Fr. Georges Massouh on Love for Enemies and Love for the Oppressed

Arabic original here.



The Beloved Syrian

My Syrian friend, a practicing Christian and a secularist by political inclination, confirms that events in Syria are sliding toward increased sectarian division, since sectarian affiliation and the obsession with preserving members of one's own sect has taken primacy for some over citizenship or other forms of trans-sectarian affiliation. My friend himself worries about the distortion of true Christian witness coming from the positions of some Christian religious leaders which support a logic of force and violence and are silent before practices of torture, abuse, destruction, and expulsion.

Christ the Lord says, "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44). This means that Christ calls for distinguishing between a person and his works. It in necessary to love a person because he always bears the image and likeness of God, but his evil works are to be hated. Christ hated evil, but he loved all people, because no one is good but God alone. Thus, the love of enemies is a call to consider the enemy to be a person capable of repentance. Consequently, resisting him is resiting the evil that is in him and the hope that he will change into a good person.

If these words are true about enemies in general, then how much more are they true about people who are not enemies, the people of a single nation, a single city, a single village... They are brothers and relatives and neighbors, partners in work and in life. Christians, then, are called, according to the theological writer Kosti Bandaly in his book "The Violent or non-Violent Struggle to Realize Justice" (Manshurat al-Nour) to the difficult and risky reconciliation between two things: the love of those persecuted, which pushes for struggling for the sake of justice and the love of one's enemies, which calls for struggling for reconciliation and peace.

The love of "enemies" does not in any way cancel love for the oppressed. This is confirmed by Christian tradition. Saint Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) says, "He who does not stop the injustice that threatens his brother when he is able to do so is no less guilty of sin than the one who commits the injustice." Bandaly states that any following along with an oppressor in his aggressive positions is a defeat for love, a denial of the power of the kingdom of God that is from this moment active on earth, and a perpetuation of the cycle of evil.

In Christ's behavior we have a living example of reconciling between loving the enemy and combating evil at the same time. When those whom He disturbed with His teachings planned to kill Him, He went to the ultimate limits in His love for them. He would not treat His enemies as they planned on treating Him. He did not return evil with evil, but rather countered evil with good. The apex of the Christian position was reached on the cross, in the words of the crucified Christ, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Christ was able, even at the very last moment, to distinguish between the person and the evil that he is committing and He maintained His love and His hope for that person.

There is a great distinction between striving to put an end to oppression, persecution, and coercion-- or fear of them-- on the one hand, and getting carried away by desire for destruction, for free and senseless murder, and the victory of the spirit of  vengeance on the other. The Syrian citizen, no matter which national or political option he inclines toward, is a person who must be loved, because the love which alone must be present forms the nation, builds up the earth, and gives life to man.

Fr. Touma Bitar on the Orthodox Reaction to Events in the Middle East

Arabic original here. 

Towards Elaborating an Orthodox Position toward What is Happening (I)

What I am presenting is observations and questions, nothing more. The children of the Greek Orthodox faith stand before a challenge. It is not possible for them to be isolated from what is happening. They cannot but be affected and suffer. They have their witness, amidst the suffering, which they draw from their faith in the Lord Jesus, their faithfulness to him, and their embrace of those who participate with them in the reality of the one nation.

With this in mind, I’ll say that I read in the newspaper an-Nahar last Monday June 25, 2012, in the local section, an article written by Pierre Atallah. I read it more than once. The article is exposition and commentary. It presents the position expressed by His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, for the second time in about a year, that “the Church of Antioch’s position regarding [current] events is expressed exclusively by the patriarch and was defined by the Holy Synod at its meeting that was held in Lebanon last year.” This was the exposition. As for the commentary, the writer of the article transmits two commentaries.  One of them from someone described as a lay official with close connections to the institution of the Church. The other is from someone who is said to be an Orthodox Syrian activist, one of the supporters of the Syrian opposition. The lay official states—in his words—“ Patriarch Hazim’s position is the historical political position of the Church that is careful to have the best relations with changing rulers and to not conspire against them but at the same time to not stand as an impediment against the movement of peoples and change.” He continues, saying that the Church condemns “oppression and violence and does not intervene in politics except when they oppose morals and values.” He closes by pointing out that “the one who speaks for the Church is the Holy Synod” and that “any position aside from this… “is a personal opinion and the one expressing it alone bears full responsibility for it.”

