ISRAEL: STATE – LAND – PEOPLE

[At a press conference in December 2006, the German national church study group “Church and Judaism” in Pfalz presented a series of theses titled “Israel: State – Land – People” after a two-year discussion process. The theses are a contribution to the internal church process of opinion formation in view of the grievous Middle East conflict continuing to this hour. The document is translated from the German on the World Wide Web,  http://www.jcrelations.net/de/?item=2780.]

FOREWORD OF UPPER CHURCH COUNSEL CHRISTIAN SCHAD

Like all other member churches of the Evangelical church in Germany, our national church needed a long start-up time before taking steps of penance and renewal in their relation to Judaism after 1945 – considering the Schoa. After intensive preliminary work, the “Church and Judaism” study group formed in 1982, the “Church and Israel” memorandum urged repentance. This memorandum focusing on the relation of our church to Judaism was thoroughly discussed in church communities, presbyteries and regional synods. On May 10, 1995, the national synod resolved unanimously to supplement the constitution of the Evangelical church in Pfalz (a national protestant church) in Section 1 par 3 as follows:

“Through its Lord Jesus Christ, the national church knows itself accepted in God’s promissory history with his chosen people Israel – for the salvation of all people. Called to repentance, the church seeks reconciliation with the Jewish people and opposes all forms of hostility toward Jews.”

In a 2002 declaration of the “Church and Judaism” study group, the long time promoter of the Christian-Jewish dialogue in our national church, Dr. Hans L. Eeichrath insisted: “The constitutional change must have consequences, be converted in the praxis of our church life and lead to rethinking away from the terrible theological perversions over centuries and their aftermath for Jews and the church itself.”

With this series of theses “Israel: State – Land – People,” the “Church and Judaism” study group responds to an urgent demand. The internal discussion process took almost two years with very different positions presented for consensus. On one hand, this series of theses is consciously limited to the theme “Israel” and therefore does not claim to address all the central aspects. On the other hand, the formulations go beyond a mere description of the state of affairs and give substantive orientation in listening to the testimony of Holy Scripture and joint-responsibility for a peaceful cooperative life of citizens of the state of Israel and their Arab neighbors.

The theses are divided in two sections: a political-historical section and a theological section.

In the first part (Theses 1 to 8), the significance of the state of Israel as the “protective housing” (Martin Stohr) for Jews against persecution is emphasized. Israel’s legitimacy according to the 1948 partition resolution of the UN General Assembly is undeniable in international law (cf. Thesis 2) just like the right of Palestinians to their own state (cf. Thesis 3). Theses 6 and 7 illumine our special responsibility as Germans and Christians because of our entanglement in the history of hostility to Jews. In this first main part, the theologically responsible association with history proves to be a cantus firmus of these theses.

The interpretation of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament settlement traditions (cf. Thesis 9), is not simply surpassed or negated by the New Testament (cf. Thesis 10) but is the standard of theological statements in the second part. The central declaration in Thesis 11 is that Israel’s founding was metaphorically “God’s warning sign” (Schalom Ben-Chorin) is grounded on this biblical-theological foundation. The authors of this text consciously chose a middle way between the complete profanization of Israel’s history on one side (cf. Thesis 12) and a biblicistic reinforcement of that history on the other side (cf. Thesis 13). Thus Israel as a political reality on one hand has theological significance but on the other hand is neither sacrosanct nor immune from criticism.

The theses are a contribution to the opinion formation process given the grievous Middle East conflict continuing to this hour. Persons engaged in peace work and in ecumenical solidarity with the churches in Palestine are in our national church. The permanent rooting of the church in Judaism is important to these Christians. Hopefully this paper will help refer positions to one another and not exclude positions.

I thank the members of the “Church and Judaism” study group for their continuous engagement. My special thanks go to Dr. Stefan Meissner for his great perseverance and integrative power in developing these theses.

May helpful impulses start from this text – for the dialogue between Christians and Jews and for a sensitive and differentiated perception of the situation in the Middle East that alone can be a basis for peaceful co-existence.


