The Presbyterian Assembly, Israel, and Palestine (a Review)

The 218^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has come and gone. I have observed it from a distance only. Throughout the week, I found myself almost pitying the commissioners to this meeting because they faced a daunting array of issues, because many of these issues were controversial to say the least, and because they (of necessity) lacked the requisite information to make wise decisions on all of them. Individual commissioners were, naturally, well informed on certain topics, but it would be highly unusual for them to have been competent across the whole spectrum of issues before them. In many cases commissioners were compelled to rely on the information provided to them either by special interest groups, publications, or most likely PC(USA) staff with agendas of their own. In short, every single commissioner was voting in the dark on at least some issues. But that is a hazard of current Presbyterian polity and cultural ethos, and it is not distinct from the hazard faced by many other denominations.

In the middle of this, commissioners were once again required to address the Israeli / Palestinian dispute. Of political situations in the world, this is one of the more contentious and controversial; it also among the most complicated. It is a situation in which it is far easier to cause harm than to do good. Well intended statements and actions are not enough; these must also be fair and helpful. The best way to insure this is to first do no harm; commissioners would have been well advised to prioritize making absolutely certain that the statements and actions of this General Assembly were neither unfair nor harmful. Unfortunately, that is not entirely what they seem to have done. The statements and actions of this General Assembly were something of a mixed bag: some very positive steps, others more negative, and an inherent inconsistency in overall policy.

First, let’s examine the positive actions of this GA:

A. Resolution 11–06. The single best action taken by the 218^th General Assembly on the Middle East was the passage of overture 11–06 from the Presbyterian of National Capital asking the GA to:

1. Be a voice for the victims of violence in both Israel and Palestine. We ask PC(USA) members, congregations, committees, and other entities to become nonpartisan advocates for peace. As such, we will not over-identify with the realities of the Israelis or Palestinians. Instead we will identify with the need for peacemaking voices in the midst of horrific acts of violence and terror.

2. Focus our energy on the United States government, demanding that it assume an intensive and unrelenting role as a peacemaker, bringing together the opposing parties in forums where reasonable people can reach reasonable compromises about highly complex issues.

3. Condemn all acts of violence against innocent civilians. We will avoid taking broad stands that simplify a very complex situation into a caricature of reality where one side clearly is at fault and the other side is clearly the victim.

This action is a clear call for balance – and a drastic turn away from singular, inaccurate blame-placing and toward offering effective help. It specifically mentions PC(USA) members, congregations, committees, and other entities – which pretty much covers the entire apparatus of the denomination. It specifically rejects partisanship; and it specifically rejects over-identification with one side in the conflict.

One might be tempted to think such a call for balance and fundamental fairness would be reasonably non-controversial for a church. One would, apparently, be wrong. This overture, while approved by the General Assembly, was advised against by the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy. Instead, the GA was urged by the ACSWP to (among other things) “Observe that in the current dynamics of the Palestinian/Israeli situation, the voices of our Arab brothers and sisters, both Christian and Muslim, are muted, thus creating distorted perceptions of the reality on the ground;” and to “Lift up the example of President Jimmy Carter, as a person of faith, for his efforts to promote peace in the Middle East by opening channels of communication…”.

B. Resolution 11–28. The 218^th General Assembly also passed a resolution that called for the formation of “a nine-member committee from a broad spectrum of viewpoints from PC(USA) members to prepare a comprehensive study, with recommendations, that is focused on Israel/Palestine within the complex context of the Middle East. The study should include an evaluation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s mission and relationships, including an assessment of the future for the Christian presence and witness in the Middle East, an overview of the complex interactions among religions, cultures, and peoples that characterize the region, an analysis of U.S. policies that impact the area, and steps to be taken with our partners in the Middle East and the United States to foster justice, improve interfaith relations, and nurture the building of peace toward a secure and viable future for all, and report back to the 219th General Assembly (2010).”

If this resolution does not miscarry, and if the nine members selected by the moderators of the current and two prior general assemblies do actually reflect a broad spectrum of viewpoints, such a study will be enormously beneficial. It is precisely this lack of broad perspective that has undermined Presbyterian attempts at speaking to this issue in the past. When all of the people one hears from as a denomination have as a pre-condition for speaking a requirement that they agree with a pre-determined course, one will, unsurprisingly, hear exactly what one wants to. This has the potential to add depth to Presbyterian resources on the Middle East.

C. The disapproval of some overtures. Sometimes choosing not to do something can be a very sound decision. That is the case with several overtures the 218^th General Assembly rejected. One declined overture called for a “temporary suspension of military aid to Israel” and included in its rationale the statement, “Since 1948, Israeli government policy has caused enormous pain and suffering to the Palestinians in their own land by continual, unrelenting human rights violations.” Though some attempts at balance are made, the very “caricature of reality” rejected in item 11–06 is indulged here in spades. The PC(USA)’s Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy recommended approving this overture with modifications. These included the removal of the lines, “Reaffirm the right of Israel to exist,” and, “Deplore suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks.” In the place of the second removed line, the ACSWP suggested, “Encourage the United States and all parties to the current ‘Annapolis’ Peace Talks to negotiate in good faith, mindful of the enormous disparities in power and economic capacity between Israel and the Palestinians and the injustice, despair, and violence that has followed sidelining of previous peace agreements.” Fortunately, the GA had the good sense to reject both the initial overture and the ACSWP’s advice.

A second rejected overture called for what amounts to an escalation of the divestment policy of 2004 – specifically encouraging Presbyterian “congregations and individuals to reflect on their investments in light of biblical and theological principles” and to have the MRTI “suggest possible actions persons might take in light of those reflections.”

The 218^th General Assembly also wisely resisted the call of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy to endorse Nadia Abu El-Haj.

Second, the action of the 218^th General Assembly that was not so helpful:

Resolution 11–01. The General Assembly passed a kind of ‘omnibus’ resolution in response to a number of overtures. With the exception of one rejected clause, this was a resolution written entirely by the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy. It is in some instances confusing, in other instances misguided, and in points is at variance with other actions of the 218^th General Assembly.

Section 1. Affirms an obligation of the church to speak to ALL governments where it sees them violating the commandments of God. Yet the PC(USA) does not so speak. Name those governments … how many does it issue statements about? How many statements have we had about China? About human rights abuses in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria? Yes, there have been statements about Sudan and Apartheid South Africa, but, in the main, criticisms of the governments of other nations have been absent. Don’t rely on assurances that we do, in fact, make such statements – compare the actual numbers and severity of these statements. You will find that those directed specifically at Israel outnumber those directed at ALL other nations except the US. Given the fact that the PC(USA) is in the USA its focus on US violations of commandments of God is defensible. How then does it justify its singular focus on Israeli actions? Or is just that the PC(USA) ONLY sees violations of the commandments of God in Israel – or more precisely, when they’re committed by Israeli Jews?

