Fuad Farah. Studies in World Christianity. Volume 15, Issue 3, 2009.
Ever since the outset of Islam around the middle of the seventh century, tribal and ethnic, entities in what has come to be known as the Middle East, gave way to a religious allegiance centered around the Caliphate. The Caliph, successor to Muhammad became the religious as well as the political leader of the Nation of Islam. In many aspects it resembled the Roman Byzantine system of government, in which the emperor exercised full political and religious hegemony over his subjects, later adopting Christian Orthodoxy at the beginning of the fourth century. The separatist trends, mainly ethnic, coated usually with obscure theological disagreements and interpretations, that plagued Christendom in its early history, have led eventually to the establishment of fully independent churches. Muslims of the Middle East sustained however undisputed full allegiance to the Islamic traditional system of government with its deeply rooted Arab elements regardless of the wide scale cultural, racial, and social differences within the Muslim world. Accordingly Muslim Arabs never protested when the Ottoman Turkish sultan proclaimed himself caliph, and felt at ease in rendering him loyalty, despite his foreign ethnic background. This was based on the concept of religious rather than racial allegiance, and was the precept governing relations between the ruler and his subjects particularly in the Middle East. The rise of the Arab national movement initiated by Christian intellectuals late in the 19th century put an end to religious affinity, which was soon replaced by a liberal lay western-oriented ideology based on the principles of the French Revolution.
Accordingly the challenge to which the Christians were subjected was to identify themselves as Arab nationalists, regardless of their religious affiliations and to enjoy the same rights as the Muslims within a democratic lay society. To a large extent the Orthodox were usually in the forefront of the Arab Liberation Movement and have expressed, since the beginning of the century, a stronger sense of belonging and loyalty to the Arab cause, not only as political activists but also in related fields such as journalism and trade unions. There were several reasons for this.
- Orthodox Arabs have considered themselves always a part of the East and were for a long time out of reach, comparatively speaking, of active Western Church mission schools. Many Orthodox leaders were graduates of Russian schools where Arab history and culture was propagated more than in mission schools.
- The Arab Orthodox struggle against Greek domination of the Church and the refusal of the Mandatory Government to accede to their demands for reform have left them with no alternative but to resort to the Arab Nationalist movement for support.
- Most Palestinian Orthodox lived in the Jerusalem and Jaffa areas, close to the main centres of the nationalist movement, and were as such more exposed to its ideology and political activity.
The Ottoman system of government’s approach towards its non-Muslim subjects was based on the principle of the ‘Millet Law’ where the status of the individual is derived from his or her membership in the community, which is headed by a supreme religious leader, in our case, the Patriarch. In addition to his ecclesiastical authority he was granted additional civil rights such as the maintenance of schools, supervision of courts dealing with personal matters, and sole control of church property. It was within this context that Christians in general, including the Orthodox, had to accept the hegemony of their religious leadership in the spiritual as well as the civil administration of their churches. This has been exploited by the Greek clergy since 1534, when through their representation at the Ottoman court in Constantinople, they assumed full control of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church. They took further steps in excluding local Arab priests from having a voice in its councils, where membership was exclusively reserved for Hellenistic elements. They went even further in claiming Greek legacy not only over our church but also custody of the holy shrines reserved for the Orthodox under the officially recognised status quo agreement of 1852 confirmed in 1878 by the treaty of Berlin. Reforms and amendments suggested at a later stage were never put into practice due to the refusal of the Jerusalem Patriarchate to abide by them. Accordingly, twelve Arab priests are accepted within the ranks of the ninety members of the ‘Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher’ organisation, which forms the hierarchical base of the Jerusalem Patriarchate. There is also the Holy Synod, with its executive arm, composed of seventeen ecclesiastics, mostly bishops of non-existent bishoprics where no Orthodox or even Christians are living. Orthodox Church government is noted for its democratic system where bishops of the respective Orthodox communities reside with their congregations and are entrusted to serve their interests at Church councils including the Synod.
In his book An Arab and a Christian, Anthony Wessels notes that the decline of the Church in the Holy Land is caused by its refusal to abandon its Greek and Roman nature in favor of a national church. Mission work also failed as religious zeal overruled the need to understand the Other. In the end it turned out to be an importing of Western culture rather than a spiritual Christianity as personified in Jesus.
