The 1948 Declaration of Israel’s Independence included three statements regarding religious liberty in the new self-described Jewish State in the historic Eretz Israel (Land of Israel). Alongside ensuring equal rights for the country’s inhabitants “irrespective of religion, race or sex,” the Declaration outlined a commitment to “freedom of religion” and the safeguarding of “the Holy Places of all religions.”[i] These specifications reflect a level of self-awareness on behalf of the Declaration’s signatories of the unique position of the Israeli nation-state within the imagination of both its citizens and religious communities across the world. This was to be a country that balanced its identity as a state for Jews with its identity as a Holy Land for non-Jews. Yet, this paper will outline how the same concepts of religious liberty that were outlined in Israel’s founding document have been used to justify legislative efforts against forms of religious expression. Specifically, this paper will explore Israeli efforts to legislate against Christian missionary activities and the legal, religious, and political justifications used to enforce such restrictions. Using various archival materials, this paper will use the negotiations concerning anti-proselytization agreement between the Israeli government and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) concerning the establishment of a campus of Brigham Young University (BYU) in Jerusalem in the 1980s as a primary case study. Just as questions of the character of democracy and Judaism in Israel have been debated since its founding, so have notions of religious freedom. This paper will put forward the argument that the negotiation and eventual agreement concerning the LDS church were a turning point in the history of legislation against proselytization in Israel. Furthermore, this paper will demonstrate how the theological accommodation undertaken by the LDS church in Israel regarding proselytization exemplifies how the concept of ‘religious liberty’ can be mobilized as a political tool of governance to both protect religious identity and limit individual freedoms.
In 1967 Saul Colbi, an advisor on Church Affairs to the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs, wrote that “the mere existence and operation of a Ministry of Religious Affairs [within the Israeli government] underlies the importance which the state attaches to the spiritual aspect of the life in the land that is called Holy.”[ii] Yet under the authority of such governmental offices, a disproportionate amount of funding and attention was given to Jewish religious institutions, such as schools, holy sites, and religious services, relative to the proportion of granted to the equivalent non-Jewish institutions.[iii] Non-Jewish religious communities thus had to adapt to this new understanding of governance and bureaucracy. In addition, the ‘Missionary Question’ – the question of whether Christians could continue to engage in proselytization efforts towards Jews in the State of Israel - became a central concern for the state.[iv]
In response to the ‘Missionary Question,’ anti-missionary organizations such as Yad L’Achim and Yeldenu were established with the support of Israeli politicians . Such organizations shared the goal of rescuing Jewish immigrants from Christian missionary efforts. While Israel needed to maintain good relations with ‘the non-Jewish world’ on a diplomatic level, on a domestic level the state also had to navigate its relations with Christians within its borders who held proselytization towards Jews as central to their theological worldview. Throughout the 1950s, visas were refused for missionary groups based on their perceived “security risk.” In one letter concerning the denial of a visa to members of the Christian and Missionary Alliance to Israel, Colbi wrote that there was “no justification for [such] religious activity in Israel.” Following the 1967 War and the Israeli conquest of East Jerusalem, Christians around the world became increasingly invested in the city.[v] However the strength of anti-missionary sentiment remained. In the 1980s, anti-missionary organizations became vital in mobilizing public discourse against the LDS church’s presence in Israel. This was done both through the Israeli media and in collaboration with various actors within the Israeli political system. To preserve Jewish religious liberties in Israel, the eradication of any possible missionary efforts via the presence of the LDS church was essential.
Concurrently, more liberal Israeli political actors advocated for the inclusion of the LDS church in the Israeli religious landscape in the name of these same principles of religious liberty. For example, Muhammed Miari, an Israeli Arab MK from the Progressive List for Peace, raised the issue of Israel’s commitment to freedom of religion in the Declaration of Independence. Invoking the experiences of Muslims and Christians from his own community, Miari observed that any decision that would be made in the context of the BYU in Jerusalem could have a negative impact on minority religious communities in Israel. This was quicky disputed by politicians who opposed the LDS church’s presence in Israel. They noted “a fundamental difference between Judaism and other religions,” referencing the Jewish community’s history of persecution at the hands of non-Jews from the Crusades to the Holocaust. Thus, for those most concerned by the perceived threat of the LDS church in Israel, this was not an issue of religious freedom or even legal procedure. Rather, it was a fundamental anxiety concerning the protection of Jewish identity in Israel, with the language of ‘religious liberty’ being wielded to ensure this via the restriction of the theological practices of other religious groups. The theological accommodation undertaken by the LDS church thus raises further questions concerning both the limits and the flexibility of understandings of these ideas of ‘religious liberty’ in a modern nation-state.
[i] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/israel.asp
[ii] Saul P. Colbi, A History of the Christian Presence in the Holy Land (University Press of America, 1988), 165; “Silent Night by Dr Colbi,” Ma’ariv, December 25, 1967. https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/mar/1967/12/25/01/article/123/.
[iii] For an example of this see Roger Friedland and Richard Hecht, To Rule Jerusalem (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 80.
[iv] Ruth Kark and Shai Wineapple, "The History of Messianic Jews and the State of Israel, 1948–2008." Israel Studies 27, no. 3 (2022): 119
[v] Yaakov, An Unusual Relationship, 6.
In 1967, Saul Colbi wrote that “the mere existence and operation of a Ministry of Religious Affairs [in Israel] underlies the importance which the state attaches to the spiritual aspect of the life in the land that is called Holy.” While non-Jewish religious communities had to adapt to this new framework of governance, the ‘Missionary Question’—whether Christians could continue proselytization efforts in the Jewish State—became a central concern.
Using the controversy surrounding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ (LDS) establishment of a campus in Jerusalem in the 1980s as a case study, this paper explores Israeli efforts to legislate against Christian missionary activities. It will focus on the legal, religious, and political justifications used to enforce such restrictions, and examine how the concept of ‘religious liberty’ can be mobilized as a political tool of governance to both protect religious identity and limit individual freedoms.