Fr. Georges Massouh: The Primacy of Peace or of Justice?

This column appeared in an-Nahar this past week. The Arabic original can be found here. Fr. Georges Massouh is professor of Islamic Studies at Balamand University.

The Primacy of Peace or of Justice?

Christ called for peace. He believed in the human capacity to realize peace ‘here and now’ in the present world for every generation that followed on the earth after His days until our own time. However, all generations have failed in establishing peace, contrary to the hopes of the inhabited world. The world continues to witness struggles and conflicts and wars and the military occupations, massacres, atrocities, forced expulsions, and ethnic cleanings that result from them.

In reality, the role that religions play is the opposite of what their founders intended for them. Christian institutions have disobeyed the divine commandment about this over and over again when they bless fighters and exhort them to battle and raiding, taking captives, plunder and robbery. Even worse than this is when wars are civil wars, where sons of a single country and neighbors from the same street fight each other.

Christ did not call for justice to the same degree that He called for peace. If He had only called for justice, would he have said in His famous Sermon on the Mount, “You have heard it said ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist one who does evil to you. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek to him. And if someone wants to take your tunic, give your cloak to him as well. And if someone forces you do go one mile with him, go a second one as well” (Matthew 5:38-41). And did He say, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44)?

Naturally, in quoting these words here we intend to point out the relationship between brotherhood within one house or between individuals of the same nation. When someone asked Christ to tell his brother to share his inheritance with him, He responded, “Man, who made me a judge or an arbitrator over you?” (Luke 12:14). Christ refused to be an earthly judge who is concerned with the affairs of the world and its dirt. Christ realized that human justice is a mirage, a fantasy, grasping at the wind. What He truly wanted is peace among brothers, even at the expense of justice and equity between them.

However, Christ asks brothers to be concerned about each other’s affairs. Care for the poor, the impoverished, the crippled, the orphans, and those suffering is at the heart of His message. This is not based on applying justice, but rather on love, peace, and giving freely. And where is the concern of the Church’s institutions for all that? At a time when our countries are being drained by continuous emigration because of wars and military occupations, we see some of them ruling out the options of peace and stability, no doubt on account of a just cause. But is this cause worth civil strife that would turn the Christian presence into dead ashes? Christ did not remain quiet when he was struck by one of the guards of the high priest Ananias. He said to him, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?” (John 18:23). Christ defended himself and asked for the reason he was subject to the blow. But he suffered the pains alone and did not put others in danger because of His beliefs. He redeemed all mankind since He accepted to die for their sake, not because they died for His sake or for the sake of His cause.

Likewise St. John the Baptist realized his purpose when he spoke the truth before the face of Herod who had transgressed the Law. John realized that he would die if he continued to chastise Herod, but even so he did not give up and resolutely continued to remind Herod of the requirements of the Law and the teachings of the prophets until he cut off John’s head and offered it on a plate as a gift to the wealthy and decadent.

John’s convictions asked an exorbitant price of him . His life was the price. The price was not someone else’s life. He would not have been pleased for someone else to pay the price. He redeemed the word of truth with his head and his blood and not with the head of another. He did not gamble with other people’s heads and spirits, nor with the spirits of their wives and children, their youth and their elderly, nor with their homes, their livelihoods, and their possessions. He faced the anger of the judge with his bare head, covered only with the cloth of purity and chastity. He faced the anger that was coming for him armed only with his faith that could not be shaken by fear or adversity.

One who desires to strive until the end for a cause he believes in should be like Christ or John the Baptist and be pleased to suffer martyrdom for the sake of his lofty cause. He should not put at risk people who have no say in the events that future generations will discuss, just as we today discuss the horrors and tragedies of the history that has precedes us.

A Dissertation on Contemporary Orthodox-Muslim Relations

Apparently, the University of Birmingham posts PhD dissertations for free download online. Here is one by Andrew Martin Sharpe entitled Eastern Orthodox Theological and Ecclesiological Thought on Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations in the Contemporary World (1975-2008). I haven't yet gone through it, but it looks to be very interesting. David Thomas, a very competent scholar of medieval Christian-Muslim relations, supervised it.

It can be downloaded here.

