The action was intended to target businesses that bear particular responsibility for Palestinian suffering,1 and the aim of the action was leveraging a change in behavior.  One of the businesses mentioned is the Caterpillar Company that makes bulldozers used by Israel to demolish Palestinian homes that are used to house suicide bombers or their families. Seldom has the Presbyterian Church made national news on any other topic besides human sexuality, but we did this time! 

The Jewish community is up in arms about this decision.  To many Jews, the Presbyterian action appears anti-Israeli and even anti-Semitic. To be sure, Palestinian terrorism is condemned in the General Assembly resolution, but the Palestinians are not targeted for sanctions. Thus, the imbalance of the (proposed) divestiture action has angered Jews across the county.  

In a meeting of Jewish and Presbyterian leaders that was held last Sunday here at New York Avenue, one Jewish leader likened the Presbyterian decision to a delegitimization of Israel that is symbolically akin to the 2000-year-old Christian teaching that Christianity has replaced Judaism as valid religion - a teaching that Presbyterians have only recently begun to redress.  The decision to divest, in other words, is being viewed by some as an historic setback of relations between Jews and Christians. 

The Presbyterian response to Jewish reaction has ranged from dismay to deep regret.   Some Presbyterians are clearly dismayed, even angered, by the Jewish reaction, since the decision to divest is clearly in keeping with a long-term Presbyterian policy of socially responsible investing and, only when push comes to shove, divestiture — a policy that we share with many other religious groups in this country, including Jewish organizations. Other Presbyterians regret that the General Assembly action singles out Israel in an obviously multifaceted conflict. 

How did we get ourselves in this mess? Indeed, some may be asking an even more basic question: why do we as a religious body stick our nose where it doesn't belong? Why do we get involved in politics to begin with? Why, for example, do we have a National Office just a block from the Capitol that is charged with advocating issues that Presbyterians have resolved to be near and dear to our understanding of promoting the gospel in the world, like Palestinian statehood, mutual security guarantees for both Israel and Palestine, and the removal of the wall being built between Israeli and Palestinian territories?  Isn't there supposed to be a wall between Church and State that should keep us from sticking our ecclesiastical nose in these issues? 

Well, let me begin with this last question in the hope that it will place us on the path of addressing more basic questions that might help us out of the quicksand in which we are currently sinking. The constitutional separation of church and state-the so-called "wall" between the two-is not meant to keep the church out of the public arena, but rather to preserve the independence of the state from religion so that one does not get co-opted by the other. And just as important, the separation of church and state is also meant to preserve the independence of the church so that the church doesn't get co-opted by the state. 

In other words, the church has an independent voice in the public square that is, for Presbyterians, nothing less than the promotion of the gospel in the world. Thus, the Presbyterian Confession of 1967 confidently proclaims: "God's reconciliation in Jesus Christ is the ground of the peace and freedom among nations which all powers of government are called to serve and defend. The church, in its own life, is called to commend to the nations as practical politics the search for cooperation and peace."

Yet as you heard the morning scripture lesson, you might ask: What does Paul mean when he says that governing authority is instituted by God? This statement doesn't sound like a doctrine of separation. When interpreting this passage, however, it is important to remember that Paul is referring to governing authorities that were not Christian.  Moreover, historically, Christians have used this passage from Romans to refer to governing authorities that have been Christian, non-Christian, and even secular. Thus, what this text from Romans seems to be suggesting is that from a Christian perspective governing authorities, whether they acknowledge it or not, are instituted by God to restrain evil and promote the good, and to the extent that they do this work, they are to be obeyed. 

Indeed, Christians are to work with governing authorities — religious or secular — to restrain evil and promote the good.  It is interesting to me that Paul reminds his readers of the Decalogue, the commandments, in conjunction with their obligation to work with governing authorities to promote good and restrain evil. Christians engage in this kind of work because we believe that sin is not simply personal, but structural — it's part of the world — and so it is our obligation to work with governing authorities, whoever they are, in what is for us a divinely ordained and redemptive work. 

But what if governing authorities cease to promote good and restrain evil and, indeed, do the opposite as, for example, when Hitler set about his program to delegitimize, ghettoize and exterminate the Jewish people?  Should the church obey such governing authority as instituted by God? Sadly, many German Christians did just that. Yet, following John Calvin, Presbyterians have taught that tyrannies and unjust exercises of power are not ordained of God. Indeed, when governments act unjustly and oppress whole groups of people, they are not only abandoning God's law but have presumed the power of God for themselves, acting as if they were subject to no higher law. In a sense, such governments have closed the wall that separates religion and state, and co-opted religion by presuming the power of God. This is, of course, what tyrants do.  So what is our Christian obligation with respect to tyrants or what we perceive as unjust laws and improper exercise of power? 

Well, the war in Iraq is a good case study because Christians have found themselves on varied sides of this issue.  Some Christians as Christians continue to support the decision for war in Iraq because it disposed a tyrant who had presumed the power of God against his people.  Other Christians as Christians continue to argue against the decision for war because they believed it was a premature and unjust exercise of power, and they believed that there were other ways to counter a tyrant. I continue to find myself in among that later group. As many of you know, I went to jail in a non-violent and prayerful protest against this war because I believe preventative wars, such as the war in Iraq, are unjust. I've asked myself many times whether my action was the right one, and I continue to answer that question in the affirmative even though uncertainties remain. For you see, I am not God, and I know I didn't have to tell you that. But it is an important acknowledgement nonetheless. Just as important, the governing authority is not God. All of which is to say that all of us in this country-Christians, non-Christians, Jews, Muslims, governing authorities-are partial and fallible people.

So what do you do after you've finally made such an important acknowledgment?  Well, Michael Walzer, a political theorist who likewise acknowledges the partial and fallible character of every individual and community, says that nonetheless we "can acknowledge each other's different ways, respond to each other's cries for help, learn from each other, and march (sometimes) in each other's parades." 2  The parade possibility, it seems to me, is an intriguing ground from which Presbyterians can move into the public square to promote good and to counter evil. Indeed, the parade possibility could be a critical symbol for our public life in that even though we are a people of a particular covenant that began with Abraham and Sarah and extends to us through Jesus, we also affirm that our particular covenant is a part of a larger and inclusive covenant-for Jews, it is the one God made with Noah; for Presbyterians, it is the one God made with Adam -which means we are in covenant relation with all humankind. So the possibility of walking in one another's parades is not simply a nice thing to do, it is our calling. We need each other! Then how do we as Presbyterian put the parade possibility into practice?  We do so by making sure that our table is large, and relevant people are invited to it, like Jews who might disagree with us when we single out Israel for divestiture. 

Later in the service, communion vessels from around the world will be placed on this table in honor of World Communion Sunday, and among those vessels are ones from Palestine and Israel. It is our hope that these vessels can become symbols of our commitment to peace in that fragile part of the world, and that we might be invited to one another's table on the hope of marching in one another's parades.