

Dialogue can only exist when both parties are able to share their convictions honestly and, most importantly, are able to listen to one another. If inter-religious dialogue hinges entirely on sharing commonalities, then it will break as soon as strong difference is encountered.

I too often think that “inter-religious dialogue” looks like a celebration of commonality. Celebrating commonality is sometimes a nice and justified thing to do, but it is not called dialogue – it is called a party. Inter-religious dialogue occurs when equal exchange takes place between different religious traditions. It occurs when traditions are able to be open and honest about their convictions, not sugar coating their beliefs in order to take a family picture. Lastly, it occurs when both parties will hear each other out. Change of heart does not need to occur, but listening does.

If we build superficial interfaith relationships, it should come to no surprise that they will fall apart when difference is encountered. It is now time to move past the rose-colored idea that sharing similarities will solve all problems and accept the reality that difference exists. And it is time that we strengthen and improve inter-religious relationships on a grassroots level. A dialogue that endures difference is needed.

——–

While the members on the inter-religious work group I sit in my not share my views, their perspectives (some of which are based off of interfaith dialogue experiences that cover more years than my lifetime) have influenced my own. I am thankful for their willingness to share experiences.