The
Presbytery of _____ overtures the 217th General Assembly (2006) to
do the following:
1. Direct
the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) to constitute
a task force to draft a new and comprehensive statement of General
Assembly policy regarding the Middle East for consideration by the
218th General Assembly (2008), using the procedures outlined in “Forming
Social Policy” (in the Manual of the General Assembly)—except
as provided otherwise below.
2. Direct
that the membership of the task force shall be comprised as follows:
One member shall be designated by each presbytery that has sent an
overture relating to the Middle East to at least one of the two most
recent General Assemblies (the 216th and 217th), or that has concurred
with such an overture. Among those presbyteries not having sent or
concurred with such overtures, one member shall be designated by each
presbytery that has an official mission partnership with a partner
church body in the region. ACSWP shall designate four other members
of the task force, two from among the elected members of ACSWP and
two from other nominees received from the church. ACSWP shall take
care to see that members of the task force reflect the diversity of
theological and political convictions within the Reformed tradition
as it relates to the Middle East.
3. Direct
that two additional persons shall be invited to participate in all
task force meetings with voice but not vote. One shall come from a
mainstream Jewish organization that has criticized past General Assembly
resolutions relating to the Middle East, but recognizes the right
of self-determination for Palestinians. The other shall come from
a mainstream Muslim organization that has criticized the state of
Israel, but does not favor its destruction. These two persons shall
be designated by the Stated Clerk in consultation with the Worldwide
Ministries Division.
4. Direct
that the task force shall compile an on-line bibliography related
to the Middle East, providing information and various viewpoints on
a range of countries and topics in the region. Among the topics to
be considered are: the theological basis for U.S. Christian engagement
in the Middle East; the state of partner churches in the region; the
challenges to Christian evangelism in word and deed there; violations
of religious freedom and other human rights; the fomenting of hatred
and discrimination against minority ethnic and religious groups; poverty
and its causes in the region; lack of education and health care; the
rights of women and children and other vulnerable persons; military
occupations and other impositions of government without the consent
of the governed; nuclear proliferation and other threats by states
to destroy their neighbors; terrorist acts against non-combatants
and the states and organizations that sponsor such attacks; threats
of environmental degradation; visions for how conflicts within and
between nations in the region might be reconciled and a greater measure
of justice and peace might be achieved; examples of how the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.) and its mission partners might take steps in those
directions.
5. Direct
that the task force shall solicit input from members of the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.), ecumenical partners in the Middle East, and a range
of Muslim and Jewish groups concerned about the region.
6. Direct
that the task force shall prepare a proposed policy statement, with
recommendations and background information, addressing concerns such
as those raised in point 4 above.
7. Direct
that the work of the task force shall be funded and staffed with resources
already allocated to the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy
and the Worldwide Ministries Division.
8. Direct
that, pending adoption of a new policy statement on the Middle East,
the “process of phased selective divestment in multinational
corporations doing business in Israel” initiated by the 216th
General Assembly (2004) shall be suspended.
Rationale
The standards
for “Forming Social Policy” in the Manual of the General
Assembly specify: “A ‘policy statement’ establishes
the fundamental principles that guide the denomination’s social
witness. From this policy base a strategy is developed, a program
is defined, and personal social witness is empowered. The most current
policy document produced in conformance with the requirements of 2.a.-g.
of this document and adopted by a General Assembly shall be the policy
in force.” The same standards also require, “A resolution
shall clearly identify the policy statement(s) upon which it is based.”
It appears,
from the narrative and documents in the Presbyterian Social Witness
Policy Compilation, that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has not
adopted a comprehensive policy statement on the Middle East since
the former United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. did so in 1974.
Thus it would seem that, according to “Forming Social Policy,”
the 1974 statement remains “the policy in force” that
should “guide the denomination’s social witness”
on the Middle East today. Clearly, much has changed in the Middle
East and in the denomination over the past 30-plus years. It is time
to develop a new PCUSA policy statement on this vital region.
Since
1974, General Assemblies have adopted a long series of resolutions
on the Middle East. Most of these have been narrowly focused on a
few nations and a few problems in the region—particularly the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and the two wars with
Iraq. Few of these resolutions identify any basis in the broader 1974
policy statement. One resolution (from 1997) takes a lengthier look
at issues throughout the region; however, that resolution was drafted
by ACSWP without the extensive processes of consultation required
for a policy statement. Moreover, much has changed in the Middle East
even since 1997.
It is
not clear that, currently, PCUSA strategy for the Middle East is in
fact developed from the policy base of 1974, nor that programs are
defined or personal social witness empowered on the basis of that
30-plus-year-old statement. There is need for a fresh and relevant
policy statement that will guide a mission strategy for the 21st century.
Continuing the pattern of scattershot resolutions, without the context
of a larger perspective on the region, will not suffice.
The resolutions
of the 216th General Assembly (2004) relating to the Middle East were
adopted after relatively brief debate. Yet those resolutions generated
unexpected controversy and division within the denomination and in
its interfaith relations, especially with Jewish friends disturbed
by the call for “a process of phased selective divestment in
multinational corporations doing business in Israel.” Commissioners
did not seem to understand that these resolutions were venturing into
new political territory, nor did they appreciate that their actions
would be perceived as “unbalanced” by some.
Perhaps
this is an appropriate moment to step back and take a broader view
of a range of issues in the entire region. We need to make sure that
the PCUSA is taking steps in particular situations that fit into a
larger vision of peace, justice, and freedom and the exhibition of
the Kingdom of Heaven throughout the Middle East. Such a reassessment
can proceed most fruitfully if conducted by a task force reflecting
theological and political diversity, grounded in grassroots involvement
in the region, and illuminated by wide consultation within the denomination
and among ecumenical and interfaith partners.
