Nour al-Sharq interviews Carol Saba

Arabic original here.

The lawyer Carol Saba, an expert in the affairs of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, told the program Waqfa wa-Mawqif, "Christians, especially the Orthodox, must regain their national role and establish a partnership of life and citizenship."

He spoke to Léa Adel Mehmari.

Commenting on the gathering of Eastern Catholic patriarchs, the lawyer Carol Saba, an expert in the affairs of the Antiochian Orthodox Church and a close advisor to Patriarch John X, observed that, "The crisis of Middle Eastern Christianity is a crisis of decline whose roots go back to the start of the transformations in the Arab Middle East in the early twentieth century. Where once the Christians formed the core of the thinkers and engines of the Arab Nahda that heralded a promising future for the Arab world, today they have arrived at a crisis of decline that gradually grew over the course of the twentieth century alongside the rise of the crisis of the state and the crisis of governance in Arab societies. The Christian role gradually receded on account of the rise of various political radicalisms in the Arab world, from a concern for an active Christian 'presence' in Arab societies to a concern for preserving 'existence' and abdicating from every national role to the point of decline, insularity and seeking protection."

Carol Saba's spoke during his appearance on the program Waqfa wa-Mawqif and said, "Despite this path of regression and its consequences of frustration and emigration, there remain the writings of Christian thinkers like Georges Khodr, Youakim Moubarac, Gregoire Haddad and others to point to the necessity of arriving at Arab systems of governance based on the civil state which separates religion from the state without separating it from society, so that it can be a society that embraces an active Christian presence in the Middle East."

According to his analysis of the current situation of growing sectarianism in our Arab societies and the repercussions of the rise of religious radicalism, Christians, especially the Orthodox, must "regain their national role and the initiative and break into public affairs with enlightened ideas in order to overcome the state of rampant sectarianism and to partnership of life and partnership of citizenship that makes everyone equal in terms of rights and responsibilities and which protects by law all elements of our Arab societies. Only the civil state that allows everyone to preserve their specificities can prevent the emigration and hemorrhaging of Middle Eastern Christians and make Christians secure here in their land, as they are one of the historical elements of this region."

Met Georges Khodr: The Light of the Transfiguration

Arabic original here.

The Light of the Transfiguration

The Lord took Peter, James and John to a high mountain, perhaps Mount Tabor in Galilee or perhaps Mount Hermon (Jebel al-Sheikh). There He showed them what they could not really realize. He showed them His glory, a glory that He possessed and that was in Him, but which had been veiled, which He had veiled deliberately. Jesus did not want to overwhelm humankind with His glory, so He hid it in order to act among us as one of us and so that we may arrive at His glory at the end of our pilgrimage on earth.

If we see the cross, there His glory is made manifest to us and if we witness the resurrection, then His glory shines in us. Before this, it was necessary for Him to be veiled, but He nevertheless wanted to make clear to His disciples that He is the true appearance of God, that He is the only-begotten Son. So He brought Elijah and Moses from heaven, from their rest, to reveal to humankind that the Law of Moses has gone extinct and Judaism has ended. If the glory of Christ has shown forth, then the glory of Moses may be proud. And if His light has been made manifest, then His light grants us to understand the prophecies represented by Elijah.

Through His transfiguration, Jesus intimated to the apostles that prophecy had been fulfilled in Him, that His is the awaited one and so we are not in need of prophecy because everything the prophets said He said, since He demonstrated on the cross that God is love and He showed them this by His death.

As for Peter, when he saw this great scene, he said, "It is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah." Jesus did not accept this offer. He refused for them to remain on the mountain because the mountain of the transfiguration was a stage on the way to death. Death is important and even more important is the resurrection. For this reason the Lord said to Peter, "Peter, you do not know what you are saying. It is not permitted for you to seek glory like this in a cheap and effortless way."

Glory is only given to those who are prepared for death. The glory that people talk about and seek from each other is a cheap glory. Jesus did not come for such glory. He gave people another glory, a glory from their faith and from their love for the Father. He gave them a beloved glory.

