I. The 19th Missionary
Missionaries, like all human beings, are prisoners of their own culture, and 19th century American and British missionaries to Anatolia were no exception. What molded their thinking and behavior, and what was the context in which they found themselves?
1. Problems are solveable, “underdeveloped” people can be “developed”
The Enlightenment concept that all people could become “reasonable human beings” and that all problems were, in principle, solvable became a source of great missionary optimism. This nurtured the notion that “undeveloped” people could be nurtured to abandon their “backward” state and progress to “modernism” (Bosch 1991:265).
2. Education was the way forward
Both the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission, which pioneered Protestant missions to the Middle East and, later, the Presbyterians believed that the spread of “Christian knowledge” through education was fundamental toward achieving the desired reforms. As a result the Board built an extensive network of schools in order to “create the conditions for preaching the gospel” by introducing a higher culture which would, it was hoped, “facilitate the acceptance of the higher religion—Christianity” (1991:297).
3. Ango-Saxon Protestantism > cultural superiority > racial superiority
Startling scientific and technological advances during the 19th century enabled western societies to establish themselves as master over all others in virtually every field of inquiry. This led Anglo-Saxon Protestantism to assume the divinely ordained superiority of their culture, a sentiment which gradually evolved into the conviction that God, in His providence, had chosen them, because of their unique qualities, to be the standard-bearers of His divine purposes (1991:299). As early as 1816 the Board described its objectives as “civilizing and Christianizing” (:296). It sought to enlist not only “Christians” but also “patriots” because “it was evident to all that American Christians were better equipped for the task than were others” (:300). It was the gospel which had made Western nations strong and great, and it would do the same for other nations (see, for instance, Annual Report 1876:xxii-xxiii). It would open the doors to the “abundant life” available in “Christian countries” which, according to Leslie Newbigin, was interpreted as “the abundance of the good things that modern education, healing and agriculture would provide for the deprived people of the world” (quoted in Bosch 1991:293).
In effect, the Protestant community, whether in Victorian Britain or 19th century America, made little attempt to differentiate between Western religious and cultural supremacy—what applied to one belonged axiomatically to the other. It did not make a clear distinguishing between culture and its religion (1991:291-292).
The notion that Christianity would lead to civilization was reinforced by post-millennialism, the dominant eschatological position in virtually all Anglo-Saxon Protestant denominations prior to World War I.
Unaware of the ‘pagan flaws’ in their own culture during this age of the ‘white man’s burden’ the white patrons saw themselves as the guardians of less-developed races whom they would gradually educate to maturity (:307-308).
4. Missionary Attitudes Towards Islam and Turks
A number of 19th and early 20th century missionary scholars, such as Pfander, Tisdall, Zwemer and Gairdner had a profound knowledge of Islam. Missionary scholars could, however, also exhibit profoundly anti-Islamic dispositions. Koelle, a missionary of long standing to the Ottoman Empire, writes in his substantial book, Mohammed and Mohammedanism Critically Examined (1888) that “Asiatic Islamism, that mysterious compound of a fanatical faith and iron tyranny, strove, with all its might, to cast Christianity from its political pinnacle and to rule the nations in its stead” (:458).
By far the most formidable adversary of Christianity, as a national institution and dominant political force in the world, is the politico-religious system ushered in by Mohammed. Mohammedanism stands forth in history as the great anti-Christian Power, the hereditary enemy of Christendom (1888:468 italics in original).
As for Mohammed, well, he was an Antichrist. “Islam historically has proved itself anti-Christian, because Mohammed personally was an Antichrist” (1888:469). An article in the missionary publication The Moslem World states that “it is as though all history means nothing to the Turk, or as if the progress of civilization stops before the religion, the philosophy, the fatalism of the Turk” (Anon MW 1916:56). The ABCFM missionary Henry Otis Dwight also expressed very low opinions of the intellectual abilities of ‘Mohammedans’ (Dwight 1901:49-51), pointing out that “it was an Asiatic to whom God once said ‘Thou fool’ (:161).
When missionary descriptions of Islam and Muslims are juxtaposed with the reports of secular travelers who did not see Islam as an enemy to defeated, one might think they were describing entirely different phenomena. For instance, the Board’s Annual Report of 1842 states that “Fanaticism is an essential element of the Mohammedan religion” (1842:105), while De Kay, an American who lived in Istanbul during the 1830s, observes that (Islam) counteracts and mitigates the severity of despotic governments…, (and) produces an equalizing effect, … (it) is in fact a sort of religious republicanism, only extending much further than in our country, where a difference of complexion is fatal. It ennobles all who profess it… (De Kay 1883:362).
The missionary community, by and large, seemed compelled to paint Islam in the worst possible colors to justify their endeavors and, possibly, to explain their lack of success. Islam was viewed as an enemy, an antagonist which needed to be defeated. This militant attitude shared the same boldness, aggressiveness, and spirit of conquest as the colonial venture. The missionary community was at war, and no good could be expected from the enemy (Gaudeul 1990:253). Unfortunately, the sense of “waging warfare” with Islam, and the resulting lovelessness towards Muslims, once again hounds the missionary community.
5. Inroads of Liberal Theological Trends > Social Renewal > Social Gospel
In the course of the 19th century many mainline churches began to abandon the supernatural aspects of Christianity. This further strengthened the notion of missions as “sharing the benefits of the American civilization and way of life with the deprived peoples of the world” (Bosch 1991:283). With respect to the Muslim world this reinforced the trend that mission should consist less of preaching—which got the missionary and his converts into nothing but trouble anyway—and more of “transformational activities”. Gradually the accent came to lie more on social involvement than on evangelism, “less on individual sin and more on society’s sinful structures” (:322). Salvation would come via Western techniques, expertise and culture. “Instead of the gospel, the mainline missionary enterprise ended up exporting the Enlightenment ‘isms’ which had impregnated the mainline churches: rationalism, evolutionism, pragmatism, secularism, and optimism” (:325). Though they did not start that way, the missionary community to the Ottoman Empire came, in the course of the 19th century, to focus predominantly on the establishment of a this-worldly millennium through its uncritical affirmation of American values and blessings, and the conviction that these had to be exported to and shared with people worldwide (cf. :284).
