Sermons

Sermon Dialogue

John Wilkinson                               Third Presbyterian Church  Rabbi Laurence Kotok                          Temple B’rith Kodesh   
January 30, 2005

Old Testament Lessons Micah 6:1-8 and Ecclesiastes 4:9-12

John Wilkinson: Welcome again to all of us as we seek to model what God’s community would look like in some day to come. We gather at a very interesting time in the life of American religion, and at a specific time in the life of the relationship between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and our Jewish friends in the United States and beyond.

As I have spoken from this pulpit, and as we have discussed in other settings, actions taken by the General Assembly in Richmond last June have not been met with a totally favorable response, both within the Presbyterian community, I might add, but certainly within the broader community and with our Jewish friends. Rabbi Kotok and I have begun conversations about this. I have been involved in conversations with the broader Jewish community in Rochester and beyond, in fact. We hope, at least, that if we do not solve the issues that are in front of us, we will deepen our ability to communicate with one another. And so it is always a great privilege for me to introduce to you the senior rabbi of Temple B’rith Kodesh, Rabbi Laurence Kotok, who is a good friend of this congregation, and who has become a trusted and valued personal friend and colleague.

I’m going to begin today with the question that he asked me on Friday evening, to discuss the current state of play in the Presbyterian world. Are we moving to the right or to the left? And I answered “yes” to that question. [laughter] And then I tried to explain that response a bit more, so I think turnabout is fair play in the sense of the curiosity that we might have in terms of the Jewish world and Reform Judaism in the United States: What is the current state of play in terms of directions and perspectives and viewpoints? And again, very much, a warm welcome to you.

Rabbi Kotok: And to you, good morning. I always get knocked out by standing up so high. [laughter] It may actually enhance my words. You just don’t know! Well, good morning again and thank you so much for this ongoing relationship that we share together and for the opportunity for us to not only engage each other physically, but to engage each other spiritually and with a sense of honesty and rightfulness. We’re not bashful about talking about the things that we need to talk about, and you should realize what an incredible gift that is, that we are enhancing and sharing this day.

The question of the polarity within our culture is one which is profoundly disturbing to me. The concept that people have to define themselves on one side of a spectrum or another is debilitating to what I believe is the ultimate gift of America. And we’re losing it. And that occurs within religious communities. It occurs within the political communities of America. The fact that as Friday night John opened with the words about the red states and the blue states is, I believe, a tragedy. That is impacting religious thinking also across the spectrum. The assumption is that you are either with us or against us, in a black-and-white way, or that your views are not as acceptable because they don’t fit certain standards which may be viewed by one particular religious community or another.

The Jewish community, because it is structured in a more open way, without hierarchy, has always had enormous diversity and in a sense I would say we are the first pluralists. We always had difference of opinion, and in many ways you went to which community you found affinity with. The idea of Reformed, Conservative, and Orthodox as different views of the same image has existed throughout Jewish life from the very beginning. You went to a community that made sense.

The same thing happens within Presbyterian communities. There are Presbyterian communities that are more either left or right or however you want to define it, that you’ve chosen not to go to, because this is where your home is. This is where you feel comfortable. The difficulty is that the brittleness of the right and left positions have become more normative. And as John mentioned, what took place at your annual convention, the 216th General Assembly this past summer, reflects that type of pressure that’s building even within your liberal religious community, the pressures to make decisions that might attract others into your fold.

John Wilkinson: Yes, it has. I won’t spend much time this morning explaining the decisions from the 216th Assembly…

Rabbi Kotok: Oh, I might!

John Wilkinson: I know! [laughter] I was counting on that, in fact. Except to say this: how Presbyterians make decisions is as complex if not more so as how a national government makes its decisions. There is input from all sorts of places, and one of the reminders that it’s always helpful for me to remember is that we sit in a particular place in a series of spectrums. That is, we are a particular Presbyterian congregation in Rochester, in Genesee Valley, in the State of New York, in the Northeast, in the United States, and where we reside on certain issues is one of many places that many people reside on many issues within the Presbyterian family. We generally take that diversity to be a good thing, and then every once in a while it causes us tension, both internally and then beyond our own life.