The greatest of the great, the ones who enjoy their Lord's favor, the prominent ones in the kingdom are known by no one. They have no palaces. They make no show. People do not talk about these possessors of true glory. The poor are possessors of glory. The persecuted are possessors of glory. The ignorant who neither read nor write, if they belong to Christ are glorified. But those who claim to be cultured, who are merely puffed-up, do not inherit the glory of the kingdom. The clever person does not go up to heaven because he is clever but because he is humble and chaste, loving the Lord and loving the poor.

Jesus said to Peter, "I will give you glory from upon the cross. In blood, in death, in the death of martyrdom." Those who truly belong to Christ die as martyrs just as Peter died-- beaten without beating anyone, humiliated without humiliating anyone. Christ Jesus did not claim, did not make a show of glory. He died a death that He accepted in obedience to the Father.

God wants to be manifest in our life, for the face of every person to become shining like the sun, for Christ to be traced upon our faces, upon the face of each one of us because he lives according to the Gospel and becomes a christ.

Met Ephrem (Kyriakos) on Bishops, part 2

Arabic original here. Part one can be found in English here.

The Bishop (part 2)

The Bishop as Father and Servant:

We know that a person's temptations can be outlined in three things: money, authority and pleasure. The hope is constant that the bishop will not fall into the temptation of authority and become domineering, even if he carries the staff that is fitting for being a pastor. He must follow the advice of the Lord Jesus to His disciples when He told them:

"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you... whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—  just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:25-28).

The bishop's authority is the authority of love. Fr Serge Boulgakov said, "When the bishop exercises authority, he acts with the Church and not over her because the latter constitutes a spiritual body for love."

The Bishop as the Image of Christ:

At the Divine Liturgy, only the bishop does not participate in the great entrance. He waits in the temple, in front of the royal doors and receives the offerings in order to offer them to God in the likeness of Christ offering to God the Father.

Likewise, when he looks out from the royal doors with the trikirion and dikirion, when he represents Christ in a wonderful, clear image, bearing the icon of the Trinity (the three candles) and the sign of Christ's two natures (the two candles), He is like Christ facing God the Father and says in his prayer, "O Lord, O Lord, look down from heaven and behold and visit this vineyard and perfect that which Your right hand has planted!"

Likewise, when the bishop stands at the throne, as at the beginning of the Divine Liturgy or at the prayer of Great Vespers before the blessing of the five loaves, he stands among his priests in the likeness of Christ among His apostles.

We recall here that the true head of the Church remains Christ. The bishop is only an image of Christ (cf. Ephesians 5:23).

The Virtues of the Bishop:

Some of these virtues appear in Paul's First Epistle to Timothy (3:1-8) where he says, for example: "A bishop then must be blameless... not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous...."

Saint Cyprian affirms the importance of humility for the bishop, "because Christ and the apostles were humble."

We will also mention that the bishop is an element of unity in his flock. This is manifest in the Eucharistic service. The antimension on the holy table is an important symbol of the unity of the diocese through the bishop who grants the antimension by signing it.

He is also a symbol of unity between the local church and the universal Church for the unity of faith and common participation in the holy mysteries. This Church is the body of Christ extending through the centuries.

+Ephrem
Metropolitan of Tripoli, al-Koura and their Dependencies

Fr Georges Massouh: Let Us Make Palestine in Our Image and Likeness

Arabic original here.

Let Us Make Palestine in our Image and Likeness

Since the first Jewish settlers and colonialists set foot in the land of Palestine, the Christians have been aware that those coming from every corner of the earth are not heralds of peace and brotherhood among the people of that land, but armies willing to commit the most heinous crimes in order to gain control over the land by force. They want the land and nothing but the land and so they permitted attacks on people and property, they committed massacres, they emptied towns and villages of their people... and they continue the same policy.

Christians and Muslims have stood together to defend their right to exist and their right to return to their homes. They stood side by side when the struggle was dominated by a nationalist orientation and total cooperation on the basis of equality. The Christians' resolve did not waver when the struggle for Palestine started to take on an Islamic orientation. However, they took a principled stand in 2010 and openly stated their opinion that they were with the right to resist but, at the same time, they declared that they were against the establishment of a religious state, whether Islamic or Jewish, in Palestine.