Additionally, the official expresses the discontent of “the institution of the Church”—an expression he uses twice—with the description of Syria’s Christians as “minorities”, rather emphasizing that they are citizens “who interact with their environment and their people.”

As for the Orthodox activist, it drew my attention, without going into details, his explanation “the Church as a whole does not want the bishops [pointing out the particular position of one of them] to be tied to any particular political situation, realizing the critical and sensitive nature of the Syrian situation. This is the reason for it keeps the best relations with the Muslims [it appears that he means the Sunni numerical majority].” In light of this fact, the activist affirms something very important, that “the majority of Christians in Syria seek a life in security, quiet, and peace with all components of the Syrian people without any discrimination.”

The sentiment hidden behind what both the “lay official” and the “Orthodox activist” express is without a doubt striking. The expectation is for a position in which the Orthodox—and Christians in general—interact with each element of the people without discrimination. But how are these positions embodied? The verbal formula by which this position is expressed is ambiguous, and thus impractical.

In my opinion, two things are clear: the first is that the majority of Greek Orthodox, even if in their deepest convictions they desired neutrality and sought to live in security, calm, and peace with all elements of the people, it is impossible for them, amidst the current conflict, to realize this. Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that they do not desire to take a political position, others will drag them against their will into what they do not want, or else they will consider them enemies. Secondly, the positions of the lay official and the Orthodox activist are academic and of no use on the ground. Perhaps they include intellectually correct elements, but it has a difficult ring in others’ ears, not to say hostile!

What do I mean?

It is absolutely true that the government is changing and that the people are moving. However, in the background of the current reality, does your statement not imply that there is no problem for you if the Syrian opposition succeeds in undermining the currently extant regime? Do you not think that if you held such an intent and reveal it, even implicitly, as a wink at the other side, then dealing with you will be under the assumption that you are an enemy of--or even a conspirator against—the current regime?! Then what chance remains for you after this, for having the best possible relationship to the government?!

From another perspective, in your weighing between the government and the people, do you not think (once more in the context the current situation) that your declaration that you do not stand “as an impediment to the movement of the people and change” means that you consider the Syrian opposition to be the people and that you lend it “the Church’s” legitimacy in its effort to strike down the existing political regime?! In this case, have you not turned a blind eye to the entrenched sectarian aspect of the crisis, and to the fact that the current spectacle is not only the spectacle of a local political conflict, but also the spectacle of a fierce regional and international conflict?! Do you think that this position of yours will result in good or disaster for the presence of Christians in these parts?!

I do not wish to go into the matter of the Church condemning oppression and violence. This is, in principle, true and self-evident, there’s no debate about it. My question is just, in the context of what is going on, whether oppression and violence is the language of all those fighting, even to varying degrees and in distinct ways? Is there, in the struggle of killers and those being killed, those who stand among the sheep and those who stand among the wolves? Is there, in any sense, “clean” violence in this world? Do we not agree with the words of the Lord, “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”? Is not the only “clean” violence that we know in this world is for us to accept being persecuted and even to be killed as a testimony to God’s truth?  Apart from this, all violence is oppressive and tainted with sin for us!