Section 2. Calls for “commitment to the imperatives of ecumenical solidarity”. What does this phrase actually mean? Is it commitment to the statements and actions of our partners – even when these employ the most loathsome anti-Jewish rhetoric?

Section 3. Directs appropriate offices of the GAC to provide resources on justice and peace in Israel and Palestine. It specifically mentions using back issues of Church and Society and other existing materials "to interpret such matters as Mission Responsibility Through Investment, the status of Jerusalem, the impact of the security barrier (or “wall”), etc."

The problem with this directive is that it overlooks the fact that the ACSWP and Church and Society are tainted by their use of anti-Judaic and anti-Jewish themes. The ACSWP and Church & Society have essentially demonstrated an inability to speak wisely to this issue. I refer you, for example, to an article in the May/June 2004 issue of Church & Society – written by Robert Hamerton-Kelly in which he compares Paul’s conversion from his violent Jewish background to Baruch Goldstein’s lack of such a conversion:

“This genial old mans asks the question, “Why do we celebrate Passover?” He then answers his own question: “Because God killed the firstborn children of the Egyptians and told us to mark the doorposts of our houses with the blood of the lamb so that the angel of death might pass us over.” I was appalled and thought immediately of two things: 1) That this gave the children permission to kill those who were not like them, and 2) That the Apostle Paul had been such a child and then such a rabbi.

“If … one does not allow oneself to be distracted, one will observe that Paul’s life is all about violence and religion and that the most important event in all of human history is that fortunate incident on the Damascus road.

“We cannot penetrate the divine content of this event, but we can map its sociological form and its psychological dynamic. Briefly stated, Paul realized that his religious zeal had made him a violent man and therefore he changed communities, passing from the community of the persecutors to the community of the persecuted, from the religious to the irreligious.

“Nothing happened on [Goldstein’s] way to the mosque that morning to reveal to him the violence of his religion and dissuade him from his plan. He made it to Damascus as it were, without incident. PERHAPS HE ALREADY KNEW THE VIOLENCE OF HIS RELIGION and affirmed it in the name of Yahweh, God of Battles, Israel’s divine champion and licenser of mayhem.”

Another issue of Church & Society features Rev. Victor Makari saying:

“It is ironic that, in the Judaeo[sic]-Christian milieu of this nation, the church’s appeals, for over five decades, to the convictions of faith, to the biblical mandate of justice, and to moral consciousness have fallen largely on deaf ears. But when Mammon was aroused, flood gates of anger broke loose.”

The fact that the ACSWP continues to commend this as a resource for Presbyterians today to learn about the Middle East draws its credibility into serious question. This anti-Jewish bias issue has plagued the ACSWP for a number of years and can be seen in such incidents as the fawning praise offered to Hezbollah by a former ACSWP chairperson and in the flaws present in the 2004 policy it crafted.

Section 5. Encourages Presbyterian individuals, congregations, and councils to take pilgrimages and trips to Israel and Palestine that are in harmony with our principles. It proceeds to recommend that such pilgrimage opportunities be “assisted and resourced as feasible by the General Assembly Council, mission personnel, the Israel/Palestine Network, and our ecumenical partners in the region …”.

This recommendation is, of course, good in itself, but once again, it overlooks the historic anti-Jewish and anti-Israel biases demonstrated by a number of representatives of these groups that render an unbiased experience impossible. Many Presbyterians have traveled to the Middle East with arrangements made by these persons and offices – and have returned to the US to provide essentially one-sided information to their churches and presbyteries (in some cases even producing films) – all the while believing they have seen an accurate picture.

For example, in 2006 the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program brokered such a pilgrimage for a hundred Presbyterians from thirty-three presbyteries. They heard from four whole speakers who represented a mainstream Israeli opinion. They heard from fourteen speakers who favored divestment (or were, in many cases, blatantly anti-Israel).

[On one side (representing a more mainstream Israeli opinion), these 2006 pilgrims hear from Rabbi Kelman, Rabbi Retting, Rabbi Melchior, Dr. Lerman all on one day. On the other side (representing a pro-divestment, pro-Palestinian, or in cases anti-Israeli opinion),they heard from Angela Godfrey-Goldstein (Action Advocacy Officer from The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD)), Ms. Naela Kharoub (principal of Dar Al-Kalima – who attributed violence to house demolitions and the scrutiny of Israeli soldiers), Mr. Hussain Shaheen (a former UNRWA Camp Director), Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb (one source of 2004 divestment initiative), Dr. Mahdi Abd Al-Hadi (the founder of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs), Ms. Roni Ben Efrat (Editor of Challenge, “a bi-monthly leftist magazine focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within a global context” (description from http://www.challenge-mag.com )), Dr. Jad Isaac (the director general of the Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem), Ms. Allegra Pacheco (chief of the Information and Advocacy Unit for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), a play directed by Mohammed Awwad, Riah, Abu El-Assal (the then embattled Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of the Jerusalem and the Middle East - who in 2003 reportedly made the extraordinary claim that Palestinian martyrs “live in the kingdom of heaven.”), Terry Rempel (a founding member of BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency & Refugee Rights), Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek (founder of the Sabeel Ecumenical Palestinian Liberation Theology Center), Ms. Ingrid Jaradat Gassner (director of BADIL), Bishop Dr. Munib Younan. Now it goes without saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with many of these speakers – but this could hardly be construed as an even remotely balanced presentation.]

The bottom line is that while the 218^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) made certain very positive moves toward a more balanced and responsible approach toward Middle East peacemaking, it also undercut many of these moves with other resolutions. The movement toward balance is very real and ought to be applauded. However, if the PC(USA) is hoping to address its problems with systemic anti-Israel bias, toleration of anti-Judaic themes, and sometimes blatant anti-Jewish polemic, it will need to move considerably farther than it has done in this assembly. It has left in place many of the items that were marred by such bias and themes, and it has actually affirmed many of the organizations, offices of the church, committees, and employees who have indulged and encouraged such biases.

Will Spotts

Presbyterian Lawsuits

Were I given to giddy optimism, I would hope that commissioners to the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), a multi-billion dollar corporation, didn't understand what they were doing. Maybe it will occur to them and they will reconsider the action; that possibility does still exist. But I am not given to such fantasies, and I know that if this action remains unchanged it will tarnish this assembly's moral character beyond all repair.

I refer you to assembly action 03-21, "Commissioners’ Resolution. On Sharing Costs of Legal Defense in Our Connectional System of Government."


