Colin's blog: 2022

A brief history of the Anglican church in Palestine (1833-1948)

(Being a part of the larger work found in the previous post.)

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.^{^[1]} The Church Missionary Society (CMS) joined the work in 1842.^{^[2]} 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.”^{^[3]} 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.^{^[4]} 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.^{^[5]} It was indeed envisaged as a “Hebrew bishopric,” using the Hebrew language and traditions.^{^[6]} 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.”^{^[7]} 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.”^{^[8]} “When he spoke of the revival of Israel in the future, his heart overflowed with warmth.”^{^[9]}

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.”^{^[10]} 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.[11] 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.”[12] 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.”[13]

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.”^{^[14]} 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.”^{^[15]} 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.^{^[16]}

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.”^{^[17]} 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.”^{^[18]} 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.”^{^[19]} Farah writes^{^[20]} 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^{^[21]} 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.^{^[22]} In this spirit, the next bishop, George Blyth (1887-1914) “put his foot on proselytism.”^{^[23]} 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 18^th 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.^{^[24]} He stressed the need for mission work among the Jews of Bible lands, and noted that “this does not exclude mission work among Moslems.”^{^[25]}

The more evangelical CMS and LJS refused his oversight. The CMJ trusted him, however, as he regarded the mission to the Jews as central.^{^[26]} 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.^{^[27]} 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.”^{^[28]}

He believed that the return of the Jews to Palestine was “a sign to prophecies that are not yet fulfilled.”^{^[29]} 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^{^[30]} 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.”^{^[31]}

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.”^{^[32]}

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.”^{^[33]} 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!!^{^[34]} Stalder writes that “a growing ecumenical ethos pervaded MacInnes bishopric [1914-1931].”^{^[35]} 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.”^{^[36]} Likewise in 1932, a CMS official was “impressed[!!] by the disappearance of the desire to proselytize to the different sects.”^{^[37]}

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.”[38] 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.”^{^[39]}

As Bishop Rennie MacInnes noted; “The national question preoccupied the native population far more than confessional details.”^{^[40]} 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.^{^[41]}

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^{^[42]} 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.”[43] 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.”^{^[44]}

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.”^{^[45]} 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.”^{^[46]} 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.”^{^[47]} 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.[48] 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.”^{^[49]}

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.”[50] 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.”^{^[51]} He did not want the Jews to return by “tens of thousands at a time[U1] ,” 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.”[52]

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.”^{^[53]} 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.”[54] 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.”^{^[55]} 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.”^{^[56]} 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.[57] 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.”^{^[58]} His canon, S. Waddy stated that Jews should not be given any powers of government over Palestine.[59] MacInnes even wrote a pamphlet justifying hostility towards Judaism as the result of the crucifixion of Jesus!![60]

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)^{^[61]} 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.”^{^[62]} 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.”^{^[63]} By 1936, the PNCC “had unambiguously aligned itself with the cause of Arab nationalism and the point of view of the Muslim majority.”^{^[64]}

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.[65] 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.”^{^[66]} 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.^{^[67]} 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 24^th 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.”^{^[68]} 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.”^{^[69]} 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.”^{^[70]}

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.”^{^[71]} 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.[72]

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.”[73] 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.”^{^[74]} 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.^{^[75]}

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.”^{^[76]} 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.^{^[77]} 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.”^{^[78]} 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.^{^[79]} “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.”^{^[80]} 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.^{^[81]} 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.^{^[82]}

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.”^{^[83]} 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.”^{^[84]}

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 50^th 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.”^{^[85]} 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.”^{^[86]} “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.”^{^[87]}

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.”^{^[88]} 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.”^{^[89]} 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.”[90]

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.”^{^[91]} 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.”^{^[92]} “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.”^{^[93]}

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.^{^[94]} 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.

[1] Farah, 18. Note, Robson places it at 1826. Church verses Country, 51.

[2] It should be noted that the American ABCFM established a mission from 1821 to 1844 in Palestine, under the missionaries Fisk and Parsons. Stalder, 93.

[3] Farah, 20.

