Chris Deliso: Christianity in Palestine, and America’s “war on terror”

Noted travel writer William Dalrymple argued recently in the Independent for the underlying unity of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, referring for the most part to the early history of Islam and the cultural homogeneity between all of the peoples living in the Levant, no matter what their religious orientation. In comparison to the modern reality, an element of wishful thinking is apparent in the argument of this apologist for religious harmony. Yet among other compelling revelations Dalrymple provides is the fact that local Christian authors believed the upstart religion of Mohammed to be just another permutation (a heretical one, to be sure), of their own church. This indicates an entirely different cultura! l orientation than we, conditioned by Western Christianity, are familiar with, and one with important implications for our understanding of the current world crisis. Perhaps there is something about the desolate land in the Levant, or its arid climate, that inclines native worshippers to austere theology and a starkly dualistic view of the world. Certainly it is no coincidence that Early Christian sectarianism in Egypt, Syria and Palestine had certain internal similarities that seem to have predicted the theological harshness of Islam. The Gnostics, an early sect popular in Egypt, believed in an essential duality between good and evil, and claimed that the world was the creation of a malevolent demiurge. Hijacking the then-fashionable philosophy of Neoplatonism, the Gnostics bemoaned the corruptability of matter, and looked forward to the purely spiritual afterlife, drawing their inspiration from scriptures (such as the “Gospel of Thomas”) declared apocryphal by the mainstream Church. In these texts, quite a different Jesus appears- one who is not always gentle, occasionally abusive, more cyptic and more unhinged. The “Egyptian Jesus” of the Gnostics is much more of a Mohammedian figure than the traditional Jesus of the New Testament. Further, the fundamental Gnostic distinction between good and evil is also a main tenant of Persian Zoroastrianism- another ancient, non-Muslim religion native to the Middle East. In Syria, the greatest theological controversy in the early Church was caused by the popularity of Monophysiticism, which postulated that Christ could not have taken a human nature without compromising his divine one. The Greek words “mono” (one) and “physis” (nature) capture the essential platform of the sect, which enjoyed enormous popularity in Syria and Palestine. The high profile of the Monophysites in this region contributed to Byzantium’s loss of ecclesiastical control- and, thus, political control- over time. By the 7th century, Islam was able to easily spread across the area, an unsurprising outcome, given the weakening of Orthodox control and the theological affinity between the “one divine nature” ideas of the Christian sect and the immutable and indivisibly one Allah of the Muslims. And so even in its mainstream and Orthodox form, Christianity is essentially, as Dalrymple reminds, an “oriental religion.” The oldest Christian churches are Orthodox, and from the East- the Greeks, Coptics, Armenians and Georgians. And ancient splinter groups, like the Monophysites, still exist as the primary expression of Christianity throughout parts of the Middle East and Central Asia. The differences between Eastern and Western Christianity have always been marked by suspicion, mistrust, and invective, to the extent that Eastern Christians have often sided with their Muslim neighbors instead of unknown “Latins.” The most notable examples derive from the Crusades, when Byzantine emperors frequently set up Western armies against stronger Islamic forces, and refused to aid them militarily against the Turks. This deceit was repayed in 1204, when the Westerners of the 4th Crusade looted and pillaged Constantinople, causing even greater destruction and decimation than the more famous Turkish conquest of 1453. This unhappy outcome blew out of the water completely the notion of a common effort against the infidel by all Christians. In pompously asserting to return the holy lands to the Christians, the Crusaders overlooked the long-time presence of native Christians in those very lands. Stripped of this context, the renewed controversy over the Greek Orthodox Church in Palestine and Israel would seem hard to understand. After all, what could the Orthodox Greeks have in common with the Muslim Palestinians? The San Francisco Chronicle reported (on 14 October) that Israel believes the new Greek patriarch of Jerusalem, Irineos, has close ties to the PLO. Consequently, Israel is also concerned about the large landholdings of the Greek church, and is eager to promote the policy of the late Patriarch Diodorus, of selling and leasing valuable land to the Israelis. This policy, however, has been marred by controversy and allegations of corruption. An Israeli lawyer claims that he gave the late Patriarch $16 million to lease church land in Jerusalem; Diodorus said his name had been forged on the lease, and the money is still unaccounted for. Moreover, the primarily Palestinian congregation – “charge church officials with betraying the Palestinian cause to pocket large profits.” The Orthodox Church’s ownership of some of the most affluent areas of Jerusalem is so potentially lucrative precisely because of its political importance: “Israel is well aware that leases on several church properties are due to expire by 2051 and is wary that such lands will eventually fall into the hands of a pro-Arab patriarch.” This anecdote about the Greek church in Israel just goes to show two things: one, that even in hostile surroundings, Christian churchmen are not necessarily always inclined to do what’s in the best interests of their flock; and two, that the association of “Arab” with “Muslim” is not necessarily accurate. The Christians of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine are the ancestors of Christ’s very first followers- and they also happen to be “Arabs.” With Dalrymple, we should ask: are these “Arabs” to be regarded as lesser Christians than American Christian sects and cults that have been in business for less than 200 years? In the current hysteria of imminent terrorism and an apocalyptic “holy war” between Islam and Christianity, we would do well to remember these points. Indeed, since there are Palestinian Christians, and not only Muslims, who want a Palestinian state, bin Laden is rather disingenuous (and opportunistic) in twisting the Israeli-Palestinian dispute into a stark battle between Islam and Judaeo-Christianity. In its propaganda to the West, Israel has been guilty of the same tactic. From the chaos of September 11th, many groups have sought to seize the opportunity to advance their own agendas in intentionally hurried and provocative tones. It’s up to us to choose whether or not we want to accept these poisoned gifts.