The Greek Orthodox
The Greek
Orthodox were historically the largest Christian
community in Palestine. By and large, they were the descendants of the Gentile
Christian population which had been the majority until well after the Muslim
conquest. Of all the Christian communities, they were the most rural and
dispersed, and also the most assimilated into Muslim society. It was mainly
Orthodox Arabs, for example, who joined in the Nabi Musa celebration with the
Muslim community. (Nabi Musa was "one of the most important Muslim
pilgrimages in Palestine.") Their national feelings were the most profound and
spontaneous. They were also the most likely to send their children to
Ottoman state schools (as opposed to Protestant mission schools). Historically
they had a general feeling of hostility towards Western Christendom dating back
to the schism between the Latin Catholic and Orthodox churches of 1054, reinforced
by the Crusades.
They were also the most dysfunctional. In 1923,
W.P. Livingstone wrote; “As a whole these Christian Churches were corrupt and
superstitious. The priests were often illiterate and degraded; their chief duty
was not the care or cure of souls, but the management of the hospices, shrines,
and other buildings associated with their religion, and attendance at the
endless formal ceremonies and processions carried on in a spirit of coarse
materialism. Both Jews and Moslems regarded Christianity, as they knew it, as
infinitely inferior to their own faith: it seemed to them little better than
heathenism.”[2] Mitri Raheb commented about his
grandfather; “He missed the sermons, pastoral care and instruction – conditions
in the Greek Orthodox had degenerated greatly.”[3] Naim
Khoury, a Baptist pastor in Bethlehem, likewise writes of growing up in the
Greek Orthodox Church; “I’d never read the Bible because I’d never had a
Bible.”[4]
For this community, the central
question for the past 100 years has concerned their ethnic identity
– who were they? This question had
two contradictory answers. Were they essentially Greeks who had been Arabicised
after the Arab Conquest of the Levant, or Arabs who had been Hellenised? The
clergy maintained that the laity were ethnically
Greeks who had forgotten who they were. The laity demanded that they were
ethnically and culturally 'Arab.'[6] In the preface to her 1862 book, Mary
Rogers opines; “but I may here mention, that the Christians of the land are
said to be of pure Syrian origin, while the Moslems are chiefly descended from
the Arabians who settled in the towns and villages of Syria and Palestine in
the seventh and eighth centuries.”[7] Likewise in 1852, Hollingsworth had noted that; “in many of the ruined cities
and villages there exists also, a limited number of Christian families,
uncivilized, and not knowing correctly from what race they derive their origin.
Poor, and without influence, they tremblingly hold their miserable possessions
from year to year, without security, and without wealth, in a land which they
confess is not their own.”[8] Mark Durie writes that “Other dhimmi communities steadily declined,
gradually becoming assimilated into the Islamic community. Some changed their
language and culture, like the Aramaic, Coptic and Greek speaking peoples of
Syria, Palestine and Egypt, who adopted Arabic, and ultimately embraced Arabic
identity in the twentieth century.”
While it has deeper roots, the problem took centre
stage in the 16th century, when the Ottomans, for bureaucratic ease,
combined the four existing Patriarchates into one administrative unit, headed
by the patriarchate of Constantinople. From 1662 onwards, the head of the
Jerusalem Patriarchate was thereby appointed from Constantinople and was an
ethnic Greek. Indeed, “an Arab presence in the patriarchate in earlier times
was concealed. Removal from the prayers of all names of the Arab patriarchs
that had served before the 16th century is but one example.”[10]
Interestingly, in Cappadocia and elsewhere within the Ottoman
Empire, many Greek Orthodox Greeks spoke only Turkish (“there are many Greek
villages where the inhabitants have forgotten the speech of their race.”[11]),
and during the final decades of the nineteenth century, a process of
“linguistic re-hellenization”[12] did occur. This was implemented through a vastly expanded Ottoman Greek
schooling system, developed and run by Greek Orthodox clergy. The Athens based
Association for the Propagation of Greek Letters helped in this nationalistic
awakening. At the same time, the Arab peoples within the (Turkish) empire were
also experiencing their own awakening and promoting Arab language and
nationalistic movements. Palestinian Greek Orthodox were therefore being pulled
in two directions as to their national identity and language, and the distance
from Greece and pre-existing usage of Arabic determined the outcome. Being
Greek offered no advantages to this community as compared with being Arab.
For the local Palestinian Greek Orthodox, their big
problem was that all of their higher clergy were appointed from Greece, preached
in Greek, and local Orthodox were actually prohibited by law from becoming
clergy. This caused real difficulties even in Ottoman times, and these were
exacerbated during the Mandate. Equally, the reasonable push from the laity for
the full or partial Arabization of the clergy fed easily into a support for a
wider Arab nationalism. Generally speaking,
Orthodox Arabs were the most fervent nationalists of Palestine's
Christians. Even in Ottoman times, many Orthodox leaders were prominent in the
Palestinian Arab nationalist movement. Local agitation against Greek language
and leadership were linked to nationalistic movements in Albania and Bulgaria,
and in 1893, the Arab laity of Antioch followed these examples by placing an
Arab as Patriarch for the first time since the 16th century, a
development hailed as “the first real victory of Arab nationalism.”[14] Note also the comment by George Antonius, in his
famous Arab Awakening; “The educational activities of the American missionaries
in that early period had, among many virtues, one outstanding merit; they gave
pride of place to Arabic.”[15]
This Orthodox Arab fight with their Greek clergy led
to a neglect of communal religious life. Many
villages and even towns were without a priest. Mutual boycotts and Orthodox
infighting led many to emigrate, while about 1/3 joined other denominations
(mainly Melkite and Anglican). With little spiritual teaching, their community
became more and more political. The Arab Orthodox movement “remade their
religious community as a political entity.”[16] They still valued their communal life and wanted to remain together. A British
report in 1926 stated; “Like all young men of their time, they are full of the
idea of nationalism. … They do not wish to abandon their church; on the contrary
they are attached to its traditions and its rites.”[17]But both Muslims and some of their own number thought
that converting to Islam would be the best thing for them.[18] A tragic indictment!
Note the development here – the Greek clergy preached
Greek nationalism – language/culture etc. – they did not preach Jesus! It was
not then that the local community failed to hear their message, it was rather
that they did!! What they took away was that nationalism, language, culture,
these were of prime importance. That this community then neglected spiritual
matters and relentlessly pursued political/nationalistic matters is therefore
hardly surprising – it was what their church had taught them!! Indeed, it could
be said that the Arab Orthodox got the message from their church that
nationalism was more important than belief; they simply chose a different
nationality. Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will
hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise
the other.”
This early adoption of nationalism meant that
initially, their nationalistic impact within the wider Arabic community far outweighed
their actual numbers (being about ten percent of the population). Importantly,
19 out of the 25 Arabic newspapers in 1908 were Orthodox Christian owned. Filastin, the most important newspaper in Palestine, was owned and run
by Arab Orthodox and articulated a Palestinian Arab nationalism opposed to both
the Greek clergy and Zionism. Writing of Filastin, and another
early Orthodox Arab Palestinian newspaper, Al-Karmil, Rashid
Khalidi characterized them as "instrumental in shaping early
Palestinian national consciousness and in stirring opposition to
Zionism." Khalidi
contended that almost immediately after the publication of its first issue in
December 1908, al-Karmil "became the primary vehicle of
an extensive campaign against Zionist settlement in Palestine."[19] Al-Karmil was later owned by Arab Anglicans.
On their part, from the beginning, the Greek clergy were less concerned
with Zionism than with the movement for the Arabisation of the Patriarchate. A
few years into the Mandate, in an effort to resolve its financial crisis, the
Patriarchate began selling church properties to Jews. The Arab laity objected
strongly,[21] and as a result, in 1922, it opposed the appointment of the Bishop Cleopas as
Metropolitan of Nazareth. The importance of this dispute cannot be
over-emphasised. “The land sales made the task of gaining Arab political
ascendancy in the church seem immediately essential; Orthodox lay leaders,
desiring to participate in the Arab politics … could not afford to be
associated with an institution supportive of large-scale Jewish immigration and
British imperial control. The Arab Orthodox now began to depict their Greek
church hierarchy as a foreign oppressor (like Zionism) and to employ
nationalist and anti-imperialist language in their struggle against the
Patriarchate.”[22] As they would phrase it; “does the church belong to the Greek expatriates or to
the Arab majority?”[23] In stark contrast, the Jerusalem Patriarch, Damianos believed that the Greek
Orthodox were, like the Jewish community, a minority, and that they should
cooperate. He was regarded as a friend by the Jewish community and described by
Frederick Kisch as “a man of goodwill.”[24]
Tensions between the laity and the Patriarchy
worsened in the early 1920s when the Greek patriarchate issued a statement of support for Zionism.[25] The metamorphosis of the Orthodox laity into a largely political entity can be
briefly traced through the Arab Orthodox Congresses (distinct from the Arab
Palestinian Congresses of the same era). The first Congress (in Haifa,
July 1923), defined itself as a political
movement, using nationalistic terminology. It called for the “full Arabisation
of their church”,[26] a 1-year ban on land sale to Zionists and castigated
the Patriarchy for selling them land. They “re-wrote their communities goals
into anti-Zionism and anti-Imperialism.[27] Katz and Kark note the “dismay” of the first Orthodox Arab Congress with
the patriarch, due to his; “friendly relations with Zionist leaders and favourable
statements issued in regard to the Zionist movement.”[28]
Protests eventually gave way to a second congress,
held in Ramallah in June of 1926, under the presidency of ‘Isa al ‘Isa, the
proprietor of Filastin. By now the
Orthodox cause was defined almost exclusively in nationalist terms. Among the
resolutions passed was the demand that an Arab patriarch be elected, and that
the Arab laity should participate in the election. In November 1927, the
Orthodox People's Party was founded, which pledged itself "to restore the
Arabs' national rights usurped by the Greeks."[29]
The Second Arab Orthodox Congress, in 1931 again
called for Arab clergy. The Islamic Congress in Jerusalem, being held at the
same time, and headed by Haj Al Husseini, responding to an appeal from them, congratulated
them and acknowledged the Arab Orthodox cause as part of the broader Arab
nationalist movement.[30]
This disconnect between the clerical leadership and
the laity is why statements from the Palestinian Orthodox community are
generally made by its secular leaders such as ‘Isa al-‘Isa, Sakakini and George Antonius, rather than by the
clergy. In 1929, the Orthodox Youth Club of Jerusalem again protested the
continuing Orthodox land sales to the Zionists.