That the 218th General Assembly (2008) do the following:

1. Provide funds to the Office of General Assembly for the purpose of sharing the cost of legal fees defending our Constitution against the New Wineskins Non-geographic Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and a group which has joined that denomination.
2. From these funds, reimburse the Presbytery of Northern New England for half of all of its remaining legal costs up to a maximum of $185,000.
3. That the Office of the General Assembly establish and promote an Extra Commitment Opportunity (ECO) account that will be the source of this support and welcomes contributions from the whole church.

The language of the resolution's rationale claims to be about "defending the freedom of religion". It goes on to describe the specific situation behind the request: legal actions between the Presbytery of Northern New England and Londonderry Presbyterian Church. Apparently, the rhetoric employed persuaded commissioners - who already passed a number of actions hostile to the EPC.

However, one small detail was omitted from this commissioners' resolution - that I really wish those who voted to support it DO NOT KNOW.

The lawsuits described - that the PC(USA) is being instructed to fund (and that PNNE has already been entirely funding with a little help from the Office of the General Assembly) include a suit against individual trustees of a local congregation.

I can't help but wonder if commissioners to the 218th General Assembly honestly consider it right, or just, or in any possible sense of the word, Christian, to instruct a massive corporation to fund lawsuits against individual trustees of local churches.

I can't even say this makes me angry - though I consider it unjust and mean spirited and wrong - I'm just horribly sad for the PC(USA) today.

My God says, "Let My people go and worship Me." What does your God say?

Two More Reactions to Presbyterian Interfaith Document

For those interested in the topic, I came across two more reactions by non-Presbyterians to the PC(USA)'s recent revision (gutting) of its paper on anti-Jewish bias.



Christianity Today featured a piece by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, "The Presbyterians Giveth, the Presbyterians Taketh Away" He addresses most of the problematic issues in the second document and in the act of replacement itself. He begins with a rather startling comparison:

"Think back some 40 years to the release of Nostra Aetate, the revolutionary Vatican document that inexorably changed the nature of Catholic-Jewish relations. It firmly confronted old church attitudes and teachings that Jews suffered under for centuries. It unequivocally asserted the historical and theological dignity of the Jewish people.

Imagine if, a week later, Pope Paul VI stood on the porch of Castel Gandolfo and announced, "There has been a terrible misunderstanding. All we meant is that when we complain, as we must from time to time, about price-gouging around Christmas by pushy Jewish merchants (by that we only mean some of them, of course), we should not go so far as to blame them for the crucifixion. That hurts their feelings.""

Dexter Van Zile provides a thorough treatment in "Presbyterian Officials Prepare for General Assembly With Bait and Switch Tactics." He examines in detail one example of anti-Jewish bias in Presbyterian materials directly mentioned in the first "Vigilance" document. (Specifically, Van Zile explores the sources embedded in the overture to the 2004 General Assembly, "On Confronting Christian Zionism".) He also provides some other examples of compromised PC(USA) resources. Sadly, this is far from an exhaustive or even representative list - the sheer number of such items makes such a list prohibitive. However, Van Zile's article is an excellent starting place for those who seriously wish to investigate the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s anti-Jewish problem.

Will Spotts

The PC(USA) Interfaith Plot Thickens

While Presbyterian News Service coordinator, Rev. Jerry L. Van Marter, was quoted opining about how “the Jewish groups go nuts”, it seems Stated Clerk Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick and General Assembly Council executive director Linda Valentine decided to adopt a somewhat different approach. They wrote a letter to Dr. Sheingold, Rabbi Epstein, and Rabbi Yoffie. It is available here.

It is, in essence, an invitation to future dialogue on the (apparently generic) Christian teachings of contempt for Jews and Judaism, on the demands for justice for Israelis and Palestinians, and on (unspecified) matters that may come out of the General Assembly.

OFFICIALS IN THE PC(USA) TAKE STEPS TO FURTHER ALIENATE JEWISH GROUPS

Yes indeed, the PC(USA) has reacted with lightning speed to display its sensitivity to the very real concerns of many in the Jewish community about Presbyterian anti-Jewish bias.

A number of Presbyterians – in an effort to be fair minded – have asked for an explanation of the replacement of the May 2008 version of the PC(USA)’s Office of Interfaith Relations paper on vigilance against anti-Jewish bias with a vastly different June effort.

Director of the Presbyterian News Service Jerry Van Marter has provided comments that will no doubt enlighten the world about the thinking of influential Presbyterian insiders. The Presbyterian News Service, while editorially independent, is, nonetheless an official news agency of the PC(USA) and is accountable to the General Assembly Council and ultimately to the General Assembly. Its status as an official news agency necessitates that it reflects on the PC(USA) as a whole.

Jerry Van Marter, coordinator of the Presbyterian News Service, suggested Jewish critics were overreacting.

“The Jewish groups go nuts every time we make any statement they interpret as favorable to Palestine or the Palestinians,” Van Marter told NJJN.

Van Marter said church leaders amended their first statement “to make it more balanced, and apparently it still doesn’t satisfy our Jewish friends. It is tough for Presbyterians because there is a Christian population in the occupied territories. The Christians are a very small minority, and they are shrinking because they are caught in the crossfires. The Presbyterian Church understands precisely why Jewish groups are upset, because we refuse to be one-sided. We’ve been on record for a two-state solution for 60 years now.”

Still, said Van Marter, Presbyterians are not of one mind about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Van Marter’s comments appear in the New Jersey Jewish News.

In all honesty, I have nothing to say in response to this except that I find it truly unbelievable.

Will Spotts

Reactions to the PC(USA)’s Revised Antisemitism Document

A variety of people have responded to the recent revision of the document produced by the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Office of Interfaith Relations. I would like to highlight a couple of these responses.

The May document can be found here. The June document is available here.

First, I must point out that it is commonplace among churches embracing anti-Israel activism to emphasize Jewish support for their actions and statements. Usually examples of fringe groups and individuals are employed for this purpose. But the fact remains that broad-based Jewish groups have all criticized the antisemitic overtones present in this church sponsored activism. The PC(USA)’s May document acknowledged and rejected this antisemitic element; their June document did not. This is not a matter of support for Israel or Palestine – contrary to what some may assert; it is not a matter of taking sides in the conflict; it is not a matter of trying to simplify a very complex situation. Instead, the important feature is whether or not mainline US denominations are saying antisemitism is OK with them. The members of these denominations need to make a decision – whether or not they will tolerate their church involvement in the propagation of hate.

1. The President of the Union for Reform Judaism, the Executive Vice President of United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, and the Executive Vice President of the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation released a letter to Rev. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick. Among other things they indicated:

“Candor compels us to respond immediately and clearly to the “expanded” and “revised” publication of “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias,” and to tell you as plainly as we know how that the new statement marks a new low-point in Presbyterian-Jewish relations.”

