Fourteen Congressional reps push PCUSA to rescind divestment decision: LOUISVILLE - Led by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), an ecumenical group of 14 members of the House of Representatives has implored the Presbyterian Church (USA) to rescind its July decision to selectively divest from companies who profit from Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territories - describing the action as causing "terrible distress."

The stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, responded in kind - citing "terrible distress" as well: The failure of the U.S. Congress to be a balanced arbiter for peace in the region or condemning the illegal expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

Now, these congressmen are not fundamentalists themselves (the list of signatories includes five Jewish members of Congress, including Berman, Henry Waxman, and Barney Frank, who's not high on any fundamentalist's list of favorite representatives). But the PC(USA) decided not to invest in companies that profit from Israel's policies toward Palestinians, and fundamentalists loathe anything that might promote peace in the Middle East at the cost of Israeli territory, because that will delay Armageddon and the Second Coming.

The Congressional leaders write: "We believe very strongly that the efforts of the Church to divest from companies doing business in Israel - thus penalizing Israel for acting in its own self-defense - are irresponsible, counterproductive, and morally bankrupt. Rather than contributing to peace, this approach will only provide encouragement for those that seek to de-legitimize the very existence of the Jewish State."

Kirkpatrick replies: "It has been very disappointing to us that the U.S. Congress has not proven to be an ally or a balanced arbiter in the negotiations for peace in the region. While Congress has passed repeated statements against the Palestinian Authority, it has never passed a resolution condemning the continuous illegal construction of settlements in the West Bank. There has been nothing done by Congress to pressure Israel to adhere to international law. Rather, Israel has been encouraged by Congress to violate international law. The recent passage of House Resolution 713, which condemns the International Court of Justice and supports a wall that is in blatant violation of international law, is one case in point."

It gets better:

About security, the Congressional leaders write: "As long as Palestinians and their extremist allies continue to seek the destruction of Israel, then the Government of Israel has a fundamental obligation - as do all democratically elected governments - to provide security for the Israeli people. Unlike the U.N. peacekeeping force advocated by the Church in its divestment resolution, the fence will provide real physical security and - because Israel will have the ability to redeploy its forces from much of the West Bank when it is complete - will help create the conditions necessary for a two state solution in which the legitimate aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians can be satisfied."

Kirkpatrick answers: "The unconditional support of Israel and Prime Minister Sharon, while the continuous assaults on Palestinians and their leadership by the Israeli army are broadcast all over the world, does nothing to protect our security as a nation. It also does nothing to bring the security so needed to Israel. It is the occupation, not our move to consider divestment that threatens the existence of Israel. The 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to begin a process that might lead to divestment from companies profiting from the occupation because there is a strong feeling among many people, and most likely many people in your district, that the occupation needs to end in order that all people - Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans - can live in peace and security."

Fundamentalists within the Presbyterian Church (USA) have disliked Kirkpatrick for such strong statements since he first won the job eight years ago, and at this year's General Assembly, they tried to unseat him with a variety of challengers. Kirkpatrick still won re-election, and God bless him, because this all really isn't his idea:

Kirkpatrick told the Presbyterian News Service that non-Presbyterians keep pressuring the clerk to alter a decision that is out of his hands.

"The clerk can't change this," he said, noting that changing this decision would require action by the 2006 General Assembly, the body that will, ultimately vote on whatever divestment recommendations MRTI identifies.

He urged Presbyterians in Congress who want to alter these decisions to use church channels, by having sessions propose overtures to presbyteries, and then, onto the General Assembly for consideration and debate.

The church is taking a lot of the heat over the General Assembly's decision to divest from only those companies "who profit by causing harm to either Israelis or Palestinians," including from Presbyterians who disagreed with it but lost the 431-62 vote at GA. The General Assembly Council, in fact, has authorized a pastoral letter to explain what the GA directed it to do and how it's going to about it.

Does a move to divest destroy years of dialogue with the American-Jewish community? Some say yes, that’s a risk. Others say it deepens a dialogue that has deliberately avoided questions about peace between Israelis and Palestinians out of fear of stirring up too much emotion. Does it open new avenues of dialogue with Muslims? That, seemingly, was a new idea for some. Does it move justice for Palestinians from the back-burner to the front, something that’s long overdue? There were yes’s to that, too, and to voices insisting that the church needs to stick to its long history of socially responsible investing.

It's not easy trying to do God's work as you understand it.

(Via Presbyterian News Service.)