Pope Shenouda the Third's "After Death There is no Repentance" sermon

Pope Shenouda III has a popular sermon that preaches the importance of Repentance before Death

First time I heard it, it was a bit longer than the video linked to above, and a bit worse.

A friend was playing it from his mobile phone to me, sharing it with me as something he liked.

My reaction was immediate and surprised even me, I was very sad, and with a serious face I told him that this is full of wrong ideas!

Now I've been seeing it a lot, tossed around the internet, so I'll try to explain here why I hate it.

Note: I will ignore the teaching in it that concerns the idea of "repentance after death", it is not the focus of this entry.

The main problems with this bit of spiritual teaching are:

1- It is investing in guilt. We may disagree how useful that is, but in all cases it is a cheap shot. It can make an old, good woman feel scared to death. Can we at least agree that this is not a good thing?

2- The idea that we repent to be saved from Hell is just flat out wrong, to put it mildly. We stay with God because we love God. You don't get married (The Bride & Groom metaphor is probably the most biblically common to describe our relationship to God) to someone you hate but fear. You do not get married to avoid his wrath!

3- The idea about Repentance, as if it is something to be done but we're too lazy to, is absurd. That is especially true about the part where someone would say "I will repent before I die".

I have only one proper response to this, have you ever thought like this? Don't tell me that some people do, I am asking about you (& don't answer, just think about it). Have you ever thought like this?? Well, you can't really think like this, I'll get to why later.

4- The idea about repentance shows that the idea on Sin isn't very sound either.

Whoever sins is a slave. Slaves are poor wretches who have little control over their lives, and cannot just "quit" being slaves.

Repentance is the liberating force coming from God, that we have to accept and so be free.

Any mention of repentance -after Christ came- that doesn't include Christ as part of the equation is misleading.

The epitome of wrong ideas about Sin is the part where we may say a sinner is effectively telling God "I hate you and defy you, and will keep hating you & defying you till I die".

Now, some people might actually say that at some point, some people are angry with God, and some even hate Him... but those are the ones who do not know Him, do not believe in His goodness or do not believe in His love. They may well say they will hate & defy God, but it won't be because they think they have a long life ahead of them & they plan to repent right before dying!

This brings us back to what makes repentance right before death a comical idea! Sin makes you miserable here and now, on this earth & in this life. If you realize that then postponing your freedom would be a bad joke, exactly like a slave thinking "hmm... I could stay enslaved, be flogged by my cruel master all my life, then pack up & leave five minutes before I die!"

If, however, you do not realize that, or you hate God and don't know Him, then you won't be thinking that you'll repent at all, not ever!

You see, it is comical because it cannot actually happen. You don't think like that if you actually are a sinner. So if you do think that, you couldn't actually be one of those sinners (because you don't seem to know what it does to you!), nor actually hate God (because you wouldn't think you'll repent later on)... you would just be a misguided person.

5- The idea about "people in hell" and how they wish for a minute of life on earth to repent is very sad, but it's also very untrue. It seems we have forgotten what hell is.

Let me elaborate, you live blind & separated from God, then you die and you stay blind & separated from God, this is what we call hell (whether you believe the Fire and Brimstone is literal or not, that statement holds true).

Now, nothing much has changed, you've just departed this world into another, with the same pain & agony. This means that a person in hell would not be wishing for a moment in life to repent, he would be cursing himself & others & maybe even God, but he wouldn't repent (for that is what "wishing to repent" effectively is, from the human side, followed by God intervening) & not be heard.

St. Isaac the Syrian has some excellent writings on this subject, I would strongly recommend reading them.

All the above, as well as other ideas, feelings and sensibilities, make me see this part-of-a-sermon as really harmful.

This is serious, people... The presentation itself is not theoretical theological teaching, but it is a by-product of many misconceptions about Sin, Repentance, Hell, People and God. And when you mix it with some nice Christian Graphics and some sad music, you get a pop product that can affect people badly, without them even noticing.

I'd like you to understand that if I do believe all what i said above (and I do), then I cannot just shut up about it, I must say why I think it's wrong & harmful teaching, in the hope that someone would see the harm and avoid it. So with all due respect for HH Pope Shenouda III, I cannot refrain from writing all that out of respect for him or anybody else, because this is not about him.

If I am wrong about all that, that would be fine and I accept to be taught with a more enlightened teaching; but I cannot believe it's harmful and just sit & watch it circulate without so much as a comment.

Surge of Passion

I'm a Patriot.

Okay, so you don't know what that is... fine. The term has been losing its meaning gradually for a few generations now, so I can hardly blame you. (hmm... how old am I again?)

Patriotism might be distantly related to how someone might feel towards Egypt winning The African Cup of Nations, and it might be a bit more closely related to what makes people write songs like these... but it's NOT that, it's not football and music.

It's more.

And no, it's not about our family and our circle of friends (and for Christian copts, our local Church communities)... That is a myth.

I used to believe that too, by the way. But it's not true, and take it from someone who has experienced freedom from all that, but still felt tied to Egypt more than ever.

After getting married, I am no longer that strongly attached to my bigger family, yet I am just as attached -if not more- to my Country.

And I've lost old friends, made new friends, and got separated from both old & new friends too many times, but that didn't make me feel separated from Egypt.

And for many reasons, I have almost disappeared from my local Church community, and that did not make me feel any less Egyptian.

Oh and by the way, it isn't about memories either.

After some time, memories are forgotten, or rather abstracted into impressions, or morphed into idealistic recollections.

But I'm here, now.

I'm in Egypt, today, and I have no illusions of a startlingly bright near future, nor hazy recollections of a happy childhood.

