When I was a barrister I shared an office at different times with both an Orthodox Jew and a practising Muslim. Both were (and are) good men, kind and hard working. I talked about politics, including the Middle East, with them both. Mostly I listened with interest and a sense of sadness at the pain at the seeming intractability of the situations they described from their very different perspectives. I remember vividly discussing the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the fears articulated by many that it would leave Israel open to attack by Hamas. Those fears now feel prophetic.
The situation in the Middle East is, considered broadly, incredibly complex and hard to resolve. Situations that seem easy at first glance turn out to be anything but. But some things are not hard. Some situations are not complex.
Indiscriminately bombing civilians is wrong. Raping women is wrong. Kidnapping and parading captured civilian women, visibly bleeding, through the streets while filming them for propaganda is wrong. Murdering children is wrong. Beheading babies in front of their parents is wrong.
These acts are evil. They have no defence in Christian theology, brook no possible justification, permit no moral equivalence and demand no context.
The actions of Hamas last week are morally repugnant, inexcusable and the fruits of a virulently antisemitic and murderous ideology that, sadly, is neither new nor hidden. Its explicit aim (in Hamas’s words) is the murder of Jews generally and the destruction of Israel more narrowly. It is worth considering these points in some detail so that we can quickly dispose of the idea that Hamas are straightforwardly freedom fighters or anti-colonialist warriors. These are just some of the highlights (!) from the Hamas Covenant (1988), its foundational document:
- “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).” (Preamble)
- Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised. (Preamble)
- “[Hamas] aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).” (Article 7) - The Jews are responsible for “the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there…
They were behind World War I… They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. ” (Article 22)
The Covenant was supplemented by a further document in 2017 that claimed that Hamas wasn’t calling for the killing of Jews indiscriminately. It did not repeal the 1988 Covenant, however. Moreover, it was followed by speeches like this from a prominent member of Hamas’s leadership:
“People of Jerusalem, we want you to cut off the heads of the Jews with knives. With your hand, cut their artery from here. A knife costs five shekels. Buy a knife, sharpen it, put it there, and just cut off [their heads]. It costs just five shekels. With those five shekels, you will humiliate the Jewish state. […]
“‘You shall find the strongest in enmity towards the believers to be the Jews and the polytheists.’ The Jews have spread corruption and acted with arrogance, and their moment of reckoning has come. The moment of destruction at your hands has arrived.”
Every Christian leader has a spiritual and moral duty to oppose such an ideology in whatever movement or organisation it is found. Our record of doing so in the last century was mixed, at best.
None of this is to justify any particular response from Israel. Christian theology allows for a state to defend itself and its citizens but she must do so proportionately and in keeping with the principles of Just War theory. Indiscriminately aiming measures at civilians without justification is itself wrong.
Yet it is too easy to default simply to calling for calm, peace or restraint. The presence, ideology and actions of Hamas are wicked and an obstacle to any just peace. They have to be condemned and condemned unequivocally before we turn to Israel’s response. Otherwise we will neither deserve nor receive a hearing for our other concerns.
Ultimately we will do well to remember that it is a Jew whom we follow and a Jew by whom we will be judged. He himself was born in the midst of the massacres of a murderous king, raging and executing infants in a grim foreshadowing of what we see now. We cannot turn away as we see these things happen in our day.
The Failure of National Leadership
This is an article I never wished to write both because of the horror of what we are seeing but also because it is not my job. Generally speaking local pastors should tread extremely carefully when thinking about addressing contemporary politics. I have always avoided it as far as possible. There are at least 3 reasons for this:
- Often there is a limit to what the Christian tradition has to say about issues. We have a duty to care for the poor, for example, but the Scriptures and Tradition cannot help us to say how best that should be done. Christians legitimately disagree about whether to raise taxes and invest in welfare spending or lower them to stimulate private sector employment. These are prudential questions and ones that are best answered by men and women of good faith and skill.
- I am not a public policy expert, an economist or a foreign relations specialist. I have opinions about these things, of course, but I have no greater insight than anyone else. While I can speak with at least some confidence about theology, ethics or law, therefore, making pronouncements about other areas of public life risks exposing my ignorance and discrediting the message of Christ.
- Ultimately I represent another government, a kingdom that is not of this world. My role is a combination, therefore, of that of an ambassador and an advocate. I want people (even you, reader) to be able to come to Christ whatever your politics. God is not a Tory, socialist or liberal. And you can come to him whether you fall under one of these labels or none.
These reservations are part of the reason Christian denominations appoint national bodies that are asked to consider and speak judiciously to public policy questions. In the case of the denomination into which I was ordained, the Baptist Union of Great Britain, these bodies consist of the Union itself, most often through its General Secretary, and its Joint Public Issues Team (“JPIT”).
At the time of writing (Thursday 12 October), since last Saturday the JPIT have made public pronouncements (on Twitter) expressing concern or solidarity with various groups and courses including the victims and perpetrators of crime, those affected by fighting in Sudan (posted yesterday, twice), the homeless (twice), those fighting against poverty (twice), the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, teachers, the Redonda Ecosystem Reserve (twice). Israel has not been mentioned once.
There are scarcely words to express how embarrassing and disgraceful this is. The beheading of infants, the murder in cold blood of civilians, the taking of hostages, the rape of female prisoners, the promotion of a virulent and naked antisemitic and dictatorial ideology, explicitly devoted to the murder of Jews, prompts no condemnation, no comment even, from a body set up to address public issues from a Christian perspective.
If this were the result of cowardice, that would be bad enough. If it were because the team addresses issues that relate only to the UK, it would be intelligible (even if bizarrely parochialist). But neither of those excuses or explanations holds up to the slightest scrutiny. While armed militias invaded Israel to murder infants, the JPIT was “standing with” those affected by war in Sudan over the last 6 months. What could possibly explain that failure? It is hard to escape the impression that, to paraphrase David Baddiel, for some the murder of Jews just doesn’t count.
What then of the Baptist Union itself? Here there is at least some acknowledgment of the situation in general terms. The Union has posted a prayer for peace. It is, I suppose, commendable to pray generally for peace and justice. But surely there is something more to say about murder, and atrocities？The preamble to the prayers, however, explicitly refuses to name or consider anything that has actually happened. Let alone condemn (or acknowledge) the acts of incredible barbarism that we have witnessed. Or mention or condemn the well documented rise in antisemitic incidents and demonstrations across the UK in the wake of the Hamas attacks.
Again, one is left with the unwelcome impression that in no other situation would this kind of moral equivocation have a place. If we cannot say that Hamas’s actions in Southern Israel are unequivocally evil and unjustified then there is precious little left of our moral compass or witness.
If Baptists (and nonconformists generally) are to have anything to say in future, or any power with which to say it, we need seriously to reflect, to repent and to resolve to do better next time.
Deep Church 