Fr. Touma Explains

The Arabic original can be found here. The synodal decision in question can be found here.


Update: Fr. Touma himself has corrected my translation. Please disregard previous versions. This corrected version is also available here.



The Holy Synod’s Decision about North America: In Search of the Truth

In the issue for last Sunday, November 14 2010, of the column “Dots on the Letters” I spoke
about a protest of the forgery that occurred to the synodal decision that the Holy Synod of Antioch adopted in its 46th regular session between the 17th and the 20th of August of this year regarding the Orthodox Antiochian Archdiocese of North America. My concern with this topic comes out of the fact that the decision raises a delicate and sensitive question about the future of the American Archdiocese and the whole Antiochian See, with dangerous repercussions, especially after the travails which the Archdiocese went through during the past seven years.
After reading what I posted last week, many people wondered and asked me what was the
forgery I was talking about. What I meant by “forgery” is not malice and deception. There is not
necessarily a bad intention in this matter. Just the opposite, what happened could have happened in good intention. And so my statement is not an accusation against anyone. My focus is on the text, not on the intent. I am concerned about the distortion that took place about its meaning and the change that took place to its form.

As for the distortion of its meaning, this occurred to an essential passage of the text and as
for the change of form, it is with the parallel placement of the two texts of the decision, one of them official in Arabic and the other unofficial in English as well as with the signatures that were
included after both texts together. In the Arabic text of the decision, as it appears on the official website of the Archdiocese of North America, there is the following passage: “The Metropolitan has the right and the authority, in going back to the Archdiocesan Synod, to transfer a bishop dependent on him from one diocese to another when necessary, and for the good of the Archdiocese.” The text of this passage could have been clearer and more precise since there is a certain ambiguity in it. Whatever the case may be, the question that imposes itself here is: from whom does the decision to transfer come? Is it from the metropolitan or from the Archdiocesan Synod? If we say that it comes from the metropolitan, the meaning is that the role of the Archdiocesan Synod is purely consultative. This means that the metropolitan exchanges opinions with the bishops then he adopts the decision that appears to him to be appropriate according to how he sees things, without his necessarily having to adhere to the opinions of the bishops either individually or as a group. However, if we say that the Archdiocesan Synod is the one to take the decision, even if we consider the bishops to be the metropolitan’s auxiliary bishops, then the picture changes completely since the decision is taken from the Archdiocesan Synod and the Metropolitan adheres to it as the head and member of the Archdiocesan Synod. In that way the decision made by the entire Archdiocesan Synod, not by the metropolitan individually. This better expresses the conciliar principle, which we have long vaunted but rarely embodied.

The unofficial English text which corresponds to the same passage of the official synodal
decision in Arabic, as it appears, again and again, on the website of the Archdiocese of North
America, is not a literal translation of the Arabic text of that passage. Rather, it is a distortion, or
one could say an interpretive version. Here is how the English text literally reads [here Fr. Touma gives his literal rendering of the English back into Arabic]: “the Metropolitan possesses the right and the authority to transfer a bishop from one diocese to another, as he deems necessary for the benefit of the Archdiocese, and after deliberating with the Archdiocesan Synod.” The words here are explicit and clear: the decision is the metropolitan’s and the role of the Archdiocesan Synod is purely limited to deliberation of the matter at hand. Here the question arises: Was the intent of the Holy Synod of Antioch what is expressed in explicit terms by the author of the English text of this passage or not? I asked more than one trusted source of the Synod, they said something other than what appears in the English text translated above! One of the leaders of the Synod literally said to me: “The words of the Holy Synod of Antioch mean that the transfer of a bishop in North America from one region to another does not take place after the metropolitan deliberates with his Archdiocesan Synod, as it appears in the English text on the website of the American Archdiocese. Rather, it comes from a decision of the Archdiocesan Synod, as it appears in the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch.”

