As we journey to the biblical Bethlehem this week, are United Methodists benefiting from investments that perpetuate human rights violations in Bethlehem today? Is an ethical option for our investments a step in the right direction, or a distraction from the issue?
Seeking Ethical Investments
As a United Methodist clergyperson, I have a pension fund that is managed by the General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits (GBPHB) of the United Methodist Church. It’s one of the largest church pension funds in the world, with $21 billion in assets. It is successful even though the UMC does not invest in any company that derives more than 10% of its revenue from the manufacture and/or sale of alcohol, tobacco, weapons, gambling, pornography, and the management or operation of prison facilities. Those are some seriously profitable industries that United Methodists refuse to benefit from; but for the most part, folks are okay with excluding them.
However, these days there are two criteria that folks are seeking to add to the list of companies that the UMC will not invest in:
- Due to environmental concerns, refusing to invest in companies that are in the fossil fuels industry, and
- Due to human rights concerns, refusing to invest in companies that operate out of Palestinian territories occupied by Israel beyond the 1947 boundaries, or companies that offer material support for this occupation.
The first criteria–divesting from fossil fuels–is controversial but straightforward as any company that is in the fossil fuels industry will not leave it, no matter what shareholder advocacy takes place. It would be like asking Nike to stop selling shoes, as Rev. Jenny Phillips of Fossil Free UMC has said. Therefore, holding shares or funds in those companies violates the conscience of folks who care about environmental/creation care concerns. Controversial, sure, but the approach is a pretty straightforward conversation.
The second criteria is highly emotional, as is any topic that deals with the Middle East. I won’t regurgitate the arguments for or against Israel, Palestine, or the efficacy of divestment. What I will say is that other denominations like the UCC and PCUSA are making dramatic decisions about divesting from the Big Three companies that offer the most material support to the mechanisms of occupation: Caterpillar, HP, and Motorola.
Divestment is also a passionate topic in the United Methodist Church: its highest body rejected divestment from the Top Three in 2012, even though the UMC also approved positive investment in Palestine and boycott of products made in the occupied territories. As the UMC gears up for 2016, it will be on the ballot again. So what is the UMC doing in the meantime to address this concern?
Justice, not Charity
In response to this conversation, the UMPHB has offered a carrot to the divestment advocacy movement in the form of an investment plan that excludes companies based on these two criteria.
I recently participated in a webinar on the Equity Social Values Plus Fund. It is an opt-in option for those who want to add additional criteria of human rights and environmental concerns to their investments. The UMPHB was very frank about the tension in their industry: some people want no restrictions, whereas others want serious restrictions, and both expect UMPHB to turn a maximum profit on our investments for both pensions and institutional advancement.
Their solution is similar to other investment companies: offer an optional fund that individuals can opt-into with more screenings and higher standards of investment. You can see the breakdown in the above graphic. The precise list of companies that will not be invested in will not be available until January 15; however, the webinar folks suspected that Caterpillar, HP, and GE would not be invested in–but Motorola likely would.
This seems like a nice gesture to allow advocates to not personally benefit from things that violate our conscience. And while I appreciated their candor and how the team professionally answered every question that came their way, I couldn’t help but feel uneasy during the webinar.
And then it hit me: what we were talking about was charity, not justice.
What do I mean?
- Charity addresses the problem of the individual. I can give a meal to a person who is hungry, which would be charity.
- Justice addresses the problem of the relationship or the system. I could find the hungry person work or shelter (form a relationship) or ask why people are hungry (challenging the system).
- Charity fixes an immediate need; justice seeks to remove the need at all for more than the individual in the conversation.
Thus, in offering an optional fund that has a more scrutinized list of sources, GBPHB is assuaging an individual’s problems with those funds. That’s great to have the option; however, it does not address the systemic point: the United Methodist Church is benefiting from investments in companies that perpetuate the occupation in Palestine. The amount of investments in these disputed companies will not change: money is simply shifted around so that our investments are compartmentalized.
For advocates for this region, this is not a just divestment; this is a charitable appeasement.
People, not Money
To focus on money and investments is only part of the story: one must connect with what these investments are doing. Dee Poujade (blog) is a lay member at First UMC in Portland, Oregon. In addition to many trips to the region, Dee spent several months as a volunteer with the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), a program of the World Council of Churches. I asked her to write a bit about her experience and here’s part of what she sent me (full disclosure: I’m her pastor):
As I went about my daily business as an observer of human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (the name used by the United Nations to describe this area – and I was working under UN auspices), I observed countless violations of human rights and numerous ways that the Palestinian people are “dehumanized” in a systematic, ongoing fashion. One of my major duties as an Ecumenical Accompanier was to monitor agricultural, school and labor checkpoints.
In the case of agricultural checkpoints, farmers lived on one side of the “separation barrier” (i.e. Wall); their land was on the other side, which meant that in order to tend their crops or graze their sheep; they had to go through a checkpoint. These checkpoints were open only for limited periods of time (usually an hour in the morning, half an hour at noontime and another hour in the late afternoon), and permits were required. Likewise, schoolchildren would have to go through a checkpoint to get to and from their classes. And thousands of Palestinian workers who were fortunate enough to have jobs and permits had to pass through large, highly militarized checkpoints every morning to get to work.
Of course checkpoints are but one of many way that the Palestinian people are subject to systematic dehumanization. Families are forced off land that they have owned for generations so that settlements may be erected. Houses are demolished, allegedly because they are built without permits–but the Israeli government will not issue permits to Palestinians! Or houses are demolished because a family member committed a crime – or because the house is “too close” to a military installation (never mind that the houses were there first!).