So the General Assembly took two sets of actions – actually four actions, but I cluster those around two issues – at its General Assembly in Richmond this past June. One was on the issue of a “messianic Jewish congregation” in Philadelphia that received Presbyterian funding. The question is not the appropriateness of evangelism in our tradition, or the freedom of religious expression in the United States. I do think the issue is this, though: how clear is that congregation’s mission, and how clear are we in presenting what we believe to be Christian truth claims to persons of the Jewish faith, and especially how Jewish symbolism is used in a Christian setting. And I think that was the real confusion, and in fact the real sadness of what happened in the Philadelphia situation, and then when our General Assembly voted to continue funding of that enterprise. I think that is worth continuing to talk about. One of the beauties of American religion is a variety of expressions. But at the same time, the clarity and the integrity of how we articulate what we believe, and more so, how we share what we believe with those of other traditions.

The second bucket – and I think you know this as well, in some ways a much deeper and complex conversation – is how we view the state of Israel and how we view the Palestinian people. We are committed to the State of Israel, and have been from its very start in 1947 and 1948. And at the same time we are committed to issues of justice, and reconciliation, and hope, and peace. And sometimes those two commitments don’t conflict with one another, but rub against one another. And so this past General Assembly began the process (they actually didn’t vote to do it) to begin the exploration of selected divestment in companies that do business in Israel and especially those that have to do with the creation of what’s sometimes called the “separation barrier” or the “separation wall.”

Now, since that decision has been made, lots of things have happened. Many of them, I think, to the good. That is, we have begun to talk to one another about this issue. But it has created extraordinary tension with our Jewish friends around the issue of terrorism and safety and security, and more so the rightness of a divestment strategy in order to bring pressure in a situation where that may or may not be appropriate. I want to emphasize one thing at least, not that it lessen the intensity of the conversation a whole lot, but we have begun the process to investigate this. No decisions about divestment, as I’ve said here before, will be made until 2006, and in fact lots of people, lots of Presbyterians and lots of others, are seeking to try to influence that decision in one way or another. That’s not to undermine, by the way, or understate the level of distress that these two decisions, taken together, have caused, one which could be seen from a certain political spectrum as a liberal decision, and one which could be seen as a conservative decision. Taken together in a kind of “connect-the-dots” fashion, they have seemed to be saying the Presbyterians have an anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic perspective. And we’ve lived with understanding that distress since last June. And we continue to talk about it.

Rabbi Kotok: My initial response: Oy! We got trouble! [laughter] And we do. And we need to look at both of these issues as they impact each other and also separately. So let me un-bundle them for just a moment. The historic relationship between Judaism and Christianity has been a difficult and a painful road. It is only in my lifetime and in the lifetime of many of you within this sanctuary that there has been honest, clear conversation between Christians and Jews about what each of them believe with an attempt to understand that we are not looking to convert each other. That, in fact, we have no necessity of that, nor do we necessarily believe that one is not fulfilled by our own faith behavior. Now, there are Christians who do not believe this, and those are predominately people I chose not to talk with.

And I’ll tell you a story. Years ago in my ecumenical work, I came upon a young man who was a minister in a particular church that I’d never heard of before, the Alliance Church. And I said to him, “Could you tell me, please, what are the principles and the concepts of the Alliance Church?” And he said, “Well, this is a missionary church,” and in fact when he leaves this posting on Long Island, he’s going to Africa to “missionize” people. And I said, “Could you please explain to me what is your position regarding Jews and Judaism?” And he said, “Well, you guys are in error. You need to be brought to the light. You need to convert to Christianity in order to be saved.” And I said to him, his name was Ron Julian, “Ron, you marvel me. You are a lovely guy. You and I have nothing to talk about. Until you are willing to accept the fact that I represent a faith tradition that is whole and complete, we have no conversational base between us.”