This is with regard to distortion of meaning. As for the change of the form of the synodal
decision, the form in which this decision appears on the official website of the Archdiocese of
North America puts the official text in Arabic parallel to the unofficial English text as though it
were an approved translation, at least in the Archdiocese of North America, especially since the
signatures that appear on the lower half of the sheet cover the lower portion of both texts together. This creates confusion for the ordinary reader, especially one who does not know Arabic, since it states at the end of the synodal decision that the Holy Synod of Antioch affirms that “the Arabic text is considered the only reference.” Naturally, one wonders here why the Holy Synod does not rely on an official, canonical translation staff?! The signatures give the impression, where they appear, that the Holy Synod relied on both texts together and signed them both, even though the English text of the decision is considered unofficial!

Added to this matter, the signatures as they are on the paper of the synodal decision posted
on the official website of the Archdiocese of North America, in the form in which they appear there, cause one to wonder: did those who sign the decision actually and personally sign it or not? I asked one of the members of the Holy Synod of Antioch if he had signed the decision pertaining to North America and his response was absolutely in the negative, despite the fact that his signature appears under the text of the decision! Another member told me that a well-known priest told him that theyintended to photographically insert the signatures into the decision. He responded to him saying “but you know that this is something uncanonical that is not done!” He replied that it is done!!!

What happened to the first member of the Holy Synod and what the second member confirmed
gives the impression that the signatures were photographically added and that members of the HolySynod did not actually sign the decision! A third member of the Holy Synod who allowed me tospeak with him has exactly this impression. His comment was (and the words are his): “The act ofdepicting the signatures of the Antiochian metropolitans at the bottom of the synodal decision is something very strange because it goes against all principles. A text of the decision that the metropolitans did not sign should not be attributed to them on the American screen!”

With all respect,
Archimandrite Touma (Bitar)
Abbot of the Monastery of St. Silouan
the Athonite, Douma

Met. Georges Khodr on Christians in the Middle East

The Arabic original can be found here.


The Christians in the East

"You are the best community that has been created for mankind,
enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong."

Are those who killed people praying in Iraq still part of the Muslim community? Who will tell them that they have left this community since they have committed evil? From al-Azhar to Najaf, passing through all the Muslims of the world, who will read to them from their Book: "if anyone kills a person- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind (Surat al-Ma'ida 32)"?

I cannot believe that a billion or more Muslims are unable to stop these murderers. A Friday sermon against these butchers of innocent people at prayer is not enough. In the best case, denouncement means that your mind or your conscience does not accept the massacre of people worshiping their Lord during the time of worship. Condemnation is a necessary first step at best, but spilled blood is still blood.

Muslims are a tenacious community who do not accept injustice and do not allow themselves to be humiliated. They have a strong sense of unity and a sense of their power and they reject any injustice that is committed against them. However, this community commits injustice against itself and allows its image to be distorted when it allows those criminals to have control over its reputation. I do not understand why Muslims from Mecca to Indonesia do not move to cut these murderers off from the community, whatever legal term is used for expelling them.
The place where the leaders of this terrorist movement live is not unknown. The leaders walk about with complete freedom in some mountainous regions of Asia that are not far from the eyes of the authorities. They do not escape the view of satellites. Who is watching these satellites? Neighboring countries and far-off countries have certain knowledge of their presence, but remain silent and uninvolved. The question is who who had something to gain from the massacre of those people who were praying in the Church of Our Lady of Deliverance? Who benefits from the killing of these martyrs? What are the countries that are overseeing the territory of that church in Baghdad? The martyrs have gone on to heavenly glory, and they join us to the face of the Father and they strengthen the Church because we are joined to their glorious bodies. Their voices went silent in the moments when they were slaughtered and their Savior took them to His breast because they have become beloved.

Their blood sanctified Iraq and lifted its righteous people up to the bosom of God. Iraq is made great through their blood and good, sincere Muslims are made great because the people are united together in their testimony that has placed a certain degree of righteousness in this Arab people who are threatened by the swords of lawless men until the day when God arises and judges the earth and we make our pilgrimage together to the Holy City.

If the sanctuaries of the east sowed righteousness in its land, why must righteous people die? Why must children be trampled? But God, may He be blessed and exalted, sends down His grace upon innocent blood and it speaks the truth.

