Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges but thrust is unchanged

The Church of Scotland yesterday issued a revised version of the report titled “The Inheritance of Abraham? A Report on the Promised Land,” after it was harshly, and in my opinion, unfairly criticized by Jewish groups from the United Kingdom, the Israeli government and various opinion columnists in Israel, the US and in Great Britain. (Our site reported on this here, here and here.)

The original report is here. The revised report, which is on the Church website, is here

 “The Inheritance of Abraham?” was scheduled to be presented to the General Assembly of the church today (May 18), but it has now been postponed until next week, according to the church website.

The central thesis of the document remains unchanged.  It states that promises in the bible should not be used to support Israeli “claims of exclusivity or privileged divine right to possess particular territory.”  

After the church withdrew the report, it stated that a new introduction would be added which would explain, contextualize and answer the objections that were raised. However, in addition to the introductory remarks, the new report does include significant changes to the body of the document.

Despite the revisions, my cursory initial review leads me to the conclusion that the basic content and purpose of the report have not been substantially altered. However, there has been a clear attempt to remove controversial parts of the report in order to placate the critics.

Also, the revision includes the addition of an excerpt from columnist Marc Ellis (see below).

There are many reasons why this report may be rejected by the General Assembly. Many church members are pro-Zionist and others may just want to avoid conflict with their Jewish opponents.   But one can hope that the unfair criticism, which included charges of church anti-Semitism and opposition to Christian theology, will cause a backlash, and the passage of the report.

I compared a number of excerpts I had previously marked as possibly objectionable to the pro-Israel critics with the revised edition. What follows are a few changes I found.

The conclusion in the revised version reads:

… Christians should not be supporting any claims by any people … [to Palestine]

In the Bible, God’s promises extend in hope to all land and people. p. 12

Here is the original conclusion.  What is in bold has been deleted. 

… Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jewish people or any people…

In the Bible, God’s promises extend in hope to all land and people.  Focussed as they are on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, these promises call for a commitment in every place to justice in a spirit of reconciliation. p.9

The next passage was one that many thought would be deleted because of its reference to Jesus’ teachings, which contradicted Old Testament truths.  That was objectionable to some religious Jews.  The idea that some Jews would object to voicing a central belief of Christianity seemed to me the pinnacle of intolerance and chutzpah. I am glad to see that this central theological argument remains, although it was altered and softened by the deletion, as shown in bold.

Revised version: 

If Jesus is indeed the Yes to all God’s promises then for Christians the promise to Abraham about

land is fulfilled through the impact of Jesus. Jesus gave a new direction to his followers, one which did not feature nor was it confined to a special area of land for them. p. 9

 Original:

If Jesus is indeed the Yes to all God’s promises the promise to Abraham about the land is fulfilled through the impact of Jesus, not by restoration of land to the Jewish people. Jesus gave a new direction to his followers, one which did not feature nor was it confined to a special area of land for them. p. 8

Quite a bit of the criticism of the Jewish writer and critic of Zionism, Mark Braverman, has been deleted, including a call for Jews to repent for the Nakba and a plea to Christians to not use guilt about the Holocaust to stifle criticism of Israeli abuses.  But the new report adds the writing of Marc Ellis, the author and Mondoweiss contributor, (misspelled as Mark), who cautions Christians against permitting pro-Israel Jews to use interfaith dialogue to silence their advocacy for Palestinians.  Here is Marc Ellis with a very fitting remark, which can be understood as specifically relating to last week’s pro-Israel attack upon the report.

It seems late in the Israel/Palestine political game – and it is late indeed – but the mainstream Churches are breaking what I have called the interfaith ecumenical deal. That deal is usually referred to as the interfaith ecumenical dialogue, the post-Holocaust place where Jews and Christians have mended their relationship. Israel was huge in this dialogue. Then as Israel became more controversial with their abuse of Palestinians, Christians remained silent. Nonsupport and, worse, criticism of Israeli policies, was seen by the Jewish dialoguers as backtracking to anti-Semitism. That’s where the dialogue became a deal: Silence on the Christian side brings no criticism of anti-Semitism from the Jewish side. p. 8