ISRAEL: STATE – LAND – PEOPLE

Theses of the “Church and Judaism” study group of the Evangelical church in Pfalz

PART 1: HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL ASPECTS

THESIS 1: PARTITION RESOLUTION AND FOUNDING OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

The partition resolution of the UN plenary assembly from 11/29/1947 dividing the British mandated area Palestine into two states represents an unquestionable international law foundation for the founding of the state of Israel on 5/14/1948.

There is no turning back from these two facts.

THESIS 2: ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXIST

Israel’s important significance as a “protective housing” (Martin Stohr) for all Jews in the Diaspora comes after the persecution history of the late 19th and the 20th century.

Israel’s existence in secure borders recognized in international law may not be questioned a\either politically or with force of arms.

THESIS 3: THE OPTION FOR A PALESTINIAN STATE

The partition resolution of the United Nations includes the option for a Palestinian state that has not been realized for different reasons.

Its establishment is the indispensable prerequisite today for a peaceful solution in the Middle East. The amicable negotiation of the state territory between the two states is part of that peaceful solution.

THESIS 4: THE INTERNATIONAL BALANCE OF POWER

The perception of the Middle East conflict may not be narrowed to the two parties Israel and the Palestinians. Rather a constructive collaboration of the neighboring Arab states and the political powers the US, the European Union and Russia is also necessary.

An agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is only realistic with a pacification of the whole region. Both the legitimate claim of Israelis to an existence recognized by their neighbors and not threatened by territorial violence nor the claim of Palestinians to an independent viable state can be ignored.

THESIS 5: ISRAEL AS THE CENTER OF WORLDWIDE JUDAISM

Israel is the only land of the world in which the majority of its population is Jewish. A special significance comes to Israel as the spiritual center of the Jewish religion, history, culture, language and scholarship.

This aspect is emphasized by religious and secular Jews who see themselves as part of a great community of fate. Recognizing this broad inner-Jewish consensus is important.

THESIS 6: OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ISRAEL AS GERMANS

Because of the genocide on European Judaism, a Germany committed to liberal-democratic traditions has a special responsibility for the existence of the state of Israel and the right to life of its people.

This obligates Germany concretely in its foreign policy to side with Israel especially in times of Israel’s external or internal endangerment, We must also strive to keep alive a faithful recollection of the Schoa in our educational work, strengthen a broad engagement against anti-Semitism and racism and counter a one-sided or ideologically distorted description of Israel and the Middle East conflict.

THESIS 7: OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A CHURCH FOR ISRAEL

Our church bears a special responsibility for Israel through its complicity in hostility to Jews and persecution of Jews in the time of National Socialism. Church solidarity with Israel can be expressed in different ways through study trips, partnerships and Christian-Jewish encounters and also through long-term projects like Nes Ammim and the work of Aktion Suhnezeichen (Germans witnessing solidarity in France, England etc).

Solidarity with Israel means grappling critically and unprejudiced with the political situation in the Middle East in church work. The state of Israel has a right to be judged according to the same political-ethical standard as other states.

THESIS 8: OUR SOLIDARITY WITH CHRISTIANS IN ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

Our church supports all powers in the region that champion a peaceful and just coexistence and stand for nonviolence, the rule of law and human rights as well as overcoming scapegoats and stereotypes. Our church is allied with our sister churches in the Holy Land that represent the Christian minorities in Israel and in Palestine.

This twofold solidarity with Jews and Christians in Israel and Palestine across the current political lines of conflict must be held out and lived in the presence of the other side.

PART II: THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS

THESIS 9: THE BIBLICAL LAND PROMISE

The return of Jews to Israel can rightly be seen in light of the biblical land promise to the people of Israel (Gen 12,7; Josh 1,1-6 and others) and their hope for an end of exile. In Christian perception, this Old Testament remains in force as God’s biblical promise.

We understand the theme “Land and People of Israel” as a chance for concretizing in time and space our meditation on God – God’s electing and calling, covenants and promises.

THESIS 10: THE LAND AS A PERMANENT COVENTANT GIFT

According to the biblical testimony, the “land” is a permanent covenant gift to Israel. Through our confession to the Jew Jesus of Nazareth who promised the “meek” would “inherit the earth” (Mt 5,5), we Christians recognize the land of Israel as a geographic benchmark.