For many Orthodox Arabs, the 'Arab Orthodox' cause,
the nationalist cause, and the fight against Zionism were all part of the same
struggle. Their struggle for the Arabisation of the Patriarchate was only one
part of the larger struggle for Arab independence. They believed that their own
communal goals would be realised in fulfilling Arab nationalist aspirations.[31]
More broadly, Orthodox Arabs regarded themselves as
the Christian community closest to the Muslims, and in many respects, this
perception was reciprocated. The fact that Orthodox Arabs defined their
struggle in nationalistic terms significantly aided this feeling of empathy.
Many Muslim organisations strongly supported the Orthodox cause. The 6th
Palestinian Arab Congress indeed recognised the Orthodox issue as part of the
broader national cause. This greatly helped the Orthodox relations with the
Muslim community (who had not been entirely convinced of the Orthodox
commitment to the nationalist cause), especially since they were largely
accommodating of the British Mandate. Having been used to support from Russia
prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, many Orthodox indeed initially looked to
Britain to fill that now vacant role. For others, the loss of Russian support
meant they were largely on their own and they became even more nationalistic.
By 1935 Orthodox infighting between clergy and laity
and mutual boycotts led to increased emigration as well as further defections
to other denominations (mainly Melkite and Anglican). By 1943, many villages
and even towns were without a priest.[32] In 1946, the Executive Orthodox Committee declared; “The aim of the Orthodox …
[is] to become a strong community with a definite and clear Arab influence, and
so as to be able to deliver its national message in a full and suitable
manner.”[33] They then addressed the Arab League; “We as Arabs and our case being both
nationally and politically an Arab affair … an indivisible part of the general
Palestinian case.”
As seen, the
Orthodox were early advocates of anti-Zionism.[34] “The Orthodox community would, over the course of the
Mandate, prove to be the [Christian community] most committed to the
nationalist cause; Latin Catholics, arguably the least.”[35] In 1921, for example, the Orthodox-run newspaper Filastin published in translated form the infamous anti-Semitic
tract; The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[36] On August 5, 1922, al-Karmil published
a song denouncing the Balfour Declaration and the danger of the Jews getting
hold of the Christian and Muslim holy places (a highly incendiary topic!!). In 1923, ‘Isa al-‘Isa used Filastin to attack “Jews, using anti-Semitic attributes.” In 1931,
six weeks before Passover, the paper even published a “blood libel” against the
Jaffa Jewish community!![37]
The Arab Orthodox community had made their choice. In
1947, at a meeting of Arab Orthodox clergy in Jerusalem, the Reverend Ya’qub
al-Hanna declared; “the hour has struck to participate with the people in
repelling the dangers encircling the dear homeland.” They sent out 3 telegrams;
the first was to the Arab Higher Executive, led by Haj Amin al-Husseini expressing
their “absolute confidence in its leadership” and announcing “to the whole
world the cooperation of the Arab Orthodox Community in weal and woe, with its
sister, the dear Muslim community.” The third, to the British High
Commissioner, stated that the Orthodox community “supports the faithful leaders
and the Arab Higher Executive, and rejects partition categorically,
announcing its preparedness to safeguard Palestine’s Arabism and the Holy
Places at any cost.”[38]
Their fight to be defined as Arab led finally to this
step of full support for the Muslim
community and for its Mufti, the war criminal Haj Amin al-Husseini. They
rejected peace with the Jewish community and subordinated what remained of
their faith to their nationalism.
Postscript, The
present Patriarch of Jerusalem, Atallah Hanna, a Palestinian, has been viewed
as a prime example of the “fusion between Orthodox fidelity, Palestinian
identity, and opposition to the modern state of Israel.”[39] Atallah
Hanna, as a spokesman for the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, called for
“Christian Arabs and Palestinians to join the opposition against Israeli
occupation, in every necessary form.”[40] He has also applauded suicide bombers as “Arab heroes,” while denouncing peace
efforts: “Israel is the Great Satan, and therefore one is not allowed to
negotiate with Israel or even consider a cease-fire. Any kind of peace with
Israel means making concessions, and that defeats the Arab strategy to resist
and oppose the Jewish state.”[41] No repentance here.
Greek Catholics
(Melkites)
The Greek Catholics claimed to be the only wholly Arab
Christian community in Palestine, one whose entire hierarchy and lay community
was and had always been ethnically and linguistically Arab. Their clergy had a
vigorous role in nationalist activity. During the Mandate, Bishop Hajjar was
the only prelate who took part in nationalist activity. Though Greek Catholic
support for the nationalist cause was determined in large part by a genuine
sense of being 'Arab,’ as with Latin Catholics, it was also shaped by an
antipathy towards Zionism.[42]
Early evangelical Protestant, Chalil Jamal was born
into the Melkite church in 1840. He and his family converted to Protestantism
through the teaching of the missionary, John Bowen. Jamal wrote that “[he]
preached to us Christ and him crucified and explained the pure word of God to
the family circle.”[43] He would later write; “I won’t give up the Bible, and am willing to part with
any tradition that may be contrary to God’s precious word.”[44] He
always opened and closed his Bible studies with prayer. For Jamal, the entire
Bible was inspired and authoritative for matters of faith and practice. The
problem was that there was a “dearth of Biblical knowledge.”[45] He also consistently witnessed to Muslims. Other early Protestants, Seraphim
Boutaji and Michael Kawar were also from the Melkite church. Kawar mentioned in
one letter a conversation he had with someone, which “led him to leave all the
traditions of the Greek church and to follow the way of salvation as revealed
in the pure word of God.”[46]
Latin
Catholics
Luke 23:12
“That day Herod and Pilate became friends--before this they had been enemies.”
The Roman Catholic, or Latin, community in
Palestine is a paradox. Historically, most of its members were foreign monks
and nuns etc., and indeed, the community was not even recognized as indigenous
by the Ottomans, both because of its foreign makeup, and also due to historic
antagonisms; both Christian/Christian (Greek Orthodox vs. Catholics[47]), and Christian/Muslim,
(the [Catholic] Crusades). They thus formed a somewhat isolated community, who
mainly looked out for themselves. They had little to do
with Muslims and were largely concerned with their status as a separate
community. Nevertheless, they emerged from the Mandate period
with greater political capital, and far closer to the rest of the Arab
community than they had ever been before.
The Roman Catholic Church underwent a rapid expansion
in British mandate Palestine. This was fuelled by a massive increase in their
local, lay membership due largely to conversions from the Greek Orthodox
community. The institutions destroyed during the First World War were rebuilt,
and twelve new Roman Catholic parishes were constructed to minister to
Palestine’s growing Roman Catholic population.[48] In an atmosphere of political stability, the Jesuits opened a Jerusalem branch
of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and a number of churches, monasteries,
schools and hospitals were erected in Haifa, Jaffa, Nazareth and Jerusalem.
Latin Catholics were poorly represented in nationalist
organisations; indeed, their participation in the latter was generally
discouraged by the Latin Patriarch. Once relations between Britain and the
Vatican improved, Latin Catholic involvement in the nationalist movement
diminished even further.[49] This, combined with their previous isolation, should have distanced them
even further from the wider Arab community. In spite of all of this however, as
noted, they emerged from the Mandate period with greater political capital, and
far closer to the rest of the Arab community than they had ever been before.
This was because,
while not interested in local politics, their leadership reflected the anti-Zionist attitudes of the Vatican, and of
Catholic circles in general. After some
early ambivalence regarding Zionism, the Vatican had adopted a strong position
against the Balfour Declaration from the day of its announcement. The Vatican initially also opposed the British
Mandate as a Protestant power pursuing a Zionist policy.[50] British Catholics also opposed Balfour Declaration.[51] On July 16, 1921, the New York-based Catholic journal The Tablet, ran a report
under the heading "Christians are Menaced by Jews" which cited
emigration statistics proving that Christians were leaving Palestine because
they were "tired of Jewish interference.”[52] The Pope was warmly thanked by the 6th Arab Palestinian Congress on
27 June 1923. In November 1924, the Pope openly expressed his fear of the
decline of Christianity as a result of the promise of a Jewish National Home.[53]
The Vatican's own position on Zionism was very much
shaped by a theologically-based
anti-Semitism. Their view was that the Jews had been dispersed as
punishment for their having rejected the Messiah and bore collective responsibility
for His crucifixion. That they might become reconstituted as a nation without
having accepted Jesus as the Messiah was considered theologically untenable. An
article appearing in the Catholic newspaper, Civilita Cattolica in 1887, the same year as the first Zionist
Congress stated: “One thousand, eight
hundred and twenty-seven years have passed since the prediction of Jesus of
Nazareth was fulfilled, namely that Jerusalem would be destroyed ... As for a
rebuilt Jerusalem, which might become the centre of a reconstituted state of
Israel, we must add that this is contrary to the predictions of Christ himself
who foretold that “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the
time of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 21:24), that is...until the end of
the world.” The Church could not support the ultimate aims of the Zionist
movement.[54]
In 1904 Merry del Val, the Vatican Secretary of
State, explained to Herzl, since the Jews had denied the divinity of Christ, “How can we, without abandoning our highest
principles, agree to their being given possession of the Holy Land again?”[55] The Pope agreed. “We cannot give approval to the movement. We cannot prevent
the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it. The soil of
Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctioned by the life of
Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot tell you anything different.”[56] “If you come to Palestine to settle your people there, we shall have
churches and priests ready to baptize all of you.”[57] “we cannot recognize the Jewish
people. Jerusalem cannot be placed in Jewish hands.”
From Herzl’s visit forward, the Vatican came to
believe that political Zionism posed a greater danger to its interests in
Palestine than did any other Christian group or the Ottomans. On May 4, 1917 Pacelli (the future pope) indicated that
the reserved area the Vatican sought, which would be off-limits to Zionist
claims, was to extend well beyond the Holy Places themselves and would cover
Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth and its surroundings, as well as Tiberias and
Jericho.[58] In concluding, he added that it was “difficult
to take a piece of our hearts away from the Turks in order to give it to the
Zionists.”[59] In January 1919 Cardinal Bourne sent a letter to the British prime minister and
to the foreign secretary, writing that Zionism had not received the approval of
the Holy See, and if the Jews would "ever again dominate and rule the
country, it would be an outrage to Christianity and its Divine founder." When
Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann requested an audience with Pius XI in 1934 the
pope declined to receive him, stating; “we cannot stand on the side of the
Zionists.”[60] Such sentiments could not but influence how Palestinian Catholics reacted to
the Arab Revolt against Jewish immigration two years later.