Now, historically the relationship with the Presbyterian church in the modern age has been one not only of mutual respect, but we have shared a great deal together in working for social justice and working in community life, in being leaders in an ecumenical movement that did not see itself or its product being the changing of one’s religious commitments. The national funding of this organization which uses a Hebrew name for itself, it is called Avodat Yisrael, “The service of Israel,” in Philadelphia, a community that meets on Sundays, uses Hebrew, has Jewish holiday observances, has a Torah scroll, yarmulkes and such, is a deceptive use of Jewish symbolism to the end product of the conversion of the Jews. And it is a statement against the respect of relationship that we have cherished. It’s huge.

Now, clearly we’ve come to expect this from certain denominations within Christianity – Southern Baptists, other evangelical groups that do not recognize the integrity or the existence of Judaism as a separate and complete faith system. We were shocked to see this happen within the Presbyterian church. And then, when you move forward to the responses that have been made to the state of Israel, it has only exacerbated that perception.

The initiatives, the overtures which were passed in Richmond, as John said, speak to two discrete issues. The one has to do with – I’ll use the word – the “wall,” the “barrier,” whatever you want to call it. If any of you have been to Israel, you should know that the wall piece of it, a lot of it that you see, is five miles long. The rest of it is a fence. This fence was originally proposed 13 years ago by Itzhak Rabin, who in his attempt to create a level of peace and security between Israel and Israel’s neighbors realized that this was not going to be an embrace of peace, but was rather going to be a divorce.

And I think that he was right. There was a need for the cultures to be separated in order for them to each survive and thrive. The past years have not been calm or particularly pleasant if you lived in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or in any other city, because you did not know, getting on a bus, walking into a café, going to a supermarket – all of the things which we take for granted – if someone with a bomb belt is going to blow you up, or if someone is going to explode a car next to the bus that you are on. How many times have you seen on international TV a beleaguered family that has lost a mother or a brother or a sister, saying, “You know, I just want to know that my family’s going to come home from work each day”? Well, friends, this wall, this fence, I believe, was an act of survival. Not a punitive act. Keep those who are murderers and suicide bombers out. America is having its own problems with the issues of terrorism and how our borders are porous. The Israelis have taken an act which you may not think is appropriate, and that people could sit down and talk with each other, but who are you going to talk to? The hope is that now, with the transition of leadership, that there might actually be a desire for there to be a settlement, an acknowledgement, and end. I only pray for that. The wall was an attempt. But for the Presbyterian community to say this is an affront, to take no direction of responsibility to the Palestinian community, to Palestinian bombers, is, I believe, misguided, naïve, and inappropriate. And then, when you move that to the issue of divestiture, why is there no companion investment or investigation into the finances of the Palestinian Authority? Billions of dollars of international aid funds have been lost, have somehow found their way into unnamed bank accounts around the world, not to be used on the ground for the building of infrastructure. Why is there no divestment in those companies? A company that has been singled out by this is Caterpillar, which makes earthmoving equipment that was used to build the wall. Does no one within the Palestinian Authority use Caterpillar earthmoving equipment?

I believe the response at best was naïve and at worst profoundly offensive because it does not take into account the dynamic of the situation on the ground.

John Wilkinson: The comments that Rabbi Kotok just shared have been shared, unfortunately, after the fact in this Presbyterian conversation since this past June. The one nice thing about Presbyterians doing things decently and in order means that no decision has yet been made. And these concerns have been shared with our national leadership, including the issue of looking at the Palestinian question more broadly, and the effectiveness and appropriateness of the divestment strategy. That is to say that groups are working on this now, and working very hard to bring (perhaps) a revised proposal to the General Assembly when it meets a year from now in Birmingham, Alabama. Perhaps the actions taken by last year’s Assembly will be given shape and form by this conversation.