Fearful of provoking conflict and suspicious of the nationalistic elements within the Orthodox Reform movement, the British Mandatory administration as well as its successors, the Jordanian and Israeli governments, maintained their recognition of the Millet system despite its reactionary and undemocratic features. This meant refusal to initiate reform programmes within the Jerusalem Patriarchate in total disregard of the aspirations of the Orthodox Church Community. Former Israeli mayor of Jerusalem Mr. Teddy Kollek notes, ‘We do not support Arab Orthodox efforts to make changes in the internal structure of their church.’
Apart from the colonial interests of the Mandatory Government, Israeli officials exploited the law for real estate land lease transactions for the benefit of the state as well as exclusively Jewish speculators. The transactions were usually kept secretive and their contents undisclosed. The fact is that the Orthodox community was never a partner in such dealings and is most vigorously opposed to them.
The ongoing drain of our church resources and assets endowed throughout the ages by faithful believers causes us a great deal of concern. Not only does it undermine the physical presence of the Orthodox Church here but is also detrimental to its dignity and image in the eyes of the local Muslim population and is harmful to its long-cherished standing in our region. Furthermore, it does not contribute to the efforts planned to curb Christian emigration from the Holy Land where church property is considered an important asset that could be effectively employed for that purpose. All our suggestions to formulate new criteria for sharing in decisions, or at least in consultation, concerning the civil administration of our church were flatly refused. Likewise, we never expect or contemplate any show of understanding, sympathy or concern from the Israelis who, out of their craving for the acquisition of Church property have aligned themselves completely with the Patriarchate.
Legally speaking all regulations defining the relations between the Patriarchate and the Orthodox, including the officially-accepted Jordanian Law of 1957, call for the convening of a ‘Mixed Council’ of clergy members delegated by the Patriarchate and lay members representing the community. Its role is to deal with the civil matters of the Church, particularly the management of its property. Backed by the official Israeli stand the Patriarchate has so far refused to convene the mixed council as legally stipulated.
Many Orthodox members, totally frustrated and without hope of reforms, have forsaken Orthodoxy. No wonder that the percentage of the Orthodox in relation to the Christian community of the Holy Land has dropped from almost ninety percent to barely forty percent within the past 200 years.
The Greek Catholics (Melkites) were the first to break away from Orthodoxy, uniting eventually with Rome though remaining an autonomous entity. Discovering a fertile ground the Pope declared the Holy Land open for proselytism and, followed by the Anglicans, initiated a mission campaign directed almost totally towards Orthodox believers. A Latin Patriarchate and a theology school for training Arab clergy were founded around the middle of the nineteenth century, as was an Anglican-Lutheran bishopric. Aided by their wide-scale educational, health and public service institutions, both the Romans and the Anglicans succeeded in drawing large numbers of frustrated Orthodox to their newly founded churches.
Conversion has not ceased and though Catholics and Anglicans refrain under mutual unwritten agreement from conversion activities among the Orthodox, an intensive and more vigorous campaign carried out by radical fundamentalist and evangelical churches and church groups is being carried out effectively. Aided by their rhetoric and sometimes by their educational institutions, Baptists, Pentecostal, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other missionaries have succeeded in drawing many Christians, mainly Orthodox, to their faith. This has meant establishing new Christian communities with strong ties to alien church centres, thus weakening to a great extent the highly coveted indigenous nature of the Church here.
Today Orthodoxy in the Holy Land finds itself at a very low ebb, not witnessed since the Crusades. Church leaders have their hands full dealing with problems of real estate and management of Church property, supervision of religious courts, performing routine ceremonial events as well as guarding Orthodox rights and concessions in the Holy Shrines against the intrusion of rival churches.