All this also
affected how the local Catholic population was viewed in Palestine. The Latin
patriarch, Louis Barlassina, was an outsider appointed from the Vatican in March 1920. In his Pastoral letter soon after, he
feared that Palestine was coming under the servitude of the Zionists, a worse
yoke that the Turks.[61] As a result, he received praise throughout the Arab
community for his political views.[62] The German ambassador at the Holy See noted in 1922
that Barlassina did "not miss any opportunity to speak out against the
Jewish settlements and openly support the Arabs.”[63] During his visit to Rome 11 May 1922, Barlassina “openly attacked the Zionist
movement in an extreme tone.”[64] The
Arab delegation in London warmly congratulated him.[65] Inside Palestine, during 1921-2, he incited his community not to cooperate with
the official education schemes on the grounds they were pro-Zionist. He also
started a diocesan paper which attacked the Balfour Declaration. He was the
only head of a religious community who abstained from official ceremonies. Did
not attend the swearing in of the High Commissioner, or the Kings Birthday.[66] He opposed nationalism but encouraged his community in anti-Zionism.
More than most other Arab denominations, the Latin
Catholic community showed strong anti-Semitic tendencies. Like that of their
leadership, their opposition to Zionism often seemed more due to their disdain
for Jews than the fact that it posed an obstacle to achieving nationalist aims. Generally speaking, Palestine's local
Latin Catholics did support Arab
nationalism, though their level of commitment always had a certain ambiguity to
it. Latin Catholic support for Arab nationalism was largely motivated by their
anti-Semitism and consequent anti-Zionism rather than by nationalist feelings
as such. Indeed, Catholic protestations often came across more as an extension
of the Vatican's anti-Zionist position than as something derived from organic
nationalistic sentiment.[67] This is important to recognise, as today many Christian denominations couch
their anti-Israel rhetoric with the explanation that they are simply responding
to the cry of their Palestinian Christian brethren.
Palestinian Catholic outlets often carried anti-Jewish
articles. On January 15, 1926, the Latin Arabic periodical Raqib Sahyun published The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion (already translated by the Greek Orthodox
editor of Filastin, ‘Isa al-‘Isa in
1921). In October 1926, the Supreme Muslim Council published an article based
on the article in Raqib Sahyun. Thanks to these Palestinian Christians,
The Protocols are now popular across
the Muslim world.[68]
So, almost against their will the Latin Catholics
became closer to the Arab community due to the anti-Zionism of the Vatican and
the increase in their local laity. Palestinian rights were seen as a tool
against Zionism, so the Latin community was encouraged to identify with that
community.
There is a long-standing, mutually abusive/destructive
marriage of convenience between Palestinian Christians and Western
denominations. Each use the other for their own ends; Palestinian Christians
want western political support in order to make themselves valuable to their
Muslim majority, while many western denominations have latched on to
Palestinian Christians as a convenient, 'virtuous' mask for their own
theological anti-Semitism. Both sides of this abuse continue to this day.
Interestingly, when the Vatican 2 council debated
responding to the Holocaust by a statement repudiating Catholic anti-Semitism,
specifically, by stating that the present Jewish people were not responsible
for the death of Jesus, in Nostra Aetate, the Arab League objected
strenuously.
This was because the Vatican based its rejection of Zionism on the idea that
the Jewish people could not regain statehood because they were guilty of
the death of Jesus. A Vatican renunciation of that doctrine would therefore
presumably weaken its opposition to Zionism. The objections of the Arab League
are interesting because Islam demands that Jesus was not crucified. Logic left
the building as the Muslim delegates basically declared that "Jesus was
not crucified, and the Jews did it." The Eastern Orthodox and Melkites
also saw it as potentially weakening Catholic opposition to the Jewish state,
and likewise petitioned Vatican 2 not to change its traditional
anti-Semitism. Catholic anti-Semitism
formed the theoretical basis for its anti-Zionism, Arab anti-Zionism formed the
practical basis of its support for Catholic anti-Semitism. The links between
the two are again seen. – the Catholic Church didn’t care about the
Palestinians, but did oppose a Jewish state, and so the Palestinians were happy
to make common cause with them. Disgracefully, “The Arab Evangelical Church
Council endorsed a statement opposing attempts by ‘Christian heads in the West’
to absolve Jews of the responsibility for the crucifixion of Christ.” That is, Eastern Orthodox,
Melkites and Arab Evangelical leaders all supported continued Catholic
anti-Semitism precisely because this strengthened the anti-Zionism common to
all. They publicly supported the continuation of Jew hatred!
The Druze
All this creates an interesting
contrast with another small Arab community which also traditionally kept to
itself. The Druze started the Mandate closer than the western catholic
community to the rest of the Arab population but remained aloof throughout the
Mandate and ended it as allies of the Israelis.
The main difference between these communities here was the intense theological
and social anti-Semitism of the Catholic community and its leaders.
Anti-Semitism is the glue holding the various Palestinian communities together.
Armenians
They did at times make common cause with the larger
Christian community in their opposition to Zionism, which they saw as a threat
to their more narrowly defined interests.
Maronites
Their tendency to dissociate from the
larger Arab community arguably reflected a great deal more on the larger
Christian community and its overall commitment to the nationalist cause. They
showed that, under certain circumstances, other alternatives were possible. Maronites
were not especially sympathetic to the Palestinian nationalist cause; neither
to the idea of a pan-Arab state. During the latter part of the Mandate, in
fact, many Zionists came to consider the Maronites their natural allies. From
the perspective of Muslim-Christian relations, this raised uncomfortable
questions concerning the basis of Christian loyalty. In the one place [Lebanon]
where they made up the vast majority and the population was relatively
homogenous the Christians themselves had likewise called for their own state.
An obvious implication of this was that Christian loyalty was entirely
dependent on there being a lack of any viable alternative. Given the underlying
relationships between the Muslim majorities and local Christians, and the communal
massacres of Christians by the Muslim majority across the late Ottoman Empire
(see later sections), this is hardly surprising.
By the end of the Mandate, what had become increasingly
evident was that the only Arab whose identity as such went unquestioned was a
Muslim one. The fact of the matter was that, for many of the reasons noted
above, an Arab national identity that emphasised the Arabs' ties with Islam
resonated much more strongly with the great majority of Palestine's Arabs than
one which tried to craft a more secular or ecumenical definition.[73] This again will be discussed in more detail later on.
Protestants/Anglicans
Origins; Evangelical and pro-Jewish
Protestants were the most recent Palestinian
Christian community. The first Anglican work started in 1833, when John Nicholyson (with London Jews
Society) established a work at Jaffa Gate, Jerusalem.[74] The Church Missionary Society (CMS) joined the work in 1842.[75] The initial focus of this work was the mission to the
Jews.
Indeed, the Prussian King Wilhelm IV, who was greatly interested and supportive
of the mission, suggested that they name their church “The Consolation or
Comfort of Israel,” or “Messiah’s Church.”[76] When the Ottomans regained dominion over Palestine due to British and western
help, this enabled the establishment of a Protestant Anglican bishopric in
Jerusalem. Influential in this was Lord Ashley, the Earl of Shaftsbury. His
enthusiasm for this was based in his belief, drawn from the study of the
prophetic Scriptures, that the Jews were to return to the Holy Land and there
accept their Messiah.
Early Opposition – An exaggerated
Ecumenicalism, elevated above the preaching of the Gospel!
The establishment of the bishopric was opposed by the [High Church Anglican] Oxford movement, as an encroachment
on the Eastern and Catholic churches, and indeed its establishment was the
cause for John Newman (of that movement) to leave the Anglican church and join
the Catholic, where he eventually became a Cardinal.[77] Concerns about demarcation and ecumenical manners would persist, to its
overwhelming detriment! Note that the first Bishop in Jerusalem was instructed
by the Archbishop of Canterbury to focus solely on the Jews, and that he
should not interfere in any way in the affairs of the Eastern churches.[78] It was indeed envisaged as a “Hebrew bishopric,” using the Hebrew language and
traditions.[79] The “supreme motive” for the establishment of an Anglican work in Palestine
“was the conversion of the Jews. … There was a widespread belief that if the
Jews were converted and gathered in Palestine, this would signal the near
approach of the second coming of Christ.”[80] The
first bishop in Jerusalem, bishop Michael Solomon Alexander, “shared in the
Protestant Biblical interpretation, stressing prophecies based in both the Old
and New Testaments.”[81] “When he spoke of the revival of Israel in the future, his heart overflowed
with warmth.”[82]
The Gospel breaks out and reaches the
Gentiles!
With the appointment of the second bishop in Jerusalem
in 1846, Bishop Samuel Gobat from Prussia, there was a change in emphasis,
though not necessarily in goals. While he believed in the return of the Jews to
Palestine, and in their conversion to Christ, he re-directed his work towards what
were termed the “fallen” Eastern churches. “I was a debtor not only to the
Jews, but also to the ignorant Greeks, Romanists, Armenians, Turks.”[83] His desire was to revive the Eastern churches through Bible distribution and
evangelism. This has to be seen as a profoundly
positive and Christian impulse. It is what Paul did in Acts 18:26, we are
likewise instructed to “teach and admonish one another” (Colossians 3:16) and
indeed, to “spur one another on toward love and good deeds.” (Hebrews
10:24). No fault can therefore be found in this Godly desire to aid these
churches.
This arouses Opposition, both in Palestine
and in the home Church
Gobat’s appointment was bitterly and publicly opposed
by the Oxford movement. The CMS however were keen to aid the Greek Orthodox
Church through Christian education, and the founding of Christian schools to
this purpose. These schools, around fifty in number, were built in other
Christian populated cities such as Beit Jala, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Ramla and
Nablus. The Greek Orthodox
refused any assistance and were hostile to bishop Gobat. At first, he told
Orthodox members who accepted Bibles and then asked for Bible teachers to
simply remain within their church and continue reading the Bible. Sadly, his
desire to have a mutually beneficial relationship with the Eastern Churches was
rebuffed. Unlike Apollos, they were not willing to be taught. They expelled
those they should have cherished; Acts 17:11.