Likewise saying that the Church does not enter into politics except when they oppose values and morals. This is a complicated topic. It is sufficient for me to say that we are no longer in a Christian world. The morals and values among us are not all the same. Even Christians have come to have various approaches, no longer having a single approach, to the issue of morals and values in politics. So who made us a watchtower and authorized us to intervene? These are words spoken into the wind! Perhaps here or there we can protest about an issue that is absolutely clear. But politics, realistically, are immersed in sharp moral and ethical difficulties, and the Church has no place in them and no say! The kingdom of Christ is not of this world even if we strive to bear witness to it in this world. When two brothers came to the Lord Jesus and asked him, “Tell my brother to share the inheritance with me,” what was the response? “Who made me judge over you?” Not once did the Lord Jesus have a political position, in the political sense, despite the suffering of the Hebrew people during the time of Roman colonialism. Even when the Lord Christ described Herod as a “fox”, it was not a position about it as a ruler, but rather a description of his reality as a person!

As for considering His Beatitude the Patriarch, as delegated by the Holy Synod, the exclusive spokesman for the position of the Orthodox Church, is to prevent the spread of a chaos of private opinions that claim to speak in the name of the Orthodox as a community. This is in order to preserve the well-being of the children of the faith and their unity in the Church and to raise their witness to love in the nation. It goes without saying that the Church’s position in this situation is inspired by true, living faith and rises above—and encourages us to rise above—political and sectarian divisions. Hence the Church’s position regarding current conflicts is not a political position in the way that others have political positions. The Orthodox as individuals can naturally adopt political positions, if they so desire, which express their witness to Christ and their Church and I have nothing to say about this. We are a Church community and not a pagan tribe! As for the Church as a church, it has no political position. The Church does not deal with political positions. Political positions divide, while the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Holy Synod, bishops and patriarch in the name of the Synod, is from above and is to gather together and unify. It is the symbol of the unity of faith in Christ in Antioch. It is normal for a bishop of the Church, as a person, to prefer one political ideology over others, but he should realize, as a man of God, within himself, political thought is one thing and political practice is something else. For this reason, he should be careful to avoid speaking for any political orientation, whatever it may be, whether on the level of thought—lest he be misunderstood and made to say something other than what he says—or on the level of practice—lest he be found to be a cause of division. The Church deals with people regardless of their political positions. Indeed, the Church distinguishes between people and their positions. She engages them in any situation and does not necessarily engage their positions. This is contrary to the common practice that equates positions to those holding them. In the next essay, God permitting, I will deal with the issue of this distinction and its importance.

Archimandrite Touma (Bitar)

Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Silouan the Athonite—Douma

1 July, 2012

The Patriarchate of Antioch and the Syrian Crisis (from an-Nahar)

The following two articles are from the Orthodox-owned and strongly anti-Syrian Lebanese daily an-Nahar. Depending on how you want to read the prejudices of the newspaper and its anonymous sources, it could be understood in a number of ways. The opposition activist's statements about the situation in Homs especially contradict reliable reports from Orthodox, Catholic, and journalistic sources. The two articles can be found here and here. See also Fr. Touma Bitar's reflection on these articles.

Ignatius IV: The Church’s Position is Expressed Exclusively by the Patriarch

At a meeting of the trustees of Balamand University, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Ignatius IV Hazim, affirmed that “the Church of Antioch’s position regarding [current] events is expressed exclusively by the patriarch and was defined by the Holy Synod at its meeting that was held in Lebanon last year.” He stated that “the opinions of some bishops in Syria and Lebanon do not necessarily express the positions of the Church of Antioch regarding [current] events and changes.” An-Nahar has learned that this position by Patriarch Ignatius IV targets statements made by bishops in Syria that were treated in media outlets as authoritative positions.

“Christ’s Shabiha” in Syria: Loyalist Militia suppresses Christian Opposition

Hazim’s Position Sets the Record Straight about a Bishop’s Statements

By Pierre Atallah

The latest words of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Ignatius IV, gave pause to observers when he said, “the Church of Antioch’s position regarding [current] events is expressed exclusively by the patriarch and was defined by the Holy Synod at its meeting that was held in Lebanon last year” and pointed out that “the opinions of some bishops in Syria and Lebanon do not necessarily express the positions of the Church of Antioch regarding [current] events and changes.”

