Monday, February 13, 2012

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Episcopal General Theological Seminary and Berkeley Divinity Co-Sponsor Israel-Apartheid Conference

Sunday, November 4, 2007 • 5:26 pm


Rallies accusing Israel of practicing apartheid may be old hat, but the involvement of Episcopal church leaders gave last weekend’s conference in Boston more stature than such gatherings might ordinarily enjoy. The Episcopal Bishop of Massachusetts, Rev. M. Thomas Shaw, was a featured speaker at the “Israel-Apartheid” conference, and the Episcopal Divinity School, which trains the church’s future leaders, co-sponsored the event.

Some may see this antipathy to the Jewish state and apparent indifference to the suffering Israel has endured as analogous to the Holocaust years, when most Episcopal church leaders were largely indifferent to the suffering of the Jews in Hitler’s Europe. But it is important to remember that then, as now, there were also prominent Episcopalians who stood up for the Jews.

In England during the 1930s, the Archbishop of Canterbury - leader of the Anglican Church, which was the parent body of America’s Episcopal Church - was Rev. Cosmo Gordon Lang, who contended that “the Jews themselves” were to blame for the “excesses of the Nazis.”

By contrast, Rev. William Temple, who succeeded Lang as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1942, was an outspoken advocate for the Jewish victims of Hitler and did not hesitate to take unpopular positions, such as urging the Allies to grant asylum to all Jewish refugees.

In fact, part of the reason the Roosevelt administration decided in 1943 to hold its sham refugee conference in far-off Bermuda, away from the eyes of the public and media, was because it was worried about “Canterbury giving publicity in the press,” as assistant secretary of state Breckinridge Long wrote in his diary.

In the US during the Holocaust, most Episcopal leaders, like most leaders of other church denominations, refrained from speaking out about the Jews’ plight. But there were important exceptions.

Two Episcopal schools, the General Theological Seminary (New York) and the Berkeley Divinity School (Connecticut) were co-sponsors of an important “Inter-Seminary Conference” which was held in New York City in early 1943 to discuss the Nazi mass murders. Organized by student activists from the Jewish Theological Seminary, the conference was the first significant attempt to rally Jewish and Christian religious opinion in support of rescue.

A number of Episcopal leaders were active in the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe (better known as the Bergson Group), which lobbied for US action to rescue Jews from the Holocaust. Episcopal Bishop Henry St. George Tucker of New York was a featured speaker at its landmark 1943 Emergency Rescue conference. Rev. H.P. Almon Abbot, Rev. Rev. Harry Longley, and Rev. W. Bertrand Stevens, the Episcopal bishops of Kentucky, Iowa, and Los Angeles, respectively, were co-sponsors of the conference. Rev. Stevens also co-sponsored the Los Angeles performance of “We Will Never Die,” a theatrical event that the Bergson Group used to raise public awareness of the Holocaust.

IN THE autumn of 1943, the Bergson Group conference initiated a congressional resolution urging creation of a US government agency to rescue Jewish refugees. The Roosevelt administration vigorously opposed the resolution, arguing that nothing could be done to rescue the Jews except to win the war.

In the midst of this battle, eight Christian leaders issued an important statement endorsing the resolution. Among the signatories were two Episcopal bishops - Rev. William Manning of New York and Rev. Thomas Heistand of Harrisburg.

Now consider this irony: another signatory was Dr. Angus Dun, dean of the Episcopal Theological College - the former name for the Episcopal Divinity School, which co-sponsored last week’s “Israel-Apartheid” conference in Boston.

And yet more irony: another of the signatories was Dr. Russell Stafford, Minister of the Old South Church - the same church which hosted the “Israel-Apartheid” conference.

Read it all.

Hat/tip:  Yid with Lid


14 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Yeah! Can you just imagine the nerve of those Jews? Why cant they treat the “Palestinians” in the same way that Jews are treated in Islamic countries?  OOooops…

[1] Posted by Bob K. on 11-04-2007 at 05:16 PM • top

I will bless those who bless you , and I will curse those who curse you…  Gen.12:3

[2] Posted by In Newark on 11-04-2007 at 07:04 PM • top

Can you imagine if Shaw were a Muslim clergy in the land of Hamas trying to advocate for same sex blessings in that religion?

[3] Posted by physician without health on 11-04-2007 at 07:40 PM • top

I’m missing the irony here.  EDS remains vocal in oppsing antisemitism, and (please correct me if I’m wrong) is the only seminary in TEC that includes training in opposing antisemitism and similar forms of oppression in its curriculum of required course for all seminarians.  It’s a good place to be.

[4] Posted by Sarah Dylan Breuer on 11-04-2007 at 08:06 PM • top

“EDS…is the only seminary in TEC that includes training in opposing antisemitism and similar forms of oppression oppression in its curriculum of required course for all seminarians”

Anti-Oppression Training can be good or bad. In PC hands it can become an oppressive reeducation camp for the non-PC.

