On Free Will: 1- Scope Of Work

Alright, now is the time for a series on the big one: Free Will.

A major stumbling block to those first considering Universal Reconciliation is the notion that it neglects human Free Will.
Universalism claims that all people will eventually be reconciled with God, their creator. In infinite time, God will slowly return all his creation to his care.
Those who first hear about that immediately think: Wait, doesn't that over-ride people's wills?
I mean, what if some people don't want that reconciliation? What if they exercise their Free Will to just say no? To reject God?
I would like to discuss that. 

Note: this post assumes that you don't buy into the image of a vindictive God, Penal Substitution or any kind of legalistic theology, if you do then I'm afraid very little of this will make sense to you. You have been warned.

What is Free Will? What is its scope? What are we talking about here?
I mean, are we free to do anything?
Here's the short answer: No.
Here's the long one:

Let's first dissect free will, let's try to figure out where it fits into our world and so our theology.
Here's our problem description: Man has fallen. His Nature is fallen. His "Nature" is basically everything in the natural world, including his body, mind and everything around him.
Here's another way to put it, man has gone to Hell, where Hell is a place of torment, isolation and madness. (I've written about that before, so I won't re-iterate it all)
Salvation, the solution, is God's descent after him into Hell, then His Resurrection. Man takes this Salvation through Communion with God.
Now, let's try to figure out how Free Will fits into the problem, then let's see if it fits into how the solution is meant to work, then see where we go from there.

For starters, our fallen Nature is not something we choose.
To translate this from the realm of the abstract, let's see what this Nature comprises, and what it affects.
People are born into countries, times, traditions and religions that are not of their choosing.
They are born with color, sex and a genetic inheritance completely out of their control.
In fact if you think about it, your very existence is not something you have 'chosen', this is a frequently discussed point in existential philosophy, we have no choice in coming to life.
Then people are brought up in a family they do not choose, in a community they do not choose.
Can you choose if your parents love you? Can you choose if they love each other? Can you choose what ethics you are taught? What's socially acceptable in your community and what's not?

Those are all things that are completely outside the scope of "Free Will".
And here's the real problem, they are not only out of our control, they also cause other things to be out of our control.
Your temper, your intelligence, your sense of security, whether you're loved as a child, whether you feel loved as an adult, your social skills, all those things and much more are outside your control, yet they are things that shape your choices and determine your behavior.
How about your education? Also outside your control to a point, and then although you might feel like you have some choice in what to study, it isn't that simple..
You can only choose from a set of options, and that set is very limited, with many choices outside your reach.
The same applies to what you do for a living, and how much money you make, and therefore what social class you belong to, how you get married and raise your children, who you befriend, and this goes on and on.
So besides  those things outside your choice, there are things that you seem to be able to choose, yet your choice isn't absolute. It's limited. It isn't "free".

We can't over-estimate our power over our lives, Free Will, as commonly defined and used, has less to do with how our lives go than is usually preached.
There's a considerably large ego in that preaching, too, we tend to forget how much we aren't free to choose because we don't like to think of ourselves as less powerful beings.
And by the way, our access to technology has made that feeling more prominent; consider how much control you have over your "online" life, for example, then please consider that you don't have that sort of control over the rest of your life.


Now, as G. K. Chesterton put it, a Cosmic Philosophy is not constructed to fit a man, a Cosmic Philosophy is constructed to fit a Cosmos.
So, does a Cosmic Philosophy where "Free Will" plays a major role seem to fit this Cosmos? No, it doesn't.



Okay, that's all well and good, but you always have a choice to do what's right... right? We have moral freedom, to some degree.
Maybe.
But the choice to do what's right needs you to a. know what's right and b. be 'free' to choose it.
Doesn't that as well depend on our origins? Our upbringing and moral legacy? To some extent at least, we all know morality is dependent on circumstances.
We can get into an argument here about how a lot of good people come from bad homes, stories of radical conversion and that sort of thing, but I find that irrelevant because I don't think radical conversions are impossible, I just think they aren't merely a matter of choice.
Sin isn't a choice.
Where sin is concerned, Jesus has preached the opposite: "whoever commits sin is a slave of sin".

The idea that we sin because we are free to do so is not only unconvincing in a world where everything affects and is affected by everything else, it's also not biblical.