Regardless of the arguments for or against these checkpoints and walls, it is indisputable that the Big Three companies (Caterpillar, HP, and Motorola) offer significant material support for these checkpoints and for the enabling of the perpetual fragmentation of Palestine (see the above pic). There are others; you can search for companies here.
Getting to Bethlehem today.
It is ironic that the UMPHB had this conference call in Advent, a time when we celebrate a Savior born in occupied territory (Bethlehem surrounded by the Roman Empire) and born to a people with a constant threat of violence. While violence is instigated from both sides of the wall, the walls themselves are perpetrators of injustice, and United Methodism supports them with our investments.
Offering an ethical fund is a good start to examining how our investments reflect our values–but let us be clear: this is not divestment, and it is not befitting a connectional church to compartmentalize our responsibility in this way. Divesting in G4S (finally) and offering ethical investment alternatives are meant to show that the Powers are empowering advocates who seek divestment. No. They are using carrots to lead donkeys away from justice…do not be that donkey.
If this is convicting for you, keep alert for potential church legislation from MFSA and UMKR (they have further information on these companies here) in early January 2015 for passage by various Annual Conferences in the May/June 2015, leading up to anticipated action by General Conference in May 2016.
Thoughts?
Your argument fails at precisely the point where you “refuse to regurgitate” the arguments about the underlying Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In my view, the complex realities of the conflict preclude thoughtful liberal Christians from simply choosing one side over the other. At a minimum, I expect thoughtful liberal Christians to acknowledge that reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the optimal way to resolve the conflict. Both sides are right, both sides are wrong, and divestment in this context is entirely inappropriate.
John, thanks for your comment. As the article notes, my purpose isn’t to debate the validity of those arguments. My purpose is to relate how segmenting out a special fund is not divestment and shouldn’t satisfy those who seek divestment. Whether divestment is appropriate is left to those persons making the argument. 1500 words on that topic is more than enough for one blog post.
We do not like fossil fuels but still want cheap gasoline, comfortably heated homes, the lights to come on when we hit the switch, plentiful cheap produce at the market, and the list goes on and on.
The 1947 border would mean the destruction of Israel since those borders are not defendable. A country that cannot defend itself will not last. Never mind that Israel will never give up political control of Jerusalem. It is too integral to their ethnic identity. As to the Palestinians there is no such people. Before 1947 they were Jordanians, Egyptians, or Lebanese.
“Socially-responsible investments” have always been a bit of an oxymoron, and groups that promote them, as you have indicated, often seem more interested in convincing us of their efficacy as a way to keep our money invested than in actually changing things. Eons ago I wrote a piece for Multinational Monitor about how the social investment crowd viewed HB Fuller, the major manufacturer of the glue that kids sniff in Latin America. The company was a darling of social investors in the north, many of whom chose to turn a blind eye to the company’s illegal and immoral practices in the global south. It left me wondering that if we applied strict investment screens to all companies, would there be any left to invest in? Kudos to the high-paid folks at the GBPHB for offering a new option, but one is left wondering if it’s really just an attempt to buy off the hard questions that would be raised at the next general conference about our love affair with fossil fuels and our scandalous support for Israel’s illegal actions in the occupied territories.
Here’s a link to that article from 1995: http://pangaea.org/street_children/latin/fuller.htm
I agree that this new fund is more about charity than justice, and that it is not a particularly prophetic or effective response to the cries of the earth and it’s people. However, I don’t think it is necessarily the case that the creation of this fund will lead justice-oriented plan participants to stop calling for divestment. While I’d prefer immediate, full divestment from coal, petroleum and natural gas, I see the creation of this fund as a step on the path to discerning and articulating our values not just as individuals, but as a denomination. I know I’ll be investing in this fund and continuing to organize annual conferences to call General Conference to screen coal, petroleum and natural gas from our denomination’s investments. http://www.fossilfreeumc.org.
It’s worth noting that the way the fund is currently structured is impractical for many well-meaning plan participants, because you can’t invest in the fund if you’re a participant in LifeStages–the program that adjusts asset allocation over the course of one’s life. It’s hard for many people to walk away from the service that LifeStages provides. However, I’ve heard that a modest show of interest in the option to opt into ESVP while participating in LifeStages might be all that’s needed to make it happen. Just send a note: https://www.gbophb.org/contact/
@Kevin–I’d love to see a robust public transportation infrastructure, better options for electric cars, and a national smart grid powered by renewable energy. I want governments and institutions to stop investing in and subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. This will help level the playing field for renewables to increase their share of the energy sector. I’m grateful for modern conveniences, and I know that they don’t have to come at the expense of my brothers and sisters on the front lines of climate change around the world.
Ethanol is renewable but produces more ozone than gasoline. My neighbor has an electric car. I call it his coal powered car since most of the electricity around here is produced by coal. Until alternative energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuel the invisible hand will continue to move us toward fossil fuel.
Jeremy, thanks for addressing this touchy topic. By a few comments here, I can see that we as a denomination are not well educated about the Israeli/Palestinian history or how things are playing out day to day for the people there.
Can any one religion own God? Or will we keep trying, as the ancient Israelites did, to put God into a box of our own creation?
Jesus tells us that we cannot serve both God and money. Sometimes God asks us to make some really tough decisions along that line.
I agree very much with your point that segmenting out a special fund is not divestment. It provides an option for those who need to feel good about themselves and accomplishing nothing. From my point of view on divestment, this is the perfect solution.