Bishop Younan, and other international concerns

[Bergs]

Just an interesting note on a book that I know I have seen quoted and used to beat up on Israel is Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel by Burge.  The book is also on the recommended background reading on the ELCA's Mideast Peace site.
http://www.elca.org/peacenotwalls/educate/books.html

A fellow with a different take on the book rips it pretty well in a recent review. 
"Book Embraced by Mainline Marred With Errors" by Dexter VanZile points up several factual errors in the book.
http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1356

My point is that the ELCA seems to very much favor one side.  The above recommended book is evidence of it.  I should like to see the ELCA also suggest the Dexter VanZile article.  Perhaps they will in the future, the review is quite recent.

The Mideast conflict is so polarizing, it is difficult to see how any compromise can be made.  The ELCA should carefully tread in showing favoritism to either side.  The whole slogan "peace without walls," is a slap in the face to the Israeli's who are desperate to stop suicide bombings (and the wall is reported to be working).  Would the ELCA consider a tagline like "reconciliation not rockets?"

Grace & Peace
Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

[Dan Fienen]

There is, I think, a segment of the Christian landscape whose support for the state of Israel derives more from the way that Israel and support for Israel fits into their reading and understanding of certain Biblical prophetic material than it does from a careful assessment of the facts on the ground.  They consider the modern state of Israel the fulfillment of certain Biblical prophecies and support for Israel to be siding with God and allinging ourselves with God's will and God's plans.  Perhaps even hastening the advent of Jesus second coming, the millenium and/or the establishment of the Kingdom of God.  As such, they tend to look for facts and events that fit their paradigm and downplaying or ignoring facts that do not.

This is a theological understanding of the mid-East conflict that may or may not have much to do with the realities with which the people who actually live there deal with from day to day.  In a way it is dehumanizing to the people of the mid-East because it tend to reduce them to mere elements of a theological construct rather than people who live and die, hope and despair.  The people who are oppressed and oppressors, who kill and are killed become less important than their symbolic value as fulfillers of some over-arching prophetic schema.  The Palestinians especially are reduced to the role of opponents of God and His people rather than people who have rights and aspirations - or even as people for whom Jesus died.  But even the Israelis become people to be supported not because their cause is just as much as that they can play a role in the end times drama that has been constructed out of Biblical material.

This is, of course, an over simplification, but I'm afraid the urge in this direction invites a view of the entire conflict that is oversimplified.

However, I'm afraid that this is not the only way in which Christians have responded to the mid-East conflict in ways that owe more to their view of the Bible and theology than to what is actually happening in the region.  The whole theological movement that could be characterized as Liberation Theology could be tempted to view this as another working out of the rich oppressors (Israel) exploiting the poor oppressed (Palestinian).  As Jesus stood with the poor and oppressed and against the rich and oppressive, so we need to stand with the Palestinians against the Israelis. Especially if we consider the liberation of the oppressed to be an important part, or even the main part of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about.

Once again, the temptation is there to reduce the actual people invoved into symbolic figures that fit our paradigm.  It is also tempting to emphasis those facts that fit the paradigm and ignore those that do not, even to blindly acepting anything that supports this theological reading of reality no matter how poorly the attestation.

It is not my intention to accuse anyone in this forum, nor the ELCA in their resolution, of blindly following either the Christian Zionist or Liberation Theology ideology.  (Although if the shoe fits . . . )  Nor would I say that a church body should not have an opinion on a world situation and make that opinion known.  However, if we are to make pronouncements on political topics, care should be taken to ensure that the facts of the situation be ascertained as accurately, completely and unbiased as possible, and only then should we apply our theological paradigm to inform our view of the situation and suggest what should happen - even take action to help make it happen.  Our theological paradigms help us understand and interpret what is happening, but it does not tell us what is happening in the mid-East.  The temptation is always there to over simplify the situation.

As I see it, there are three questions that can be discussed: (1) Is it appropriate for the church to comment on current situations and suggest morally correct understandings and courses of action?  (I, by the way would say yes.)  (2) Was the ELCA statement on the mid-East conflict factually accurate?  (3) Is the theological paradigm applied to the conflict Biblical and appropriately applied? 

The last two question I do not have the answers for.