Kairos Palestine is a document issued in 2010 by a select group of Palestinian Christians, clergy and lay, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant, in which they agreed unanimously on the right of the Palestinian people to peace, justice, and freedom and their right to an independent civil state for all its citizens. We return to this document today, given what is happening in Jerusalem, in order to recall that the Christian struggle is not incidental. It is not merely an emotional response to current circumstances. Rather, it is rooted in Christian thought, life and present reality. Permit us here to cite an article of ours entitled "Thank You, Palestine" (an-Nahar, March 14, 2010) in which we summarized what pertains to the right to resist and the right to full, undiminished citizenship.

As we re-read the document more than seven years after it was issued, we find that certain practices of the Israeli state have not changed. As we read the introduction, we think that it presents the Palestinians' current reality of deprivation of freedom, dividing walls "turning our cities and towns into prisons", settlements "seizing our land in the name of God and the name of force", daily humiliation "at military checkpoints", the impossibility of reaching holy sites, camps filled with refugees, prisons full of prisoners, stripping residents of Jerusalem of their identity cards, the seizure of homes, Arab impotence, human rights violations, and emigration... The document rejects the Israelis' claim "justifying their actions as self-defense" and regards this claim as inverting the actual situation. The document affirms Palestinians' right to resist since "if it were not for the occupation, there would be no resistance."

The document then calls on Christians to stand firm in resisting the occupation, "since resistance is a right and duty for Christians." However, this resistance is subject to a logic of love and not responding to evil with evil. Therefore it relies on non-violence as its means for regaining land, freedom, dignity and independence. The document recognizes the usefulness of civil disobedience, the economic and commercial boycott of the occupation, and withdrawing investments from it... but it reserves all respect and esteem "for those who have given their life for the sake of the nation." The document adopts a program of non-violence, but at the same time it does not condemn the armed resistance. It is a call for pluralism in the resistance that permits each individual to resist in the manner appropriate to his convictions.

The Christian choice for the promised Palestinian state or for the State of Israel is clear, since the document rejects "the religious state, whether Jewish or Islamic." The religious state is "a state that favors one citizen over another, makes exceptions, and divides its citizens." The document calls for a state that will be for all its citizens, a state "based on equality, justice, freedom, and respect for diversity, not or numeric or religious dominance." There is no doubt that the document here expresses Christian general opinion, which rejects the religious state no matter what its name is. It is committed to the struggle against Israel as a racist religious state, not so that its place will be taken by an Islamic state that will diminish their citizenship, but rather so that they may live in a civil, secular state that respects their rights as full citizens who have what other citizens have and must do what other citizens must do.

The image that brought Christians and Muslims together in Jerusalem is not an image for memory or a passing image. It is a deeply-rooted image that expresses the unity of the Palestinian people in defense of their right to life. Their image reminds us of God's words "Let us make man in our image and our likeness" (Genesis 1:26). God's image in man, according to the tradition of the Church, is nothing other than freedom. Your image, people of Palestine, is the image of God regained. It is freedom. Be this image, so that you may have freedom.

Met Georges Khodr: Love and Giving

Arabic original here.

Love and Giving

We understand from today's Gospel that the Lord was with the people, He was attentive to them. After He healed their illnesses, He saw that they were hungry and took pity on them and multiplied the bread. Relations between people, in order to be meaningful, must be based on tenderness. It must not only be a relationship of law, so we do not say that these are my boundaries and those are your boundaries, this is might right and that is your right. This language is current among the people of the world, but it is not sufficient. The healing language is the language that comes from the heart and goes to the heart.

Jesus had pity on them, then He took five loaves and two fishes. We notice that the two things that He took were from the people's life. Around the Sea of Tiberias, people ate bread and fish. But the Gospel goes further than this, since bread is taken later on to become Jesus' body and the fish is adopted by the early Christians as a symbol for the Lord, an image of Him because the five letters of the word "fish" in Greek are the first letters of the words in the phrase "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior".