It is revealing that rather than responding
spiritually, the ancient churches chose to respond institutionally; “Indeed, it
is impossible to understand the basis for the reestablishment of the Latin
Patriarchate in 1847 and the return of the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem
after years of residence in Constantinople without recognising the competition
and religious and political motivations that followed the establishment of the
Protestant Bishopric in 1841.” Rather than welcoming the
arrival of a few keen new Christians who
were eager to help the spiritual growth of their congregations, with a few
noble exceptions, they responded like institutions whose monopoly or copyright
had been threatened. In this and in other ways (Cardinal Newman, the Oxford
Movement etc) “Protestant missionary activity and its associated religious
institutions were one of the key constitutive elements that transformed the
religious context of Palestine before 1917.”
A desire for the Gospel creates an Arab
Anglican Communion
The majority of Gobat’s efforts soon centred on the schooling
system and Bible distribution among the Orthodox. Converting Muslims was
outlawed by the Ottomans, and a separate work for Jewish mission soon developed,
underlining the change in Anglican focus. In light of these occurrences, the
CMS would finally, reluctantly turn to proselytising local Christians,
especially the dysfunctional Greek Orthodox.
This however does not seem to have been their initial objective, but rather an
undesired outcome. Writing back in 1815, William Jowett of CMS hoped that
through education in the Bible, the children of Eastern Christians “would
resume the duty, abandoned by their fathers for centuries, of converting the
Muslims.”[87] The CMS believed that its calling was that by “journeys, by press and by
education, to disseminate the knowledge of Scriptural truth, in order, by God’s
grace, to raise the tone of Christian doctrine and practice.” Indeed,
Bishop Gobat found that the distribution of Bibles and tracts “had produced its
effect, and a good many members of the Eastern Churches were seeking more
light.”[88] In 1850, he wrote that he did not interfere in other churches, and that while
receiving requests from various parts of the country for teachers, and wished
to come under his spiritual direction, he could not establish churches for
them, and requested them to persevere in the reading of the Scriptures, and to
remain in their churches.[89]
He had hoped that the encouragement of Bible reading
would elicit a revival within the Eastern Churches. When Orthodox
priests instead excommunicated any who read the Bible and would receive them
back only if they promised never to read the Bible again, and kissed an icon,
reluctantly, Gobat accepted them into the Anglican church, “as they believed in
the truth as it is in the Bible.”[90] As he wrote to King Frederick William IV; “And now, what am I to do? I have
never wished to make converts from the old churches, but only to lead to the
Lord and the knowledge of His truth as many as possible. From henceforth I
shall be obliged to receive into our communion such as are excluded for the
Bible-truth’s sake from other churches: and I trust that in doing so, even
though men should blame me for it, the Lord will grant his blessing.”[91] Gobat stated that he could not refuse pastoral care for those whose own
churches had excommunicated them. Again, no fault can be found in this.
As a result, the early Anglican churches soon became
comprised almost entirely of converts from the Greek Orthodox community. This gave them ties to the larger Arab community, a strong nationalist
Arab identity, and a history of opposing their own leadership. St
Georges, built 1898, is still centre of Arab Anglican life in Jerusalem. In
stark contrast to the Greek Orthodox, the Anglicans poured their energies into
raising and training local clergy and leaders. They were
frequently accused by other Arabs of being pro-British (dangerous during
Ottoman times, and also during the British Mandate, but for vastly different
reasons), accusations they deeply resented and which they fought
hard to erase. They were the best educated and most westernized within
the Christian community (who themselves were far better educated
than the Muslim community). They were also generally at
odds with their mother [British] community (again, similar to the Greek
Orthodox!).
In 1876, bishop Gobat handed over most of the
schools he had established to the CMS. The CMS still wanted to encourage the
Eastern churches through Bibles and teaching but did not wish for their members
to join them. They ran a theological college and trained up a local clergy.
From 1905 they began to hand over control to these clergy to the newly created
PCNN (see below). Hopes for Hebrew congregations were not immediately
fulfilled, and the diocese became based on Arab congregations, closely linked
to the CMS.
A divide between the Jewish vision
and Arab membership (clergy and laity) begins.
Though he tried, the next Protestant bishop, Joseph
Barclay (1879-1881) was unable to bridge the growing divide between Jewish and
Arab converts. These divisions are described as being “linguistic and
national.”[92] Farah writes[93] of the expat missionaries being divided between supporters of the British
Consul, James Finn, who was interested in encouraging Jews to settle in
Palestine and witness to them, and bishop Gobat, who while sympathetic, was
more focused on reviving the eastern churches. Again, we find there was a
sizable missionary component who longed to aid and bless the returning Jewish
people. Finn even established a farming community to help teach and show by
example how to farm, the very thing many Jews both from Jerusalem[94] and those returning wanted to know!
The early Arab Anglicans were therefore entering a
community which taught about and longed for the return of the Jews, and which
was engaged in positive, practical steps to aid/bless this. Not only that, but
these early hopes for a Jewish return to their land were also being realised
before their eyes, yet with all of this, the vast majority of Arab Anglicans
seemingly from early on rejected one of the central tenets of the group they
chose to join! It may be that a sizable Jewish return started only in the
second/third generation of Arab Anglicans, and that by then, the early zeal of
their parents had cooled, and they also wished closer relations with their
larger original community, and a shared Arab nationalism facilitated this
desire. The call of their own flesh was seemingly too strong.
The shameful triumph of ecumenicalism
(and the High Church) over the Gospel
The afore mentioned Bishop Barclay also started up
a correspondence with an American society which wished to evangelise the Jews,
with the hope of opening up an evangelistic work among them in Galilee. With
Barclay’s death in 1881, the English High Church party again wished to end the
entire endeavour. As it was, the bishopric was reconstituted in 1887, with
an explicit instruction not to proselytize.[95] In
this spirit, the next bishop, George Blyth (1887-1914) “put his foot on
proselytism.”[96] This meant not witnessing to the local Christian communities, Orthodox,
Catholic etc. He remained however committed to the evangelization of
non-Christians. He also built schools and hospitals for Arabs and for Jews. On
the 18th of October, 1898, he preached at the consecration of St
Georges, he spoke of the Apostolic command to preach to the Jew first and also
to the Gentiles, and noted that, when the Eastern church was disobedient to
this command, its missionary zeal died down.[97] He
stressed the need for mission work among the Jews of Bible lands, and noted
that “this does not exclude mission work among Moslems.”[98]
The more evangelical CMS and LJS refused his oversight.
The CMJ trusted him, however, as he regarded the mission to the Jews as
central.[99] In 1898 he preached on the urgency of missionary work among the Jews and
believed that the Anglican church should take the initiative in recognising
their duty towards them. He believed both that the Jewish people would
“return to their ancient prerogatives” and that, their return to Christ could
be the key to Christian renewal and unity.[100] In
1897, he wrote a circular which was sent to the clergy of the Anglican communion.
It was titled; “The Jews and their Claim in 1897;”
“It is difficult to overstate the urgency of the
work which concerns the Jews at the present day … the return of the Jews to the
Land that is theirs (and which the Turks have owned, is God’s land in their
trust) …and what are we, the mere handful that is here, that we should be able
to reclaim from amongst them the “Church of the Hebrews” … at present the
papers are full of the movement of the Jewish race … they have a very defined
intention before them with reference to Palestine.”[101]
He believed that the return of the Jews to
Palestine was “a sign to prophecies that are not yet fulfilled.”[102] That is, this bishop saw the return of the Jews as God directed, saw the need
for Gentile Christians in the land to witness to them, and the universal
blessings that would flow from all of this! Farah[103] also notes an Arab Christian, rev Joseph Jamal, who was active and successful
in missionary work amongst the Jewish community. Such hoped for participation
does not seem to have been widely emulated.
In general, Blyth fought with the CMS for better
conditions for local Arab pastors and establishing congregations for them but
was also against their witnessing to Orthodox people. Given the spiritual
poverty within that church, this was a very serious error. It saw spiritually
hungry people abandoned to a church he publicly acknowledged as having failed
to keep the clear commands of Jesus. He saw his two main responsibilities as
the evangelization of the Jews, and Christian unity.
Palestinian Protestantism
Almost from the start, Palestinian Protestantism was
stridently nationalistic. In 1905 (while still under an Ottoman rule which
frowned upon Arab nationalism) Arab priests wanting greater self-government and
more Arabization formed the Palestinian Native (later changed to National) Church
Council (PNCC) as an Arab body to self-govern under CMS spiritual
guidance. Their 1905 regulations excluded all non-Arabs, the English-speaking
expats, and specifically, the tiny congregations of “Hebrew Christians.”
Again, a curious reverse-image of Galatians 2:11-12!
At the same time, and against the wishes of the Greek
ecclesiastical hierarchy, there were continuing close, friendly relations
between the local Anglican and Orthodox communities. A
large number of Orthodox children attended Anglican schools, and Anglican Arab
priests supported the Orthodox laity against the Greek clergy.
