EVERLASTING COVENANT: PRESBYTERIANS AND JEWS AT THE CROSSROADS

Sermon Preached by the Rev. Jon M. Walton, Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church, New York City, September 26, 2004

Scripture: Genesis 17:1-8; Romans 11:26-36

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, our highest governing body, met in Richmond, Virginia from June 26th through July 3rd. While most of us were starting to think about vacations, it did what it always does, legislate changes in the Book of Order, commission missionaries, network Presbyterians with one another, demonstrate the diversity and breadth of the church, and allow discussion of important issues facing our world and our faith. It failed once again to recognize that God is more gracious and wise than is Presbyterian polity, because the Assembly both refused to remove G-6.0106b from the Book of Order, the prohibition against the ordination of gay and lesbian persons to the offices of the church, and it refused to remove past Authoritative Interpretations that tighten and make even more specific that prohibition. Shame on the Presbyterian Church for its inability to do the right thing.

But this year, it was not so much what the Assembly didn't do, as what it did do that was so offensive to Presbyterians of good will and hopeful spirit. Four actions of the Assembly have been highly controversial in the Jewish community for their apparent and real insensitivity to the larger issues of interfaith dialogue and religious discussion. The controversy has been widely covered in the Jewish press in this country, by Alan Dershowitz in an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, and by noted writers and legal experts, rabbis, and observers of religion and culture. It has been cocktail talk in Los Angeles and Philadelphia and Chicago, and in places like New York, where Jewish and Presbyterian relations have been carefully, sensitively, and respectfully nurtured for many years. And because of that, these actions of the General Assembly have dealt a serious blow to interfaith dialogue.

In addition, it confuses how we as Christians are to view our Jewish brothers and sisters. It picks the scab off the question of whether the everlasting covenant to Abraham has been cancelled by a new covenant and whether Paul was wrong in his understanding that Gentiles and Jews together are included in that covenant. What did the Assembly say and do in these four actions?

The first issue has to do with a so-called messianic congregation, a new church development in Philadelphia, called Avodat Yisrael. The church is an outreach to unaffiliated Jews, people in interfaith marriages and secularized people of Jewish heritage and invites them to recognize Jesus as the messiah, convert to Christianity, yet still observe Jewish religious and cultural practices. If you were to worship at Avodat Yisrael, you might wonder whether you are in synagogue worship or church worship. The Torah for instance, would be reverenced as in Shabbat services when the Torah is taken from the tabernacle. Holidays such as Passover, Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah are all observed at Avodat Yisrael right along with Christmas and Easter. It sounds like an interesting hybrid, the kind of thing that interfaith families do in their own homes, sometimes, a menorah placed in the same room as a crèche, except that the theological inference at Avodat Yisrael is that Judaism, in and of itself, is not enough. One must convert to Christianity in order to fulfill the covenant of salvation.

Historically, Presbyterians have not held that to be the case. Seventeen years ago the General Assembly, in a paper, affirmed that "both the church and the Jewish people are elected by God for witness to the world, and… the relationship of the church to contemporary Jews is based on that gracious and irrevocable election of both." The Assembly also said in that study paper in 1987 that "dialogue is the proper form of witness with Jewish people, since the same scripture that attests to our relationship with God through Jesus Christ also makes clear God's faithfulness to the covenant with Jewish people."

The Assembly, four years later in 1991 adopted a policy on evangelism in which it said that "Christians owe the message of God's salvation in Jesus Christ to every person and every people. But it also said that the church must "make [its] joyful witness to persons of other faiths in the spirit of respect, openness, and honesty." In spite of the offensive underlying assumptions of such a congregation as Avodat Yisrael, the General Assembly did two things. It voted to re-examine and strengthen the relationship between Christians and Jews, with particular attention to its implications for Presbyterian evangelism and new church development. Many had hoped for more decisiveness than that, in fact a rejection of AvodatYisrael as neither Christian nor Jewish, and an abandonment of further support for it. But as it seems to do more and more often, the Assembly voted instead to study the issue.

We have studied homosexuality so many times now you would think we would know something about it. Now we are going to study the everlasting covenant that God has made with the Jews. And I am wondering what it is that we have not yet understood about the words, "everlasting," and "covenant," and "shall not be forgotten." In the meantime, the Assembly did not suspend further funding of messianic new church developments during the time the study is underway. Instead, it affirmed the freedom of such congregations to appeal for funding, thus compounding the problem. In a move that I find particularly duplicitous, when the national staff of the Assembly explained G.A.'s position on this matter, it argued that presbyteries at the local level were really the primary body for approving new church developments not the Assembly, even though the Assembly does grant funds for new church developments on the endorsement of the presbytery.