It is, therefore, little wonder that the missionary community focused on education and health, and welcomed any initiative which spread “European ideas among Musselmans”. The fact that the Ottoman Empire had a fairly extensive system of free public education in place by the 1870s (see Dwight 1901:216-221) which missionaries might have expected to subordinate their program to was not considered.
II. The Host Socio-Political and Cultural Framework
Upon arrival in the Ottoman Empire 19th century missionaries landed in an environment with its own unique dynamic. Let us, in broad strokes, paint the main features of the context in which they found themselves.
1. The Erosion of the Empire, Wars and Massacres
The industrialization of Europe led to a huge expansion of European trade, soon accompanied by increasing use of armed power beyond the confines of their continent. Both Egypt and Syria were drawn into the European economic orbit (Vander Werf 1977:99). Furthermore, as the Ottoman Empire, the “Sick Man of Europe” declined, various Christian ethnic groups, helped by European powers, revolted. Bessarabia was annexed by Russia in 1812, Greece became independent in 1832, and the French invaded Algeria in 1830. Serbia and Rumania gained their independence in 1878. Tunis was lost to France in 1881. Thrace was taken over by Greece that same year, and Egypt fell to British control in 1882. Armenian emigrants in various European countries formed secret societies to agitate, sometimes violently, for Armenian independence (Zürcher 2004:114).
Little wonder that anti-Christian feelings increased among the Turks. “Christian”, to the Turkish authorities, came to mean anything anti-Ottoman, anti-Turkish. They concluded that the Christian minorities in the Empire constituted a political danger, for “Christian” countries were all too ready to “protect” these minorities from their Muslim rulers (see “Capitulations” below). Indeed, at times missionaries did encourage the Christian millets towards independence without seeming to grasp the seditious nature of this encouragement (Blincoe 1998:110; Vander Werff 1977:99, 127).
2. Capitulations
Capitulations were privileges the Sultans granted to foreign nations exempting nationals of that country from certain taxes, and placing them under the authority of their consuls rather than that of local Ottoman authorities. The Capitulations also allowed those nations to protect certain categories of Ottoman subjects allegedly linked to the nations concerned. Thus France claimed the right to protect Roman Catholic and Uniate Christians, England the Protestants, and Russia Orthodox Christians.
The Capitulations created a symbiotic relationship between the missionary community and their own government’s representatives. In 1841 the Board’s Annual Report boasted how the mission enjoyed the “shield” of the American government (AR 1841:110). Conversely, western Protestant nations came to view their missionaries as allies. Little wonder: “what better agents of its cultural, political, and economic influence could a Western government hope to have than missionaries?” (Bosch 1991:304). The missionary community, by and large, welcomed western intervention; lobbying, in fact, would be raised to the level of “missionary method”. This identification with their own country would have dire consequences for the missionary enterprise throughout the Middle East as these countries, the one after the other, shed their foreign yokes.
3. Brief Period of Political Reform > Brief Attempt at Muslim Evangelism
During the Crimean War (1853-1856) Turkey was so dependent on French and British support that the Sultan was forced to grant more extensive freedom of religion. On the 18th of February, 1856, he issued the famous hatti humayoun, granting full religious liberty throughout the whole of Turkey which, for a period, opened the way for more extensive work among Muslims (Richter 1910:173). The missionary community, for the first time, hoped that it might reach Muslims directly (AR 1857:67 ).
Bibles were “sold openly in the courses of the mosques” and there were increased opportunities for witnesses and preaching to Turks and for Turks to have “friendly intercourse and connection with the missionaries” (1857:67 ). The “optimistic spike” lasted about eight years, after which there was a full-bodied reaction. A storm of hostility (1864-1866) squelched any further efforts at reaching Muslims. The reassertion of Turkish power after the Crimean War, the indecisive wavering of English and European powers, and the aggressiveness of Church Missionary Society (CMS) workers in Constantinople—notably Gotlieb Pfander’s insistence on publishing his book The Balance of Truth—brought violence to the Muslim converts in the city and made direct Muslim work very difficult. Furthermore, the massacres which took place outside of Istanbul a few years later dealt a nearly fatal blow to the American Board (Richter 1910:155-156). Missionaries became disinterested in reaching Muslims, as any movement in that direction appeared blocked as soon at it seemed to bear some fruit (:126).
After the revolt of the Young Turks (1908), new freedoms of press, speech and education were granted. Experienced American Board leaders like H. H. Jessup, however, observed the dark mood of mullahs and sheikhs and anticipated a struggle between Pan-Islamism and the new Republicanism. When the question of Muslim work was raised again in 1910 by enterprising individuals, the will to pursue it appeared lacking (Vander Werff 1977:124).
III. Missionary strategies
To obtain first-hand information the American Board sponsored a number of extensive explorations and surveys in the Ottoman Empire and Persia between 1818 and 1831. On the basis of the information thus garnered, what were the strategies and ministries which they developed in the hope of reaching the Muslim world?