In all, it was an uneven, haphazard descent. 1907, at
a CMS (Arab) conference in Jerusalem, a book critical of liberal scholarship,
James Orr’s “The Problem with the Old Testament” was discussed. Stalder’s
comments about this are interesting. He states that these Palestinian
Christians had no difficulty with the Old Testament. “For them, it was the Word
of God. It was infallible, inerrant and contained an anticipation of the
Gospel. It was sufficient in all matters pertaining to salvation and matters of
church polity. If there was a ‘problem’ of the Old Testament, it was that it
was not read by Palestine’s inhabitants.” He also notes that in this, they
“were different from Palestinian Christians after 1917 and 1948.”[104]
The absence of any British oversight during WW1 led to
even greater self-sufficiency, and a far more awkward relationship after 1917,
when the returning British Anglicans were then identified in the popular mind
with the new British Mandate, and the Balfour Declaration. The growing Arab
Anglican community “found it important to defend the national claims of the
Palestinians and to participate in the political struggle against British
Mandate policies and against Zionist aggressive plans.”[105]
The final triumph of Ecumenicalism - 1
Corinthians 11:18-19
Appallingly, during this tumultuous time, the head
office again intervened to again close Heaven’s doors to the Orthodox
community. Wanting a seat at the big table, “in December, 1919, the Archbishop
of Canterbury appointed an official Committee to take cognizance of Eastern
Church affairs.”[106]
The price of admission was no proselyting, and as a result, the Arab Anglican
church once more ceased its work among the Greek Orthodox. As seen, this policy
had already been largely in place within Palestine, and now was extended
universally. “And how can they
believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without
someone preaching to them?” (Romans 10:14) To its shame, the CMS (again, as
seen) largely went along with this apostacy. The clear commands of Jesus and
Paul were ignored, and Greek Orthodox people, who had no priests or sermons or
gospel, once more had the doors of the Anglican church closed to them. In 1922,
for example, 800 Arab Orthodox from Bayt Sahur wanted to join the Anglican
church but were refused!![107] Stalder writes that “a growing ecumenical ethos pervaded MacInnes bishopric
[1914-1931].”[108] In 1930, secretary of the CMS in Palestine, Wilson Cash, wrote to the
Archbishop of Canterbury; “During the past ten years … there have been
practically no transfers from the Greek Church to the Native Anglican Church of
the country.”[109] Likewise in 1932, a CMS official was “impressed[!!]
by the disappearance of the desire to proselytize to the different sects.”[110]
This is profoundly opposed to the clear commands of
God!
Isaiah 55:1 “Come, all you who are
thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat!”
Matthew 28:18-20 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything
I have commanded you. And surely, I am with you always, to the very end of the
age.”
2Timothy 4:1-2 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will
judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I
give you this charge: 2 Preach the Word;
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is
in heaven.”
Acts 5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey
God rather than men!”
Evangelism
abandoned; nationalism chosen in its place.
Jeremiah
2:11-12 “But my people
have exchanged their Glory for worthless idols. Be appalled at this, O heavens,
and shudder with great horror,” declares the LORD.
Relations between local Arabs who were members of the
Native Church Council and the CMS, which was its parent organization, were far
from ideal: by 1906, “The English missionaries treated the native church
members and clergy as children in need of guidance and supervision, while the
locals wished to run their own affairs and did not regard it as their duty to
engage in proselytizing.” Indeed, “during the years between
1917 and 1948, Arab national sentiment began to pervade the ranks of the
Protestant Church in Palestine more and more.”[112]
As Bishop Rennie MacInnes noted; “The national question preoccupied the native
population far more than confessional details.”[113] Prior
to arriving in Palestine, he saw the aims of the Anglican church there as
Christian unity (no witnessing to Orthodox) and outreach to Jews and Muslims.[114]
Due to their CMS heritage, the Palestinian Anglicans
remained self-consciously Low church, valuing lay participation, and
anti-ritualistic. They continued to describe themselves as “evangelical” in
their literature. From 1924 they sought independence to maintain CMS
evangelical traditions[115] and opposed high church British influence. Specifically, they opposed the
British bishop’s attempts to appoint High Church (Anglo-Catholic) priests.
With the loss of missionary fervour however, their
first love died. It was replaced by what they had brought with them from the
spiritually moribund Orthodox; political and nationalistic activism. “Arab
Protestant community, itself carved out from the Orthodox Community with
similar distribution in towns and more advanced rural areas, retained the
features of the national attitudes and activities of its mother community.” They became in effect
Orthodox mark 2, except now with the access and vocabulary to influence western
Christianity about what they were most passionate about; Palestinian political
causes. They had avoided the High church only to opt for a lifeless
liberalism. Tragically, the prior radicalization of their own converts
(owing to their previous lack of spiritual teaching), and the forsaking of the
proclamation of the Gospel combined to create Palestinian Anglicanism which
claimed to be evangelical, but which preached only nationalism. Afraid of
Muslims, hostile to Jews and uninterested in the spiritual life of the local
Christians of other denominations, theirs became a barren, pointless existence.
Refusing to preach the Gospel, to their shame they settled rather for preaching
politics and Arab nationalism.
During the Mandate they strove to define themselves as
authentically Palestinian Arab rather than as members of an English
denomination. This was their passion, what they threw their energy into. Given
that the bishop was still appointed from London, this was a hard objective to
sell to the wider Arab community. It also contained curious resonances with the
early Marcionite movement, which insisted that being a Christian in no way tied
them to the Jewish community. In any event, they defined themselves primarily
by their flesh, and not by the Gospel. They retreated from their baptism, and
back into their ethnicity. They developed a self-consciously Arab
ecclesiastical organization. The Palestine Native (now National) Church Council
(PNCC) acted as the head of the Arab Episcopal Church and promoted an
autonomous church independent of the British Jerusalem bishopric. They wanted
to be recognised as a genuinely Arab Palestinian institution free from foreign
influence. They defined themselves as a “Palestinian Arab” section of the
Anglican church. They also rejected the designation 'Anglican' in favour of the
title 'Evangelical Episcopal Arab Community,' a semantic change similarly
adopted by the American Anglicans after the War of Independence, and for
similar reasons. They also rejected integration with British and Hebrew
Anglicans – “the PNCC did not want to belong to a global Anglican body; it
wanted to be recognized as the head of an independent Palestinian Arab
church.”[117]
The fruit of this failure would soon become apparent.
“As early as 1922, the CMS was expressing concern about the extent to which
Arab priests were engaged in nationalist politics.”[118] The CMS missionary conference 1922 passed a resolution “deprecating association
of pastoral and political work, and urging paramount importance of whole time
be given to spiritual work.”[119] In 1923, the Rev MacIntyre noted that; “missionaries, as Britishers, are
thought to side with the British government, against the native [Arab]
population, and the later are not disposed to listen to advice or council
from the former.” In 1924, the PNCC considered pan Arab Protestant church,
which would have been a union including Arab Presbyterians, Lutherans and
Quakers. This failed to materialize, but in 1931, MacInnes reported to
Canterbury that the PNCC had; “become very active, almost aggressive owing to
the Nationalist Movement among the Arabs in Palestine.”[120] British missionaries were [often falsely]
associated with the Mandate government, and its perceived policy of
pro-Zionism. Many British missionaries were actually opposed to Zionism
and came into conflict with the government on a number of occasions over Jewish
migration.
During this time, the Arab Anglicans continued to grow
numerically, going from 1,279 in 1922 to 1,843 in 1931. That is, they remained a
tiny (less than ½ of 1%) component of the Palestinian population.
Relationship with Jewish community
Where there is no
vision, the people perish (Proverbs 29:18)
The Anglican church had been founded for the express
purpose of showing God’s love for the Jewish people, and the early bishops all
believed that God would restore the Jewish people to Palestine. Their
‘inclusion of the Gentiles’ was, as seen, largely accidental and sadly resisted
on false ecumenical grounds. Those Arabs who joined however, joined a group desirous
and longing for the return of the Jewish people. They did so for the sake of
the Gospel more generally, but that does not negate that love of the Jewish
people remained a founding tenet of this society. On top of that, other British
Christians such as James Finn gave early example of practical ways to encourage
and bless the Jewish people. Beyond even all this, the very thing their
spiritual fathers had been proclaiming, the wider return of the Jewish people
as a fulfilment of prophecy, actually happened. Given all of these
encouragements, the Arab Anglicans could have been a vital meeting point
between the two communities. Tragically, this did not happen. The blessing that
they could have been to both communities remained unrealised. The breach in the
dividing wall between Jews and Arabs, that the Arab Christians should have incarnated
as a direct consequence of their faith was rejected by them, as they collectively
turned their backs on the Gospel.
This need not have been the case! In 1918, the CMS
reacted to the British advance into Palestine, and the Balfour Declaration:
“The fact that Jerusalem and Bethlehem are now in
Christian hands dominates all other events. … Fresh hope has been aroused that
we are now on the eve of a great spiritual advance. Perhaps nothing has done
more to inspire this new hope than the government’s declaration in favour of
the establishment in Palestine of a ‘national home for the Jewish people.’
The miraculous preservation of the Jewish race, no
less than prophecy, has produced a deep-seated conviction that the Chosen
People are destined to be one of God’s chief instruments in working out his
divine purpose for the human race. If these dreams are to materialise, a
sustained effort must be put forward by the Christian Church to bring Israel
into the fold of Christ.”[122]
After 85 years of waiting and hoping and praying, the
chief purpose for which they had been established was materializing before
them! Under Christian auspices, the Jewish people were returning and the CMS
“were like those who dream.” (Psalm 126:1)
The ecclesiastical hierarchy in Jerusalem had however
cooled in zeal. On December 13, 1919, Bishop MacInnes (who continued to believe
in the Jewish return and conversion) met with Chaim Weizmann. The Bishop wanted
to “Assure Dr. Weizmann of his sympathetic and friendly attitude towards the
Jews.”
He told him that he “strongly hoped for the great future of the Jewish people
and that a thrill of interest went through British Christians at the idea of a
return of the Jews to Palestine.” He then proceeded to object “to certain
features of current Zionism that had led to uneasiness among Palestinian
people.”[124] He did not want the Jews to return by “tens of thousands at a time,” and he was also concerned about a Jewish campaign
against mission schools. The Jewish community were boycotting them, and
exerting pressure upon any Jewish families who sent their children to them. Dr.
Weizmann in turn well-articulated the Jewish case against sending their
children to such schools; “You must remember our position. For two thousand
years we have been persecuted, kept down, tortured. We entrench ourselves, we
fight; our trenches are our Hebrew language, our Hebrew schools, our Hebrew
families and children; anyone going over from us while we are fighting is like
a traitor to the cause; every child we lose is a national loss …now after two
thousand years we think we see a hope. But here in our own country, we find the
process of attrition still going on … after we have our hopes, our home,
perhaps an entente, I know not.”
What a tragedy! The Jewish people are finally coming
home, as he professes to believe, but rather than just rejoicing with Weizmann,
and perhaps asking how they might be of assistance, he starts laying down
rules, he does not want Jews returning in tens of thousands and complains that
the Jewish people don’t want their children converted in Christian schools. He
is vainly trying to put new wine into old wineskins! The Jewish people were not
returning to Palestine only to be told by Christians what to do. For the first
time in 2000 years, they considered themselves to be free, and they were not
about to let themselves “be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (Galatians
5:1) Christians could rejoice with and help, and yes, most definitely share
their faith, but not from an attitude of colonial superiority or religious
superiority. Christians are supposed to embody humility!
