Statement on Meeting of United States Religious Leaders
with President Ahmadinejad of Iran
Thursday, September 25, 2008

John H. Thomas
General Minister and President
United Church of Christ

This evening, September 25, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will meet with religious leaders at a dinner in New York. The event is co-sponsored by the Mennonite Central Committee, the American Friends Service Committee, the Quaker United Nations Office, the World Conference on Religions for Peace, and the World Council of Churches. While a member of Religions for Peace, the United Church of Christ is not active in its participation. We are, of course, a very active member communion of the World Council of Churches.

I was invited to the dinner but have declined. In previous public statements I have objected strongly to the rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad, rhetoric regarding the State of Israel and the historicity of the Holocaust that is deeply disturbing to all who believe in Israel’s right to exist and who acknowledge the on-going pain that the Holocaust and its memory still evokes. While the organizers of this event certainly hope to raise their concern over this rhetoric with President Ahmadinejad, I am not convinced this will be effective. To the contrary, I fear the occasion can and will be used by President Ahmadinejad to claim legitimacy and support for himself by an association with respected United States religious leaders. I respect the sponsoring organizations’ intent for dialogue, but fear that the more likely outcome is sowing confusion and disappointment among our own members and, in particular, the American Jewish community.

The sponsoring organizations also believe that sitting down with one’s enemy is both a Biblical mandate and, at this dangerous moment in the relationship between the United States and Iran, an important historical opportunity. I believe the United States government should adopt a far more engaged diplomatic posture toward Iran. I further believe that churches like the United Church of Christ ought to be encouraging such face to face meetings through contact with our own U.S. Administration officials. I do not believe, however, that this meeting of religious leaders with President Ahmadinejad is an appropriate or helpful means of encouraging state to state diplomacy. In a situation like this, the most effective and appropriate approach for a church is to encourage dialogue with religious leaders who are our most natural international counterparts. I would, therefore, be willing and eager to meet with senior Iranian religious leaders to discuss issues of mutual concern and to encourage meetings at the political and diplomatic level. Such a meeting was scheduled a year ago but, unfortunately, was cancelled when a significant number of the Iranian clerics were denied visas to enter the United States for the dialogue sessions.

The Mennonite Central Committee supports work in Iran in various communities that help address the quality of life of the Iranian people and further interreligious dialogue. It is my understanding that part of the purpose of this meeting is to encourage the President to continue to allow such work to continue. I would certainly support this effort though, again, I suspect that a more private meeting focused on this agenda alone would be more successful and appropriate.

The World Council of Churches did not consult its member churches in the United States prior to the decision to co-sponsor this event. The WCC participates in many meetings and dialogues with religious and political leaders around the world as part of its regular mandate to encourage global peace and justice. I and other UCC leaders did, however, communicate similar concerns to the current senior staff person now responsible for interfaith work in the WCC when participation in a religious leaders’ visit to the President of Iran was proposed over a year ago. I have also shared these same concerns with other ecumenical colleagues here. Our objections and concerns, therefore, have been registered and heard.

In the life of any council of churches there will be decisions made that are not supported by every member church or church leader. While I do not believe sponsorship of this particular event by the WCC to be wise or helpful, I continue to respect my colleagues in leadership there and understand that their decision is based on principled convictions about how best to further the cause of peace. Disagreement should not be interpreted as disrespect, and I would not anyone to interpret this dissenting opinion to signal diminished appreciation or support for the World Council of Churches, its leaders, or its vocation of bearing witness to healing the brokenness of the church and the world.