What it has taught us, though, and what it has taught me, is that the need for dialogue is an ongoing one, that we can’t simply make a decision and hope it sits well without our friends. The task of an ongoing commitment to talking with one another so that when difficult moments come, we have a relationship established, has never been more true. We made an extra effort to put the commitments of a 1987 Presbyterian statement on the front of the bulletin this morning. Perhaps it’s time for us to revisit that document and dust it off and actually see if it still has some living, breathing qualities to it, because it speaks to Rabbi Kotok’s first point about our respect for historic Judaism as a complete and whole religious expression of who God calls us to be.

The other things we’ve learned are many. One is that this localism that we experience here in Rochester doesn’t replicate itself in all corners of the United States or in all corners of the religious communities, and that in fact we have within our Presbyterian family all sorts of different positions on this issue. I’ve said to friends at B’rith Kodesh – and sometimes it’s difficult to believe – that our internal conflicts are much more intense than this conflict even is with members of the Jewish tradition in the United States. That’s not a wonderful thing to brag about, but it is the reality, that we’re fighting with ourselves pretty well these days and have now taken the fight beyond our family. But I do think this issue of clarity and communication, committing to the integrity of who we are, but also the integrity of who the Jewish community is, will enable us to make better, more faithful decisions, even if it’s the same decision, but with a sense of a broadening and a perspective that I don’t think we did in this case.

Rabbi Kotok: Certainly. John has tried to make a distinction between the proposal and implementation. And I understand the subtlety, but it’s important to understand the sensitivity. The statement itself has a life. Whether it’s ever implemented or not, the fact that the statements were made and passed by a majority of those who attended the conference calls into question the global relationship, and what that relationship has been based on. Words matter. Statements matter. And for us, we just look for – not one-sided response – but clearly a balanced understanding of the complexity of these issues… The Jewish community is not looking for black-and-white responses and loyalty pledges on the state of Israel. Is the state of Israel a perfect state? Certainly not. But it’s blatantly unfair to establish a standard for Israel and not hold every other community in the world to the same standard. And that’s where the difficulty occurs. Are there excesses and are there difficulties that have taken place within the democracy of Israel? Yes. But it’s important not to merely romanticize the position of the Palestinian, and thereby turn what appears to be the weak into the just. It is unfair and it is illogical.

In the same way, the Jewish community is sensitive to its role and its place within God’s world. And it is important to understand how the perspective of the Jewish community is, especially in the United States. To have communities look at us as food for conversion is a rather uncomfortable place to be. You, as Christians living in a majority culture, as part of that majority culture, don’t really experience that same sense of balance or imbalance. Our dilemma is to be able to trust our friends. And that’s what came into question with this resolution. Is it okay in the free marketplace of ideas for people to be attracted to become Christians or Muslims or Jews? Absolutely. Remember that Judaism’s claims in the world, Judaism’s existence in the world, does not require the truth of Christianity or Islam to prove itself. We exist nonetheless. But it’s important for us to be in an open marketplace and not a deceptive one that is trying to make something look like something else so that we can confuse people.

John Wilkinson: I appreciate that. Some of the learning from this is the need for continued sensitivity to the feeling of distress that our Jewish friends have felt over these decisions. If we can be reminded and learn those two things, we will be much better off as we move ahead. I’m not sure we can ever fully understand either one of those dynamics, but the efforts, including Rabbi Kotok’s willingness to be here this morning really indicate that. So might we offer him our appreciation. [warm applause]

Rabbi Kotok: I said it Friday night, and I want to say it again. These are difficult, painful conversations. But I want you to understand how remarkable it is that in this time and place we are not hiding, we are not merely smiling at each other and walking away with hurts inside us. We are bringing them to the surface for the reasons that make friendship.

Reverend Wilkinson: Amen to that.

Let us pray: O God, help us to be sensitive to the people with whom we walk, and talk, and live, and work ,and play. Help this relationship to glorify you and honor you and do something about building a beloved and reconciling community. Let the words of our mouths, and the meditations of our hearts, and the actions of our lives be acceptable to you, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.

***
Special thanks to Beth Wlodarczyk for transcribing this dialogue.