Proverbs 18:17 “The first to
present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”
Did MacInnes ever
consider the Jewish case? It is a grief
that 85 years after being established to bring the Gospel to the Jewish people,
the Anglican bishop and his successors seemingly had no interest in or
knowledge of the harsh realities of Jewish life outside Palestine. Did he visit
Poland or Germany to ascertain some facts for himself? They are surrounded by people who have fled from the
coming apocalypse in Europe, yet there only concern is for any disruption this
rescue mission might have on the comfort of the local Arab community. Jewish
lives mean nothing in the face of Arab inconvenience. Writing in the 1930s, the
French author A. Londres (who did visit both Poland and Palestine) also noted
the drastic change and “noisiness” of the Palestinian Jewish community; “your
restless, impassioned spirit brushed aside twenty centuries with a flip of the
mind … you had enough of living under a boot.”[126] After 2000 years of humiliation, they were home, and drunk on freedom. Why was
there no understanding or compassion for their case also?
Mission schools were unquestionably conceived of as
having both an educational and a missionary function. One can therefore
understand the Jewish community not wishing to have its children attend such
institutions. These institutions themselves also, like the rest of the Anglican
effort, suffered an ongoing decay in their own missionary zeal. “The value of
Jewish enrolment in Christian institutions appears to have been some-what mixed
from the standpoint of the institutions themselves. [Susannah] Emery [of the
(Anglican) Jerusalem Girl’s College] expressed her frustration with
the non-Christian elements in 1935: ‘one third non-Christian is quite enough
and the school is full enough’. ‘There are too many Jews’, wrote Emery
again in 1941, ‘especially in the highest classes.’
Of the students to whom she refused entry in May 1942, all were Jews, again an
indication that despite the small numbers, demand on the part of Jews for this
type of education met or exceeded supply.” In
1920, MacInnes wrote of the “failure of missionary work among Jews.”
In any event, the bishop’s early, provisional welcome
soon wilted. Stalder comments that by the end of his bishopric “his disapproval
of Zionist policies overshadowed his endorsement of their ideals.”[128] Eight months after the 1921 Jaffa riots, he wrote in a circular; “Palestine is
so unhappily disturbed by the unjust and intolerable demands of the Zionists.”[129] Indeed, MacInnes seems to have blamed the Jews for both the Arab riots in Jaffa
in 1921, and the wider Arab violence of 1929 (including the massacre of the
Jewish community of Hebron), on the Jews themselves. The Archbishop of
Canterbury defended this letter to Churchill. MacInnes then wrote to the
Archbishop; “we have noticed that their Zionism is generally political very
often sordid and always noisy … I am forced to the opinion that Zionism has
been weighed I the balance and found wanting.”[131] His
canon, S. Waddy stated that Jews should not be given any powers of government
over Palestine. MacInnes even wrote a
pamphlet justifying hostility towards Judaism as the result of the
crucifixion of Jesus!!
Mark 14:37 "Simon, are
you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour?
MacInnes had adopted a Manichean perspective on the
Jewish return. Either it was 100% perfect from conception, or it was not of
God, and should be rejected. How would he have coped with the less than perfect
situation of the first return as recorded in Nehemiah Ezra and Haggai? Books
that were in his Bible. How did he cope with his own church, which was clearly
less than perfect? How did he cope with himself, a sinner saved by grace, and
still not perfect? Why was it only the return of the Jews which must be
immediately flawless? Equally, a friend, someone who had proved to be
trustworthy, who rejoiced with the returning Jews, delighted in there presence,
and was doing all in their power to aid them, might well have been able to
occasionally offer helpful advice, and even used their own resources (their
experience on the ground, their contacts with the Arab community and their
finances) to help smooth the inevitable disruptions the return would cause,
rather than almost immediately using the very existence of that disruption to
denounce the entire project. The “sympathetic and friendly attitude” which he
proclaimed to Weizmann was in reality dead on arrival.
Arab and British expat Anglicans oppose the Jewish return.
MacInnes therefore quickly turned to publicly supporting
the Palestinian cause. Jews, he believed, were responsible for the hostility
against them in Palestine. Through his mediation, the Muslim-Christian
Association appealed to the Archbishop
of Canterbury to support their struggle against Jewish immigration,
and the promise of a national home. Arab Nationalist circles were encouraged by
his attitude. Miss Frances Newton (an extreme anti-Zionist ex missionary)[134] became an advisor to a Muslim-Christian association in 1920. At the very moment
when the prophecies they claimed to believe in were coming true, their faith
and love cooled. The voice the Jewish (and Arab) people needed to hear was
silenced by lack of faith, just as John the Baptist fathers’ had been in the
Temple long ago.
Having rejected the narrative under which they were
founded, the wider Arab Anglican community took the reality of the Balfour
Declaration hard. Given that it was a British initiative, this also complicated
their relationship with the new imperial power, which would otherwise have been
much closer. During the late 1930s “British Anglican support in the
metropole [England] for the Zionist project in Palestine caused a major breach
between the Palestinian Episcopal community and its British parent church.”[135] Many Arab Episcopalians broke with the British mission institutions, some
emigrated, others abandoned their faith entirely. That is, the Anglican
response to Zionism was a huge issue for the Arab Anglican community. One has
to wonder, did none of those who supported Zionism in England from a Biblical
view think to examine how the Bible might view the presence of local gentile believers
in that process? Within Palestine, did any of the British or local Anglican
clergy search the Scriptures to discern what the role of Arab believers might
be in regard to the Biblical restoration of the Jewish people (looking for
example at Romans 11:31) and then explain this lovingly to them?? Did none of
the Arab Anglicans recall the teaching and example of the early bishops and
their Godly, Scriptural love for the Jewish people? Especially as the very
thing they had hoped for and preached about was literally coming to pass?
In any event, the Arab Anglican community responded according
to their ethnicity, rather than their faith. They were joined in this apostacy
by increasing numbers of the British clergy there, who rather than bringing the
Gospel to them, adopted instead the political views of the Arab community they
had come to serve. In 1936 the PNCC sponsored
a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury (when news of Nazi atrocities was
already widely known in Palestine) requesting him to intervene with the British
government to stop Jewish immigration;
the “best solution to the present impasse is the immediate cessation of
immigration.” This use of a church forum to promote nationalism concerned many
British. But “many British missionaries in Palestine in both the CSM and the
bishopric” agreed with the PNCC. Wilson Cash of the CMS wrote to the PNCC; “I think
you have presented the case fairly, honestly and with great restraint … as you
know, my sympathies in this controversy have all along been pro-Arab.”[136] By 1936, the PNCC “had unambiguously aligned itself with the cause of Arab
nationalism and the point of view of the Muslim majority.”[137]
Theirs was not the moral stance they believed it to
be. It was simply the stance of the Muslim community, adopted by the local
Christian community, eager to find common cause with their own historic
oppressors.
Christian Doctrines Affected.
All of this had theological consequence. Passages of
Scripture which seemed to hold out hope and comfort to the Jewish people would
now be regarded with suspicion and distain. Theological solutions,
both old (historic Christian anti-Semitism) and new (liberalism and its
rejection of Scriptural authority) would now be explored, as the British and
Arab Anglicans in Palestine sought solidarity with the anti-Jewish Muslim
majority rather than fidelity to God’s word. Religion became the handmaid of
nationalism. Both Bishops MacInnes and Brown, whose tenures covered the period
1914-1943 opposed Zionism. MacInnes especially communicated his deep resentment
of his government’s support for a Jewish national home in Palestine. They would
continue their involvement in Palestinian causes both from a secular level and
a theological one. Eventually the activism of the Arab clergy would lead it
into partial conflict with their British colleagues.
While Bishop MacInnes had expressed some vague support
for the return of the Jews to Palestine, his successor, Bishop Francis
Graham Brown (1932-1942), moved to a clear theological rejection of such.
Lack of love and compassion had fatally white-anted Biblical doctrine and led
to a church looking for ways to abandon God’s word, and to conform to this
world. A church begun with such high hopes and faith fell to the point that it
actively partitioned the government not to allow Jews fleeing the already
unfolding Holocaust to find sanctuary among them.
Bishop Graham Brown was a constant critic of
Zionism; “I have frequently expressed in public my views as to the unwisdom of
many Zionist statements and actions.”[139] On
October 12, 1936 he wrote to the Times in London stating that “Jewish
immigration must be suspended.” He also contacted others in London at this
time, seeking support for the stopping of Jewish immigration.[140] Like MacInnes before him, he also sought to justify his position theologically.
On October 1936 he wrote to the Jerusalem and East Mission; “does not his
[Jesus] teaching of a spiritual Israel really deny the basis of a ‘National
home’ in Palestine? … the establishment of a national home in Palestine cannot be made to depend on the prophecies
of the Old Testament.” He sent a similar letter on the 24th of
October to the World Missionary Conference. Mission leader (involved with the
World Missionary Conference) Willian Paton replied; “I agree entirely … a Christian can hardly accept the view that
Palestine is destined by the will of God to be a home for the Jews. … the
promises of God were fulfilled in Christ … we cannot therefore as Christians
accept the view that in endeavouring to make Palestine a Jewish home we are
faithful to the revealed will of God.”[141] In
1937 (!) the bishop again wrote (in “Some Christian Considerations in regard to
the partition problem” which was co-authored with Warburton, Bridgeman and
Stewart) “The Jewish claim to Palestine on the basis of prophecy is declared
throughout the New Testament to have been abrogated.”[142] In 1939, he again wrote to the Times; “It is the affirmation of the N.T. that
ancient Israel, ‘Israel after the flesh’ has forfeited its claims to the
promises … the prophecies were fulfilled spiritually with the coming of the
Messiah.”[143]
Brown’s successor, Bishop Weston Henry Stewart
(co-author of the above statement) wrote to the Anglo-American Committee in
March 1946 that “there was no truth to the Zionist claims to Palestine, based
on Old Testament history and prophecies. As far as the Christian understanding
is concerned, the church became the new spiritual Israel and heir to the
promises, where racial and other barriers are broken down.”[144] The
Bishop did however protest a pro-Arab document circulated by the Christian
Church Union in Palestine that claimed the Christian community was “in complete
agreement both in principle and in deed with the Moslems[sic]” and was signed
by members of the Arab-Anglican community.