1. Reach the Majority via the Minorities
As early as 1819 the idea was floated that the mission not target Muslims directly, but work among the Christian orthodox minorities instead (see AR 1819:230). In other words, the Greek Orthodox and the Armenian Gregorian churches were to be the object of missionary endeavors, not the Turkish/Kurdish Muslim majority (see Fisk MH Sept. 1827:267; MH April 1827:113). During a two month long conference held in Malta in 1828 the idea became offical policy: the most reasonable way to reach the Muslim majority, it was decided, was by reforming and reviving the Eastern churches (Vander Werff 1977:104). “It soon became evident that there was not (sic) hope of reaching the Moslems so long as the actual Christianity which they saw around them failed to command their respect. The first thing to be done was to attempt a reform of these old churches” (Clark AR 1878:xix; see also Green 1917:97 and Smith MH October 1833:386). The need to revive the Orthodox churches before ministering to Muslims was seen to be self-evident (Anon MH 1839:39-44).
The Board soon developed an extensive outreach, in terms of finance and personnel, to the Armenians and Nestorians while limiting their work among Muslims, a policy followed by most significant missionary enterprises which followed. From 1845 onward (with the exception of the earlier mentioned brief period in the wake of the Crimean War) the Board’s Annual Reports would speak of mission to the Armenians, Jews, Nestorians and to Syria, but not to Turks, Arabs or Muslims.
2. The Establishment of Educational Facilities
The Board’s primary ministry was in education. It developed an extensive network of schools which clearly favored the Christian minorities in general, and Protestant converts from Orthodoxy in particular. The scope of this educational enterprise is described in detail in the autobiographies of some of the key players, including Greene (1916) and Jessup (1910). The curriculum of the schools was, with the exception of “the principal languages spoken in Turkey”, typical of western educational institutions. It included English, mathematics, history, physics, biology, geology, botany, philosophy, Bible, psychology, and music (Greene 1916:166, 192). The simple fact that the high school curriculum included instruction in Armenian and, in the Balkans, Bulgarian (:186), and that much of the teaching staff were Christian minorities, was reason enough for the schools to be perceived as catering exclusively minorities. At Robert College (now Boğazici University) the curriculum followed the lines of American colleges. English was the language of instruction there (:204).
The number of those educated in the mission schools was significant, totaling well over 100,000 students; the enterprised also consumed the vast majority of the missionary budget and personnel (Vander Werff 1977:128). Graduates from the missionary-run American schools and colleges became the Middle East’s first generation of modern-style teachers, doctors, lawyers, bankers, merchants, authors, editors, interpreters and civil servants. These educated men and women, a large number of whom were Protestants “saved from” one of the Orthodox churches, sought to improve social and moral conditions by seeking to mold society into the Western image they had imbibed at school.
3. Medical Work
Like the educational enterprise, this ministry became a very substantial effort. The Board ran modern hospitals boasting electricity, surgical wards, outpatient clinics and dispensaries in Marsovan, Sivas, Mezereh (near Harput), Erzurum, Van, Diyarbakir, Mardin, Gaziantep, Adana, Talas, Konya, and Istanbul.
After the missionary community itself, it was, once again, the Christian minorities who received the bulk of the care and training (Greene 1916:147). I have found no record of medical work ever leading to a Muslim’s conversion to Christianity during the period.
4. The Formation of Missionary Compounds
The establishment of educational and medical facilities led to the growth of compounds, isolated Christian communities modeling a form of western Protestantism which might be envied, but which was in no way immitatable by the surrounding people.
Compounds tended to be built on hilltops outside cities (Greene 1916:211-212). One of the most beautiful such “vantage points” is that of Robert College (Bosphorus University), located “on one of the most conspicuous sites on the Bosphorus, where it will be, to all passers-by on that magnificent straight, an imposing monument of American Christian liberality” (AR 1870:15). These compounds could take on very quaint characteristics, totally out of character with the surrounding culture. The station at Marsovan, for instance, was described by a contemporary as “a walled village of another race, established in these surroundings by some unexplained cause… an old-fashioned village of a well-doing, friendly, hospitable people” (Childs 1917:52, 53).
One of the most enduring mission compounds in the Middle East was the “Bible House” in Istanbul. Built in 1872 with money raised in America, the large, five storied complex of buildings housed the offices of the American Bible Society, had large store-rooms for Bibles and mission books, and rooms for editors and translators of missionary books and periodicals, as well as residences for missionaries. It was later expanded to include a large printing establishment, a chapel that seated 250, and buildings and shops which were rented out to cover running costs. It was administered by a self-perpetuating board of trustees in New York, organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a local advisory committee selected annually by the board of trustees (Greene 1916:130). The great compound in the heart of the city, in other words, remained an entirely foreign affair.
Mission property came to be worth a fortune. “The property of American missions and foundations in Asia Minor, Syria and Constantinople runs to a value of many millions of dollars—even to millions of sterling, and is ever increasing” (Childs 1917:50).
5. Literature Production/Distribution
The Bible House became the literary center of the American board, as well as the headquarters of the American Bible Society. The Board turned out vast quantities of literature, both Christian and otherwise, in Armenian, Armeno-Turkish, Arabo-Turkish and Bulgarian. The notable exception was plain Turkish in the Ottoman script (see AR 1869:16-17). In all about 1000 titles and, in the period from 1831-1915 more than 4,000,000 copies of books other than the Bible were published along with 4 million copies of the Bible or parts thereof in various translations (Greene 1916:140). In 1855 the missionaries launched an Armenian weekly newspaper, Avedaper (“Bringer of Good News”). There is no record of a paper produced in Turkish for Turks. The editorship remained in the hands of American missionaries right up to 1911 and was subsidized throughout (:142,137).
There were a small number of Islamic scholars in the missionary community who sought to produce apologetic materials directed at Muslims. Some of their material was at a very high academic level; much of the apologetical material produced since then has, in fact, followed the lines of inquiry laid down by these 19th century Christian missionary scholars and orientalists.