Dan

[JNillson]

As I see it, there are three questions that can be discussed: (1) Is it appropriate for the church to comment on current situations and suggest morally correct understandings and courses of action?  (I, by the way would say yes.)  (2) Was the ELCA statement on the mid-East conflict factually accurate?  (3) Is the theological paradigm applied to the conflict Biblical and appropriately applied? 

The last two question I do not have the answers for.

Dan

Dan, for me, your entire comment, not just the part I quote, nails much of what is at work in the way the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is addressed. I would add, though, that there is a broad middle among mainline Protestant Christians that neither subscribes to an unwavering, uncritical support of Israel, nor sees Israel as bearing full responsibility for the conflict. I would argue that a middle position could be one that insists on finding a solution for the dwindling Palestinian church and pressing even Jewish interfaith leaders for assistance in the ongoing concerns over Augusta Victoria Hospital, while not taking the grave step of bringing economic sanction to bear.

However, in answer to your concluding questions, I will say that the ELCA, through its official statements and operations regarding the conflict, clearly aligns itself with the Liberation Theology end of the theological spectrum. (The extent to which the ELCA features the Sabeel Ecumenical LIBERATION Theology Center of Jerusalem in resource links, announcements and reports is one clue.) Just spend some time going through various pages, especially resource sections, on the Middle East Connections pages:  http://www.elca.org/middleeast   The section's one-note message--Israel's Occupation fuels the cycle of violence--is overwhelming. I also encourage you to carefully read the Church Council's Churchwide Strategy for Engagement in Israel and Palestine that became the basis for the CWA actions in 2005 and earlier this month. If you are one to avail yourself of a wide variety of coverage of developments in the Middle East, I think you will see that the Strategy speaks from a narrow place.

Your second question regarding factual accuracy brings up a matter that has been needling me for weeks ever since I saw Bishop Younan reply at the CWA to the request for more information on the amendment that includes the first step toward boycott. Earlier I mentioned that the Bishop, in pointing out that a precedent for boycott had been set by the Church of Sweden, did not volunteer that the Jewish Central Council, as a result of that move, broke off relations with the Church of Sweden.

He also said, in commending boycott, "If even YOUR government says the settlements are illegal, so any products that are produced in the settlements are also illegal." The first part of his claim struck me as odd because, assuming he's speaking of our US government, I've never heard such a thing. I've gone hunting since and instead find the opposite claim. From the Jewish Virtual Library: "Another charge is that settlements are 'illegal.' The United States has never adopted this position and legal scholars have noted that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Moreover, the occupying power may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory." (From "Facts about Settlements," http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settlements.html)

How are we to understand Bishop Younan's claim, especially since he is in a prime position to know the nuances of the stance the US takes on the settlements? Can someone explain?

[Gladfelteri]

It would be interesting to know if Bishop Younan considers *all*  Israelis to be "illegal aliens"?

[Dadoo]

It would be interesting to know if Bishop Younan considers *all*  Israelis to be "illegal aliens"?

Someone, well intentioned I think, asked bish. Younan to the mic when the resolution to divest of buisness relations with the settlements came up.  She did it with the intent that "[the assembly] is making a descision without hearing those in the culture"  and we needed to be more culturaly sensitive.  Younan, the way I see it, is walking a fine line.  Like a good Palistinian he demands withdrawl but he is very careful in how he words his speech about Israelies.  Were he not to condemn enough the palistinians would be after him being a CHristian in  a Moslem culture, if he condemns too much Israel will retalliate.  At the assembly he deftly sidestepped the issue by saying: "the Sewdish church did much the same thing you are considering now." 

I respect Bishop Younan for being a pastor in a very difficult place and time.  He is a consumate poltician whenever I hear him talk.  WHat his own convictions are I do not realy know- at least I think I do not since I believe he is always very careful about his words.  Maybe it is best if we left him the space and privledge to do his tightrope act the way he knows best.

Keep the Faith

Peter

[Laroki]

Ummm, just an ignorant question...

How many Lutherans even use any "settlement" products anyway?  What are these products?  I realize the boycott is more symbolic than anything else, but it does seem a little ridiculous to say, "Take that Israel, we Lutherans will never again order a gross of bagels ever again".  Harumph!

Or is the boycott not symbolic?  Are we actually thinking we're going to stop buying products none of us have ever bought before?  Big deal! 