[4] “a superficial and unfortunate scheme for setting up a joint Lutheran and Anglican Bishopric in Jerusalem seemed to Newman the last straw to his waning allegiance. With a breaking heart he left the English Church, and in 1845 he joined the Church of Rome.” http://anglicanhistory.org/england/misc/bell_oxford1933.html

“a dilemma was posed for the friends of the Oxford Movement by the joint determination of England and Prussia to place a Protestant bishop in Jerusalem in 1841. As this was a step motivated both by Prussian-English desire to counter growing Russian influence in the Middle East and by a missionary interest, on what grounds might Newman and his circle take objection? In a word, it was prejudicial to the existing claims to Christian jurisdiction in that region exercised by Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions (which actually had adherents there). Moreover, this arrangement drew the Church of England into formal cooperation with Lutheranism, a movement that they abhorred. The case of the Jerusalem bishopric is important to the story of the Oxford Movement for what it forced into public view: the religious instincts of the movement were other-than-Protestant and contrary to Britain’s growing imperial aspirations.” http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/the-oxford-movement-europe-and-the-wider-world-18301930

[5] Farah, 32.

[6] Farah, 23.

[7] Farah, 24. Written under duress.

[8] Farah, 25.

[9] Farah, 31.

[10] Farah, 32.

[11] Makhoul, 17.

[12] Stalder, 91, fn41. See also Farah, 30; it was the establishment of this Protestant bishopric which occasioned the re-establishment of the Latin (Catholic) Patriarchate of Jerusalem in 1848, the first such since 1187.

[13] Stalder, 91.

[14] Stalder, 97.

[15] Stalder, 98.

[16] Farah, 38.

[17] Farah, 38.

[18] Quoted in Stalder, 104.

[19] Stalder, 105.

[20] Farah, 47.

[21] See for example, Ya’ari, The Goodly Heritage, 55, 65+.

[22] Farah, 67.

[23] Stalder, 107.

[24] Farah, 72.

[25] Farah, 72.

[26] Farah, 74.

[27] Farah, 71.

[28] Farah, 71.

[29] Farah, 72.

[30] Farah, 74.

[31] Stalder, 134.

[32] Farah, 65.

[33] http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/historical_record1921.html

[34] Robson, 131.

[35] Stalder, 155.

[36] Stalder, 153.

[37] Robson, 135.

[38] Tsimhoni, 48+ 138.

[39] Stalder, 159.

[40] Roland Loffler, quoted in Stalder, 159.

[41] Farah, 82.

[42] See Stalder, 160.

[43] Tsimhoni, 1976, 86.

[44] Robson, 137.

[45] Robson, 140.

[46] Robson, 199.

[47] Robson, 241.

[48] Census of Palestine, 1922; Census of Palestine, 1931., quoted in Frantzman, S., Glueckstadt, B. W., and Kark, R., “The Anglican Church in Palestine and Israel: Colonialism, Arabization and Land ownership, 6.

[49] Farah86.

[50] Farah, 87.

[51] Farah, 87.

[52] Farah, 88.

[53] A. Londres, The Wandering Jew has Arrived, 196.

[54] Liora Halperin, The Battle over Jewish Students in the Christian Missionary Schools of Mandate Palestine (Middle Eastern Studies, 2014) 4.

[55] Stalder, 154.

[56] Farah, 91.

[57] Farah, 101. Compare Farah’s own description of these events with that of Hillel Cohen, 1929; Year Zero of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

[58] Farah, 92.

[59] Tsimhoni, Daphne, ‘The Arab Christians and the Palestinian Arab National Movement During the Formative Stage’, in Ben- Dor (ed.), The Palestinians and the Middle East Conflict, 1978 pp. 73–98, 87.

[60] Tsimhoni, Daphne; 1978, 87.

[61] Farah, 83.

[62] Robson, 128.

[63] Robson, 152, Robson, Church verses Country, 57, Stalder, 163.

[64] Stalder, 164.

[65] See also the section “Biblical issues” for more on this topic.

[66] Farah, 98.

[67] Farah, 111.

[68] Robson, 152., Farah, 111-2.

[69] Farah, 115.

[70] Farah, 112.

[71] Farah, 124.