Not much has in fact changed in the basic doctrinal characteristics of the Orthodox Church. Throughout its history it constantly adheres to a strict conservative course not only in matters of creed but also in liturgical, ritual and pastoral duties. Hardly any reforms have been introduced even in the hierarchical and administrative systems. Unlike other churches in the West, Orthodoxy had always clung to the rules, teachings, and directions as stipulated by theologians of the early Church. Its doctrine, as in the past, is based mainly on the Bible, the sacraments, the heritage of the Holy Fathers, and the decisions of the ecumenical councils. Any alterations of the accepted norms should be endorsed by the ecumenical council of all Orthodox churches. The use of musical instruments in church service is prohibited and the veneration of icons – not statues – is a common practice of the faithful. Baptism is administered to children, in most cases infants, at which time a godfather is appointed to attend to the child’s religious nurturing. Celibacy is required of monks, nuns, and ordained priests, while lay married men can be ordained for the priesthood in the parishes. The altar is considered holy and has therefore to be separated and screened by the iconostasis, the screens displaying the icons. On the whole the Orthodox Church has remained traditionally conservative resisting any reform in doctrine or in structure.
Despite all that, many of us are still strongly attached to Orthodoxy and see in it not merely a bastion of Christian faith and ideology, but also an integral part of our past history and culture of which we are so proud. It is the theology of the East, rich in spirituality and not contaminated by false interpretations and heresies. Orthodoxy is also an expression of our glorious church heritage that reared monasticism in the Southern deserts of Palestine, a symbol of the sacrificial defense of the icon, the birth of liturgy and the creed, and the home of our Holy Fathers. The unshaken faith of our Orthodox ancestors and their love of God is so magnificently manifested in the numerous churches they built, adorned with beautiful mosaics and works of art, during the Byzantine era, the golden age of Christian presence in the Holy Land.
Admittedly, the Crusades put an end for well over five centuries to militant foreign intervention in the Middle East. The Christian powers of Europe realised that forceful intervention based on ideological zeal and principles failed to win Christian patronage of the Holy sites. It was Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt at the beginning of the nineteenth century that signaled a new era of gross political meddling by European powers in the affairs of the Holy Land. Under the pretence of protecting Christian interests, France was recognised as the protector of the Catholics, Britain of the Protestants, and Imperial Russia looked after the interests of the Orthodox. In all cases there was no marked intervention in church affairs but rather mainly in offering greatly needed services in the fields of education and health that benefited the whole population.
Russian Orthodox influence was notably visible in more than one field. During the Tsarist regime Russian pilgrims came in the thousands, despite practical difficulties in accommodation and transportation facilities. Their numbers far surpassed other pilgrims from the European continent. Hostels were built, churches erected, and large areas of land acquired mainly in urban centers, most of which, except for the churches, were later sold to the state. The most remarkable Russian contribution was however in the field of education. The Imperial Palestine Committee established more than twenty-two schools in urban as well as rural areas where mostly no schooling system of any kind existed. Two teachers’ seminaries were also founded and many of the prominent literary figures and journalists in the Middle East were graduates of these institutions. Unlike similar Western missionary schools, the subject matter in the Russian schools was taught in Arabic, books and other school requirements were granted freely, and students were well educated in school discipline. All was terminated in the wake of the Communist takeover of Russia during the First World War.
Mindful of and grateful for Russian benevolence and its remarkable contribution in the past, especially in the field of education, Orthodox here do hope that these good relationships can exist. The present surge of Russian pilgrims is a good, though modest, sign of a reviving interest in the Holy Land which could, if properly employed, serve as a factor in promoting mutual cooperation in lay matters between local and Russian Orthodoxy.
More than any other denomination, the Orthodox community members feel isolated and detached. There is almost no expression of solidarity or willingness to foster closer relationships and fellowship with them. Rather than being awarded credit and recognition for their ongoing struggle and steadfastness to uphold Christian witness against all odds in its most sacred sites, they seem to be forgotten and abandoned by other Orthodox as well as the Christian world.