The most famous of these missionary orientalists was, undoubtedly, the previously mentioned German Karl Gottlieb Pfander (1803-65). He originally wrote his magnum opus, The Balance of Truth (Mizan ul Haqq), in German in 1829 when he was 26. The book was translated into all the major languages of the Middle East and continues to be published today.
6. Courts and Lobbying
The missionaries’ own legal rights as well as those of the people they targeted became one of their great concerns. They sought to advance their cause both in the Ottoman courts and by enlisting their own governments’ support who, through the Capitulations, had been given certain rights over their “client peoples”. Lobbying, as noted earlier, thus became a missionary method.
There are numerous accounts of missionary efforts to secure their and/or their client’s “rights” as well as the security of their ministries (see Greene 1916:180,185). Lord Stratford Canning de Redcliff, the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the middle of the 19th century was a particularly valuable ally (Richter 1910:113). In 1850 his lobbying resulted in an imperial firman granting legal status to the Protestants (of whom there were a mere 1007 at the time) as a new ecclesiastical and civic corporation (:113; see also Greene 1916:110). On another occasion the U.S. Navy was marshaled to support the missionary cause (1916:203) and, in the wake of the massacres of 1864, in which nearly all the American Board’s stations in Eastern Turkey suffered heavily and in which hundreds of churches and schools were destroyed, the American government was again called upon to put pressure on the Turkish authorities (Richter 1910:155).
When the Turkish government reacted to the publication of Pfander’s Balance of Truth by seizing the missionary printing presses, sealing the bookstore and closing down the Bible society, the missionary community, once again, turned to their governments. The bookstore was duly re-opened and the printing offices “were likewise released from the custody of the police” (AR 1864:62). When the Turkish authorities stalled on giving permission for the Turkish Bible to be printed, “the efforts of the English Ambassador and the American Minister… succeeded in obtaining an order from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which it is hoped will now secure it from the Bureau of the Press” (AR 1875:16).
7. Early attempts to target the Muslim majority directly
Although the overwhelming effort went into the establishment and maintenance of the missionary enterprise to the Christian community, several efforts sought to reach Muslims directly. This was particularly true when political circumstances were favorable for the missionaries, as they were during the Crimean War. Taking advantage of that opportunity the Anglican Church Missionary Society sent four missionaries to Turkey in 1858 to work among Muslims, one of whom was the famous Pfander. The effort, as seen above, was short-lived.
One of the most significant, albeit equally brief, institutional efforts to reach the Muslim majority was spearheaded by the Lutheran Orient Missionary Society (LOMS). Their small team first arrived in south-east Anatolia (Kurdistan) on September 6, 1911, and deliberately turned its back on the reaching Christian minorities (Blincoe 1998:139-140). As latecomers to the Middle East they had the advantage of observing and, hopefully, learning from, their predecessors.
From their arrival in 1911 until forced to leave in the early part of 1916, the missionaries had built up a Kurdish congregation, established an orphanage and medical dispensary. During part of 1915, the (LOM’s) Board was unable to reach the missionaries with the needed funds for the work, and when they were obliged to depart, Kurds supplied them with the funds needed for travel (Lohre 1918, quoted in Blincoe 1998:146). The orphanage, dispensary and church were destroyed during World War I.
IV. Response to the Missionary Enterprise
As early as 1832 outside observers questioned the wisdom of the missionaries’ strategy of focusing on the minorities (see De Kay 1883:500). Some missionaries noted danger signs around the same time (Schneider MH 1835:302). By 1842 there were more missionaries who were predicting failure
This sudden interest, so explicitly and so actively shown on the part of the Christian nations towards a tribe of people (the Nestorian tribes), who have almost solely prolonged their independent existence on account of their remote seclusion and comparative insignificance, has called them forth into a new importance in the eyes of the Mohammedans, and will undoubtedly be the first step to their overthrow (quoted in McDowall 1996:46).
Nevertheless, the Board held the course for another 45 years, only to have their hopes dashed (Greene 1916:157). What, then, did they achieve?
1. The Missionaries Split the Orthodox Churches
As seen, the missionaries originally wanted to revive the old Orthodox churches, not start a Protestant movement. In 1839, however, both the Armenian and Greek Orthodox patriarchs forbade contact with the missionaries, as well as the reading of books sold or distributed by them (AR 1878:xx). As of 1846 Armenians who maintained relations with the missionaries were excommunicated.
There were a number of reasons for this strong reaction, including the missionaries’ denigrating view that the members of the ancient churches weren’t “really Christian”, their “low” ecclesiology, their empowering of the laity, and the disappointing political benefits they brought with them (Blincoe 1998:34). As early as 1826, in fact, “open ‘warfare’ against the oriental churches was accepted mission policy”, and the oriental clergy were referred to as “the enemy” by the missionaries (Scudder 1998:28). After some twenty years of labor, the missionaries felt they had no choice but to organize a separate Protestant Church (Greene 1916:105,106). “The first evangelical church in Turkey was duly instituted in Constantinople on 1 July 1846, followed immediately by others at Nicodemia, Adabazar, and Trebizone” (AR 1878:xxi). As seen, the office of the British Ambassador, Lord Stratford Canning de Redcliff lobbied the Sultan to give Protestants legal status as a separate millet, and in 1850 a charter was signed by the Sultan, placing Protestants on the same basis as other Christian communities within his domain (AR 1878:xxi). The creation of a separate “Protestant Millet” would taint the word “Protestant” in the Turkish mind, leaving a negative impression which has lasted into modern times.
Occasionally a missionary or Protestant convert did become a zealous and courageous evangelist to Muslims, but for the vast majority the walls of prejudice and fear which had existed between the Christian and Muslim communities for over a millennium were too high to scale. In the end, the ‘evangelical’ churches did little more than the Catholic or Orthodox churches had done to confront Muslims with the claims of Christ (Blincoe 1998:193-194).
