Shared Jerusalem Document Resource Center
National Council of
Churches CITY OF HOLINESS AND HOPE: A MESSAGE ON JERUSALEM (Revised as per the request of the NCCCUSA General Assembly, November 15, 1996)
Christians should not presume to define the significance of Jerusalem for their partners in the Abrahamic tradition. Even among Christians there are widely differing perspectives on the meaning of Jerusalem, its spiritual significance, its political future. But an unwillingness to define or evaluate the devotion of others should not prevent us from attempting to articulate convictions and hopes that we, as Christians, believe should be realized in the determination of the status of the Holy City. We are especially mindful of the statements and sentiments of the Christians of Jerusalem, Palestine and Israel, and the Middle East, whose lives are touched immediately by the success or failure of the parties involved and the international community to arrive at a satisfactory solution to the problem of Jerusalem. As Christians in the United States, we bear a special responsibility in light of the U.S. role as sponsor of the peace process. In its 1980 Middle East Policy Statement, the Governing Board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ affirmed that the issue of Jerusalem was an issue not only of shrines, but also of people. The holiness of Jerusalem and the peace of Jerusalem are inseparable from the extension of justice to all of its people. While the definition of the political solution is the responsibility of the political leadership of Israel and the Palestinian people, we are impelled to set forth what we feel should be embodied in the ultimate resolution of the status of the city. A durable solution to the political question concerning Jerusalem will require the imaginative genius and good will of people of faith, of the negotiators and of their U.S. sponsor. Jerusalem as a place where the divine and the human have come together. For Christians, Jerusalem is the venue of redemption, the place where the love of God for humanity took human form in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That coming together of the divine and the human in the Incarnation ensures that the full stature and dignity of human beings can never be at odds with the will of God. Similarly, for Jews and Muslims, Jerusalem is a place of great historical and theological significance. Yet no geography, no city, including Jerusalem, can be called holy except that God’s righteousness dwells within it, and nor can remain holy except by the just relations of the people who dwell within it. Jerusalem as a shared legacy For Jerusalem to realize its vocation it cannot belong to any one people or religion. History is replete with the efforts of groups -- religious, ethnic or national -- to possess Jerusalem. And history has demonstrated that such efforts have had the effect of violating the very nature of the place and despoiling its holiness. One of the most egregious of these episodes in history was the Crusades, in which western Christians wreaked havoc and slaughter on Muslims, Jews and oriental Christians alike in an effort to "reclaim" Jerusalem for Christendom. The Crusades now stand as a sad example of how misguided zeal can produce shortsightedness, violence, cruelty and, ultimately, futility. It is our belief that any solution to the disputed status of Jerusalem must recognize that it is a city like no other, that it is "home" to people of all three traditions, home to people who live far away but nevertheless find their identity, their past and their future hopes represented in the Holy City. It is essential that those who negotiate the future of Jerusalem recognize its truly unique role, that they use the prophetic imagination of their traditions to define new modes of sovereignty and governance so that Jerusalem will stand as a symbol of peace and conviviality, a living antidote to the chronic diseases of bigotry , intolerance, ultranationalism and exclusivism. Jerusalem as the city of two peoples and three faiths What was viewed as possibly a new period in the history of this city, symbolized by a moving gesture of reconciliation, the handshake between the Prime Minister of the State of Israel and the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, has become instead a period of uncertainties, dashed hopes and unfulfilled expectations for many Palestinians and Israelis. One of the elements of the Declaration of Principles ratified by that handshake was a promise to negotiate the final status of Jerusalem. That promise has not been kept. The recent violence reflects the deep frustration of Palestinians with the lack of progress in the peace process and the continuing denial of their rights. The extension and opening of a tunnel near the Dome of the Rock mosque was a provocation that reflected insensitivity and disregard for the religious feelings and national claims of Palestinians in Jerusalem. This tunnel should be returned to its state before the violence began, and no further actions should be taken that may affect the status of the Holy Places in Jerusalem prior to a negotiated settlement. Since assuming control of all of Jerusalem in 1967, Israel has been consistent in extending free access to the Holy Places to the international Christian community. For this policy, Israel is to be commended. By contrast, for much of that period Middle Eastern Christians have been unable to come to Jerusalem. The signing of peace agreements between Israel and Egypt, and between Israel and Jordan, may have reduced the impediments for some Middle Eastern Christians, but for Palestinian Christians and Muslims resident in the West Bank and Gaza, Jerusalem remains largely inaccessible. Since the Gulf War in 1991, the Israeli authorities have imposed a continuous series of closures of Jerusalem and of Israel itself to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. While the closures have varied in their severity, they have had the overall effect of depriving most Palestinian Muslims and Christians of the right to worship at the places held sacred in their respective traditions. In addition, the closure has had a devastating impact on the Palestinian economy, on education, on health care, and on the unity of families. Israel has explained this policy as a measure necessary to assure the security of Israelis, and of the city of Jerusalem itself. Indeed, Israel has suffered grievously from the senseless violence of terrorism. It is our belief, however, that the only durable guarantor of peace is justice. As long as Palestinians are deprived of access to their cultural, economic and religious center, Jerusalem, the possibility of violence borne of frustration will remain. Any resolution of the question of Jerusalem, we believe, must guarantee free access to Jerusalem for all. Of grave impact as well has been the intensive and extensive building of exclusively Jewish settlements in and around the city, and the subsequent and relentless expansion of the municipal limits of the city to include those settlements. The impact of these settlements and the expansion of the boundaries of Jerusalem has been the effective displacement of Palestinians, since much of the building has taken place on confiscated Palestinian land. The settlement policy has, as well, altered the delicate demographic balance of Jerusalem, magnifying the fears of its Palestinian residents that they will be overwhelmed and marginalized in the city that they consider to be the center of their national life, and perhaps finally will be expelled from it completely. The settlements, which are illegal under international law, are thus an obstacle to peace. Jerusalem as paradigm of peace and justice Jerusalem both comprehends and transcends its contemporary status. When we speak of a new Jerusalem, we look to a Jerusalem whose holiness resides not only in its past, but also comprehends its present and looks forward in hope to its future. When we call Jerusalem the Holy City, we are both evoking its sacred history and at the same time praying for the realization of future hopes and promises. It is our challenge always to work to overcome the dissonance between the present Jerusalem, which reflects the chronic maladies of humanity --divisiveness, violence, intolerance, chauvinism-- and the future Jerusalem, the city that is hallowed in faith, the mother who can nurture without favoritism all her children, whether they are Jews, Muslims or Christians. A Jerusalem that is called holy by Christians, a place where every Christian can feel at home, cannot reflect values that are at odds with the fundamental tenets of our faith. This, too, is our stake in Jerusalem: not a territorial claim, not a political design, but rather a steady insistence that the city we call "holy" and "home" reflects common values of love, sharing and justice. The peace of Jerusalem for which we, with the Psalmist pray, is a peace for all its people: Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. It is a peace grounded in the thirst for justice. For us, this is not a peripheral concern, a passing cause. It lies at the heart of who we are and who we want to be. We join our brothers and sisters in the Abrahamic tradition in striving together, in hope and love, for a Jerusalem that remains holy for all. Passed by the Church World Service and Witness Unit Committee Passed by the Executive Board of the National Council of the
|