So, what, do we have no Freedom? Are we all predestined?
I am not a Fatalist, no, I do not believe that our lives are predetermined, I don't believe in predestination in any sense.
I do believe in Human Will, I just wouldn't call it "Free", and wouldn't put too much weight on it. I believe its scope of work is quite limited.
I think we do get to choose, but mostly our choices are about how to react to the hand we're dealt in life. And those choices themselves, are affected by that same hand.
Fr. Stephen Freeman has a blog post on this that I find excellent, a must read, actually.
And I believe in Freedom, I just think of it a little differently, I have it redefined in my head.
So next, I'd like to explain what that redefined Freedom is.
I think to do that, we should consider the mechanism by which we are saved.

Stay tuned...

إعتذار - نوعا ما

هذا نوع من الإعتذار لأي شخص يتابع هذه المدونة على أساس انها مدونة مصرية سياسية، ثقافية... الخ. و يجد التدوينات السابقة و الحالية غير مناسبة لفكره أو قناعاته الدينية، و بالتالي غير ذات فائدة.

هذه المدونة ليست مدونة سياسية أو ثقافية أو لاهوتية مسيحية.

المدونة هدفها منذ البداية هو هدف أي مدونة "صادقة" لهاوي في رأيي، و هو تدوين الأفكار حتى لا تضيع، و وضعها امام الجميع لكشفها و تقويتها و تنقيحها و مراجعتها و كشف أخطأها... تعريض الافكار للشمس و الماء و التقليم.

إن كان أكثر ما بها مؤخرا هو التدوينات اللاهوتية أو المسيحية الطبع، فهذا لأني مؤخرا أجد هذه الافكار بداخلي هي الأكثر إحتياجا لصوت، و ايضا الأكثر إحتياجا للتعرض للشمس و الماء و التقليم.

My Emails to Dr. Hany Mina - Afterword

This concludes the major and relevant part of the exchange between me and Dr. Hany Mina that took part in the form of emails.
I just wanted to add a little comment from my side.
When I read those emails now I can see two things that have changed in my view:


1- I see Logic as less of a problem than I did back then. At the time, I couldn't see how anybody can neglect the logic of Universalism. To me it seemed to solve almost all problems posed by other views, and raises virtually none*. Now I know better. I know that Logic has very little to do with how people decide what to believe and what not to. The problem doesn't belong to this realm alone. We are very complex beings, and logical thinking is just too simple a process to fully account for our rationality.


2- I have more respect for the Doctrine of Reserve. I still don't endorse any teaching contrary to my beliefs, but I don't wear those beliefs on my sleeve either. I now believe that ideas should be revealed gradually and cautiously. This is related to the previous point, I guess. If belief isn't logical, then teaching theological concepts shouldn't be merely the laying out of ideas in logical sequence. That just doesn't do it, and can at times cause harm to the listener.


So, that's it. I am glad that I have shared those emails with everybody.

I wanted to share them because I personally found them very heartwarming.


Heartwarming because of the incredible amount of love and patience that Dr. Hany has replied with, and to a person he doesn't know and has never seen before.


I found it heartwarming also because to me, Universalism is just that. It is full of love. It is reassuring. It is consistent with itself and the character of God as I know him. And best of all, it doesn't claim those who don't believe it are expendable; it is all-inclusive, tolerant of others, gives no ultimatums and has no deadlines.


I hope you found that exchange to be as useful and heartwarming as I did back then, and as I do every time I read it again.


*I know people find "free will" questions to be a problem with Universalism, but I never saw free will as a problem. I hope to explain why in later posts.

My Emails to Dr. Hany Mina - 5

Email: 5
From: me
To: Dr. Hany

Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2007 5:13 PM

Dear Hany,

I am very happy with your reply.

I hope you don't get dissapointed at me later, for I am not yet as well educated as you think me to be.

Now I completely agree with what you said about what we can teach publicly on the pulpit & what we can't, at least now. But this may be temporary, after all, one day the official stance of the school of Alexandria was Universal Salvation. (note in editing, the link above no longer claims that. Here's Wikipedia for you)

I also agree that as a temporary economy, the Doctrine of Reserve can be adopted, but in a form of hiding rather than denying certain beliefs. I mean that regardless of the basis of my beliefs, I cannot preach anything opposite to them, for then I would be shedding my Faith & adopting another's & also betraying my integrity, but I can refrain from going into details into things that may harm a listener
 A good example is how Jesus taught using Parables, they teach sometimes in church that he did this to illustrate to simple people, but actually  when his disciples asked him he said he did so for the opposite reason, that is that not all people would understand immediately all what he means, lest they don't understand & be shocked & lose what little Faith they already have.

So I completely understand that there are things we can teach openly & things we can't, regardless of political correctness.

