An opportunity is approaching that our new PM would do well to take.

Next week Britain will have a new Prime Minister and the first question he should be asking is, “Is there any word from the Lord?” This was the question King Zedekiah put to the Prophet Jeremiah shortly before the Babylonians broke through the walls of Jerusalem and began its destruction. What is God saying to Britain in these incredible days as the Brexit saga races towards the final conflict or consummation?

Several things have come to my notice in the last few days that may be significant. I was looking through some old papers and came across my notes of visiting the elderly leader (Mother Barbara) of the Russian convent in the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem back in the early 1980s. I heard how, as a young lady of 22 in Russia, she had met with Bishop Aristocoli who had given her the now-famous prophecy known as The 1911 Mother Barbara Prophecy (reprinted below).

I had not read it for many years but I remembered that some of its remarkable predictions have already come true, particularly the prophecy that Great Britain, whose empire covered one third of the world’s land space, would lose all her colonies and “come to almost total ruin”.

In last week’s editorial I spoke about the astonishing collapse of the British Empire, saying that it was largely due to the abandonment of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Then on Monday a friend telephoned from Italy. She lives in San Remo and reminded me that next April will be the centenary of the San Remo Resolution, which established in international law the legitimacy of the Arab states and Britain’s Balfour Declaration, heralding the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in what is now the State of Israel. 

Britain’s Sacred Trust

San Remo delegates, 1920, including David Lloyd George.

The San Remo Conference of Allied leaders and international lawyers was an extension of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. The purpose was to set up three Mandates, one over Syria and Lebanon, one over Mesopotamia (Iraq/Iran) and one over Palestine – both East and West of the River Jordon. The Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain as a “sacred trust of civilisation”¹ in respect of “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”.²

This was a binding resolution with all the force of international law. It was affirmed the following year by Winston Churchill, who told an Arab delegation in Jerusalem:

It is manifestly right that the Jews who are scattered all over the world should have a national centre and a national home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in the land of Palestine, with which for more than 3000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?³

The San Remo resolution was a binding resolution with all the force of international law.

Churchill also issued the following statement in 1922, as British Secretary of State for the Colonies:

When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

Is it just a coincidence that the steep decline in the fortunes of Great Britain began in the 1920s (with the Great Depression and the General Strike) when Britain failed to meet its 'sacred trust' for a Jewish homeland by establishing the State of Israel?

Britain not only reneged on its promises in the 1920s and throughout the 1930s,⁴ but was still favouring the Arabs and resisting Jewish settlement in the early days after the Second World War – turning away leaking old ships loaded with Holocaust survivors seeking refuge in what had been promised as their new homeland – ships that sank in the Mediterranean with the loss of all those on board! Other Jewish would-be-immigrants were actually forcibly sent back to Germany, which was surely the height of inhumanity!

Having sold the Jewish people for barrels of oil, Britain under Prime Minister Clement Attlee (a Jew-hating atheist, like some in the modern Labour Party) actually refused to vote for the establishment of the State of Israel in the United Nations in 1947. We did not dare to vote against the resolution and offend the USA – but in order not to offend the Arabs and endanger our oil supplies, we abstained!!! From that day the British Empire rapidly disappeared from the map of the world.

No! I’m not making a case for colonialism! It was right that ex-colonial countries should have their independence and the freedom to develop in accordance with their own cultures, and I think we should applaud and do all we can to strengthen the ties between nations in the British Commonwealth. But I also think that the fortunes of the United Kingdom have been adversely affected by breaking our promises to Israel and the Jewish people, which were a ‘sacred trust’.

Is it just a coincidence that the steep decline in the fortunes of Great Britain began when we failed to meet our 'sacred trust' for a Jewish homeland by establishing the State of Israel?

Testing Times Ahead

I also believe that the next six or nine months are going to be times of incredible turmoil in the UK when we may indeed, as foretold in The Mother Barbara Prophecy, come perilously close to ‘total ruin’.

But the centenary of the San Remo Resolution in April 2020 will provide an opportunity for Britain to repent publicly of her broken promises and the anti-Semitism that has driven our Foreign Office since the 1920s (brilliantly portrayed in one of the 1990s TV episodes of Yes, Prime Minister⁵). Will our new Government, under a new Prime Minister, have the courage to confess the sins of the past? 

Theresa May, at her last Prime Minister’s Question Time this week, called upon Jeremy Corbyn to clear anti-Semitism out of the Labour Party – but will our new Prime Minister have the courage to risk the wrath of the Arab world and send a delegation to San Remo to clear the conscience of the nation? I believe the Lord may be saying that such repentance, though not enough to save Britain from the consequences of our unrighteous laws, would nevertheless be a vital step in the right direction.

Please join us in prayer as we seek the right way forward in this issue. Maybe someone will start a petition calling upon the Government to send an official British delegation to attend the 2020 San Remo Centenary to acknowledge publicly our historic wrongs.