2. The Empowerment of Christian Minorities > Muslim majority felt threatened > massacres
The missionary empowerment of people who, up to that time, had managed to survive because they had kept a low profile, created tremendous frictions. The missionaries may not have seen themselves as representatives of an earthly power, but the Muslim tribes around them certainly did (Blincoe 1998:35), a perception re-enforced by the fact that the missionary community was quick to communicate their concerns about the abysmal treatment of the Christian minorities in Anatolia to their own embassies and politicians.
Local aghas were not the only ones who feared the empowerment of “their” minorities. The Sultan, whose empire was crumbling at the edges, also mistrusted the missionary community. The last thing he wanted was for his restive Christian Anatolian minorities and Arab provinces to become further educated in Western social values and political thought. And that, of course, was exactly what the missionary educational system was doing, along with the promotion, particularly among the Armenians and the Arabs, of their distinctive cultures.
The American contribution to Armenian and Arab nationalism was cultural, not political, but it was no less effective in making these persons less receptive to the Ottomanization desired… as a means of uniting the disparate subjects of the Sultan (Daniel 1970:111).
In short, this empowerment of minorities led to the missionaries’ being perceived by the Muslim majority as friends of the minorities, agents of western interests, and pawns of their own governments’ political agendas.
In Istanbul, Robert College was particularly effective in preparing non-Turkish people, particularly Bulgarians, for political life. Its Bulgarian graduates were to assume positions of influence as that country’s government leaders, majors, diplomats, cabinet ministers and educators (Stevens M & M 1988:406). Sir Edwin Pears noted that “I know of no other instance in history where a single institution has so powerfully affected the life of a nation as Robert College has affected the life of Bulgaria” (quoted in 1988:405), while the British journalist and editor W.T. Stead states starkly that “Robert College made Bulgaria” (quoted in :405). There was another side to this “success”: “As for Robert College, the Bulgarian Affair ended whatever influence it might have had with the Turkish government for decades to come. No more Turkish students attended the college until after the turn of the century. Even today, in the eyes of many Turks, the college is considered the prime mover behind the loss of the Bulgarian provinces” (1988:406).
The empowerment of the minorities was a mistake with dreadful consequences. The missionaries’ empowerment of Christian minorties not only failed in terms of evangelizing the Muslim majority, a case can be made that it was a factor in a series of massacres which culminated in the 1915-1916 genocide (see Joseph 1961:49; Van Bruinessen 1992:203). The missionaries seemed not to have comprehended their role in these nasty affairs, placing all the blame on the “unreasoning” Turk for failing to appreciate the empowerment of the Armenian people (see, for instance, Greene 1916:160).
When their plan failed, the Board “had no Plan B”. By investing almost exclusively in the historical churches “they washed out any bridges they may have made to the Muslim majority” (Blincoe 1998:193).
3. The Response to Christian Apologetical Literature
19th century Protestantism’s bold challenge to Islam was Pfander’s The Balance of Truth. As it set the tone for so much of the apologetical literature and debate that followed, let us take a closer look at the response it evoked.
The book’s publication in Turkey was ill-timed, and consequently contributed to its own hostile reception. It ended up exacerbating the overall tension between the government and the missionary community (see Prime 1876:431-432). The Sultan, already suspicious, was personally disturbed by Pfander’s apologetics and polemics.
If a few Persian copies, which had come into the hands of Turks, had caused such a stir, it was to be expected that the Turkish translation of the work would be far more disturbing. Violent counter-publications against Pfander and his work were issued with the assistance of the government (Richter 1910:174; see also AR 1864:61-62).
In typical Enlightenment fashion, Pfander appealed to reason, yet he seemed unaware of developments in biblical criticism and theology in the West, something Muslims used to their advantage in their attacks on Christianity (Chapman 1996:102). The best and most widely known response to The Balance of Truth is Rahmatullah b. Khalil al-Hindi al-Kairanawi’s (1818-1891) Izhar ul-Haqq (The Revelation of Truth), written in 1864 or 1865, published in Constantinople in 1867 and translated and published in English in 1900. It is the first great classic of modern Muslim polemics.
Al-Hindi sought to combine traditional Muslim apologetics with new arguments drawn from “modern” Biblical studies. His book contains numerous purported “contradictions” in the Biblical text, 17 reasons for disbelieving why the Bible is inspired, various “proofs” of falsification and abrogation, refutations of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, “proof” that the Qur’an is both miraculous and God’s word, and “proof” of Muhammed’s prophethood. The Izhar ul-Haqq has been reprinted many times, and continues to be published in numerous languages, including English, something which indicates a need in the Muslim community to defend their faith against the pervasive influence of European culture, which they consider to be Christian inspired. It has spawned a huge collection of anti-Christian polemics, and began a trend of Christian-Muslim dialogue/diatrade as a contest between two Scriptures.
4. Positive Responses
There is no disputing the fact that throughout the period there were Muslim individuals who converted to Protestantism, particularly during the period of relative freedom during the Crimean War. While the liberal climate lasted, some Muslims inquired openly about the Christian faith, many bought Bibles, and some actually converted and lived to tell the tale! Hard numbers are impossible to come by as only a few written testimonies from the period remain. In terms of percentage of population, the numbers were insignificant.
Writing in 1859 William Goodell mentions that more than twenty “Mussulmans” had been baptized in Constantinople (AR 1865:69). In 1875 a nephew of one of the pashas was a candidate for Christian baptism (Prime 1876:425-426). The Board’s Annual Report of 1860 notes that “At Diarbekir, on the Tigris, a Turk has declared himself a Christian; and in Kharpoot a captain in the army openly proclaims Christ crucified as the only Savior of men. Many Turks in the latter region purchase the New Testament, and some the whole Bible” (1860:62). That same report states that
Six converts from Mohammedanism have been baptized, during the years, at the capital. Of these one was an Imam, seventy years of age. Another is a young man, a near relative of one of the late highest ministers of Government. These transactions have taken place openly, with the knowledge of the Government, and without serious disturbances. The whole number of baptized adult converts from Mohammedanism, in Constantinople, is above fifteen (AR 1860:62).
