Winfield Myers

Most people who follow politics know that some of Israel's strongest supporters in America are evangelicals and Catholics who, seeing the Jewish state as a democracy surrounded by hostile neighbors, are determined not to let America's commitment to Israel waver. Against them are arrayed most members of the liberal establishment -- the mainstream media, the professoriate, foundations, and the remnants of what were once correctly described as the mainstream churches. And while there is some variation of opinion within these groups -- liberal Catholics are often indistinguishable from liberal Protestants in their suspicions of Israel, while some prominent journalists and academics are strong supporters -- they represent fairly consistent blocs of opinion.

That fact is driven home by a front-page article in the New York Times [Aug 6]. Titled "Threat to Divest is Church Tool in Israel Fight," it reports on a decision by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), to target several large corporations for divestment unless they cease doing business with Israel. In a failed attempt to appear even-handed, the Presbyterians placed Citibank on their list because, they say, it helped the Arab Bank transfer funds to terrorists.

The other companies are Caterpillar, Motorola, ITT Industries and United Technologies, and the case against each, along with the church's total investment, is described on the church's web pages. Here are the church's objections to United Technologies: “United Technologies is a large military contractor whose subsidiary has provided helicopters to the Israeli military. They have been used in attacks in the occupied territories against suspected Palestinian terrorists. The company also provides other military hardware.”

And to ITT: “ITT Industries is a diversified manufacturer that supplies the Israeli military with communications, electronic and night vision equipment used by its forces in the occupied territories.” Read through the objections, and it becomes clear that the left-wingers who run the central office of the PCUSA object, at base, to Israel's ability to defend itself against terrorists crossing over from the West Bank to kill and maim as many Israeli civilians as possible. And that's not to mention the mortar rounds, rockets, shoulder-fired grenades, and other modern weapons systems employed by Palestinian terrorists to inflict casualties on Jews. But, according to the PCUSA, the problems in the region stem from Israel's determination not to be driven into the sea -- and not to repeat the mistake of trusting the likes of the Presbyterian leadership to protect them.

What's behind the PCUSA leadership's move? It must be stated unequivocally that part of the motivation is little more than resurgent WASPy disdain for "those people," the Jews, the trouble-makers, the folks who run the world through the neo-con conspiracy. Here the good liberals in the church are linked with far right voices, such as Joseph Sobran and the Institute for Historical Review, at whose 2002 conference Sobran said, "I am not, heaven forbid, a 'Holocaust denier.' I lack the scholarly competence to be one. I don't read German, so I can't assess the documentary evidence." [I don't read Chinese, but I have no doubt that the Cultural Revolution occurred; I don't read Russian, but I'm sure Stalin really did order the murder of millions.] Which leads us to Sobran's conclusion: “Benjamin Netanyahu has written that Israel is ‘an integral part of the West.’ I think it would be truer to say that Israel has become a deformed limb of the West.”

And the Presbyterians? I'm not sure of their excuse, but a glance at their home page reveals what are, at best, some misplaced priorities, and it gives us a peek into what else ails them regarding Israel.

You might expect to find Christian symbols, photos of a church or two, quotations from Scripture, or perhaps some proclamations of faith: "He is risen; hallelujah!"

What proclamation will you find? A big boxed statement: "Progressive Engagement Process Begins." That would be the call for divestment. What statement of faith is put forth? Try this:

“Companies for 'progressive engagement' over role in Middle East violence named.

“The Mission Responsibility through Investment (MRTI) Committee of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) announced that it will begin its process of ‘progressive engagement' with five companies it says contribute to the ongoing violence that plagues Israel and Palestine. The Committee's action is in response to a resolution passed last year by the Church's General Assembly and is consistent with the Church's long-standing practice of ensuring its investments are used to further the Church's mission.

This is less theology than political action; food not for the soul, but for the activist. And, at heart, it's the reason the leadership of the PCUSA seems more concerned with engagement in left-wing political crusades than in winning souls for Christ. I don't mean that as a comment on Presbyterians, within and outside of the PCUSA; I was raised Presbyterian, although I haven't been a member for over 15 years. And I'm sure that my great-uncle, Z.V. Myers, who as a 1907 Georgia Tech graduate and lay missionary spent decades building roads in Mexico, wouldn't recognize the church he supported.

But any religious polity that strives for earthly salvation rather than spiritual solace will find itself mired in temporal controversies better left to legitimate governments. That's particularly true for a body that has been as thoroughly captured by the secular left as has the PCUSA. Under the leadership of the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, the PCUSA has scurried to remain at the forefront of the declining liberal establishment's cause de jour. It has lost over a million members since the mid-1960s. And, like the main stream media, academe, and other declining institutions, it continues on its merry way, step by step into a well earned obscurity.

Winfield Myers is managing editor of American Enterprise. This appeared in democracy-project.com