After my pain, I have pity for those murderers who are commanded by their Book to not clothe truth in falsehood (Surat al-Baqara 42). However, I would like to say to them that they will never be able to put an end to the Christians because they have a secret in their history, and it is that martyrdom, from the time of the Romans increased their numbers, because it is a witness to their love of those who hate them. They are always forgiving and do not hate because hatred is a denial of a person's humanity and one makes a mistake to think that it ever bears fruit. "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). One who destroys others will be destroyed by God and for one who does not use the sword, God is his only kingdom, and God alone.

We try very hard to convince ourselves that we are not in the minority when we have faith that in this modern era people believe that religion is in the heart and that it is not a tool for domination or division and that people are able, in the company of their Lord, to live together and to truly cooperate, to stand out in all fields of human knowledge and to use them for everyone's benefit. We see that here in this country and we rejoice in it. The model we have here of national cooperation can be exported to the entire Arab world in which we live together to this day. However, we have an eye on Iraq and an eye on Egypt, where some of our beloved Copts are martyred every year. If you knew them as I myself know them, you would see that there is no one who surpasses them in their love for Egypt and in their intellectual service to that great country. That said, we are certain that Syria, Lebanon, and what remains of Palestine are safe from sectarian hatred and there is no place for fear on the level of citizenship. It is our hope that the sickness of Iraq does not reach here, lest Arabness loses the Christian splendor that it has. But if people fear for the future of their children, then they are liable to emigrate. That is a great illness.

In July or August of 1975, Metropolitan Eliya Saliba, the Orthodox bishop of Beirut, gathered at his residence a group of Lebanese personalities, Muslim and Christian and I was there. Pierre al-Jamil stood up and said, "We Christians are afraid." Taqi al-Din al-Solh, may God have mercy on them both, responded, "Is it not shameful for a person to be afraid?" Pierre al-Jamil replied, "Is it not shameful for a person to cause fear?" My point now is not to support one or the other, but I will say that fear is shameful for one who uses it and one who receives it because we are all exempt in our citizenship from human fear. In my reckoning, we in Lebanon believe in each other. However I would like to emphasize here that no group governs another group and that the nation is enough to govern us all. Dhimmitude no longer exists because the Ottoman state it in the 19th century abolished it from the law. I hope that it no longer exists in anyone's mind, because if it did, it would be a danger both to those who remain in the country and those who have emigrated.

I would like to believe that there is not a plan for the Islamization of this land, since it ultimately means that Christians would leave their homes quietly and politely.

I believe that Lebanese Muslims are honest and sincere when they affirm their commitment to Christians' remaining. Love has grown between us for a very long time, as well as friendships and family relationships.

However, these relationships must be protected politically and economically as we strengthen all aspects of the country.

However, we are brothers with the Christians of Iraq and Egypt and Israel. There there is special fear since the declaration of the Jewish state and I do not in any way exculpate them in any way from being categorized alongside extremist Islamic movements.

As an epilogue, we cling to the bosom of Christ who promised us that He will be with us until the end of the ages. It is He and not us who is the entire age. We are certain that we will remain until His coming, whether we are alive in the body or outside the body. This is a matter of piety for Christians and Muslims until God inherits the earth and all that is in it.

Met. Ephrem's Sermon to the Priests of Tripoli

This sermon was given at the regular meeting of the priests of the Archdiocese of Tripoli, Nov. 13, 2010. The Arabic original can be found here.


In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, amen.

Today, beloved, we celebrate the great feast of Saint John Chrysostom who is considered the hierarch par excellence. On this occasion, and on the occasion of every feast of a hierarch, the gospel passage is read to us from the Evangelist John where he says "I am the Good Shepherd."
In the Gospel of John, as you notice in a number of places in it, Jesus says "I am the Light", "I am the Vineyard", "I am the door", "I am the Good Shepherd". We notice in these expressions the centrality of the "I". This is to emphasize that the axis, the pillar, the center is the Lord Jesus Christ.

He is the door. You know that in ancient times doors were not made of wood or of iron. Usually, a door is like what you see with the royal doors, something that you can push open and then freely enter. This means that the Lord Jesus is the passageway, He is the straight path, the true path that we Christians follow. We must follow Him so that we do not go astray, so that we will arrive at the desired destination.