The imam, Abdi Efendi, became a fervent evangelist. The Sultan’s private secretary, Mahmud Efendi, also converted. In the summer of 1864 another 10 adults were confirmed in their Christian faith. Between 1857-1877, at least fifty baptisms of Muslim background Christians took place (AR 1865:68). Missionaries in Anatolia also reported conversions and that no trouble had ensued (cf. Meyer 1986:49 & Vander Werff 1977:123). George Herrick of Bebek Seminary wrote, “Quite a number of Mohammedans have renounced Islam and become true Christians; many more are soberly inquiring after the truth; and many others are turning unsatisfied from a religion which cannot save, or wavering in a merely nominal devotion to Islamism” (Quoted by Vander Werff 1977:123).
Individual conversions also took place before and after that remarkable, albeit brief, period of freedom. The Annual Report of 1843 notes that “Individual Turks are occasionally found, who take an interest in the labors of the protestant missionaries, as directed against the image worship and intemperance of the degenerate Christians around them” (AR 1843:99).
Blincoe tells of the remarkable conversion and martyrdom of a certain Sheikh Baba, who was regarded as a holy man by many fellow Kurds. He was baptized and, as a result of his conversion, opened the villages under his control to missionary work. His conversion was reported to the Turks, and when he refused to deny Christ he was hung to a tree and left there until the birds had picked his body clean (Blincoe 1998:58). Richter tells of a Muhammed Shukri, born in 1861 and still living at the time of Richter’s writing in 1910, who was converted, changed his name to Johannes Awetaranian, and became a missionary for the German Orient Mission in Bulgaria (1910:161). Another convert from Islam, a certain Fetullah Keiffi Efendi, became an assistant in the newspaper publishing department of the American Board (Greene 1916:313).
Fossum, of the Lutheran Orient Mission, records that “In a certain village the first baptism stirred up a petty persecution, but nineteen more [baptisms] within a year were passed over with little adverse effect. And in another part of the mountains a young man after having given himself over to Christ brought one by one all the five members of his own immediate family and four more distant relatives. In both these cases the converts remained in their own villages going on with their ordinary occupations” (quoted in Blincoe 1998:142).
Greene tells about a young Muslim so struck by the person and atoning sacrifice of Jesus that he became a Christian. After being arrested and exiled twice he was sent to College in the United States. There he changed his name to Paul Newman. Paul, because he admired the apostle, Newman because he had become a new man in Christ (1916:63-65). Paul Newman eventually became an officer in the US army.
For several years a subsection called “the Mohammedans” appeared in the annual reports. By 1861, however, that section became rather short, noting that “disappointments and trials have attended the work among the Turks in Constantinople… The whole number baptized is twenty-three, in Constantinople. Some indications of an outbreak of persecution have at times appeared, but no serious acts of that character have occurred” (AR 1861:47). By the following year the section had disappeared.
In 1867, a Mr. Charles Tracy, an American Board missionary, wrote the following in a letter: “A born Mohammedan may profess Christianity in the capital and not lose his head. These are results. We are satisfied” (quoted in Greene 1916:213). The fact that “a born Mohammedan may profess Christianity in the capital and not lose his head” indicates that there were such individuals. That, in the light of everything written about the missionary effort thus far, seems remarkable. However, their numbers, in terms of percentage of population, were negligible, and no congregations of Muslims background believers were formed. Nevertheless, the fact that there were conversions seemed to hold out the hope that, one day, there might be a breakthrough.
Certainly the brief history of the LOMS in Kurdistan demonstrated that direct missionary work among Muslims, in spite of legal and social difficulties, was not only possible, but would bear fruit in a relatively short period of time. They were well received by the local Muslim Kurds who, as seen, dug into their own pockets at critical moments to keep the mission going.
V. What were/are the missiological implications?
Although there were individual conversions, no church of Muslim background Christians came into being. Before looking at some of the reasons why this was so, it is important to note that the common complaint that it was illegal to target Muslims was not true. During most of the period in question there were certainly strict legal constraints, parameters within which the missionary had to operate. However, these did not make the job impossible. The authorities prohibited public preaching, but they did not prevent private conversations, educational and medical efforts, the establishment of clubs and societies, or the sale of Scriptures (Vander Werff 1977:123). So why was there no real breakthrough? Could the strong anti-missionary attitudes which developed over time have been prevented?
1. Missionaries tied their cart to the wrong horses
The Board’s original concept of reaching the majority through the minorities was, of course, a delaying action and a shifting of responsibility. At no time did the Board concentrate on training its own missionaries in Islamics nor on procuring evangelists of Muslim background. Instead, they worked to strengthen the Armenian Evangelical Church, the Jacobite Evangelical Church, and the Assyrian Evangelical Church. It became a mission to Christians who hated Muslims. They had tied their cart to the wrong horse.
The first and most obvious lesson must be that missions to Muslims must directly target the intended people. It cannot be done by proxy, via ministry to other Eastern Christians. This is important because missionaries identify with those they minister to, to the point of absorbing their host culture’s attitudes toward neighboring peoples. Missionaries ministering to Christian minorities tended to have a low view of Muslims and their religion, something compounded by Western derision of Islam, and thus they were led to compare the worst in Islam with the best of the West. Interestingly, those few missionaries, such as the Lutherans, who ministered directly to Muslims were much more positive in their assessment. Although this fact became obvious during the course of the century, the American Board did not attempt to remedy the situation by, for instance, concentrating on training its own missionaries in Islamics (Vander Werff 1977:123).