They went on to say:

“The revised statement, which is currently prominently displayed on your website, does more to excuse anti-Semitism and foster anti-Jewish motifs then it does to dispel them.”

And

“Friends, or even dialogue partners, do not engage in actions that can so easily and plausibly be seen as "bait and switch" tactics.””

2. Another communication was issued jointly by the American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; Anti-Defamation League; B'nai B'rith International; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Hadassah: The Women's Zionist Organization

Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; The Rabbinical Assembly; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Union for Reform Judaism; Women's League for Conservative Judaism; and the Women of Reform Judaism.

“"We are deeply distressed by the revisions made to the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s recent statement calling for "Vigilance against anti-Jewish ideas and bias."

The revised statement is infused with the very bias that the original statement condemned. We are disappointed that after taking steps toward better relations, the church has rescinded many of the positive statements it made about rooting out anti-Jewish invective. It is even more disturbing that this occurs after Jewish groups had warmly welcomed the original statement, and only days before the church's upcoming biennial. As such, we can no longer welcome its publication and must rescind the letters and statements in which we welcomed the original document.

We resent the implication in the revised statement that some Jewish criticism of Israeli policy justifies the PC(USA)'s one-sided stances. It does not. There is legitimate criticism of Israeli policies that comes from both Christians and Jews. However, some criticism crosses the line. Sadly, many PC(USA) statements have and continue to cross this line.

A 2004 policy stated that Israeli occupation is "at the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides of the conflict." A 2007 church teaching resource claims a two-thousand-year continued Christian presence in the Holy Land, but writes Jews out of the history until the middle of the twentieth century. A 2008 church statement termed the rockets that Hamas has fired into Israeli civilian areas as "provocative acts of retaliation." The newly revised statement on anti-Jewish bias describes Israel as "the oppressive force in the Israeli-Palestinian situation," dismissing the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish terror that has killed and maimed Israeli civilians in buses, restaurants, and markets. Each statement and action moves beyond legitimate criticism and rewrites history or assigns excessive blame to Israelis, even for violence directed against them.

A further example of blaming Jews for that which harms us is the revised language on Palestinian liberation theology. Gone is language recognizing that such theology presents "unique problems" and is "troubling in its demonization of Israel." Instead, the burden is shifted to Jews who, the statement claims, "inevitably construe" calling the Jewish state a crucifying power as anti-Jewish. We know that we do not shoulder alone our horror over statements by liberation theologians such as "the Israeli government crucifixion machine is operating daily," or "Israel has placed a large boulder, a big stone that has metaphorically shut off the Palestinians in a tomb, similar to the stone placed on the entrance of Jesus' tomb" or "security is a pagan god that Israel worships." Christians and all people of good will also construe such rhetoric as echoing classic anti-Jewish accusations.

The revised statement inserts a litany of church policies against Israel, including targeting corporations for "engagement" as a viable approach to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No recent church policy has caused greater harm to Presbyterian-Jewish relations. In contrast, the church has yet to take any action to "engage" corporations that foster anti-Israel terrorism through investment in state sponsors of terror, including Iran and Syria. This demonstrates a continued one-sided and distressing approach to peacemaking.

The revised statement also adds a most troubling interpretation of the biblical promise of land. The original statement recognized both a universal gift of land and one made specifically to the Jewish people. This is replaced with a re-interpretation that the Jewish covenant instead includes a promise of land to "the Jewish people and to all the descendants of Abraham."

In June 2006, Jewish organizations broadly welcomed the call for a "new season of mutual understanding and dialogue" issued by the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). In January 2007, after the issuance of an anti-Israel PC(USA) statement, we questioned whether that new season had arrived. Today, we note with profound hurt that the season for which we continue to hope has indeed not yet arrived."”

3. A variety of Presbyterians have also responded negatively to this tactic – which is troubling on many levels. I lack the space to reproduce these here, but I think their concerns are well expressed in this letter to Presbyweb written by Rev. John Wimberly:

The decision by the PCUSA to release a revised statement on Anti-Semitism, totally undermining the previous statement, is the most disappointing development in interfaith relations in my 34 years of ministry. I simply don't know how we can release a document, receive high praise from the Jewish community, withdraw it and release a new document which profoundly angers the Jewish community and all of us who have spent a lifetime trying to build trust between Presbyterians and the Jewish community. This is beyond bad process. This is bad ministry. Who will trust our words in the future? Why should they?

John Wimberly

Pastor, Western Presbyterian Church

Washington, D.C.

VIGILANCE AGAINST VIGILANCE

How the PC(USA) Inoculates Itself against Awareness of its Institutional Anti-Jewish Biases

June of 2008 is a sad month for Presbyterians and for all those who reject bias and prize fairness. I say this in all sincerity: I am truly sad for my Presbyterian friends and for the many decent people who retain affiliation with the PC(USA). Before this month is out, there will likely be a good half dozen reasons for faithful Presbyterians to call it sad – but I will not comment on most of them. I will, however, oppose those things that originate in the PC(USA) that cause active harm to others; and one such action has already occurred this month – without benefit even of a General Assembly.

Early in May the Office of Interfaith Relations of the corporation The Presbyterian Church (USA) released a statement, “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias”. It was a truly remarkable effort. I commented on this document a month ago: I found it to display a high level of self-awareness, rare courage, and honesty; I also found it to represent an attempt to remain faithful to Presbyterian concerns for peace and justice while raising the alarm at tendencies toward antisemitism and anti-Jewish bias within the Presbyterian Church (USA) and among a number of Presbyterian allies.

[Sure, the document had a couple of flaws – for example, it cited a 1987 paper as Presbyterian policy when that paper was never actually approved by a General Assembly – it doesn’t really have status. Instead, it was commended to the church for study and reflection. It is often trotted out as an example of Presbyterian sensitivity to Jewish concerns, and it has much to recommend itself – but it only represents that fact that in 1987 certain segments of the institution were concerned with avoiding Christian antisemitism and acknowledging historic wrongs of the church. The Interfaith Office also displayed a rather weak argument to attempt to excuse the use of anti-Judaic themes in support of overtures – that the rationale was not an official part of the action of the General Assembly. Even with flaws, however, this May 2008 document represented both a baby step forward in Presbyterian-Jewish relations and a great leap forward in Presbyterian awareness of antisemitism.]

