Missing A Kingdom Moment
It’s Past Time for Presbyterians to Do Relational Politics
This article was published in the Presbyterian Outlook, vol. 196, no. 25, Dec. 8, 2014.
By Rev. Dr. Fritz Ritsch, Pastor, St. Stephen Presbyterian Church, Fort Worth, TX
Recent events in the Middle East have torn at many Presbyterians’ hearts. Threats to both Israelis and Palestinians are real, but the overwhelming majority of casualties are Palestinian civilians. I worked against the PC(USA)’s recent decision to divest from companies perceived as supporting Israel’s activities in the Palestinian Territories, but I am deeply troubled by Israel’s indiscriminate use of force.
These events have only solidified my belief that the PC(USA)’s commitment to the Palestinians is poorly served by divestment. Unfortunately, we seem to have rejected the option best suited to making actual change on the ground: relational politics.
This past June, I spent a week in Detroit working with Presbyterians and Jews to redirect the 221st General Assembly from voting to divest. Conservative and liberal Presbyterians put aside other differences and worked together with Jewish activists to try, unsuccessfully, to turn the tide. We built new and lasting relationships that transcended our differences, which is what relational politics is all about. It was glimpse of the Kingdom.
While at GA, I had a brief but congenial conversation with an activist on the other side of the issue. I’m sure that his group, working with Palestinian Christians and Jewish Voices for Peace, felt the same about their experience—that it was a Kingdom moment.
Rabbi Rick Jacobs of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ) offered the PC(USA) a chance at a Kingdom moment. Speaking at the 221st GA, he invited us to partner with the URJ in laying our shared concerns about settlement policy and treatment of Palestinians before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Many have argued it wouldn’t have done any good, by which they mean, it wouldn’t have changed Netanyahu’s mind.
That’s missing the point of relational politics. There is more power in being together than in being apart. Think of the power that Jewish and Presbyterian voices united would bring to a conversation about peace. Millions of voices representing a significant portion of American people of faith could be brought to bear. A partnership with the URJ puts the PC(USA) in a much more powerful position to influence American Jewish opinion and U.S. politicians who vote on Israel policy, which in turn can have a powerful effect on Israel’s government. Those are the real pressure points that can make a difference in Israeli policy with far greater impact than divestment. But because we voted to divest, Rabbi Jacobs said, American Jews cannot view Presbyterians as partners in peace.
When I hear the news of more Palestinian civilian casualties, it pains me to think of the opportunity lost. A partnership between American Reform Jews and Presbyterians, both devoted to easing the suffering of Palestinians, would have a moral power much more effective than divestment. Such a partnership could, for instance, advocate successfully for longer cease-fires, humanitarian aid, or easing the blockade on the Gaza (one of Hamas’ conditions for peace)—small things, perhaps, but they could save lives and even shave a day or two off the war.
Relational politics means building relationships of respect and mutual understanding that enable people to find common ground and create community. The PC(USA) has done poorly at relational politics in recent years, and not just in matters of inter-faith relations. We’ve polarized over sexuality, social justice, Biblical interpretation, and response to a changing world. We’ve gotten into the habit of finger-pointing, which we sometimes call being ‘prophetic.’ Once we’ve decided that a position is prophetic, it’s hard to back down and find a compromise. And it’s easy to demonize the other side.
Relational wounds are deep within the church. Palestinian Presbyterians, their supporters, and we anti-divestment folks, have difficulty talking to each other. All perspectives in this issue have drifted into polarized, black-and-white thinking. Yet many Presbyterians view this as a two-sided issue, believing that we are called to reconcile, not pick “sides.”
As a pastor, I’m seeing backlash. Most Presbyterians do not understand the divestment decision. Parishioners have asked if they can designate that their pledges do not go to “Louisville.” There is strong feeling among both those “in the know” and those in the pews, that GA staff has driven this decision without much consideration either for the Israeli side or the perspectives of lay people. As one parishioner put it, “Are they trying to drive us away?” It’s viewed as part of a larger denominational trend to alienate moderate and conservative Presbyterians.
A core principle of relational politics is that your political actions are only as powerful as the support you have from your base. From that perspective, our decision to divest is virtually powerless. It’s made a big splash, but at huge risk to us and little advantage to the peace process. My sense is that most Presbyterians think the church would play a more positive role in the Israel/Palestine question if we sought to be reconcilers, to which we are called by the Confession of 1967.
Here’s something to think about: Within our own house, the PC(USA), one organization is on excellent speaking terms with Jewish and Israeli leaders, and another is on excellent speaking terms with Palestinians. Yet virtually no one is facilitating their ability to talk to one another. The Presbyterians on either side seem unable to connect as well.
We can change that, if we want to. We can heal wounds within the church and beyond it. There is a Kingdom moment at hand, if we’re willing to pursue it.