This fine distinction between opposing Zionism and
supporting Arab nationalism was lost on the majority of local Anglicans,
especially as the bishop’s anti-Zionism was often expressed in what were
essentially Arab Nationalist forms such as opposing Jewish immigration. “In
addition non-Anglican Arab Christians from upper class families, such as Khalil
Sakakini, studied at Anglican institutions and joined the general discourse of
activism found among their peers. The fact that these anti-Zionist Arab-Anglicans
also received support rather than reprimands from the local English clergy can
only mean that they were not only sympathetic but that anti-Zionism may have
been a pre-requisite for advancement in the church.” Najib
Nassar, editor of al-Karmil in Haifa was also a convert to Protestantism.
Looking further ahead, in 1954, Bishop Stewart would,
along with the Evangelical Synod of Syria and Lebanon, object to references to
“Israel”, and Jesus as “the hope of Israel” being made in the WCC Second
Assembly. [Jesus as the "hope of Israel" is in fact
a New Testament title, Acts 28:20 - Stewart was going against the New as well
as the Old Testaments, both the revealed will of God!] Also
at this Assembly, the Lebanese Christian Dr Charles Mallik was quoted as
denying that the return of the Jews to Israel was “associated with the
fulfilment of Christian hope.”[147] Here also, the representative of the Coptic Church in Egypt stated that it
would both be a disservice to the cause of the World Council in the Near East
to mention Israel, and that it would not be politically expedient to mention
Israel. The motion eliminating references to Israel was carried 195 to 150.[148]
Palestinian Anglicans adopt replacement theology.
Palestinian Anglicans often adopted positions quite at
odds with their 'mother’ churches. As seen however, the bishops sent from these
mother churches increasingly pandered and found theological excuses for their
weaknesses, rather than acting like Paul in Acts 20:20 “I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that
was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, … 27
For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.”
Many Protestants worldwide were sympathetic to Zionism,
which the Protestant Arabs adamantly opposed. “One might have anticipated that
Protestant Arabs would be more amenable towards Zionism in keeping with the
pro-Zionist tendencies of their broader Protestant communities. Quite the
opposite was in fact the case. … Few
were prepared to sacrifice their nationalist aspirations in order that Biblical
prophecies concerning the 'homecoming' of the Jews might be fulfilled.”[149] Protestant Arabs tended to be highly fluent in English and well acquainted with
sections of the British public, on account of which, they were often strongly
represented in delegations sent to London for the purpose of representing the
Arab cause before the British public and government.
While it was generally unusual to hear strong expressions
of anti-Semitism among Western Protestants, the same did not hold true for
Protestant Arabs. During a nationalist gathering in Nazareth held in March
1920, for example, the resident Anglican priest, As'ad Mansur, gave a speech in
which he explained that the Jews had no right to Palestine as it had been taken
from them on account of their having rejected the Messiah.[150] This was not just nationalism – it was Replacement theology by Christians in
the land of Israel. They had thought about it, and decided they had a vested
interest in denying the Jews a homeland! A few years later, the Evangelical
Youth Club in Haifa would invite a Muslim speaker to deliver a talk along the
same lines.
Protestant Arab scholars themselves, rather than also
addressing this urgent and central question from a Biblical point of view,
sought rather to glory in and turn the spotlight onto their own ethnicity. They
focused on Palestinian folk culture to “showcase the centrality of
Palestinian Arab Christian communities to the history of Christianity rather
than highlighting the Biblical [Jewish] sites that were a more typical
focus of Western Christian interest.”[151] Note that over the past 30 years, the term “living stones” to describe
Palestinian Christians, first popularised by Elias Chacour, has likewise become
a central element of the Palestinian Christian narrative to Western churches.
In the 20s and 30s the PNCC agitated to be recognized
as an indigenous religious community
This remains a problem to this day, as the Protestant community demand to be
recognised as fully Arab. The CMS and bishopric considered this to be a
backward step spiritually and opposed it as “primitive.” The Arab Episcopalians
however wanted to make their ethnic and cultural commitment to Palestinian
Arabism clear. They did not want to be associated with British or Zionist
interests.
This need to be recognised and accepted by the wider
Arab (Muslim) population was heightened during the 36 Revolt. In his submission
to the Peel Commission in 1937, Graham Brown, the Anglican bishop of Jerusalem
wrote that the local Christians were not afraid of the educated Muslims, but
the revolt was a religious war by the peasantry against Christians as well
as Jews.[152] “But they have come to realize that the zeal shown by the Fellahin in the late
disturbances was religious and fundamentally in the nature of a Holy War
against a Christian Mandate and against Christian people as well as against the
Jews.”[153] The Arab Anglicans believed that they needed to be seen to be fully Arab for
their own safety, rather than trusting in Christ alone.
An address to the House of Lords by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Cosmo Lang
In 1937, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Lang gave an address to the House of Lords in which he
expressed moderate support for the Jewish National Home based on sympathy for
Jewish victims of anti-Semitism in Germany, and a theological interpretation of
the Jewish return to the Holy Land. He also stated his belief that parts of the
city of Jerusalem should be included in the new Jewish state.[154] In the same speech he also expressed sympathy for the Arab population, although
he did qualify that he believed them to be at fault in the concurrent Revolt;
how can we fail to
sympathise with the ideals of Zionism? When we consider the history of that most remarkable race,
one of the most remarkable in the world; when we think of the position they
have occupied for centuries as, at the best, an unwelcome and sometimes a
persecuted minority in many countries, and of the way in which, in spite of
all, they have cherished their national ideals; when we think of their
determination to find some means of securing for themselves a place of cultural
influence and of political strength, can we wonder that they should long to
have a home of their own in the original home land of their race? On the other hand, is it not equally
possible to sympathise with the Arabs?
Certainly some episodes have been most blameworthy. I need
not speak of the outbreak of the armed rebellion of 1936. I can but note the strictures passed by the
Commission on the Mufti in Jerusalem with whom I had conversations some
time ago. Here I must, in contrast, pay
tribute to the extraordinary patience and self-restraint of the Jews during
that most difficult time. [concerning] the position of Jerusalem itself. I am bound to say that it
seems to me extremely difficult to justify fulfilling the ideals of Zionism by
excluding them from any place in Zion. How is it possible for us not to
sympathise in this matter with the Jews? We all remember their age-long resolve,
lament, and longing: ‘If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand
forget its cunning.’
They cannot forget Jerusalem in any terms of
partition, and, as has been pointed out, the actual population of Jerusalem at
the present time is 76,000. Of these, 72,000—one-fifth of the present
population of Palestine—dwell within that portion of Jerusalem which is outside
the old city walls, outside the region for which the Mandatory Power must
undertake special responsibility. There are only 4,000 Jews living within that
area. Is it quite inconceivable that that large modern suburb, with these
72,000 people, and containing, I suppose, as it would, the great
Hebrew University, should not be assigned to the Jewish State with access to
the British Corridor? I feel quite certain, if that could be done, that the
objections and difficulties of the Jews might be largely met.[155]
The consequences of abandoning the Gospel for
Nationalism
This speech caused a serious rift with the Arab
Anglican community. The PNCC letter said they were “sorry for the painful
effect the words of his grace have had on the Arabs and especially on the
Christians of Palestine … the Christians of Palestine [view these views] with
abhorrence.”[156] Arab Episcopalians met with Bishop Graham Brown to object to the term
“minority” to describe them – “the Christian Arabs are part of the Arab
community.” The Women’s Arab Society also protested the speech. Tawfik Kana’an,
in his pamphlet “The Palestine Arab Cause” wrote, “We Arab Christians … are
those who at present hate most bitterly the unchristian policy of Great
Britain.”[157]
At the same time, that is, during the Arab Revolt,
the Arab Episcopalians strengthened their ties with Haj Husseini. In 1937 Ilyas Marmura (Cannon
of St Pauls and chairman of the PNCC) went at his request to London to
the 50th celebration of the Jerusalem Diocese to present the Arab
case. He also wrote to Lang that “some ten thousand Arab Christian men are
thinking of going over to Islam.”[158] It is of interest that he did not want the Partition ended because Arab
Christians would be abandoned to Muslim
or Jewish overlordship. What he wanted was a continued Mandate with much
reduced Jewish immigration. “But for many Arab Episcopalians, the damage was
done. Rather than engage in further political activity through the church, they
began to consider the more radical possibilities of conversion to Islam or
emigration … One of Graham Brown’s Palestinian friends told the bishop that the
idea of ‘accepting Islam’ was being much discussed … In his own house in the
last week, Christians had said it was their opinion that they must face the
possibility.” Marmura, in a letter to Lambeth Palace “related that there was a
movement of Arab Christians toward converting to Islam as a mode of joining in
the nationalist movement.” He wrote “they urged Christians to unite with
Moslems under the banner of Islam.”[159] “Although firm evidence is lacking on the question of precisely how many
Palestinian Episcopalians may have converted to Islam, the frequency with
which this theme occurs suggests that conversion to Islam had genuinely
become a possible response to the situation in which the community found
itself.”[160]
Four things stand out here. Husseini is at this time
leading a violent revolt which has already seen many Jews murdered, and here
this Anglican church official is happy to do his bidding. His letter to Lang
states that “10,000” Arab Anglican men are prepared to abandon their faith over
the issue. This confirms that their primary loyalty is to their nationalism/ethnicity,
not to Jesus! This is no “going beyond the city gate” but rather a mass
apostacy. That he wants the Mandate continued is interesting. While doing their
bidding, he is also fearful of being ruled by the Muslim community! Given that
millions of Christians had already been massacred by Muslims in the surrounding
areas (Turkey, Iraq, Syria etc), and that this would continue right up until
the present, such fears were well founded. They do however undermine the “we
have always got on well” narrative proposed by so many Palestinian Christians.
Finally, as will be shown, well educated, urban Christian leaders such as Ilyas
were well informed as to events in Europe. Knowing that Jews are being
terrorised in Nazi Germany, his response as a Christian was to offer them no
room in the inn. No Arab hospitality here.