I see all the corruption around me,

and I ache with it.

And I do NOT want to leave the Country.

I want to die nursing her.

But I sometimes think that it's just me... when I talk passionately about Egypt, people start to give me a curious look like I'm talking in Hindi, or -more commonly- their eyes just start to glaze over!

And I do not get it, at all... it's not that people should have strong feelings towards their Country, it's just that I don't understand how they don't!

I actually feel I need it! I need the strong feelings, I need the fight in me to rise up when Egypt's going down, and I need the surge of passion that I get when I hear or talk about my Egypt.

I could almost see the look you're giving me now!

It'd usually be like: chill out dude!

It's funny, I used to always associate us -Egyptians- with a fiery attitude.

No, not exactly like the one following a truck crashing into your car's trunk in a traffic jam on the 6th of October bridge, but not entirely alien to it either.

That street-quarrel attitude might just be a manifestation of something we cannot fully bring to life anymore.

I don't know, but we as a whole used to care about what happens to us, and what happens to us as a whole, too.

We had passion.

Now why did that die?

I know, there are lots of reasons -almost too many- to choose from,

and may God forgive those who killed our passion, killing us.

I know, it's such a loose blog entry, and I've gone on for too long.

But I have one more question, or maybe two.

Did our Patriotism really die?

I see it in many places, though sometimes indirectly. (I would argue -a lot- that this is true, unbridled Patriotism)

But I swear, I can see we still ache with the Country, and in much more than a purely pragmatic manner.

I can still see us being sentimental hotheads about our Egypt sometimes.

Is that real? And if it is, what is preserving it against everything else smothering it??

The "Discussing the Devine Comedy with Dante" Painting

Just thought I'd share this :)


Discussing the Divine Comedy with Dante

Marge Simpson makes cover of Playboy

Marge Simpson makes cover of Playboy

Err... Seriously?!

Playboy said the cover and a three-page picture spread inside was a celebration of the 20th anniversary of the "The Simpsons" and part of a plan to appeal to a younger generation of readers.

A plan to appeal to a younger generation of readers, now that's just...

Scott Flanders, the recently-hired chief executive of Playboy Enterprises, told the Chicago Sun-Times in an interview that the Marge Simpson cover and centerfold was "somewhat tongue-in-cheek."

Oh and for us Simpsons' fans, the CEO's called Flanders, too...

Seriously?!!!

On Relativism: 5- Pragmatism

The following is a scene from G. K. Chesterton's play "Magic" (which some say inspired Ingmar Bergman's film "The Magician"). A little clarification may be needed. Smith is a Christian Pastor, and the Doctor is a firm skeptic of all things religious. This scene takes place in The Duke of the parish's house, right after his nephew suffers from a sort of shock after he fails to explain a seemingly supernatural event.

Smith: And what harm came of believing in Apollo? And what a mass of harm may have come of not believing in Apollo? Does it never strike you that doubt can be a madness, as well be faith? That asking questions may be a disease, as well as proclaiming doctrines? You talk of religious mania! Is there no such thing as irreligious mania? Is there no such thing in the house at this moment?

Doctor: Then you think no one should question at all.

Smith: [With passion, pointing to the next room.] I think that is what comes of questioning! Why can't you leave the universe alone and let it mean what it likes? Why shouldn't the thunder be Jupiter? More men have made themselves silly by wondering what the devil it was if it wasn't Jupiter.

Doctor. [Looking at him.] Do you believe in your own religion?

Smith: [Returning the look equally steadily.] Suppose I don't: I should still be a fool to question it. The child who doubts about Santa Claus has insomnia. The child who believes has a good night's rest.

Doctor: You are a Pragmatist.

I had wanted to write this post for over a year now, & start it with that particular scene, but didn't quite know how to approach it best.

I think now I do.

What G. K. Chesterton is demonstrating here and later on in the play, is that Rev. Smith is not a believer at all, in fact he is not that much different from the skeptic doctor in that regard. He is merely a pragmatist. He believes that religion affects people positively in the practical sense, hence it should be adopted.

Now consider this:

Someone says they believe in some religious belief, and it suits them. However, they think it might not suit somebody else.

This is becoming a classical relativist statement. Now I'd like to draw your attention to two things, one of them I've always thought is clear as daylight, the other I've only noticed yesterday.

The first is what I referred to before in the second part of this series, how "A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos." as per -incidentally- G. K. Chesterton.

Which I think is pretty easy to understand; you may say that a certain work of art doesn't suit your taste, but a Religion, a Cosmic Philosophy, can't possibly be personal taste. It is about the Universe, not only about you!

Except if...

What if we sometimes think of a Religion mainly in terms of how useful it is to us?

You know, belief in heavenly reward makes people do good things, belief in hell as punishment stops people from doing bad things to each other, religion in general helps answer existential questions... etc.

That is the second implication of discussing religion as a relative idea... that I might be seeing it only in the light of what it brings to me.

If so, then the idea of "suits me, but not necessarily everybody" can be very true!

For example, it suits me to fear hell as punishment, but maybe it'll drive someone else to rebellion rather than submission to God (An atheist I've actually corresponded with wrote that they'd rather believe in no god than believe in my cruel god), therefore it does not suit them.

This means that what we're talking about now, is how said religion affects you, rather than the beliefs of the religion itself.

That is all very well of course, but that is not belief at all!

Like the Doctor said in the scene from the play, that is just pragmatism.

Believing that practical effects of a certain belief are good is not, of course, a bad thing. But believing in a certain doctrine merely for its practical effects, surely is.

It has nothing to do with how true you believe your religion is.

And I thought we were looking for the Truth... weren't we?