Why do you think that Presbyterians do not understand that the hatred the terrorists feel toward us is because of our blind policy with respect to Israel... Our policy in the Middle East is why we are in this war. So if our government does nothing, then the Church must.

She later added:

The only tool the Church has to send a message is by divestment and to me it is simple... I choose to invest in wind power, for example, instead of a gun manufacturer... I belong to Hope Presbyterian Church in Austin, TX. I have been a Presbyterian for a long time. I served as Volunteer in Mission at Sheldon Jackson College ( Alaska) in 1998.

Further comments on the Assembly’s divestment action, from John Wimberly

The Rev. John Wimberly wrote some days back, disputing the interpretations by the Rev. Susan Andrews and the Rev. Will McGarvey, who viewed the GA action on divestment as basically reaffirming the action of two years ago, along with an acknowledgement of the distress that has been felt by many in the Jewish community, as well as a number of Presbyterians.

John Wimberly writes again, insisting that the 2006 Assembly really did order a shift in policy, away from divestment toward a positive "strategy of investment."

Dear Editor:

I’m not sure why some divestment supporters, such as Rev. McGarvey continue to suggest that the 2006 GA "reaffirmed" or "refocused" the actions of the 2004 GA. So there can be no confusion, at the end of these comments, I have attached the relevant quote from the resolution adopted by the 2006 GA. The words "reaffirm" or "refocus" are neither present nor implied in the resolution. On the contrary, the 2006 GA "replace(s)" the instructions from the 2004 GA, something they were well within their power to do. The new directions pointedly do not mention "phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel." Instead, they call for a strategy ofinvestment and affirm the use of MRTI as the appropriate means to that end.

I was opposed to the 2004 GA action regarding divestment for numerous reasons. For one, I thought the 2004 GA action might jeopardize the good and appropriate work of MRTI. Indeed, it did just that, forcing the 2006 GA into a position where it had to "affirm" the work of MRTI.

By replacing the divestment strategy with an investment strategy, the 2006 GA allows the MRTI to use its "customary corporate engagement process" that has been such an effective tool in the drive for social and economic justice. I would hope that the pro-divestment crowd would allow the MRTI to do just that and stop insisting that nothing has changed. The words of the 2006 GA resolution are clear. The 2004 instructions regarding "phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel" have been "replace(d)."

John Wimberly, Pastor, Western Presbyterian Church, Washington, D.C.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To these ends, we replace the instructions expressed in Item 12-01 (Minutes, 2004 Part I, pp. 64-66) item 7, which reads

with the following:

To urge that financial investments of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits, and affirm that the customary corporate engagement process of the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment of our denomination is the proper vehicle for achieving this goal."

The note from Will McGarvey:

I have to respectfully disagree with Rev. Wimberly’s assessment of the 2006 GA decision on peace in Israel-Palestine. Like others, it sounds like he understood the 2004 GA decision to suggest that the church would begin divesting from companies in Israel before a process of corporate engagement. The so-called "divestment strategy" from 2004 is exactly the same process of corporate engagement through the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee which was reaffirmed with the 2006 decision. For the last 22 years, the church has used the phrase "phased selective divestment" to describe this MRTI process. The MRTI committee then set their parameters for how they would approach the conflict in Israel-Palestine to focus on those corporations that are profiting from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and Palestinian terrorism. Divestment is always the last step in such engagement, and constitutes a failure to change the corporate behavior of the companies we engage. "Phased selective divestment" is but one of many positions within the spectrum of Boycott, Sanctions, Divestment (BSD) that organizations use to put pressure on corporations. But our 2004 decision of "phased selective divestment" wasn’t a blanket boycott or divestment from all companies in Israel.

Being in attendance for every part of the Assembly’s discussion and discernment on this issue, it became clear to me that the Committee on Peacemaking and International Issues did not have the power to rescind a previous GA’s decision and so the committee gave up amending overture 11-01 from Mississippi. Instead, they wrote a whole new resolution to answer the many overtures from around the country. This is an important distinction. Because they couldn’t replace or rescind the 2004 decision, what they did was replace the instructions found in number 7 of the 2004 decision, and then added further directions for MRTI [with added language in italics]:

By replacing the instructions, what they did was offer clarification. By adding their directions to MRTI, they reaffirmed the current policies and also authorized MRTI to seek positive investment opportunities. In effect, they gave the church new language with which to understand this same historic process. While the language is different, the strategy is much the same. What was interesting to me was that the committee was offered the opportunity of defining the language of MRTI’s work of "phased selective divestment," but chose not to restrict the church’s language to "corporate engagement." The committee used divestment language when it came to the resolution on the war in Sudan, but chose to clarify our position on Israel-Palestine using the language of "corporate engagement." The committee understood that to forever remove divestment from the process of MRTI’s "corporate engagement" was to effectively defang the process entirely.

Rev. Wimberly’s response represents a continuing misunderstanding of the 2004 decision. The 2006 decision exhibits our Church’s recognition of the effect this misunderstanding has had within the Jewish community. The Church’s Moderator, Stated Clerk, and Bill Somplatsky-Jarman, the staff person that serves the MRTI Committee, all interpreted this decision at press conferences after the decision was voted upon at GA. When asked if this decision changes the church’s policy on divestment, Bill Somplatsky-Jarman reminded the reporter that divestment was never the primary focus of the 2004 decision. While I agree with many that the 2004 decision could have been written in such a way as to decrease this misunderstanding, I believe that the 2006 wording clarifies the original intention of the 2004 decision.

In some ways, nothing has changed. The church continues its corporate engagement with Caterpillar, Motorola, Citigroup, United Technologies, and ITT over their business practices. Other things also haven’t changed, the Israeli occupation continues with settlements that expand deep into the pre-1967 borders, and Palestinians still do not have a state. Innocents are dying on both sides of this conflict due to both Israeli state-terrorism and Palestinian terrorism. If anything has changed, it is that the church has shown that it wants to work with the interfaith community to end this conflict, and that it is even willing to change our language of corporate engagement to do so. I agree with Rev. Wimberly, that we should "end this divisive debate over divestment," but we must do so with honesty about what our past statements have meant.

A Washington pastor, John Wimberly, disputes Susan Andrews' interpretation of the General Assembly action on divestment  
[7-6-06]

To the Editor:

Can our denomination still sell stocks in companies engaged in what we deem to be unethical/immoral behavior in Israel, the occupied territories or elsewhere? Of course. But we could do that before the actions of the 2004 GA. The MRTI process always has the possibility of selling equities if its constructive engagement with corporations is for naught.

So it is confusing to continue the talk about divestment. Unfortunately, divestment is now terminology forever linked with the failing effort to get churches, universities, foundations and others to divest in some way or another from Israel or those doing business with Israel. We need to stop using the term and return to the MRTI process of which we should all be proud which leads to the sale of equities, if necessary.

Gratefully, the GA office has issued a second FAQ document that clarifies the fact that the 2004 strategy was, in fact, replaced by a new strategy of the 2006 GA. I think the new strategy is one around which all of us, pro and anti divestment, can gather. It was an act of the Spirit by the 2006 GA. With it, we can encourage peacemaking activity and hold accountable those corporations or others who act in ways that perpetuate violence and injustice. With it, we can end this divisive debate over divestment.

John Wimberly

Pastor, Western Presbyterian Church
Washington, D.C.
john@westernpresbyterian.org