Orthodox communal organisations in Israel are based on church councils elected periodically by eligible Orthodox voters in every locality. The councils enjoy therefore true representation of the local community and are entrusted to deal with its affairs at the parish level without infringing on matters of creed and theology. In 1982 an umbrella organisation, the Orthodox Congress, composed of delegates of the different church councils, was founded, and an executive committee was elected to act as the sole representative to speak for the Orthodox community in Israel. It should therefore be awarded recognition as such in any dialogue or deliberations where Holy Land Orthodox and Christian interests are discussed. Most church leaders here, many of whom are foreign, including from the Vatican which is officially recognised by Israel as caring for Christian interests, take the view that the real issues with the Israelis centre around protecting their long possessed privileges as well as full control of church assets and resources. The Palestinian Orthodox are mainly concerned with the human element and their long coveted rights in having a say in the civil affairs of their church. It is therefore natural, fair, and legitimate that the Orthodox, through their highly organised communal set up, should be given the opportunity to express their views and air their ideas and visions in matters related to Christian communal presence in the Holy Land. More agonising still is the fact that world and regional Christian centres relate only to our religious leadership even in matters of a strictly civil nature such as youth care, refugees, and social services, disregarding altogether the elected church lay councils.
In this context we feel highly appreciative of the privilege bestowed upon us in being by God to assume the role of upholding Orthodoxy in our region. Realising that this is our foremost duty and obligation, it is essential that we pursue a policy of united action with other church denominations against the challenges facing Christian witness in our country uninterrupted over the past 2000 years. I must admit that a marked stagnation in religious zeal is quite evident within our parishes. No effort is made to organise seminars, training courses, or study days which would intend to promote the high spiritual values of Orthodoxy, while revivals, Sunday schools and youth religious programmes are conducted on a limited scale. No doubt our community councils and the local clergy bear most of the responsibility for that. Fully engaged in the civil matters of the Church and its service organisations, council members, all of whom are volunteers, find little time to undertake and embark on religious programmes, Sunday schools and other spiritual activities. On the other hand, rather than devoting their time and effort towards spreading the word of God, especially among the youth, the priests have their hands full in performing routine church rites and services as well as becoming involved in religious court proceedings.
Orthodox in particular and Christians in general have kept alive a special identity of their own due to their superb capabilities to adapt and accommodate themselves in the never-ending conflicts in this part of the world. They consider themselves Arabs in the widest sense of the word and have always manifested a deep feeling of attachment and loyalty to the Arab cause. Despite its Islamic roots, Christians have contributed much in molding Arab civilisation and culture in the past and were pioneers and active partners in the literary awakening followed by the Arab National Movement. On the whole, Christian-Muslim relationships are characterised by mutual cooperation and a common destiny. However, the recent rise of a strong Islamic protest movement that often identifies Christians with Western Imperialism has created a complex situation and a new challenge facing the small Christian minority here. This is further aggravated by the recession of the pan-Arab national movement, as well as the liberal and social ideologies that were predominant among the Arab masses less than fifty years ago.
Growing anti-Western feeling among the Arab masses as a result of American government support for Israel and the war in Iraq is more often than before reflected negatively in present Christian-Muslim relations, stemming from a growing undeclared Christian identification with the West. To make things worse, Christian fundamentalists, mostly evangelical, such as the Christian Embassy and the Christian Zionist movement, take an outright pro-Israeli stand in Jewish claims over the whole of Palestine. In their search for certainty, they misinterpret the Old Testament and disregard the context, symbolism, the era, and the circumstances in which it was written. Convinced that the Second Coming of Jesus is linked with the gathering of the Jews in Palestine and the building of the temple, they embark on mobilising political lobbying and financial aid to Jewish settlements in the West Bank at the cost of alienating Arab and Muslim sentiments against the Christians. All seem to agree that any further delay in the peace process and any obstacles created in its path are likely to complicate matters still further, increase tension, and pave the way for more radicalism that might engulf the whole region in a bloody bath.
Muslim and Jewish world organisations have maintained throughout the ages a steady flow of support to their respective communities here. Likewise Catholic and Protestant churches abroad are highly supportive of their own educational and public service institutions. The Orthodox on the other hand feel abandoned and are left on their own.