He also says "I am the Good Shepherd" and this reminds us of the beautiful song in the Psalms: "The Lord is my Shepherd I shall not want, he has settled me in green pastures." The Lord Jesus is the pasture and He leads us to the good pasture, the place where the sheep find good food, true, nourishing food. This pasture is Himself, where we find nourishment and we also find in Him our rest. We find in Him our true life,true happiness because He says in the same passage of the Gospel, "I came that they may have life, and have it more abundantly." We Christians must take pride in the fact that we have the best path, the best happiness, the best joy. We often forget this and we enter through other paths.

So that He may give us life, and give it more abundantly, He says that "the Good Shepherd sacrifices himself for the sake of the sheep." This is the new thing that was not mentioned in the Old Testament, where the prophets talked about shepherd as we find, for example, in Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and others. However, these prophets did not mention that this Good Shepherd sacrifices Himself for the sheep! This is the distinguishing sign that He is liberator and that he is the center of our life.

This is what our holy fathers affirm when they say that human life is Christocentric. If a Christian knows this key, he will not go astray in his life, in any aspect of his life, but rather will return to this center and will once more find his rest.

This is what is mentioned in the Epistle for today, from the Book of Hebrews, which is read on the feasts of hierarchs, where its author talks about the new high priest who offered Himself one time upon the cross in order to give us this eternal life.

Let us learn and let us remember throughout our life that the Lord Jesus Christ is the center of our life and of our happiness, amen.

From the British Press on Middle Eastern Christians

From Ed West of the Telegraph,

The Left's delusion over Islam is baffling to Middle Eastern Christians

And from the ever-interesting, sometimes blindingly insightful and sometimes blindingly stupid Robert Fisk, now of the Independent:

Exodus. The changing map of the Middle East

Only justice can bring peace to this benighted region

West's swipe at Fisk is quite off the mark, I think, but the general drift of his article does have a point.... all three articles are reading.

Met. Georges on Angels and the Angelic Life

The Arabic original can be found here.

The sermon of His Eminence Met. Georges (Khodr) on the Feast of the Archangel Michael at the Monastery of the Archangel Michael, Biq'ata, November 8, 2010


Beloved, I will take as my starting point the name of the saint whom we celebrate today, Michael, which means: who is like God. If we remember Michael, we remember his service to God! Among the saints, there is no one who is not His servant. The primary service of the angels is to give praise to the Lord. They soar around the heavenly throne and recall God. This is the most important work that can be undertaken. As a consequence, they remind us humans that our most important posture before God is to give Him praise! The second thing is that they are spirits sent to serve us. That is, since they love God and glorify him above in the heavens, they descend from that praise to serve us. The angels are our servants, we are not their servants. And Michael is one of these servants. However, if we serve a messenger from God who returns us to God, the important thing is that he returns us to God with repentance. There is no other return. In reality, we have no existence except when we follow God and when we continue to follow Him. This is everything. We do not exist through anything else. We were created for divine love and to spread this love among us. We see that you came for this day-- Is it a crowd around Michael? Or a crowd around the One to whom Michael gives praise?

The final thing is that the work of the brotherhood established here is angelic in the sense that it was born for praise! You hear in this country and in this region "You Orthodox's monks, do they do anything?" No one believes that giving praise is something. It is the most important thing. If you make cars and airplanes or if you talk about politics, this is more important than giving praise?! Indeed, Orthodox monks do not do anything other than give praise. They soar or they try to soar like the angels. If you come across in this diocese or elsewhere people who love God in this way, the way of giving praise, what do we say to them? "Come, work in government as ministers and deputies because this is how you will be useful to mankind! Because when you pray, you are not useful to mankind." This is tremendously corrupt thinking, that speaking with God is secondary work because what is important is that we make cars and planes and so on.... This brotherhood is established here in order to remember us who are bogged down in the works of the world, to remember that this world which God created in order to extract praise from it is not what is important. We want to live and to raise our children, but the most important thing is the love of God. We will try, we who live in the world-- we will try because it is hard-- we will try to give thanks to God because He gave us those who undertake the greatest endeavor, which is to be submerged in God! Whether you understood this or you understood little, you feel on this day that your glorifying the Lord in this place is what you primarily love to do.