& yes I understand this has nothing to do with truth & lies... but ultimately, it is still God's Truth that will truly ever set a man free, regardless of how it was revealed to him, whether in something he heard or read or thought of in a moment of inspiration. I mean to say that the Doctrine of Reserve (regardless of its form) cannot set people free.

Also, about how we do not have enough documented Biblical support. I agree we don't have enough, & I agree that those with predisposed minds to refuse the ideas in the verses will find a way out, although I have to add that it'll be rather contrived.

Having said that, there are a couple of points I'd like to dwell on here,

1- As was mentioned in the essay I linked to in the last email, "We intuitively hope universalism is true", because it is out of our personal experience of a God who loves us all. "There is something intuitive about our desire to expand redemption beyond orthodox (meaning classic) boundaries. This is significant." & although anybody can argue that nobody can establish a doctrine based on intuition, the essay drew my attention to a doctrine that is based on just that:

"there is one example of a doctrine that Christians have embraced on the basis of intuition, not the Bible. It's the belief that all who die in infancy are saved. The near unanimous voice of the Church has shouted down centuries of belief in infant damnation. And this without a line of Scripture. The basis is our inner conviction. The concept of babies in hell is abhorrent to our sensibilities. The Church has, accordingly, applied universal redemption to those dying below "the age of accountability.""

2- Eternal Hell is a logical problem as was illustrated in the definition linked to in the last email. And that logical problem has to be faced by every person who thinks in a logical mode of thought (not many, I know). Now Saints Like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian solved it by adopting Universal Salvation, St. Augustine solved it (although he neglected God's Omnibenevolence in the process) by adopting Double Predestination, which is an ugly elitist doctrine that -Thank God- cannot be accepted in our "public" church, but my point is he recognised the issue & had to deal with it somehow. (Please correct me if you know any more about St. Augustine that I don't & can explain what he wrote differently).
Now one of the problems we are facing in our church now is a general decline in the appreciation of logic & logical thinking. I cannot count the times I have been told -sometimes by close friends- to not think too much lest I "mess up"... it is not a refused practice, but frowned upon!

I know this is a general problem present in egyptian mentality these days, & it is something promoted by all totalitarian & authoritarian leaders. But if we are to get anywhere, we have to teach the respect of logic & encourage people that it is safe to think. (I know you'll think this is easy for me to say, being unscarred yet by any serious point of authority)

3- Our current teaching is lacking in respect for God's caring Providence & its effect in our lives. & that teaching is -like the intellectual wave that is sweeping the world now- cynical. I read the next bit in the beginning of a long manuscript (that I am just starting to read) about some of St. Gregory of Nyssa's views on Universal Restoration:

"many contemporary opinions concerning the human person stem from a fractured, cynical viewpoint. These views have various, complex sources but share a common trait: disappearance of faith in a divine reality which effectively intervenes in human affairs . The reflections of Gregory of Nyssa are valuable here in that they echo across sixteen centuries with a refreshing modern insight into God's union with human nature through the person of Jesus Christ."

What I mean to say is, we have effectively stopped trusting in the idea that "Everything will be ok... God is here!", just like the rest of the world, we now find any Hope hard to believe in, let alone a Greater Hope. This cannot be right... can it?!

4- "Good thelogoy is good spirituality" as a friend & teacher told me lately. & this thelogy has serious consequences on people's spirituality, meaning that if the belief that God doesn't punish for vengeance promotes mercy & love (which it does of course), the belief in a heaven that ultimately includes everybody just renders self-righteous hatred obsolete. And this is a very important accomplishment. I mean you can no longer look at an enemy & think "yeah when I'll be in heaven where will you be?!" or tell somebody to go to hell! You cannot fall back on eternal hell as a justification of your hatred & a mental method of resolution for your personal vendettas.

I believe it is imperative to promote a better God than us, & the consequences will only be refused by those who hang on to certain dark aspects of themselves that they wish to justify by attributing it to the Divine. & this cannot really be acceptable, can it? I mean I understand why it happens, but for it to become a matter of fact that cannot be resisted is another thing. Plus I believe that it is the nature of light to eventually disperse darkness regardless of how much of the place is hidden in it, & I believe we are not alone & therefore shouldn't worry too much.

One last thing, I know the current state of our church clergy is regretable, to say the least. I understand that many have been wounded & confused by it, & it became as bad as the government in some aspects of it. But believe me not everybody is a mental slave, & I doubt half of our clergy really approve with the authoritarian measures taken against the children of Christ within the church, a change will come & God will take care of that if it is a part of His Light... me & my friends are living proof of that, even if it seems hopeless sometimes.