In May I praised the efforts of the PC(USA)’s Office of Interfaith Relations; I did this against the advice of more seasoned observers of denominational events. I offered praise for two reasons. First, I believe it is important to acknowledge when someone does something that is truly good; this is almost essential when that good action concerns an issue where you have been critical. Second, it was the first good news from a bureaucratic element of a ‘mainline’ denomination I had received in quite a long time. Often large governing meetings may act wisely to mitigate the harmful agendas of their own bureaucracies – as seems to have happened recently at the United Methodist Church’s General Conference votes on policy toward Israelis and Palestinians. But for an actual office of a denomination to painfully acknowledge what is obvious to outside observers is a tremendous development. Nonetheless, given the actions of the PC(USA)’s Office of Interfaith Relations this week, it would be better if they had never released the first statement – no matter how praiseworthy that original statement was.

Early in June the Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of Interfaith relations quietly removed its May document and subsequently replaced it with another bearing the same title. The only clue an unsuspecting reader would have that something had changed would be the date provided – from “May 2008” to “June 2008”. A quick reading, however, demonstrates that these two documents, “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias – May 2008” and “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias – June 2008” are as different as night and day. The June edition is as blameworthy as the May edition was praiseworthy. The June document lacks every one of the signature strengths of the May document.

Alterations to the Original Document

1. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations said:

“However, we are aware and do confess that anti-Jewish attitudes can be found among us.”

In June it omitted this confession and acknowledgement of awareness.

2. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations said:

“Examples of such an anti-Jewish theology can unfortunately be found in connection with PC(USA) General Assembly overtures, such as the overture on Confronting Christian Zionism, adopted by the 216^th General Assembly in 2004. Some of the authors cited in the rationale of the overture make use in their writings of arguments suggesting or declaring that the Jewish people are no longer in covenant with God, or make statements that echo the medieval Christian claim that Jews are to blame for the crucifixion or Christ”

In June it omitted this statement.

3. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations said:

“Similarly, in a few materials that have been circulated by Presbyterians, one finds characterizations of Zionism that distort that movement.”

In June it eliminated the clause, “Similarly, in a few materials that have been circulated by Presbyterians”.

4. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations (of the materials circulated by Presbyterians mentioned above) said:

“The problems and suffering of the Palestinians are attributed solely – and inaccurately – to Zionism alone.”

In June the Office of Interfaith relations decided to omit “and inaccurately”.

5. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations said:

“Moving beyond legitimate denunciation of injustices the state of Israel has committed or may commit, some writing from this [liberation] theological perspective indict the state of Israel as a crucifying power. The introduction of such an emotionally and theologically “loaded” interpretation may vividly express and give meaning to the suffering of the Palestinian people, but it is troubling in its demonization of Israel and the Jewish people and its echoes of ancient Christian anti-Judaism.”

In June it omitted this paragraph. (Yes, it still retains some comment on crucifixion imagery, but it does not acknowledge that such imagery represents a move beyond legitimate denunciation of injustice.)

6. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations cautioned that:

“Presbyterians who read writers speaking about Israel, Palestine, Israeli-Palestinian peace, and related issues (such as Christian Zionism in its various manifestations) must always read with an especially critical eye, alert to any and all anti-Jewish ideas and bias.”

In June it omitted its concern for bias in reading about Christian Zionism, and in a footnote, opportunistically employed a lengthy quote from Rabbi Eric Yoffie offering his disapproval of various specific Christian Zionists.

7. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations said:

“Again, what such Palestinian theologians say offers Presbyterians in the United States an important theological reflection on the Israeli-Palestinian situation from the perspective of Christians affected by it. Yet it remains our responsibility to critique – and not to accept – those statements or ideas within it that are anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic.”

In June, it omitted this assertion of responsibility. Instead, the PC(USA)’s Office of Interfaith Relations discerns a different June responsibility:

“As Presbyterians, we have a very difficult but very important differentiation to make. On the one hand, we are called to support the efforts of Palestinian Christians to speak theologically about what is happening to them at the hands of Israel and as a result of its policies. At the same time, we are also called to discern echoes of, and to confess our own complicity in, the historic condemnation of Jews as “Christ-killers,” and to eschew any such anti-Jewish teaching.”

In other words – Presbyterians no longer seem to have a responsibility to critique the anti-Jewish and antisemitic ideas and themes of their source materials. Instead, they are apparently to eschew calling Jews “Christ-killers” and acknowledge their vague mystical complicity in that historic practice. [The problem here is that the deicide language is being currently applied by many prominent partners of the PC(USA) and repeated by Presbyterians – this fact was clearly acknowledged by the Office of Interfaith Relations in May. The “Christ-killer” language is not, however, often invoked directly by Presbyterians, and it is never invoked directly in the historic sense that appears to be referenced here. In short, a specific caution to Presbyterians about a very real problem is being replaced by vague advice to avoid a no-longer-current problem.]

8. In May the Office of Interfaith Relations asserted:

“Such emphases [as liberation theologians typically employ] express important theological insights. But they can easily resemble Christian supersessionism, for example, by seeming to replace the Jewish people in their own story, or by embracing only the universal application of God’s gift of land in exclusion of God’s particular gift of land to the Jewish people. Or they can seem to repeat classic denunciations of Judaism, for example, through polemic that identifies today’s oppressors as Jewish authorities in the time of Jesus, and so forth.”

In June it amends this statement to read “The same is true of theological statements that embrace only a universal understanding of God’s gift of land, refusing also to acknowledge God’s gift of land to the Jewish people and to all the descendants of Abraham.” In June it also omits its concern for polemic that identifies today’s oppressors as Jewish authorities in the time of Jesus.

Additions to the Original Document

Several things were added to the June version of “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias” that were not present in the May version. Some of these are helpful; others are neutral; still others weaken the original statement.

1. The newly added “summary” begins with the statement, “When speaking or reading about Israel, Palestine, Israeli-Palestinian peace, and related issues, it is our responsibility to stand unwaveringly for justice and peace, even in the face of adverse reactions to our stand.” The paragraph detailing this is larger than the paragraph summarizing the need to avoid antisemitism. This is apparently the primary item in a paper on anti-Jewish ideas and bias.

2. The Office of Interfaith Relations reminds the reader, “Presbyterians can celebrate the witness of our church for peace and justice for Israel and Palestine.”

3. The Office of Interfaith Relations positively identifies “a state that is Jewish” as “the oppressing power” in the Palestinian situation.

Here’s the thing: the witness of the PC(USA) on Middle East issues has been marred at times by four harmful and morally indefensible flaws. These flaws have been indulged by offices, agencies, and representatives of the church and by various institutional Presbyterians.

Presentation of false information. This was not addressed in either document except in the context of distortions of the history of Zionism. It has, however, occurred in numerous PC(USA) sources – without retraction or amendment.

Anti-Israel bias – the treatment of the nation of Israel in a manner distinct from and inferior to the treatment of other nations and/or the application of a higher standard to Israel than that applied to other nations. That this has occurred has been thoroughly documented numerous times.