Jesus wanted to prepare them for the fact that He would give them something greater than bread and fish. The Gospel indicates this symbolic meaning when it says, "He blessed, broke and gave," which are the words it uses at the Last Supper, when He gave the disciples His body and blood.

John the Beloved notes in the fourth Gospel, when he presents the miracle that we read about today from the Gospel of Matthew, that it means something beyond the multiplication of bread. For this reason he presents a sermon known as the sermon about the bread that comes down from heaven: not like your fathers who ate and die, but he who eats of this bread will live forever. He then explains to them that He will remain with them and they will remain with Him if they know that He is the one who will redeem mankind and He will leave to His disciples His presence among them in the form of bread and wine.

Here let us pay attention to the fact that Jesus looked up to heaven then gave. A person only gives from heaven. What comes out of one hand is placed in another hand and what comes out of a heart is placed in another heart. But what comes from the heart can be impure. Out of the abundance of the heart the tongue speaks (cf. Luke 6:45). The heart gives purity or it gives corruption. The heart has the entire world within it, its storms, its lusts. Therefore it doesn't mean anything if I say to another person, "I love you with all my heart." I may love him with a self-interested, acquisitive, totalitarian, lustful love. The important thing is that God comes out of our heart, that the Holy Spirit pours out from our heart so that we may love. For this reason it says, "He blessed, then He broke and gave." The important thing is that we give while we are in a state of blessings, in divine grace, in holiness. Any other giving is simply scattering, a whim, or exploitation.

The important thing is not that I remain in people's hearts, since I am passing. The important thing is that they turn to God who gives to them, that they know that they have received the bread through a miracle. The encounter is not between one person and another, the encounter is between God in a person who transmits Him to another person, if he loves him. Material giving is only a symbol, a style, a preparation so that our hearts may be trained for total giving, the giving of love and purity from a heart that has become divine to a heart that we wish to become divine.

Any giving apart from this has no value. For us to give means that we give everything: our attention, our concern, our health, our days and our nights. We give our whole life in imitation of the Teacher or it is not giving.

Pantelis Kalaitzidis on the Patriarchate of Jerusalem

From the French version, here. The title of this article was apparently chosen by the editors of the Service Orthodoxe de Presse. It originally appeared in Greek in the newspaper Thessalia on March 29, 2005. For another article on Middle Eastern Christianity by the same author, see here.

The Current Situation in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem:
An Ecclesiastical Neocolonialism?

by Pantelis Kalaitzidis

After various stormy events and the revelations regarding the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, we will dare to wonder: does not the most glaring scandal of recent times ultimately lie in the impermissible contempt evinced by the Greek leadership of the the Patriarchate of Jerusalem toward the Arabic-speaking faithful and in the reduction to zero of the "theology of the local church" in favor of a"Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher" which, imposed from the outside and constituted on the principle and basis of the (Greek) national community of origin of its members, pursues the defense of the corporate interests of a closed group of celibate clergy? Does the scandal not thus lie in the replacement of the "ecclesiological" criterion with "national" and economic interests which go so far as the sale of lands and the transfer of the Patriarchate's lands and properties on behalf of Israeli economic interests in the (Arab) Old City of Jerusalem?

As many here have said and claimed in all the debates about this situation, the scandal of international dimensions that is rocking the Patriarchate of Jerusalem represents a "taboo subject" and a "delicate national question" that is better not touched or delved into further. Reasons of national interest, which are constantly evoked, prohibit almost any discussion of the background and especially avoid touching the taboo of the Patriarchate's "Hellenism", which should be maintained at any price, even at the price of measures that run contrary to its "ecclesiality." It is characteristic that the most tenacious adversaries of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Greece (which has also been very recently criticized and severely challenged on the basis of the implication of certain of its members in moral and financial scandals) and the most radical anti-clerical criticism in Greece in no way consider challenging this famous "Hellenism" of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which all consider to be a national "cause" or "patrimony", while the progressive or enlightened theologians, for their part, until now avoid broaching the question, contenting themselves with general considerations about a "universal Hellenism"-- which they affirm is different from nationalism-- and a "universal Byzantine tradition" to which the current patriarchate is one of the heirs.

