Toronto Sun: United, not really
Post
Marianne Meed Ward, Toronto Sun, Sun, July 2, 2006, United, not really - Church task group supports boycott of goods produced in Israeli settlements
The United Church has never separated faith from daily life, and for that it should be commended. Faith must influence our economic, political, social and lifestyle choices or it becomes a faith merely of assent -- "Yes, I believe in God" -- and not action -- "Because I believe in God, I must: Fill in the blank."
The trouble arises when our churches tell us how to fill in the blank in every situation. That sort of trouble arose last week when the Toronto Conference of the United Church decided to tell people what to do about the Middle East.
I have a personal interest in this, as well as a professional one: I attend a United Church. What's said by the various branches of the denomination eventually affects me.
Last week, the Toronto Conference's Task Group for Ethical Investment in the Middle East said they supported CUPE Ontario's call for a "boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel." The goal is to force dismantling of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, on land claimed by the Palestinians.
The church task group separately issued a boycott limited to goods produced in the settlements, and to two companies -- General Electric and Caterpillar -- seen to be profiting from them.
The task group is also circulating a petition to 300 churches calling for the Canadian government to label all goods produced in the settlements, and calling for divestment from companies who are profiting from the settlements, specifically Canadian Aviation Electronics, Lockheed Martin, General Electric and Caterpillar.
When I spoke last week to Lawrence Pushee, co-chair of the task group, he acknowledged that the average pew sitter may not grasp the distinction between CUPE's all-Israel boycott and the Toronto Conference's settlement-specific boycott -- especially given the task group's support for CUPE. And Pushee freely admitted that, personally, he'd like the church to go further.
There are two issues here: Will a boycott work? And is it the church's job to call for a boycott?
Those who support boycotts say such actions helped end apartheid in South Africa. That may be giving too much credit to boycotts and too little credit to the work of dedicated apartheid fighters on the ground. But more critical is that boycotts are blunt instruments: To use a military term, there's a lot of collateral damage. As we saw in Iraq, sanctions deprived ordinary citizens of basic goods and medical supplies.
Principles to live by
What boycotts are probably best at is stimulating debate about the issues in question -- though sometimes the debate doesn't get past the issue of the boycott itself. But there are other ways of stimulating debate that may have fewer harmful side effects.
Further, the role of the church is to provide principles to live by, rather than directives in every specific situation.
After all, that's how Jesus taught in the parables. He said "Love your neighbour." When someone asked "Who is my neighbour?" Jesus didn't say, "John Smith, the guy who plays Led Zeppelin at volume 11 until 2 a.m. every Saturday." He told a story that conveyed a principle -- that being, your neighbour is anyone who is in need, whether friend, enemy or literal annoying neighbour.
Furthermore, by supporting a boycott of Israel, the task force comes very close to telling us not only what to do, but who are the good guys (Palestinians) and bad guys (Israelis) in an extremely complex situation.
To its credit, the United Church head office condemns terrorism against Israel, and affirms Israel's right to exist in peace, in every statement criticizing specific Israeli actions. That is a balanced approach to a complex situation.
The Toronto task group would be far more effective if it stuck to communicating principles instead of a taking side, when both sides in this conflict have been, by turns, a victim and a victimizer.
If the petition comes to my United Church, I'll probably take a pass.
The United Church has never separated faith from daily life, and for that it should be commended. Faith must influence our economic, political, social and lifestyle choices or it becomes a faith merely of assent -- "Yes, I believe in God" -- and not action -- "Because I believe in God, I must: Fill in the blank."
The trouble arises when our churches tell us how to fill in the blank in every situation. That sort of trouble arose last week when the Toronto Conference of the United Church decided to tell people what to do about the Middle East.
I have a personal interest in this, as well as a professional one: I attend a United Church. What's said by the various branches of the denomination eventually affects me.
Last week, the Toronto Conference's Task Group for Ethical Investment in the Middle East said they supported CUPE Ontario's call for a "boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel." The goal is to force dismantling of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, on land claimed by the Palestinians.
The church task group separately issued a boycott limited to goods produced in the settlements, and to two companies -- General Electric and Caterpillar -- seen to be profiting from them.
The task group is also circulating a petition to 300 churches calling for the Canadian government to label all goods produced in the settlements, and calling for divestment from companies who are profiting from the settlements, specifically Canadian Aviation Electronics, Lockheed Martin, General Electric and Caterpillar.
When I spoke last week to Lawrence Pushee, co-chair of the task group, he acknowledged that the average pew sitter may not grasp the distinction between CUPE's all-Israel boycott and the Toronto Conference's settlement-specific boycott -- especially given the task group's support for CUPE. And Pushee freely admitted that, personally, he'd like the church to go further.
There are two issues here: Will a boycott work? And is it the church's job to call for a boycott?
Those who support boycotts say such actions helped end apartheid in South Africa. That may be giving too much credit to boycotts and too little credit to the work of dedicated apartheid fighters on the ground. But more critical is that boycotts are blunt instruments: To use a military term, there's a lot of collateral damage. As we saw in Iraq, sanctions deprived ordinary citizens of basic goods and medical supplies.
Principles to live by
What boycotts are probably best at is stimulating debate about the issues in question -- though sometimes the debate doesn't get past the issue of the boycott itself. But there are other ways of stimulating debate that may have fewer harmful side effects.
Further, the role of the church is to provide principles to live by, rather than directives in every specific situation.
After all, that's how Jesus taught in the parables. He said "Love your neighbour." When someone asked "Who is my neighbour?" Jesus didn't say, "John Smith, the guy who plays Led Zeppelin at volume 11 until 2 a.m. every Saturday." He told a story that conveyed a principle -- that being, your neighbour is anyone who is in need, whether friend, enemy or literal annoying neighbour.
Furthermore, by supporting a boycott of Israel, the task force comes very close to telling us not only what to do, but who are the good guys (Palestinians) and bad guys (Israelis) in an extremely complex situation.
To its credit, the United Church head office condemns terrorism against Israel, and affirms Israel's right to exist in peace, in every statement criticizing specific Israeli actions. That is a balanced approach to a complex situation.
The Toronto task group would be far more effective if it stuck to communicating principles instead of a taking side, when both sides in this conflict have been, by turns, a victim and a victimizer.
If the petition comes to my United Church, I'll probably take a pass.
Home