The 1911 Mother Barbara Prophecy

This prophecy was given to Mother Barbara in 1911 by Bishop Aristocoli in Russia, shortly before his death and before she settled in Jerusalem:

“Tell the women they must belong absolutely to God. They must believe in the great things that are happening and that God is doing on the earth. They must prepare their souls, their children and their husbands. And they will have very much work to do for God. Oh, what a great work the women will have to do in the end times, and the men will follow them.

Not one country will be without trial – do not be frightened of anything you will hear. An evil will shortly take Russia and wherever this evil goes, rivers of blood will flow. This evil will take the whole world and where ever it goes, rivers of blood will flow because of it. It is not the Russian soul, but an imposition on the Russian soul. It is not an ideology, or philosophy, but a spirit from hell.

In the last days Germany will be divided in two. France will just be nothing. Italy will be judged by natural disasters. Britain will lose her empire and all her colonies and will come to almost total ruin, but will be saved by praying women. America will feed the world, but will finally collapse. Russia and China will destroy each other. Finally, Russia will be free and from her, believers will go forth and turn many from the nations to God.”

Cover of Eli Hertz's book on the legal aspects of the Jewish claim to the Land. Maps show the region before and after the division of British Mandate land to create Transjordan.

References

1 Article 22, Covenant of the League of Nations, signed in Paris, 1919.

2 San Remo Resolution, 1920. Read the full text here.

3 Taken from ‘Winston Churchill in Jerusalem, 1921’, Manchester Conservatives.

4 E.g. ceding 70% of the Mandate land to the Arabs (Transjordan, now Jordan). We recommend The Forsaken Promise (DVD) from Hatikvah Films for a fuller exploration of this issue.

5 ‘A Victory for Democracy’. Watch in full here.

Why is the joker leading the pack?

To the despair of my wife and me, our middle daughter, when she was at primary school, used to invite all the naughty boys in her class to her birthday party. We took all necessary precautions of removing vulnerable artefacts but they were usually riotous events! We survived these birthday celebrations with minimum damage (apart from the odd broken window) and usually the household returned to normality after an intensive clear-up.

Reflecting upon these annual hijinks I became convinced that there is something in our human nature that likes living dangerously – flirting with risk, enjoying adventure tinged with the threat of the unknown.

It’s what I now call the ‘Boris Factor’, because I believe it accounts for the popularity of the front-runner in the Conservative Party’s race for our next Prime Minister – Boris Johnson. His popularity in the country, despite his well-publicised imperfections, is quite remarkable.

Promises, Promises

I cannot claim to know Boris very well, although I have met him a few times. On one occasion when he was canvassing support for his first term as Mayor of London, I spent two hours alone with him. His team had been chasing me around London for several months, keen to exploit my links with African-Caribbean community and church leaders. They coveted the black vote in inner-city boroughs, but I was not keen to be involved in a political campaign.

And then there were six: the Tory leadership hopefuls. Photo: AP/Press Association ImagesEventually I agreed to a meeting with Boris, provided I could talk about the special needs in these communities. We had a very good and frank conversation, particularly on what he would do with issues such as guns, drugs and knife crime. I was even able to quiz him on his personal faith (with dubious results!). After receiving a lot of promises I subsequently helped to bring some 80 leaders to meet with him, although I have to say that he did not keep his promises once he was in power.

I was nevertheless impressed by the way he addressed the black leaders using a mixture of humour and serious social policy strategy, while also acknowledging their particular community needs. He is an excellent communicator which probably accounts for his popularity in the country across widely different communities. But it is still surprising that so many are willing to overlook his blunders and alleged moral deficiencies and take the risk of making him Prime Minister.

There is something in our human nature that likes living dangerously – flirting with risk, enjoying adventure tinged with the threat of the unknown.

No Discernment

Why is this? Is it like the childhood fascination with the naughty boy? Do we like to take a risk and go for the charisma factor rather than the drab, boring, safe, pinstripe type of politician? The country certainly fell in love with Tony Blair as an exciting contrast to John Major, though the Blair factor only lasted a few years.

Public opinion, of course, is notoriously fickle, but it is surely surprising that there are some characters whose misbehaviours will be overlooked and who will be supported even though people know it is a risk. There is a telling statement made by the Prophet Jeremiah during the reign of the notoriously immoral King Jehoiakim in Jerusalem in the late 6^th Century BC. Jeremiah was having one of his prayer-time conversations with God and reporting on the state of the nation. He said “A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land! The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way” (Jer 5:30-31).

Jeremiah was used to false prophets promising “Peace! Peace!” when the Lord was saying “There is no Peace!”. He was constantly countering the lies of these popular prophets who told the people there was nothing to worry about in the rumours that the Babylonian army was on the march. They said that no enemy would ever get into Jerusalem, because God would defend the city.

The priests confirmed the lies of the prophets and instead of rightly teaching the people and giving judgments in accord with the teaching given by God to Moses, they made up their own rules and their own interpretations of the word of God. Sadly, the people had no discernment; they loved things as they were – lies and deception were quite acceptable to them.