Theological bias – the use of explicitly Christian theologies and imagery to demonize and denigrate both Israel and the Jewish people. Examples of this were addressed in the May 2008 document. The current document, however, speaks generically – and seeks to justify the practice in a number of cases.

Antisemitism – the invocation of stereotypical libels against the Jewish people – for example, distortions of Zionism, claims that Jews control the media, assertions about the powerful Jewish lobby’s control of American policy. All of these have been seen in PC(USA) sources.

The PC(USA) is not unique in its experience of this problem; it is sadly common to a number of mainline denominations. In May 2008 the PC(USA)’s Office of Interfaith Relations gave every indication that it was courageous taking the initial steps necessary to acknowledge and address this problem. It is profoundly disappointing that this same office now seems to be abandoning those vitally necessary initial steps. Perhaps another of the ‘mainline’ denominations will begin this important process, perhaps not – but it appears we will just have to wait.

Will Spotts

A Matter of Belief (part 1 – I Am a Fundamentalist)

I started this post in March … technically, I was thinking about it last August; but I haven’t gotten around to actually tackling it. I am aware that the concept is narcissistic – to compile a series of self-descriptions of beliefs. This is not a ‘statement of faith’ or a ‘faith journey’; instead it is just a series of explanations of why I believe what I believe about a few topics. My primary reason for doing this is because it has been growing on my mind lately that the posture of commenting on various issues, church happenings, tangentially political figures, and so forth, is a safe one. Sure, my opinions have gained me a few enemies (and a few friends); sure, I’ve been insulted for expressing them beyond what I consider to be reasonable disagreement; sure I’ve acquired a minor reputation. But it isn’t really full disclosure; it doesn’t put out actual beliefs to be subject to the same scrutiny I would apply to the published beliefs of some others. (Yes – I have addressed some of these on a topical basis – but it occurs to me that I need to do so more thoroughly.)

I Am a Fundamentalist

I have been labeled a fundamentalist by a variety of people – some of them employed the term in a friendly, half-way joking, manner; others (less civil) used it as the worst insult their minds seemed capable of forming. Many people compete for the term ‘evangelical’ and attempt to muddy its meaning to the point that it is void of significance. I imagine this is because a large number of people self-identify as evangelical so it forms a ready made ‘voting bloc’. I also imagine many want to sidestep the contempt and malice directed at those associated with the term ‘fundamentalist’. But it occurs to me that we actually need a term to describe a person who holds a particular set of beliefs. Evangelical will no longer suffice. Religious right is inaccurate because it seeks to define religious belief in political rather than theological terms (so that a host of theologies can co-exist on the religious right without the term indicating any specific theological content). Orthodox is a suitable word, but its use by Protestants has been challenged because it has a very different meaning in Eastern Orthodox terms. I have favored traditional Presbyterian (within the Reformed context) but this seems to also communicate a number of things I don’t intend – for example, attachment to worship styles, an insensate resistance to any change, valuing things solely because they are traditions. The bottom line is that I’m running out of terms to use. Since fundamentalist has been applied contemptuously to me, and since people who lob the phrase “fundamentalist Christian” as a withering insult actually (quite imprecisely) mean to indicate someone who believes what I believe, I’m inclined to accept the designation.

Full disclosure: I will not go into the whole history of my church involvement, but I should mention the following. For the largest part of my life, I have had associations with the Presbyterian Church (PC(USA) and predecessors); I was baptized in a Presbyterian Church; my family attended a Presbyterian Church when I was born; I have never been a member of another denomination. My mother, much of her family, and many of my friends belong to the Church of the Nazarene; I attended a Nazarene college; my grandparents and great-grandparents were charter members of the local Nazarene church. I also had, as a child, a long association with fundamentalist Baptists; I did not respond well to this for a variety of reasons; but I must point out that many of these were decent and intelligent people and very sincere Christians.

For me to say, “I am a fundamentalist,” is partly true; but I harbor some hesitancy because I’m aware that many fundamentalists would not own me. The fact is I believe the five ‘fundamentals’ to be true. I do not, however, share all of the beliefs often held by fundamentalists; I am particularly resistant to extra-biblical behavior requirements. I do not believe these can be derived from the plain sense of Scripture, nor do I find the arguments for them to be compelling. [Of course, that same statement would apply to my identification as Reformed – as I would differ on certain points from, say, Westminster. I do not believe it relevant at this stage to enumerate the few differences I perceive between myself and fundamentalists – but they exist.] I am not a dispensationalist – and ‘fundamentalism’ as a whole has come under the influence of dispensational thought. I also acknowledge the possibility that a person may be a Christian and not believe all of the fundamentals. I say this because they are not all equal – certain ones are definitional by necessity to Christianity; others I believe to be correct, but not on the same level of importance. I do share the fundamentalist’s ‘militancy for truth’ [a fundamentalist self-description, of course – but one with which I wholeheartedly concur], and the fundamentalist’s belief in biblical separation.

The Fundamentals

For the sake of the unfamiliar, I need to address the five fundamentals. These are:

1. The inerrancy of Scripture
2. The deity of Jesus (also often listed as the Virgin Birth). [I believe both, so it doesn’t matter much which you choose to list.]
3. The doctrine of the atonement. [This refers to the traditional biblical doctrine of the substitutionary atonement.]
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus. [This is understood as a literal – NOT a metaphorical event – as the early church clearly believed.]
5. The authenticity of miracles.

[I’m not going to argue for these beliefs or provide reasons a person might hold them – except piecemeal (in other writings) as they might happen to be relevant. I have a very particular reason for this omission: there is nothing notably special about these five doctrines that elevates them above any of a host of other Christian beliefs. It will only create confusion to attempt to explain and justify these while not, at the same time, attempting to explain and justify all of Christianity.]

Misconceptions seem to abound about the function of “the fundamentals” and the reason for which they were enumerated. Whether these misconceptions spring from a lack of information, from active malice, or from some combination of both, I couldn’t say. Whatever the case, it seems to me to be needful to address a few such misconceptions.

1. Fundamentalists believe only in the five fundamentals. This is a patently absurd statement. The “fundamentals” are decidedly NOT a confession of faith or a creed. They are NOT even a list of essential tenets. They were explicitly stated because these were the Christian beliefs being most frequently challenged. This challenge did not spring primarily from non-Christians, but from people purporting to be Christian, to be speaking for the church, and to be saying what Christianity teaches. Given these were departures from millennia of Christian teaching, the formulation of the fundamentals was an assertion that these prevalent new teachings were incorrect.

I must confess, I have some difficulty understanding the perspective of those who hold this notion. Does anyone really imagine that fundamentalists believe, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the five fundamentals and believe in thine heart that they are true, though shalt be saved”? I can assure you that fundamentalist do not sit around contemplating the mysteries of the big five week after week in their worship services. I can assure you they do not elevate these five above other definitionally Christian teachings.