Even if Jews apply the “land” as a spiritual picture for their permanent community with God, they long for their real land. When Christians following similar tendencies speak figuratively about the “land” (as in the New Testament, for example Gal 4,26; Hebr 11,14-16), they may never lose sight of the reference to the real land of Israel.

THESIS 11: THE STATE OF ISRAEL AS “GOD’S WARNING SIGN”

Together with many religious Jews, we see “God’s warning sign” in the gathering of the people of Israel in the “land of the fathers” and in the establishment of the state of Israel. We believe God was and is still faithful to his people despite all the endangerments and catastrophes in history, especially in the Schoa (Zech 2.12; Rom 9,1-5; 11,1).

Like the land, the state of Israel must be set in a positive relation to the Christian faith and taken seriously.

THESIS 12: AGAINST THE PROFANIZATION OF ISRAEL’S HISTORY

We oppose the thinking of many Christians who see only an event of profane world history without any theological significance in the return of Jews to Israel and would reduce the land theme to the plane of realpolitik.

Whoever splits off Israel’s political reality from its theological reality removes God from history. That the God of Israel and Father of Jesus Christ is the Lord of history and acts in history becomes vague. This position contradicts the historical thinking of the Old Testament and can only regard this as a failed model to be overcome.

THESIS 13: AGAINST A FUNDAMENTALIST-BIBLICISTIC HOSTILITY TO ISRAEL

We also oppose a fundamentalist-biblicistic view arrested to an end time-apocalyptic schema that sees a sign of Christ’s imminent return in the newly established state of Israel.

Although the Old Testament land promises are taken seriously here, the political conclusions derived from those promises are often out of tough with reality and cause havoc like the expectation of Christ’s return when “a remnant” of Israel is converted to Christ while the other Jews perish.

THESIS 14: HISTORY AND GOD’S ACTIONS ARE DISTINGUISHED BUT NOT SEPARATED

A way – often contrary to appearance – leads between the two extremes (Theses 12 and 13) and sees God at work today in Israel without simply identifying God’s will with the state of Israel, its government or certain political actions.

This position takes up the biblical land promise while recognizing a “surplus” of this promise compared to the historical events of migration and founding of the state. It takes seriously Israel’s permanent election as its destiny and as a blessing over all people. Pragmatic solutions oriented in concrete political realities concerning the question of the partition of the land between Israelis and Palestinians are encouraged.

THESIS 15: HELPFUL PERSPECTIVES FOR THE LAND

The Bible contains many directives and blessed perspectives for the land and all who dwell therein (Deut 27,1-3; Jer 7,5-7).

Law and justice, the two great guiding perspectives of the Old Testament ethos, could breakthrough in concrete political execution. This means granting the possibilities of life and participation to all inhabitants of the land and respecting and protecting their human dignity grounded on their likeness to god.

THESIS 16: AGAINST THE INSTRUMENTALIZATION OF THE BIBLE FOR POLITICAL GOALS

Alongside these helpful perspectives, there are problematic biblical traditions that for example speak of wars in God’s name and an extermination of people (Josh 1,13-15; Ex 17,14). On the other hand, we insist, “War is against God’s will.”

All instrumentalization of the Bible for political goals should be rejected. We oppose all exploitation of religion as a weapon for superimposing or establishing scapegoats or stereotypes and for intensifying instead of deactivating conflicts.

THESIS 17: JOINT COMMISSION OF THE CHRUCH AND ISRAEL

The church and Israel are called to witness to the one God – the God of Abraham and the Father of Jesus Christ “that his way may be known upon earth and his saving power among all nations” (Ps 67,3).

Our national church confesses in its constitution “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, we know ourselves accepted in God’s promissory history with his chosen people Israel – for the salvation of all humanity.” This has to stand the test in concrete solidarity with Israel, including its political existence. This includes our engagement for a peace in the Holy Land that is just for the nations and ennobling for humankind.

(Passed September 6, 2006)