To me, this represents a convenient reversal of the parallel situation when it comes to the dynamics involved in examining candidates for ordination! In that instance, the GA trumps the recommendations of the presbytery. In regard to our relationships with Jews, the local presbytery trumps the General Assembly! Peculiar, indeed!

The second offensive action at this year's Assembly had to do with the authorization of a plan for "phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel…" The divestment will have to be approved by the General Assembly Council, but the Council carries out the will of the Assembly when the Assembly has spoken on an issue, so we can expect little from the Council to stop its implementation. Past statements by the Assembly have been far more wise and balanced on the topic of Israel and peacemaking. In repeated Assemblies dating back thirty five years, the General Assembly has gone on record deploring the cycle of escalating violence by both Palestinians and Jews, expressing concern about the loss of innocent life. This year on the positive side the Assembly called once again as it has in the past for: an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands; mutual security guarantees; a negotiated, equitable peace; an end to attacks on innocent people on both sides; the United States to be an even handed broker for peace; a United Nations peacekeeping force in Palestine; and, solidarity with our Christian partners in Israel/Palestine.

But in calling for divestment in Israel as a model for leverage and change, the Assembly has acted in a way that only adds to the confusion and the level of inflamed rhetoric. Divestment is a last resort in realpolitik, and it should only be applied if there is some evidence that it will make a difference in the outcome. In South Africa, this divestment policy made a difference in reversing apartheid because it was applied to add pressure in a situation in which many diplomatic and social pressures were joined. But in the case of Israel, divestment is a punitive approach, not at all even handed, addressing a highly volatile situation which is not the same as South Africa or the Sudan, and in which every avenue of negotiation and discussion has not yet been fully exhausted.

In fact, American foreign policy has so ignored Israeli/Palestinian relations in the past four years that American Presbyterians blaming Israel for a failure to reach a peaceful solution with its Palestinian neighbors smacks of the pot calling the kettle unclean. The call of this year's Assembly should rather have been for the active engagement of American leadership in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, without which no peace in the Middle East will ever come. All sides agree on that. Yet no leadership has been forthcoming since the roadmap proposal failed.

The third action of the Assembly was to take a stand against Christian Zionism. Christian Zionists believe that the promises of land given to Abraham are irrevocable and that the contemporary state of Israel maintains a divine right to this land. They also believe that the state of Israel will be the catalyst for the "end times," and the fates of nations will hinge on their support of Israel. Most Biblical scholars give little or no credence to this interpretation which is now popular in the "Left Behind" series of books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins.

Most Christian Zionists consign Jewish people to either the need of mass conversion or mass damnation. In a rare stroke of wisdom this year, the Assembly found that Christian Zionism is not consistent with Reformed Theology and therefore rejected it. But in so doing, it rejected a claim that some Jews believe is true, the idea that the land of Israel is divinely given. It is a sensitive issue that requires dialogue and respectful listening, no matter how much we may disagree, something more substantive than a declaration of denial from a North American Protestant religious group.

Finally, as if the Assembly had not already shot itself in the foot three times, it managed to alienate just about everyone else by calling for the removal of the "separation barrier" between Israel and Palestinian lands. It directed the Stated Clerk of the Assembly to make known its opposition to this wall and the Assembly's desire that no U.S. funds be contributed to its $1.3 billion cost. The wall, in case you have not been noticing, is a 25 foot high concrete wall in many places, with twin fences and trenches in others other parts, which is being built through Palestinian lands. When finished, it will extend 447 miles, of which 120 miles have already been built. Some of it follows the 1967 border between Israel and Palestine, but 90% of it stretches into the West Bank, isolating many thousands of Palestinians.

If it is controversial here, it is incredibly controversial in Israel, and many Israelis believe it to be ill advised. I have to tell you that I agree that the wall is a short term solution to a problem that cannot be solved in this way in the long term. It should not exist. Both as a symbol of oppression, and as a means of dividing people with whom you hope eventually to live in harmony, this is not a helpful development.

On the other hand, as North American Presbyterians we are incapable of fully appreciating the complexity, the ancient hatreds, the modern fears, and the long standing anxieties with which Israelis and Palestinians live every day. Border bombings have been reduced dramatically since the wall was begun, a fact that many Israelis point to as a justification for it. But that we could unilaterally and without dialogue tell these people, over whom we suffer and for whom we agonize, how it is that they should resolve their differences is the height of chutzpah, if not downright stupidity. Some Israeli and many Jewish people in this country have said as much, and rightly so. Walls, in this case do not make good neighbors, but neither do self-righteous pronouncements from distantly removed parties who live in relative safety.