If you doubt this, I would ask why, for example, Machen disliked the term ‘fundamentalist’ – saying the use of the term implied that they were arguing for something other than historic Christianity. I would ask why, for example, did the World Christian Fundamentals Association adopt more than a dozen ‘fundamentals’? And why did the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship do the same? And why have fundamentalists historically defined their movement as, “militant belief and proclamation of the basic doctrines of Christianity leading to a Scriptural separation from those who reject them”? A reader may dislike these statements, but his or her opinion doesn’t change the fact that a claim that fundamentalists reduce Christianity to five postulates is insupportable.

2. Fundamentalism is a reaction to progress and modernity. While this is certainly a helpful conception for those who seek to discredit historic Christianity – by calling it fundamentalism and aligning fundamentalism with a regressive impulse – it is not, strictly speaking, true. Fundamentalism had and has no opposition to progress or modernity; it does, however, oppose progressivISM and modernISM. Progress and modernity are facts (though one could, of course, debate the level of real progress actually enjoyed by humankind); progressivism and modernism, on the other hand, are philosophies. Fundamentalism AND historic Reformed Christianity are both opponents to the philosophies of progressivism and modernism. That opposition between these philosophies is the issue can be clearly seen both in Machen’s book, Christianity and Liberalism, and in the reactions fundamentalists get from progressives and modernists (and today, post-modernists, but that is a separate topic).

Here again, the draw of this argument eludes me – because it is startlingly weak. It is self-evident that fundamentalism objects to these two philosophies, not to modernity or progress themselves. If the confusion is legitimate, the only rationale I can imagine strikes me as rather bizarre: the idea that modernism and progressivism are in fact evidence of progress and modernity. It would be viewed that the particular philosophies and ideas embraced by these words were themselves advances. In other words, it is progress to be progressive; it is modern to be a modernist. I cannot imagine the person conceited enough to actually believe this – but aside from the narcissism it entails, the belief itself is problematic. It invokes a notion of the evolution of ideas that is easily falsifiable. There are, in fact, very few new ideas – and in terms of religious philosophy, no aspect of progressive, modernist, liberal, conservative, fundamentalist or reformed thought can be construed as new. All of these have existed for hundred and even thousands of years.

3. Fundamentalism grew out of the revivalist movement of the Nineteenth Century; fundamentalists therefore believe things that have not been common in the broader history of Christianity. This is a dishonest assertion at best. Yes, the movement calling itself “Fundamentalism” did, in part, grow out of Nineteenth Century revivalism. It also, of course, grew out of developments within the ‘mainline’ denominations. But the notion that fundamentalist beliefs were somehow novel is absurd. These beliefs – including the five identified above – were the rule in historic Reformed Christianity. Most of them were the rule for all of historic Christianity. It was the denial of miracles, the denial of the resurrection of the body, the denial of the deity of Jesus, the denial of the authority of Scripture that were new on the scene. [More precisely, it was this set of denials COMING FROM those who identified themselves as Christians that was new on the scene. Obviously non-Christians had always denied the tenets of Christianity.]

Similarly, the notion of Christianity having a certain defining content has also been the case for the history of the Christian church. Whether one wishes to speak of fundamentals or essential tenets, it doesn’t much matter. The fact is that in the New Testament, certain items were regarded as definitional to Christianity. Among these were, according to Paul, the resurrection of the body, and according to John, the fact that Jesus has come in the flesh. The historic creeds of the universal church contained similar elements. There is nothing new in the tendency of fundamentalists to assert the existence of such definitionally Christian content and to identify specific items that fall into that category.

I have addressed already the choice of five fundamentals – which was by no means universal among fundamentalists. But it has always been the case that Christians tended to address the specific areas of Christian doctrine being challenged at a given time. Broad and detailed confessions like Westminster are relatively exceptional. More common have been statements like the one issued by the Synod of Dordt. No one in their right mind believes the five items Dordt primarily addressed (in numerous points, of course) represent the sum total of Reformed thought. Instead, these five were asserted because they involved the areas of the Reformed dispute with Arminius. Similarly, the Apostles Creed leaves out many important details. As does the Nicene Creed. Both have specific purposes. Again – there is nothing unusual in the choice of fundamentalists to identify certain specific tenets.

The only novelty among many fundamentalists was a taste for pre-millennial dispensationalism. This was clearly not a belief of Machen and many others, but it was prevalent. Pre-millennialism is by no means incompatible with Reformed theology; dispensationalism, on the other hand, is. Today, pre-millennialism is an extremely common view among self-identified fundamentalists. Dispensationalism is not. Very few people actually support Darby’s dispensations. I mention this because this single item within fundamentalism is clearly attributable to the Nineteenth Century revivalist movement. Other attributions that suggest a disparity between general fundamentalist beliefs and historic Protestant Christianity are whole cloth.

4. Fundamentalism is anti-intellectual. This is the cudgel used to beat traditional Christians over the head, prompting them to give in to the fear of being thought simplistic, stupid, untutored, quaint, unsophisticated. It is a successful tool if the goal is to demonize traditional Protestant Christianity. [I employ the phrase “traditional Protestant Christianity” because, in its core beliefs, fundamentalism does not deviate from it.] Of the misconceptions of fundamentalism, and of the arguments designed to dissuade people from admitting to fundamentalism, this one has been the single most effective. Unfortunately, its success depends on cowardice and a lack of character. [In the interest of clarity, I’m not talking about people who legitimately reject a self-description of fundamentalist. I’m talking about people who either deny holding or actually alter their beliefs to avoid being labeled in a demeaning way.] It is also very successful in silencing traditional Protestant Christians and denying them access to mainstream society.

There are two separate assertions being made. First, fundamentalists are by nature stupid people. That is propagandist assertion – and it is by far the one most frequently employed. Second, fundamentalism is, in itself, a rejection of intellect. That is a more complicated charge.

So … Are fundamentalists (and by extension, traditional Protestant Christians) truly, by definition, stupid? It may be true; we may be. I know of no objective study on the topic – I can’t provide statistics of either intelligence of achievement correlated to fundamentalist religious belief versus, say, progressive religious belief. I am forced to rely on anecdotal evidence. I have known progressives who are truly brilliant people. I have known progressives who gave every appearance of being dumber than dirt. The majority of progressives I know seem to be average. I have known fundamentalists who are truly brilliant people. I have known fundamentalists who gave every appearance of being dumber than dirt. The majority of fundamentalists I know seem to be average. There is not a clear trend one way or another; it is, as near as I can tell, a wash. I acknowledge, of course, that fundamentalists have been effective marginalized from academia – but that is more a consequence of college and university politics than anything else. The charge itself, “fundamentalist equals stupid” is the equivalent of, “You’re ugly, and your mother dresses you funny.” It is devastating on the playground; for adults it should hold little threat.