In this way we close our eyes to the fact that this concept of "Hellenism"-- and its concrete application-- not only breaks apart and dissolves the Body of Christ (and introduces into it as definitive the criteria of nation, race, language, civilization, etc. which divide its unity) but moreover also reduces the Arabic-speaking faithful to the rank of second-class Christians, to ecclesiastical "subjects", good for serving the uniqueness and longevity of a cultural or even phyletist Hellenism, for assisting the servants of this Hellenism, the Greek upper clergy. With methods and processes that leave nothing to envy over the worst periods of colonialism and imperialism, the latter, the members of the "Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher" are imposed upon the body of Arabic-speaking faithful of the Church of Jerusalem, systematically and by every means excluding from the episcopate the native Orthodox of the Holy Land, out of fear of an Arabization of the Patriarchate, without taking into account that in proceeding this way they only accelerate it.

So why do we still today persist in denying the Orthodox of Palestine and Jordan their natural right to choose their pastors themselves and for how long will we continue to organize the recruitment of celibate clergy, sent from Greece, in order to administer the Patriarchate of Jerusalem? For how long will we continue to evoke the delicate question of the status of the Holy Places in order to prolong-- at the expense of the Palestinians, whose national rights we are supposed to be defending-- a "Greek" ecclesiastical dominance in Palestine and Jordan? Would it not be good for us to remember everywhere those words of Christ: "whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them" (Matthew 7:12)? How would we behave, we "haughty Greeks," if someone imposed on us here an imported sort of ecclesiastical administration of a colonial type?

Are we unable to perceive that the Palestinian Orthodox, these distant heirs of the first Christian community of Jerusalem, may resent it when, after so many occupations, martyrdoms and persecutions, they are experiencing the domination and occupation of "Greek Orthodoxy" and have become strangers and servants in their own home, deprived of any responsibility or any participation in the life of their Church, all because we present ourselves as the sole and ultimate heirs of Byzantium, as the defenders and heralds par excellence of Orthodoxy? Indeed, in the name of what logic or what historical reality can one justify the notion that the Christians of Palestine are less "Byzantine" and less Christian than us? So are we consistent with our proclamations-- either naive or triumphalist--  such as that Orthodoxy has always respected the local traditions and peculiarities of peoples and that is never had the least resemblance to any colonialism? Yes or no: does the ecclesiological situation of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem represent an ecclesiastical colonialism and a cultural imperialism?

Does the fact that one endeavors to assure at any price Hellenism  in the Holy Places and to keep sites of Christian pilgrimage under Greek control bear witness to our ecclesiological sensibility and to the priority given to theological criteria or does it not rather confirm the subordination of these criteria to priorities of a national, neocolonialist, racist, and, in the final analysis neo-pagan sort? Are we incapable of understanding that Arabization cannot be avoided and is already under way? And that the faster and more smoothly it takes place, the less the price that "Greek" interests will have to pay, while the more it is delayed the more the justifiable anger of the Arabic-speaking Orthodox masses grows, as well as the inevitable exploitation of their feelings by Russian "ecclesiastical" diplomacy? Are we really incapable of learning all the lessons from what happened, in a context of tensions and disputes, during the Arabization of the Patriarchate of Antioch a century ago? Do we know that through the racist and neocolonialist behavior that we display, we are denying the Palestinian Orthodox community the cultivated elites, the clergy, the theologians, and the intellectuals of which they are in urgent need? Have we realized the dire consequences, of which there will be no lack, of the proselytism carried out among the Arabic-speaking Orthodox by the Roman Catholic Church which, for many decades, has encouraged the promotion of Arabic-speaking clergy to the highest ecclesiastical offices and which, contrary to the smug and pretentious behavior of our "Greek Orthodox" monks, has really contributed to the advent of a theologically-formed clerical and lay Palestinian elite and has truly put itself-- without hijinks or dubious transactions-- shoulder-to-shoulder with the Palestinian people?

