Prompted by a heading in the new Presbyterian hymnal Glory to God, the Presbytery of Chicago has asked the 221st General Assembly to distinguish between Biblical terms for Israel and those applied to the modern political state of Israel in Christian liturgy.
Overture 07-01 requests the assembly to:
- “distinguish between the Biblical terms that refer to the ancient land of Israel and the modern political State of Israel;
- “develop educational materials, with the help of our Presbyterian seminaries, for clergy, church musicians, worship leaders and Christian educators regarding the ‘ancient Israel/modern Israel’ distinction; and
- “inform our ecumenical partners of this action, nationally and globally – particularly within Israel and Palestine.”
In its rationale Chicago Presbytery writes that the overture was prompted by the “unfortunate heading: ‘God’s covenant with Israel’” in Glory to God, The Presbyterian Hymnal, which was published in 2013.
“The use of the phrase ‘God’s covenant with Israel,’ is open to interpretation by the reader/singer,” the overture says. It then asks, “Is this ‘Biblical Israel?’ Is it the ‘modern State of Israel?’”
The rationale quotes an open letter from a Palestinian-American Presbyterian to the new hymnal’s publishers:
“Because I am a Palestinian Christian, I am uneasy with the word ‘Israel’ in ‘God’s Covenant with Israel’ – I am always told, however, that what is meant by ‘Israel’ is Biblical Israel and not today’s Israel; but do all Christians know this? With the prevalence of Christian Zionism, which the G.A. repudiated in 2004, I highly doubt it. Even if not intentional, this language is inflammatory, misleading, and hurtful” (Open Letter, October 2, 2013).”
Suggestions were offered to rephrase “God’s Covenant with Israel” with terms like “God’s Covenant with Ancient Israel,” or, “God’s covenant with the Poor,” or “Our Covenant with the Oppressed.
The rationale also quotes Joshua Ralston, who teaches theology at Union Presbyterian Seminary in Richmond, Va. Ralston writes:
“One way that the recurring challenge of balancing pro-Palestinian advocacy and the rejection of anti-Semitism could be addressed is by avoiding using ancient Israel, Jews and the modern nation-state of Israel largely interchangeably. … The best way for Christians to avoid this bind is to more clearly question the direct correlation between ancient Israel, Jews across space and time, and the modern political state of Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian Territories, even as Christians affirm the importance of land for Judaism.”
“In the early days of identifying and changing sexist language in hymns, words were crossed out and new words were written in. It is not so easy to do that with biblical terms that have come to be associated with the modern political State of Israel,” reads the rationale. “That is why this overture requests the help of our Presbyterian seminaries in clarifying the use of these terms and how to use them appropriately to reference biblical Israel and how to use them appropriately.”
The overture will be debated in the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations. The Synod of the Covenant concurred with the overture.
The 221st General Assembly will be held June 14-21 in Detroit, Mich. The official GA web site can be found here. The Layman’s coverage of the 2014 GA can be accessed here.
4 Comments. Leave new
I seldom agree with any of the nonsense that comes from the anti-Israel wing of my former denomination. So, not surprisingly, I find the rationale for this overture to be bigoted and un-Biblical in its complaint that “God’s covenant with Israel” is an “unfortunate” name for a section of hymns about God’s covenant with Israel. Most of the Bible is about God’s covenant with Israel – including us grafted-on Christians – so it just sounds like the usual dismissal of the Bible of which the PCUSA is often guilty. Nor can I generate much sympathy for someone who finds this simple – and accurate – phrase “inflammatory, misleading, and hurtful”.
But this overture demonstrates that one can try to do the right thing for entirely wrong reasons. I think it is important for the Church to clearly distinguish between the two Israels, ancient and modern. Almost eight years ago, I gave my reasons for doing so here: http://www.curmudgeons-progress.com/christianity/christianity-in-defense-of-rabbi-weiss/
Unfortunately, passing this overture (which I assume is virtually inevitable, given the anti-Israel language) probably won’t produce a useful result. It will just present PCUSA ideologues with the opportunity to mislead members and wallow in yet another hateful portrayal of modern Israel.
Still, in more trustworthy hands, it would be beneficial to the Church to delineate the difference.
Steve Jones, EPC ruling elder
Kokomo IN
Genesis 32:24-28 explains the name Israel:
“24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. 25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. 26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. 27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. 28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” The Hebrew for “hast thou power with” is שׂרה (sara), which King James takes to mean “acted like a prince (שׂר sar).” Thus “Israel” means I (י) “he” sr (שׂר) “acted like a prince with” el (אל) “God.” He acted like a prince with God by wrestling with the angel. Climax of the passage is verse 29 (30 in the Hebrew): “And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.” The party Israel asked his anonymous opponent, “What’s your name?” and “blessed him there.” A good model for Israel in its struggle against a divinely appointed opponent.
Thanks, Steve.
For those whose arthritis hinders the navigation through multitudinous links, here’s a piece of Rabbi Weiss’ sermon:
“First we may not have a Jewish state. Thus, the current state or any state even the most religious or ideal state is inherently illegitimate by virtue of the Divine Decree of exile. All property and possessions seized in the process of its establishment must be returned. This is the basis for peace, justice and reconciliation. But just as individual property must be returned, so too, must the land as a whole be returned. We regard the Zionist seizure of Palestine, as against our faith and against basic morality. Again I must stress, from the depth of our hearts, we feel with the suffering and plight of the Palestinian People. To us it is a double tragedy and humiliation, the fact that the Palestinians suffer and that it is being done in our name.”
And Steve:
All I have – thanks to Rabbi Weiss – is a new-found conviction that I need to view the Mideast conflict in a new way and seek God’s will as I do so.
While I have strong opinions about the Palestinian and Israeli political situation, what is interesting about the citation of my work in this overture is that it omits the middle sentence where I recognize the overlap (although not co-terminious nature) between Judaism and modern Israel.