But the issue went deeper than the failure to train missionaries in Islamics. Even such Islamists as Pfander were incapable of separating Western culture, perceived as equivalent to “Christendom”, from Christianity. Certain of the cultural superiority of Western Christendom, they were convinced that Islam would crumble under its weight. As Samuel Huntington points out, however, many indigenous cultures, including those of the Middle East, proved to be remarkably resilient (Huntington 1996:93-95). They were sufficiently turned off by major features of Western culture as to become careful about what they would accept and what they would reject. Dwight points out that the “moral deterioration” many Turks experienced when in prolonged contact with Westerners resulted in “the strengthening of the repulsion felt by Turks toward the West (1901:194-195). In other words, by indentifying Christianity so closely with Western culture the missionary tied his cart to another wrong horse, for Western civilization failed the missionary—as it was bound to do.
In the end, the missionaries disturbed such fragile peace, mutual understanding and harmony as there was among the various ethnic groups of the Ottoman Empire by focusing only on certain groups. They should have insisted on reaching all sectors of society equally. All elements in the population should either have remained at the same level of ignorance or else should have progressed together. But American schools had developed democratic ideals among the Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians and Christian Arabs of the Ottoman Empire, had given them modern ideas, aroused their initiative and equipped them with the tools of modern life, while the Turks had been left practically in their medieval state of mind (Ross, Fry & Sibley 1929:165).
It wasn’t until the turn of the century that some in the missionary community began to realize that the concepts “reason” and “Western civilization” were insufficiently solid missiological bases.
We must therefore turn sadly away from the hope that mere civilization is the redeeming force which will raise the people of this city (Constantinople) to the place of importance in the world which they might hold… The wise are hardened and made more bitter in their natural repulsion toward everything spoken to them as in the voice of the West (Dwight 1901:197).
The carnage of World War I would really drive the point home. Turkey, under the leadership of Kemal Atatürk, would, after that debacle, embrace western secularism while reacting strongly against Christianity in general and the missionary community in particular.
After the war missionaries—for a season—turned their back on the notion of Western cultural superiority. But by then the damage had been done. The sense of “cultural imperialism” which came into being prior to the Great War continues to be one of the primary sources of anti-Christian sentiment in the Islamic world.
2. The Clash of Apologetics
As we have seen, Pfander began a tradition of tit-for-tat attacks, arguments and polemics which raised important questions about the value of purely religious debate and the role of apologetics in Christian-Muslim dialogue.
First of all there is the question of whether religious debate can take place without addressing the many social and political issues (the culture clash issues) between the two communities. Secondly, there is the question of presuppositions. For instance, Pfander et al encouraged Muslims to think that Christians think of Scriptures in Muslim terms, when, in fact, the Bible is radically different from the Qur’an. Thus, by allowing themselves to be drawn into a comparison of competing Scriptures, the missionary makes it much more difficult for himself to explain the fundamental difference between the two faiths with respect to their understanding of God’s self-revelation to mankind. The difference, of course, is that Islam holds that God’s supreme revelation came in the form of a book, the Qur’an, while Christianity holds that God’s supreme revelation came in the form of His Son, Jesus Christ.
The work of Pfander and other like him, such as Tisdall, is still sometimes referred to by missionaries who consider religious polemic and debate a desirable method of evangelism. Recent examples are the late Ahmed Deedad’s verbal conflicts with the likes of the evangelical apologist Josh McDowel in which, once again, debating was used as a weapon, not as an instrument used to pursue mutual understanding.
3. There were converts!
There were converts! In spite of everything, converts were won throughout the period, particularly during those brief times when the socio-political climate was more liberal. There were just enough positive responses to keep the flame of hope alive. The venture was not an unmitigated failure! Although the response was greatest when political pressure was lightest, there were converts even at times and in areas where, humanly speaking, the social-political environment did not allow Muslims to respond positively to the Gospel of Christ. What drew these few into the Christian fold? They had one thing in common: “they were on a personal journey to find God. These few elect souls wanted to know God, and they had an extraordinary desire for the truth” (Blincoe 1998:203).
* * * * *
A few hardy missionaries survived the debacle of World War I and would try to develop a more contextualized approach along with an ecumenical concern for the world of Islam. That, however, takes us into a different era. Who knows, but that may even become the subject of another paper for, well, maybe next year’s conference… Suffice it to say at this point that the elimination of the Orthodox background Protestant Church in Anatolia during the 1915-1916 massacres meant that when missionaries eventually returned to the region during the second half of the 20th century, they were forced to target Muslims directly; the Orthodox distraction had been largely removed. This created a hugely different missionary dynamic in the Republic of Turkey from that which continued to exist in the Ottoman Empire’s former Arab provinces, where the Orthodox background Protestant church continues to aborb the bulk of missionary time and investment.
Bibliography
Reports and articles drawn from the Annual Reports (AR) of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission or from the Mission Herald (MH) magazine published during the period in question.
__________. “Object of the Missions to the Oriental Churches, and the Means of Prosecuting Them” The Missionary Herald: for the Year 1839. Vol. XXXV. Crocker and Brewster, Boston. The Missionary Herald, January 1839:39-44.
__________. “Report” First Ten Annual Reports of the American Board for Foreign Missions with Other Documents of the Board. Crocker and Brewster. Boston, 1819:210-251.
__________. “Misson to Syria” Report of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions presented at the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting. Crocker & Brewster. Boston, 1841:105-110.
__________. “Asia: Mission to Turkey” Report of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions presented at the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting. Crocker & Brewster. Boston, 1842:102-117.