I think that the moment has come to answer courageously and sincerely a whole series of crucial questions such as these: To what should we ultimately grant priority, to "the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?" (Matthew 23:17). In other words, to impersonal principles-- such as the "Hellenism" of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem-- or to living images of God? To guarding the "Holy Sepulcher" or to the spiritual growth and maturation of the "living body of Christ"? To the idols of nation and race or to the truth of this God who illumines the truth of man? To the longevity and safeguarding at any price of Hellenism in the Holy Places or to the rebirth of the local Church? It is, of course, entirely possible that the long-awaited rebirth of the local Church in Palestine and Jordan will be accompanied by phenomena of rejection-- as in almost all the local Churches that surround us-- that is to say, by a religious nationalism and an identification with the state. As condemnable and regrettable as these phenomena may be, they will ultimately be less repugnant than the  neocolonialism or religious imperialism which, imposed in the name of Christ and Orthodoxy, aim to transform living icons of God, baptized members of the ecclesiastical body, into house slaves and objects of domination and power.

Fr Georges Massouh on Giving

Arabic original here.

The Theology of the Morsel

Christ was generous, giving, unsparing, bountiful, distributing freely... His disciples were miserly, slow to give, closed-fisted, lovers of money... The saints and righteous ones among them sacrificed like their Master, imitating Him in all things, but most of them, including those who held primary positions in the early Church, remained stingy, tight-fisted and insensitive to the poor.

This is what led Saint Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), in his commentary on the multiplication of the loaves and fishes and the feeding of the five thousand men and their families (John 6:1-15), to say, "We find in the beginning that the disciples were by their nature hesitated to give to the hungry, but the Savior gave them an abundance from which there was a surplus of crumbs. This teaches us also that if we give a little money for the glory of God, we will receive richer grace... Therefore we must not be hesitant regarding sharing love towards the brothers, but rather we must cast off  hesitation and fear which lead to being ungenerous to the guest and put on good courage. Thus we stand firm in hope in firm faith in God's ability to multiply the smallest of our good deeds."

There are three pillars in Christianity: faith, hope and love. The destructive temptation that might shake any one of these or all three and so shake the entire faith is the temptation of money. The miser, if he prefers miserliness to love of the poor, cannot rely on love. The rich and self-satisfied person lacks hope. The faith of both the miser and the rich person is stronger in what they own than in God: "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matthew 6:24). There is either faith in God or faith in this perishing world.

What Jesus' disciples failed to do was done by the poor widow whom Jesus praised with these words: "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had" (Luke 21:3-4). This box was dedicated to helping the poor and needy and was there anyone who was poorer than a widow who had no support and no provider? Nevertheless, a poor widow gave everything she had for the sustenance of the poor. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Christianity!

Saint Ambrose, bishop of Milan (d. 397), sees that the widow symbolizes the Church. She is a symbol of the entire Church. The Church is not a church if she is not like the widow who gives everything she possesses to the poor. Ambrose says, "The widow symbolizes the Church because she cast into the holy treasury a gift by which she heals the wounds of the poor and eases the sighing of every wayfarer." We may add to Ambrose's words the persecuted, those expelled from their homes, the victims of wars, and refugees...

Blessed Augustine, bishop of Annaba [i.e., Hippo] (d. 430), believes that prayer has two wings, without which we cannot reach God. In his explanation of the Lord's words "Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you" (Luke 6:37-38), Augustine surmises, "These are the two wings of prayer by which it flies to God. Forgive wrongdoers what they have done and give to those in need... What do you want from the Lord? Mercy. Give, and  it will be given to you. What do you want from the Lord? Pardon. Pardon, so that you may be pardoned."

From beginning to end, at no point is there in the Bible a single word that justifies not giving. Any discourse that calls for not giving and excuses the hesitancy of the reluctant to show mercy and love is not a Christian discourse, even if it is pronounced from the highest pulpits of teaching in the Church. "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7). This, ladies and gentlemen, is Christianity!