In Jeremiah’s day, the people had no discernment; lies and deception were quite acceptable to them.

Self-interest vs. Righteousness

Once the word of God is discarded, anything becomes acceptable. This is the situation in Britain today. The public are disgusted with the antics of the politicians in recent months: they have lost trust in their MPs, who have been seen on TV day after day arguing but never agreeing on anything. The business of governing the country seems to have been grossly neglected while Brexit issues have dominated everything. People of all political leanings want resolution. They also want a leader who will tell them what they want to hear, to make them feel comfortable, just like the people in Jeremiah’s day before disaster befell Jerusalem!

The public are looking for a strong leader and there are few outstanding characters on either side of the House. This is why Boris is very likely to be chosen as the next Prime Minister, despite the reservations of discerning people.

Conservative MPs are well aware of the unpopularity that their Party has suffered through three years of weak leadership under Theresa May, whose stubbornness was not matched with political skill. This is where the ‘Boris Factor’ may influence those MPs who have no love for him, but are still willing to vote for him: he is widely regarded as the only one who can both hold Nigel Farage at bay and defeat Jeremy Corbyn. Under these circumstances self-interest takes precedence over righteousness, especially when MPs know that the public have long ago discarded values of righteousness.

People want a strong leader who will tell them what they want to hear, to make them feel comfortable.

Prospects for Britain

Will Britain get a Prime Minister who is able to exercise righteous government? Certainly, mature Christians know that Britain does not deserve godly government and there are many signs that we are a nation already under judgment. But God is merciful and I believe he still has a purpose for Britain. Could he use Boris? Of course he could! God used Cyrus to do his will and bless his people even though Cyrus did not even know the name of the Lord. But is it God’s intention to bless the nation, or to allow us bring judgment upon ourselves?

Boris at least professes a faith in God, but is that enough to provide Britain with a God-fearing Government? If the Conservative Party installs Boris and his partner in No. 10, will he lead a Government that can restore standards of righteousness in the nation?

Ian Farley reviews 'God and Churchill', by Jonathan Sandys and Wallace Henley (SPCK, 2015, 352 pages, hardback £19.99)

This is an extremely thought-provoking book and one that is easy to read. It claims to be the first biography of Churchill to focus on the Christian motivation behind his style of leadership, speeches and eventual success. But it is important to note the title carefully. The order, God and Churchill, is significant, as is the subtitle – 'How the great leader's sense of divine destiny changed his troubled world and offers hope for ours'. Together, title and sub-title lets the reader know what to expect.

The title is not 'Churchill and God'. Those with some knowledge of the wartime prime minister will be aware that he did not express personal faith in Jesus nor particularly call himself a Christian or indeed claim to be religious. If enthusiasts of him are looking to find that actually he was one or all of these things, then this book will disappoint.

Rather the argument of the joint authors (one of whom, Sandys, is Churchill's great-grandson) is that God is active and sovereign in history. In particular, he appoints saving leaders and uses them to achieve his purposes. Churchill, they argue, was one such instrument in God's hands.

Churchill did not call himself a Christian or express personal faith in Jesus. But this book argues that he was still an instrument in God's sovereign hands for a saving purpose.

Churchill had, they believe, a high sense of Christian civilisation and a deep knowledge of Scripture, imparted to him by his nanny whose photograph was still by his bedside at his death. Of particular interest is the claim that as a boy of 16 he was already envisioned with a sense of purpose from God, one that would involve him saving the nation and its capital from invasion. His perseverance in this belief in his destiny, often against all the odds, is at the heart of this story.

Certainly Churchill was preserved from death on several occasions and equipped through the vicissitudes of his life to stand up to the evil of Hitler and Nazism. There are interesting chapters on the sources of this evil and Churchill's different perspective especially on science, the role of the church in society, the philosophy of Utilitarianism and the importance of history.

At the heart of this story is Churchill's sense of destiny and perseverance in his belief that he had great purpose.

All of this is a good read but there is more. As the subtitle suggests, his sense of destiny offers hope for our world too. The authors very expressly link the state of the world today with the mess of the 1940s. ISIS is the current equivalent of Hitler. The moral mess of the 1920s led to the Second World War and the moral mess of the 1960s has led to today's chaos. Is there a leader-saviour for today? There is a review of the danger of equivalency as an acceptable way of thought and a very good overview of patterns of history from Judges. But be warned, tempers may fray in this part!

Altogether a book to enjoy and be stimulated by, but not one that will assure you of the great man's salvation. However, it is a timely addition to the corpus on Churchill - especially in the year of the 70^th anniversary of Victory in Europe. The book's release is also timed to coincide with Churchill's birthday, 30 November, on which date the author will speak at a national press launch in Westminster.

Altogether a book to enjoy and be stimulated by, though not one that will assure you of the great man's salvation.