So is there something inherent in fundamentalist philosophy that is anti-intellectual? I do not believe so. Fundamentalism follows a different epistemology than that which is currently fashionable. The fundamentalist view of Scripture dictates that fundamentalism finds authority in a document. If one believes (as I do) that God cannot be known by unaided human agency – that our minds are incapable of grasping God, and that our attempts to do so always shoot wide of the mark, and if one believes that God is known by humans only as God has revealed Himself, then reliance on Scripture as the record of that revelation strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

Much is made of ‘modern scholarship’ on the topic – but I would point out that there is a tremendous limitation to that scholarship: it must have a source. If one jettisons the New Testament as a source of information about Jesus Christ – if, for example, it erred so greatly in describing miracles or a resurrection that it must be a product of the deranged or the truly dim witted – then one is left with very little source material about Jesus Christ. As brilliant as observations about early Christian art, or presumptions about First Century politics, or comparisons to other religions may be; when it comes to factual information about Jesus, the person who makes or accepts such statements uncritically is no farther ahead.

The fundamentalist does not object to scholarship in any fashion, but the fundamentalist has come down in favor of the Bible as a reliable source of information. Those of us who hold this view find ourselves observing the ways in which Jesus and the apostles are recorded as having used Scripture. We find ourselves struck by the almost overwhelming unity of the work – rather then by apparent contradiction. Many of us have found that what appeared to us to be contradiction at one point in our development was, in fact, unified when we came to a fuller understanding. For those who have had this experience, there is a tendency to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt and to suspect that those remaining areas we have difficulty apprehending are a product of our own limitations.

I said the epistemology is not fashionable; I believe that is the case for two main reasons. First, it can be readily observed that fundamentalists appeal to authority. Nonetheless, everyone appeals to authority – whether peer reviewed journals, or pragmatic value, or personal experience, or most current thinking, or a posited future trajectory – it is always a matter of finding value based on something. For the fundamentalist – and indeed for the traditional Protestant Christian, this authority is found in the Bible. But more to the point, it is found in the past. There is a distinct preference for what has gone before, rather than a projection to a potential future idea. It is this that is in opposition to modernism and progressivism. Fundamentalism is also unfashionable because it bypasses community in some senses: what is true is true regardless of what the consensus view happens to be. In fact, the view of the community is irrelevant to truth. This is not so unusual a principal; it can be seen to operate in other philosophies. For example, Mohandas Gandhi said, “In matters of conscience the law of majority has no place.” But it has the flavor of that ‘atomistic individualism’ so detested in the current pseudo-religious thinking.

5. Fundamentalists practice ‘bibliolatry’ (idolatry of the Bible). This is a serious charge; it is, in fact, the most serious charge leveled against fundamentalists within their own belief structure. If they are worshipping something other than God, they are committing a great sin. Fundamentalists (and traditional Christians) are particularly vulnerable to this attack as they would be wholly repulsed by the notion.

I must observe at this point that I have almost never seen the charge of ‘bibliolatry’ advanced by a person who had any problems whatsoever with bona fide idolatry. On the other hand, the charge is often made by persons who otherwise argue that one should look for the work of God in other religions, that all religions are equally true, that what religions have in common is true, that primitive concepts of ‘god’ developed past the perfectly natural stage of having a physical idol present, or something similar. I mention this not to impugn – but to point out the basic unfairness of the frequent use of this charge by people who do not share the fundamentalist rejection of the practice.

Having said that, I see no way in which the charge can be taken as true. I know of no fundamentalist who worships the Bible. Instead, fundamentalists regard the Bible as THE reliable source of information about Jesus Christ – whom they do worship. Fundamentalists – and indeed all traditional Christians – do have a desire to make sure they are not being swayed to “a different gospel which is really no gospel at all”. They do have a desire to avoid those who “are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ”. They do have a desire not to believe every spirit, but to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world”. They do have an interest in resisting “things taught by demons” and in reproving “the unfruitful works of darkness”. That these legitimate interests of Christians can be confused with idolatry is, frankly, ridiculous.

6. Fundamentalists are schismatic. Of the assertions commonly made about fundamentalism, this one contains the largest element of truth. The schismatic feature of fundamentalism is the concept of biblical separation. Namely – the recognition that there comes a point at which cooperation within a church organization with competing, contradictory religions is impossible. Fundamentalists originally sought to keep the historic doctrines of the mainline denominations – and to oppose the widespread redefinitions of and assaults upon these doctrines coming from within the mainline denominations. They quickly learned that this was impossible because the general membership of these denominations did not care enough about the topic, because a great many people remained unaware of developments, because of clever sounding falsehoods advanced by those seeking such redefinition, and because of the external cultural drift toward modernist and progressive dominionism.

It became clear to fundamentalists that they were working at cross purposes with the legacy organizations. As is often the case, people have circumstantial motivations for seeking the counsel of Scripture. And so it was that fundamentalists began to articulate a biblical doctrine of separation. The thing is, the doctrine in question is clearly derived from Scripture. I obviously concur with it. Others will have to decide for themselves whether they deem it right to try to work within corrupt legacy organizations or whether they believe themselves led to depart.

The reason I am writing this is two-fold. First, I have a felt need for full disclosure: when people refer to me as a “fundy”, they’re not that far removed from the truth. The fact is that I have far more in common with self-identified fundamentalists than I do with self-identified progressives. It is true that I share some of the aesthetic sensibilities of progressives, but in terms of what I actually believe to be true and reasonable – I must put my lot in with the ‘other side’. Similarly, I am far removed from many self-identified moderates because these do not tend to regard the issues in question as important … or (in quite a few other cases) because they choose the descriptor ‘moderate’ but are in reality not so. Second, I believe it is very important for traditional Christians to understand: when people talk about ‘fundies’, when people rail against ‘fundamentalisms’, when people lionize certain anti-fundamentalist bigots of the past, when people disparage fundamentalist beliefs, they are not just talking about those who self-identify in that way. They are not singly speaking about a decided minority within Christianity. Instead, they are referring to people who hold the beliefs of the vast majority of evangelicals, large swaths of members of mainline denominations, and a tremendous number of Christians in other parts of the world who do not share their presumed nuanced and sophisticated interpretations of the Christian religion. If, as traditional Christians, we shrink from the charge and accept the malice and mockery directed at ‘those people over there’ who we regard as rigid and intolerant, we are maligning ourselves; and more importantly, we are (perhaps inadvertently) maligning the faith once delivered to the saints.

Will Spotts