British Anglicans in Palestine; in the absence of
their sharing to Gospel with the Arabs, the Arabs shared their own nationalism
with them
British Anglicans in Palestine also objected to
Lang’s speech. Graham Brown objected to its negative view of Husseini (!!) and to the idea of West Jerusalem in a
Jewish state. With other senior British Anglicans in Palestine, he wrote a
memo outlining the bishopric’s view on Partition. In “Some Christian considerations in regard to the partition problem”
by Graham Brown, 1937 he wrote; “For many leading British Anglicans in
Palestine, Zionism and the idea of a Jewish state seems to threaten
Christian interests in the Holy Land.”[161] Graham Brown wrote to Lang in 1937; “Christian Arabs are under no illusion as
to their possible ultimate fate. Although they
realise that under an Arab National Government it might mean submergence or
at least discrimination and persecution, yet they would prefer an Arab regime to a Jewish one.”[162] Mabel Warburton, the Middle East Adviser in
London to Rev A C MacInnes, and Secretary of the mission likewise wrote; “of
course immigration should have been suspended long ago. … I am very sorry for
the Christian Arabs who find themselves in a great dilemma between their Christian
principles and their national feelings.”
Here again, ideas of Muslim/Christian harmony are
discredited by the senior British Anglicans in Palestine at the time. Lang
specified the Jewish new Jerusalem in his speech as being realistically belonging
within the Jewish state. On what basis the British Anglicans objected to this
are not clear. If Mable Warburton reflects wider British Anglican sentiment
about the virtue of suspending Jewish immigration from Nazi Germany, this is
again utterly shameful.
Their support however “could not undo the damage
inflicted by Lang’s speech.”[164] Nicola Saba wrote to the CMS; “to end this note without some reference to the
sufferings our congregations have to undergo on account of the theory now and anon expounded by certain
dignitaries of the Church of England relating to the return of the Jews to Palestine. Although as individuals we
do not believe this doctrine agrees with our interpretation of the New
Testament, there can be no doubt that, being in communion with the Church of
England we are as a body suspected of holding the same view. What makes it worse for us is that some
of the missionary workers in Palestine stick to what is termed to be the
declared doctrine of the Church of England.”[165] “In many people’s minds missionaries are regarded as political agents –
associated with the move to make Palestine a National Home for the Jews …” This
letter makes clear that the idea of the Biblical return of the Jewish people to
the land of Israel was still being preached by some Anglican missionaries to
the Palestinian church [and largely rejected by them] even during the 1930s.
April 1947, the PNCC sent a telegram to the UN
referencing Palestine’s Christian history to call on Christians to support the
Palestinian cause. “In the name of Christianity and from the city of Christ …
declare Palestine an independent country.”[166]
Conclusion
“You were
running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?”
(Galatians 5:7)
The Anglican church began their work in Palestine with
attitudes and a Biblical basis light years ahead of the ancient churches
already there. A mission to the Jewish people, a belief that the Jewish people
would return to the land of Israel, and a conviction that God would use this
(Anglican) ministry to preach Jesus to them, as part of the prophetic plan of
God as revealed in both the Old and New Testaments, was utterly foundational to
the existence of Anglicanism in Palestine.[167] Rightly added to this came a desire to encourage and strengthen the ancient
churches. How then did it all go so terribly wrong? Nearly killed off by the
High Church, they nevertheless made the fatal mistake of placing High Church
ecumenicalism over the clear demands of the Gospel. Once they did this, and deliberately
with-held the life-giving waters from Orthodox people desperate for it, they
largely ceased to have any reason or right to exist.
Faced with this self-imposed spiritual roadblock,
with nowhere else to direct their energies, second and third generation
Palestinian Anglicans reverted to the sins of their Orthodox ancestors; an
obsession with political activism in the service of Arab nationalism. This in
itself demanded a rejection of God’s promises to the Jewish people, and thus a
further degradation of their original mandate. At present they expend their
energies defending their own ethnicity, and Palestinian rejection of Jewish
rights in the foolish hope that this will endear them to the Muslim majority.
They act only in the interests of their own community.
Having rejected evangelism, they now celebrate their
impotence. They refuse to share the Gospel with Muslims, Jews or even other
Christians. Arab Anglicans essentially abandoned their baptism and defined
themselves almost exclusively by their ethnicity, their flesh. This selfish and
barren policy has been utterly destructive and needs to be repented of and
rejected.
2 Corinthians
6:14-17 Do not be yoked
together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in
common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What
harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common
with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of
God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
"I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and
they will be my people." 17 "Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive
you."
What followed was a virtual masterclass in the
distortion of Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). Scripture was declared to only be
the word of God when it affirmed their flesh! Any that challenged or
convicted them were ignored or twisted. Given that the Holy Spirit came to
convict the world of sin and righteousness, this would constitute blasphemy of
the Holy Spirit! All they had to do was to welcome the stranger, the refugee
fleeing pogroms and persecution. Beyond that, as Christians, they should have
been aware of God’s promises, and also of the Jewish genealogy of Jesus. They
could have taken comfort from the promises of God, seeing in the Jewish return
proof of the faithfulness of their God. Like Pharaoh, they could have said, we
love Jesus, we are so thankful to his family of the flesh, here, come and live
with us, come, share, we want to bless you.
Genesis 45:16-20 When the news reached
Pharaoh's palace that Joseph's brothers had come, Pharaoh and all his officials
were pleased. 17 Pharaoh said to Joseph, "Tell your brothers,
'Do this: Load your animals and return to the land of Canaan, 18 and
bring your father and your families back to me. I will give you the best of the
land of Egypt and you can enjoy the fat of the land.' 19 "You
are also directed to tell them, 'Do this: Take some carts from Egypt for your
children and your wives, and get your father and come. 20 Never mind
about your belongings, because the best of all Egypt will be yours.' "
Jewish settlement was not intended to drive Arabs
away, they bought the land legally, the local Christian population could have
helped them, taught them farming etc, and forged a bond of friendship, such as
the Druze have. Instead, they chose to side with the Muslim majority, often
motivated by fear of Muslim violence against themselves, hoping thereby to
ingratiate themselves and so avoid persecution. Given that Muslim communities
murdered over 1.5 million Christians within the wider Ottoman Empire from
1886-1923 (crucial years for the creation of Jewish-Christian relationships
within Palestine), and given that some of these massacres occurred in Lebanon
and Damascus, this fear was solidly based, but a community of faith would have
prayed for the strength to be faithful and do good. Beyond all this, they could
have found in Scripture great purpose and destiny for their own community.
Romans 11:30-32 Just as you who were at one
time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their
disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order
that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32
For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on
them all.
Rather than demanding that Christian Zionism had no
place for them, they could have prayed, read and wrestled with this issue (it
was of vital importance to them!) and discovered that God planned to use
Gentile believers to show mercy to the Jewish people, and thereby save them.
What an incredible responsibility and privilege could have been theirs, but
they chose to ally with the very people who were massacring Christians across
the Middle East, and to resist and reject the gracious words of Scripture to
them.
Many Arab Anglicans indeed chose emigration. Although
Protestant Arabs tended to associate themselves with the West to a greater
degree than did other Christians Arabs, they were also among the most ardent of
nationalists. As the new kids, they wanted to show they belonged – they chose
not to witness, and rather to stress Arab nationalism. They chose who they
belonged to. The last, best chance was gone.
Palestinian Lutherans
[very incomplete]
Regarding the
Lutheran church, the Jerusalem church/congregation went by the name “The
Palestinian Lutheran Church of Jerusalem” while the Bethlehem church was called
“The Lutheran Arab Church of Bethlehem.” According to Lutheran Palestinian
Mitri Raheb, the names illustrate “how strong the self-awareness of the Arab
Christian community had become. Both congregations highlighted their
Arab identity, and the former showed “its sympathy with the Palestinian
national movement.”
In 1936, the Arab Lutheran pastor, Hanna Bachut, who
had previously translated Martin Luther’s Prefaces to the Old Testament
into Arabic, organised, along with others, a number of “Protestant Evenings” to
discuss some of the questions that concerned the community at this time. They
were held every second Thursday at the Arab Lutheran congregation in Bethlehem
to examine “contemporary issues from the standpoint of a Protestant
Interpretation of Scripture and understanding of Revelation.”[169] Among the topics discussed were; “Zionism and the prophets of the Old
Testament”, “Luther’s view of Old Testament Prophecy,” “Luther and Judaism,”
“Christ and Nationalism,” and “How did Jesus relate to his native land.”
This would seem to be an excellent undertaking,
seeking to better understand God’s will for the present by examining the
Scriptures. Exactly what we would want them to be doing! As Mitri Raheb wrote,
“The Arab Protestant Church could not remain unaffected by the incessant waves
of Jewish immigration, the determination of the British Mandate to establish a
Jewish ‘national homeland’ in Palestine and [conversely,] the strengthening of
the Palestinian national movement.”[170]
The problems emerge on several fronts; in the 1930s,
German Lutherans were still positive about Luther’s views on Jews.[171] They were thus imbibing poison from a trusted source, a source beyond reproach.
Mitri Raheb continues that, before Bachut’s sermon on the Old Testament,
“numerous American and English missionaries had infiltrated the
countryside and had heralded the influx of Jews to Palestine as a fulfilment of
Old Testament prophecy and a sign of ‘one of the last stages of God’s plan of
salvation.’” That is, the truth was being proclaimed, and they chose to reject
it!
Bachut’s studies were delivered into this context and
sought to repudiate these claims as an abuse of the word of God. Bachut
preached that the prophecies were “a thing of the past.” The Old Testament was
not applicable to the present context but had ceased to be of any relevance. To
maintain that these prophecies still had relevance was “as if Christ had not
appeared, and as if the Christian Churches did not have a second part in their
Bible.”[172] Concerningly, Stalder notes “the ease with which they [Palestinian Lutherans]
drew strength from the Lutheran tradition.” If the PNCC were on the brink of
losing their faith, the Arab Lutherans had no such problem. “They had no qualms
about accepting and highlighting the tradition in which they were reared. They
were stanch Lutherans.” They therefore concluded that “the Jews should not feel
that they were heirs of the Holy Land.”[173]
“He [Jesus] must
remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he
promised long ago through his holy prophets.” (Acts 3:20-21)
“For I tell you
that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to
confirm the promises made to the patriarchs” (Romans 15:8)