__________. “Asia: Mission to Turkey” Report of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions presented at the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting. Crocker & Brewster. Boston, 1843:89-100.
__________. “Northern Armenian Mission” Report of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions presented at the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting. Crocker & Brewster, Boston, 1857:56-68.
__________. “Northern Armenian Mission” Report of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions presented at the Meeting held at Philadephia, PA, October 4-7, T.R. Marvin and Son, Boston, 1859:47-61.
__________. “Mission to Western Turkey” Report of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions presented at the Meeting held at Cleveland, Ohio October 1-3. T.R. Marvin and Son, Boston, 1861:34-49.
__________. “Western Turkey” Fifty-Fourth Annual Report of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions presented at the meeting held at Worcester, Mass, October 4-7, 1864. Marvin and Son, Boston, 1864:58-72.
___________. “Western Turkey Mission” Fifty-Fifth Annual Report of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions presented at the meeting held at Chicago, Illinois, October 3-6, 1865. Marvin and Son, Boston, 1865;66-76.
__________. “The Armenian Mission” Fifty-Ninth Annual Report of the American Board for Foreign Missions presented at the meeting held at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 5-8, 1869. Riverside Press, Cambridge 1869:14-17
__________. “The Missions in Turkey: General View” Sixtieth Annual Report of the American Board for Foreign Missions presented at the meeting held at Brooklyn, New York, October 4-7. Riverside Press, Cambridge 1870:12-17.
__________. “Western Turkey” Sixtieth Annual Report of the American Board for Foreign Missions presented at the meeting held at Brooklyn, New York, October 4-7.. Riverside Press, Cambridge 1870:17-23.
__________. “Syria Mission” Sixtieth Annual Report of the American Board for Foreign Missions presented at the meeting held at Brooklyn, New York, October 4-7.. Riverside Press, Cambridge 1870:34-43.
__________. Annual Report 1876:xxii-xxiii.
__________. “The Gospel in the Ottoman Empire” The Sixty-Fifth Annual Report of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions presented at the meeting held at Chicago, Illinois, October 5-8, 1878. Riverside Press, Cambridge 1875:xvii-xxix.
Fisk, Mr. “Extracts from a letter of Mr. Fisk” Missionary Herald for the Year 1827, Vol. XXIII. Crocker and Brewster, Boston. The Missionary Herald, September 1827:267-268.
Schneider, “Extracts from the Journal of Mr. Schneider” Missionary Herald, Vol. XXXI, No. 8 August 1835:301-305.
Smith, Eli. “Present Attitude of Mohammedanism” Missionary Herald October 1833:386.
Other Sources
Anonymous. “Obstacles in the Way of Winning Muslims.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 14:3 (July 1978): 178-83.
Antonius, George. The Arab Awakening: The Story of the Arab National Movement. Hamish Hamilton, Norwich, 1961.
Blincoe, Robert. Ethnic Realities and the Church: Lessons from Kurdistan. A history of Mission Work, 1668-1990. Presbyterian Center for Mission Studies. Pasadena, 1998.
Bosch, David. Transforming Missions. Orbis Books, New York, 2003.
Chapman, Colin. Islam and the West: Conflict, Co-existence or Conversion? Paternoster Press. Carlisle, 1998.
__________ Cross and Crescent: Responding to the Challenge of Islam. InterVarsity Press. Leicester, 1996.
Childs, W.J. Across Asia Minor on Foot. William Blackwood and Sons, New York. 1917.
Clark, Mr. “The Gospel in the Ottoman Empire” Sixty-Eight Annual Report of the American Board for Foreign Missions Presented at the meeting held at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, October 1, 1878. Riverside Press, Boston. 1878:xvii-xxviii.
De Kay, James Ellsworth. Sketches of Turkey in 1831 and 1832. J. & J. Harper, New York, 1883.
Dwight, Henry Otis. What is the Near East Mission? Revell. New York, 1913.
Gaudeul, J. M. Encounters & Clashes: Islam and Christianity in History, Vol. I and II. Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e d’Islamistica. Rome, 2000.
Green, Joseph K. Leavening the Levant, The Pilgrim Press. Boston, 1916
Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. Simon & Schuster. New York, 1996.
Jensen, J.A. and Oberg, Einer. The Messengers of God: The History of the Lutheran Orient Mission Society, Part I: 1910-1950. LOMS, Minneapolis, 1985.
Jessup, H.H. Fifty-three Years in Syria. Fleming H. Revell Company, New York, Chicago, London and Edinburgh, 1910.
Koelle, Mohammed & Mohammedanism Critically Examined. Rivinton’s. London, 1889.
McDowel, David. A Modern History of the Kurds. I.B. Taurus, London, 1996.
Meyer, Kraig. A Clash of Swords. Friends of Turkey, Grand Junction, CO. 1986.
Prime, E.D.G. Forty Years in the Turkish Empire: Memoirs of Rev. William Goodell, D.D. Robert Carter and Brothers. New York, 1876.
Richter, Julius. A History of Protestant Missions in the Near East. Oliphant & Ferrier. Edinburgh and London, 1910.
Ross, Fry, Sibley, The Near East and American Philanthropy. Columbia University Press, New York, 1929.
Scudder, Lewis R. The Arabian Mission’s Story: In Search of Abraham’s Other Son. Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1998.
Van Bruinessen, Martin. Agha, Shaikh and State. Zed Books, London, 1992.
Vander Werf, Lyle L. Christian Mission to Muslims, The Record. Anglican and Reformed Approaches in India and the Near East. William Carey Library. South Pasadena, 1977.
Zürcher, Erik J. Turkey, A Modern History. I. B. Taurus. London, 2004.
Posted by pikkert 
Posted by pikkert 
Posted by pikkert 