A lay official with close ties to the church institution explains that “Patriarch Hazim’s position is the historical political position of the Church that is careful to have the best relations with changing rulers and to not conspire against them but at the same time to not stand as an impediment against the movement of peoples and change.” In his opinion, this very theological position continues to be the subject of discussion in the Church between those who consider it to be a “dhimmi” position and those who consider it to be a traditional position, depending on the words of the Gospel, “Leave to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Consequently, the Church condemns oppression and violence and does not intervene in politics except when they oppose morals and values. The Orthodox layman returns to the text of Patriarch Hazim’s announcement, explaining that “the one who speaks for the Church is the Holy Synod, which meets twice a year. Any position aside from this that comes from a bishop, a priest, or a deacon, during his daily activities, claiming to speak in the name of the Church and conflicting with the positions of the patriarch and the Holy Synod is a personal opinion and the one expressing it alone bears full responsibility for it.”

For the official, matters are clear. The Church does not equivocate in the matter and it sees that there are some who  support the regime in Syria in the manner of bishop L[ouka] Kh[oury] and there are those who think like him and support it in practical ways. On the other hand, there are those who strongly oppose the Syrian regime, foremost among them Michel Kilo, Georges Sabra, and a not insignificant proportion of clergy and laity. However, the most important thing is that the Church is not a political party or organization and so it does not want to show its people that they are minorities, but rather citizens who interact with their surroundings and their people. This is what the last meeting of the Holy Synod announced when it called on members of the Church to “participate in change”

“Christian Shabiha”

An Orthodox Syrian activist who follows closely the details of what is happening on the ground explains that “Positions that support the Syrian regime are only coming from Bishop L[ouka] Kh[oury], while the Church as a whole does not want the bishops to be tied to any particular political situation, realizing the critical and sensitive nature of the Syrian situation. This is the reason for it keeps the best relations with the Muslims, not wanting the positions of some extremists to influence in any way the whole group and thus damage the history of brotherhood and common life throughout the Arab world. The Orthodox were and continue to be the pioneers of Arab nationalism, the struggle for Palestine, and confronting Israel.”

The activist adds that talk of Christian support for the Syrian regime is not precise. He points to a militia group that was founded by the regime and given the name “Shabiha of Christ,” confirming that “it is composed of two groups: supporters of the Baath Party and the regime apparatus in Damascus and the region of Wadi al-Nasara in northern Syria.” He recounts that this Baathist militia “limits its concern to attacking Christians in the opposition and to respond to any Christian Syrian movement.” Orthodox and Maronite religious leaders in Wadi al-Nasara are very much aware of what is happening and they rushed to respond to this group, while matters are different in the capital where the bishop L[ouka] Kh[oury] openly expresses his support for the regime and his support for the shabiha in this.” The activist affirms that “the majority of Christians in Syria seek a life in security, quiet, and peace with all components of the Syrian people without any discrimination. Those who openly express their support in an explicit way are few, while a significant proportion stands in the ranks of the opposition, especially the youth, the intellectuals, and the artists, in the ranks of the traditional left and independents.”

Regarding what has been said about expulsions in Homs, the activist stressed that the Christians were displaced from the city, like many of its people, due to heavy shelling and a lack of supplies. As for talk about houses being occupied, he affirms that it is exaggerated and that it amounts to around 15 homes. They were not seized because of their owners’ being Christians, but because they had been taken as military positions. In this regard, the activist stated that a number of Orthodox priests are holding out in Homs with a number of elderly men and that the Patriarchate sends them rations to be distributed to all citizens through parishes, knowing that the Patriarchate has great experience with supply chains, possessing the human and administrative resources and authorization from a number of Christian aid organizations. This comes from the experience it has acquired working with Iraqi refugees.

The activist closed by pointing out that what has been said about expulsions contradicts the reality of excellent relations that exist between Muslims and Christians in Damascus and its outskirts, Homs and its outskirts, and Lattakia. He pointed to the villages of Mhardeh (Patriarch Hazim’s village), al-Suqaylabiyya, and Kfarbaam, where, according to him, thousands of Syrian Christians live in the best relations with their Muslim neighbors.