[5] Posted by Irenaeus on 11-04-2007 at 08:17 PM • top

Sarah Dylan Breur: Just curious: Would EDS and its anti-oppression course tend to see the canonical gospels as intrinsically antisemitic? (“Intrinsically” in the sense that antisemitism inheres in the gospel texts, not just in later Christian misuse of the gospels.)

[6] Posted by Irenaeus on 11-04-2007 at 08:22 PM • top

Palestinian leaders insist that no Jews be allowed to live in their territories.  In Israel, on the other hand, Arabs—including Palestinians—are eligible for full citizenship, and even sit in the Knesset (Israeli Parliament).  What kind of bizarre mental process puts the apartheid label on Israel, instead of the PLO?  And how, in the face of this conference, can anyone have the chutzpah to claim that EDS is opposed to anti-semitism?

[7] Posted by In Newark on 11-04-2007 at 08:53 PM • top

Good comments by Irenaeus, both.

Before 9/11, I was generally ignorant about Islam and about the history of the Middle East.  I had sympathy with the Palestinian complaints as presented in these leftist seminars.  After the catastrophe, I began reading extensively.  I now know that the surrounding countries have restrictions on non-Muslims more severe than the restrictions on non-Jews within Israel.

Strange how views have changed over time.  When I was young, most people in the U.S. had a very positive view of Israel and of the migration of Jews from the horrors of Europe, as dramatized by “Exodus” in print and on the screen.  President Truman remarked, “I am Cyrus,” with reference to the provision for a Jewish homeland, the first since ancient times.

The focus of radical Muslims and their sympathizers on the efforts to remove a tiny principality of 5.5 million Jews from an area of the world overwhelmingly Muslim in every other location defies logic, really.  If every Jew in the entire world lived in Israel the total population would still be far less than that of metropolitan Cairo.

[8] Posted by Katherine on 11-04-2007 at 11:55 PM • top

The state of non-muslims in a muslim land is called dhimmitude. There are many rules placed upon them. There is a blog dhimmi-watch that catalogs abuses of non-muslims by muslims. Some I saw: A Christian 18 year old woman in Kuala Lampur was raped and forced to convert to Islam. Police did nothing. There was also this ditty from Saudi Arabia on a radio show discussing how to beat your wife (sanctioned by the Quran):

Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals,” he explained. “Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face.

They repeated this and talked about how the beatings shouldn’t “make the women ugly.” For those that forget the circumstances in Saudi, the face is the only part of women that are seen in public. Isn’t the concern for women by this cleric sweet?

[9] Posted by robroy on 11-05-2007 at 03:05 AM • top

Some years ago, Woody Allen expressed shock and outrage at Israel’s treatment of its Arab citizens.  I can’t quote him from memory, but he was as I recall, he was upset that the country he had thought of as a superior homeland for his people had feet of clay.

I think some of the issue with Israel is in that reaction.  I am a child of WWII.  I recall the horror with which my family regarded the Shoah.  We are a family of mixed, Rom, Magyar, and German ethnicity, and would have been victims had we lived there.  We turned away from most of our family’s German customs. 

Now I see Israel acting against its Arab citizens and I recall believing it was to be a realization of the Holy Land described in Ezekiel and III Isaiah.  I see the promise broken.  While I remain a supporter of Israel, I am not an automatic supporter of its government’s policies. 

FWIW
jimB

[10] Posted by jimB on 11-05-2007 at 07:34 AM • top

jimB, I’m not an automatic supporter of all Israeli policies, either.  but I do believe that the radical Muslim campaign is extreme and irrational, and I’d like to see their U.S. supporters come to that realization.  There are direct connections between the radicals and the Nazi Jew-haters.  The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem spent much of WWII in Berlin and was a collaborator on the “final solution.”  It is this infection which prevents a rational solution on the Palestinian side.

robroy, in the Saudi kingdom, not even the woman’s face is visible in public.

[11] Posted by Katherine on 11-05-2007 at 09:13 AM • top

Not to make to much out of it, but The title to this piece is mistaken in saying “Episcopal Theological School (formerly EDS)...” actually it is the reverse, Episcopal Divinity School (formerly ETS)...

[12] Posted by FrVan on 11-05-2007 at 11:50 AM • top

Irenaeus: Nope.  At no point in any of my EDS classes has any faculty member said that the gospels are intrinsically antisemitic.  The gospels have certainly been used to proof-text antisemitic agendas, but that about the users, not about something intrinsic to the texts.

At the risk of overgeneralizing, I’ll say that I think many of y’all seem to assume far too much about EDS as well as about progressives (and not everyone who goes to or teaches at EDS is a progressive Episcopalian).

[13] Posted by Sarah Dylan Breuer on 11-05-2007 at 07:06 PM • top

I am glad you changed the title of this piece in order to correct it. I also agree with Sarah Dylan Breuer that EDS is a remarkably broad school surrounded by wonderful resources (The Boston Theological Institute member schools). I graduated from the D.Min. program in 2000 and loved the people and opportunities for spiritual growth and knowledge. While I found most people to, in fact, be “progressive,” they were wonderful to be with especially in an academic sense, they challenged and stretched me.

[14] Posted by FrVan on 11-06-2007 at 02:35 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.