Someone will set me straight, I'm sure.

[Gladfelteri]

It would be interesting to know if Bishop Younan considers *all*  Israelis to be "illegal aliens"?

I respect Bishop Younan for being a pastor in a very difficult place and time.  He is a consumate poltician whenever I hear him talk.  WHat his own convictions are I do not realy know- at least I think I do not since I believe he is always very careful about his words.  Maybe it is best if we left him the space and privledge to do his tightrope act the way he knows best. 

  Well, he does live in a very tough neighborhood.  There are those Koranic constraints laid on "people of the book - as long as some mullah or sheikh doesn't issue a fatwa declaring some of those "people of the book" to be working aginst Islam.  Along those lines, he does have to contend with both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas; and I think it is fair to say that both of them do more or less consider *all*  Israelis to be "illegal aliens."  I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, especially now that Hamas won that last set of elections.

[Laroki]

No, really...

Does anyone know if the actual boycott of actual products is thought to make any sort of actual financial impact?  Is the proposed boycott just a lot of preachy finger-waving or is it intended to have actual consequences?  If so, do the proponents of boycott intend to give us a list of stuff not to buy? 

Or is this all rhetorical posturing?

[jrubyaz]

I think the only time that really works is to have a massive boycott or pressure applied by both citizens and governments, such as the boycotts against the apartheid regime in South Africa in the 80's/90's. Having a church do a boycott is more symbolic than anything, even if the whole denonimation is involved. The Nestle boycott was kind of effective, but that was a different time and place, and more unity than over this issue.

Plus, we are in global markets/economy today, so the "loss " of one market segment is more readily picked up that 20-30 years ago.


J. Ruby.
  author=Laroki link=topic=781.msg25350#msg25350 date=1188386462]
No, really...

Does anyone know if the actual boycott of actual products is thought to make any sort of actual financial impact?  Is the proposed boycott just a lot of preachy finger-waving or is it intended to have actual consequences?  If so, do the proponents of boycott intend to give us a list of stuff not to buy? 

Or is this all rhetorical posturing?

[Bergs]

Another press release from Bishop Younan today.

Lutheran Bishop Joins Call to End Israeli Blockade of Gaza

http://www.elca.org/news/Releases.asp?a=3797

The leaders of the Holy Land churches write: 

In the Name of God, we, the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem and the Holy Land urge the International Community, President Bush and the leaders of Israel, to put an end to this suffering and call upon Israel to activate Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's initiative for Palestinian responsibility control of the borders thus ensuring sufficient normal flow of medicine, food, fuel and goods to Gaza

Of course Hamas took control of the situation and knocked down the border wall with Egypt today.  This is the wall that is attempting to stop the flow of rockets into Gaza.   Palestinian border guards report that they have been cutting into the wall for months under orders from Hamas.  So it seems this boycott of basic goods from Israel backfired.  It allowed a pretext for Hamas to knock open the border with Egypt which Hamas has been planning for some time.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3238615.ece

Now there is an open gate for both humanitarian goods and more weapons. 

Buried in the news releases above is a call from the church leaders for a stop to the rocket attacks.  Good for the bishops.  They should have been jumping on this in daily press releases over the past several months. 

It is a messy situation in that little strip of desert.  Bishop Younan has a tough row to hoe.  I hope the ELCA will recognize there are two sick puppies on either side of this issue.  Favoring one over the other is stupid policy.

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

[Bergs]

OK, I will push this one to the top again today.  I read the post about building a wall around ELCA leadership and read the news article below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327986,00.html

The official ELCA policy and Bishop Younan are begging to bring down the walls.  However, as soon as the walls are down Israel gets attacked by suicide bombers.  So a couple of weeks ago, the ELCA news report begged to bring down the walls for humanitarian reasons.  It all became a moot point when the Hamas government in Gaza blew the walls (which news reports showed they had been planning for months).   A few days later, suicide bombers from Gaza attack for the first time in a year.  Let's see if this provokes the same humanitarian concern for the woman killed and other injured.   If I was an Israeli, I'd say, "build more walls."

As usual, there are two legitimate sides to a political issue, but the ELCA just picks one side and always the one that liberal democrats are on. 

Brian J. Bergs