There isn't anyone who cares about the Middle East who is not gravely concerned these days. Presbyterians' concern and involvement in the Middle East has a long history. For the most part it has been a measured, reasoned, constructive, and positive history. Dialogue and respectful difference have marked Presbyterian and Jewish relationships for a long, long time. In the case of this year's General Assembly, however, poorly informed decisions, borne of a volatile world situation, and a break with the spirit of past decisions and declarations of the Assembly, added to poor communication and interpretation of the Assembly's action, has led to a poisoned environment in Presbyterian/Jewish relationships at the local level.

The Assembly has seriously damaged in one fell swoop what many of us have spent a lifetime trying to build up. Because so many of you are personally impacted by and invested in the stance of the Presbyterian church nationally, as active participants in the peace movement of our denomination, as partners in a Jewish/Presbyterian marriage or committed relationship, as visitors who wonder about the Christian view of other faiths, especially Judaism; and because in this cosmopolitan city there are many Jewish converts to Christianity and Christian converts to Judaism who may care deeply about the church's view of Judaism, let me say a few brief things about what I believe our faith is, and how we as Presbyterians at First Church relate to our Jewish brothers and sisters in this community.

First, we understand God's covenant to Abraham, renewed to Isaac and Jacob, remembered by David , echoed by Isaiah and Jeremiah , and passed down to all generations is indeed everlasting. God's word is bedrock. And the promise of an everlasting covenant that shall be to all generations and shall not be forgotten, still stands. Because God has promised to honor that covenant, we do too.

Second, a Messianic congregation, well intended as it may be as a bridge between Judaism and Christianity, is by nature a house divided against itself which takes neither tradition seriously enough. The deep and abiding roots of respectful difference between Jews and Christians are glossed over in such congregations and both faiths are left the less because of their amalgamation. Paul is at some pains to explore and explain this in his letter to the Romans which is where the Assembly will need to focus some of its attention when it finally gets down to studying the matters involved in how a congregation which honors its Jewish identity can celebrate Easter while the same congregation with a Christian identity, observes Yom Kippur. They are very different theologies of Atonement!

Third, I think it is clear that the Session of this church has been and continues to be deeply committed to interfaith community and mutual respect. My rabbinical colleagues at the Conservative Synagogue of Fifth Avenue and the Village Temple have been friends in ministry and in faith to me and to my predecessors long before I came to this church. In recent days a Jewish congregation Ohel Ayalah has observed the high holy days in the South Wing and we hope that they will continue to find a home here, as did the New Shul Congregation before it. This church holds joint services on Thanksgiving Eve with other Christian and Jewish communities in the Village and all of us are glad for the opportunity to worship God together. I have conducted wedding ceremonies with Jewish colleagues in this city and in previous parishes, and I look forward to doing so long into the future. Many of our households represent the blending of Jewish and Christian faiths, and I see that as one of the gifts of being in this great city, seeing that kind of joyful blending of lives in a setting where mutual respect and faithful difference are treasured as the gifts of God in our lives, the joyful creation of a God who brings diverse people together, delights to be known by many names, and who is made known in ways that challenge the deepest of human description and reflection.

I have to believe that the General Assembly for all of its desire to help the situation has, in spite of its best intentions, worsened them, in part by not communicating better what it meant, and in part by speaking before it had given adequate time to reflect on its actions. It is not the first time the Assembly has acted ill advisedly, nor will it be the last. But we as a congregation will, as best we can, strive as we have in the past to be a place of hospitality where Jew and Gentile alike may seek after God with earnestness of purpose and openness of heart.

I pray that this church will be a place where people of all faiths may know that we are not closed to anyone of any faith who, in good spirit and respectful inquiry, encourages one another in love; where such respectful dialogue occurs that the Spirit of Christ is made manifest and the truth is made known. So we look to honor the great head of the church, our Jewish brother Jesus, whom we know as God's child and as our savior. In his spirit and in his name, we must not ignore the deep soil of our Jewish roots. We are meant to sink deeper those roots in community with our friends, our brothers and sisters, our husband, our wife, our partner, our children in the one faith by which the common covenant is given, that God shall be our God, and we shall be God's people, and that that covenant shall be an everlasting covenant to all generations that shall not be forgotten.

Copyright, Jon M. Walton, 2004.

For further information about PCJCR please email Charles Henderson.