The importance of a flourishing Christian community in the Holy Land cannot be overstated and should by all means be acknowledged. Christians all over the world, who obviously have strong sentimental feelings towards the land that witnessed the birth, mission, crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord, are keen about having continuity of Christian witness here. Religious ceremonies and celebrations carried out by the local Christian communities are closely followed and at times attended by devout worshippers. Pilgrimages to the Holy Places have been a long tradition, bringing material benefits and attention to the whole population. Muslims and Jews, on the other hand, are keen to present to the world a pluralistic and tolerant society where freedom of worship is observed and guaranteed. With their strong links to the churches in the West and hopefully to the East, Christians can play an important role in advocacy of human rights in international circles. Alternatively, considering their moderate, nonviolent attitude, they are capable, if given the opportunity, of bridging to some extent the controversies in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Above all the extensive educational, health and humanitarian services offered by the Churches, mainly to the Arab population, is an outstanding monument of Christian charity and benevolence for those in need regardless of their ethnic or religious affiliations. Truly Jesus did not establish his Church to serve its own interests but to place itself in the service of the needy and those who suffer. It should not therefore be self-centred, otherwise it loses its witness and credibility. In the same manner and as part of our faith, the Church cannot remain silent when human rights are being violated and where justice should prevail. The voice of the Church locally and internationally has not been heard loud enough against the frequent transgressions taking place in the Holy Land.
The twentieth century has brought about a drastic demographic upheaval in the Holy Land. Up to the middle of the last century, Christians made up more than seven percent of its total population. Today there are no more than 170,000 indigenous Christians living between the river Jordan and the sea making up less than 1.6% of the population. This has been caused mainly by the influx of Jewish immigrants to Israel and the exodus of the Arabs, Muslims and Christians alike, from it during and in the aftermath of the 1948 war. Among the Arab population of Israel the Christian percentage is continually falling, from about twenty percent to less than nine percent within the last fifty years. The reasons for this have included their relatively low natural growth as well as their tendency to emigrate.
Being a small minority within a larger Arab minority, spread all over the country and not residing in a territorial enclave of their own, the political and social status of the Christians as well as their weight in decisionmaking is rapidly declining. It has led to further neglect of their interests and growing suspicion of them, manifested sometimes in sporadic acts of violence against them. Job opportunities, once more freely open to Christians, are becoming difficult to acquire, considering that Jews and Muslims, backed by their wider electoral influences, are more likely to secure them. The fact that they are largely an urban, middle-class, landless community, Christians face a more severe housing problem than the Muslim land-owning, rural society or the better privileged young Jewish couples to whom state land allocations are readily available. Moreover, the continued tensions and the rise of Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism and national extremism cause the Christians much concern about their future. One cannot but notice a deep sense of frustration, hopelessness, and dissatisfaction as well as a feeling of isolation and detachment from World Christianity among the local Christian communities. Their education, religion, and Western-style culture constitute important factors, especially for young and ambitious intellectuals who would be the future leaders of the community, driving them to emigrate. Our loss is therefore doubly serious. Although no exact figures of émigrés are available, symptoms of a disintegrating society are clearly evident in many Christian towns and villages, especially in the Jerusalem area. Nothing has so far been done or even planned to alleviate this phenomenon. Several analysts are of the opinion that if the present trends continue, Christianity in the Holy Land will in time probably be a relic of the past, the Land will be void of a Christian communal presence. The much coveted Holy shrines and places, reminders of our Lord’s physical presence on earth would then be no more than museums, guarded by foreign clergy or, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, another Disneyland. This fateful, uncertain situation ought to cause a great deal of concern and anxiety among Christians all over the world, encouraging them to take action to preserve Christian witness in its most sacred locations. The situation is not hopeless and opportunities still exist for churches and church organisations, especially abroad, to curtail and contain the exodus of local Christians. Under the present circumstances the small, weak and isolated Christian community in the Holy Land is in no position to cope with the problems and future challenges facing Christian witness here. A special effort is therefore required by World Christianity to ensure better support for the remaining few Christians. This involves providing new opportunities of higher education and skills, as well as responding to their needs for better employment and housing conditions out of the vast and varied resources at the disposal of world Christian bodies. In the meantime church leaders are called upon to conduct a thorough study and analysis of the hazardous situation in which the Church of the Holy Land finds itself, followed by a creative programme of measures needed to preserve Christian witness here. The example of Constantinople, once the shining centre of Christian presence and witness, stands as a reminder and warning of what might overtake Jerusalem.