But our clergy are not above the need for education, if we are to preach a better Life in a better God our clergy are also a target of such teaching. & we are part of the training process of the world & the clergy are also part of the same training process, I trust in God's Providence & Light.

Sincerely & Lovingly Yours

Peter

My Emails to Dr. Hany Mina - 4

Email: 4
From: Dr. Hany
To: me

Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 4:04 AM


Dear Peter

I am very happy to meet you, even if only on the web.  You gave me a lovely beautiful "sudden sharp shock," as Fr Zakaria says.  Having read your words, I, now, long to meet you face to face.  Where are you on this globe? Can we meet in the flesh?  Where have you been all these years? Who are you? How old are you? What do you do in life? What is your background and spectrum of reading?  Very intriguing thinker indeed.  Your challenges remind me of George Bebawi, the best theologian I have met in my 55 years of life, who is now a great friend, 70 years old, living and teaching theology in Indiana, after Nottingham and Cambridge; you must know of him, if not know him well, with the level of your depth.

Now Sir, I thought I was talking to a 20-25 year-old half-read Copt.  I was wrong, now I know better.  I attempted to give you the best balanced summary of what I know rather than what I deeply hope for and believe in, but would rather not expose others to, unless they can savour it well, without feeling a hot "overdose" down their throat.

The principles I mentioned are the best we can express on the pulpit, on Biblical and Patristic basis, although, still, none is acceptable to our Pope and most of our unread politically-correct clergy: 

• 1) Man makes the choice to divorce God, never the other way round. 
• 2) God would not hold man against man's will.  So, "As long as free will exists, Hell exists."
• 3) Hell is a real condition or experience, clearly mentioned in Christ's teaching, but not well defined as "never ending" albeit "eternal" (=of a different system that has no relation to our Time).  So "It is legitimate to hope that all might be saved [and that is why we pray for all who departed], but heretical to say that all MUST be saved..." 
• 4) We all hate the mere thought of Hell, but cannot extinguish it by denial or wave it goodbye by a mere wishful thinking or even a very deep sense of conviction, that God will definitely wash it away, out of love, because He did not say so to us frankly and unambiguously. 
• 5) Hell is not a God-made place; it is a creature-made condition or state of existence (James 1:13-17).  God hates it and wants it abolished.  Hell is not the consequence of Divine justice, but the result of the Creature's injustice to himself.

My true hope and deep personal conviction is the same as yours.  We, however, do not have enough Biblical foundation to stand on and declare "certainty" in a dogmatic way, on this matter.  I wish we had.  The verses I mentioned are not enough to support a dogmatic teaching.  I also know that it is not a chit-chat matter, far from it, but we cannot teach your hope and mine as a theological "discovery" that all have missed before us.  This stance is exactly what they call "heresy," (=preferring beliefs and excluding others) even if the beliefs seem so attractive we should not take them to the exclusion of others.   It is the intelligent and spiritually deep thinker who is at risk of heresy.  It was said of The Bishop of Salamis who excommunicated Origen 2 centuries after Origen departed to Heaven: "This bishop was so shallow and dull that he could not ever commit heresy" !!!!!!  Certainly Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian, were neither shallow nor dull, so all three believed in a Universal Salvation and that is why they were, to say the least, "criticised" and in case of Origen, excommunicated.        I sincerely believe  (out of love and experience of God as my personal friend rather than a Biblical clarity) that God will and must find a solution for this disease of Eternal Death (Hell) but I wish He had spelt it out frankly rather than "whispering" it in a few ears through the centuries!!!  He is a very humorous but mysterious person and likes this "hide and seek" game. Sometimes I feel He is a lover who plays "too cool", " te2eel awy", "ta2laan 3alena", as we say in Arabic!!!  But these feelings of love and its mysteries are difficult (probably dangerous) to declare to those who do not appreciate love, as a very serious matter, and may misunderstand Love.  Probably the Doctrine of Reserve, after all, is not wrong as a temporary economy, until believers deeply discover God's love and are safe to enter into His "inner room," and be entrusted with such Divine Romance.  He leads our hearts to such convictions, as He is not restricted by the "letter" of even the Biblical verses, which are essentially "a finger pointing to the light and not the light itself."  We, however, in teaching, are restricted.

I do respect your feelings very deeply. I am very happy to meet another person who shares the same conviction.  The verses of 1Pt and 1Cor are so important but could be interpreted by the "authoritarian conservative" as: God will be "all in all, only to those who accepted His will and repented"; who can dare argue? and they will give you many verses about: no repentance = no salvation, regardless of 1Pt words.  They even say: no obedience to Church ( i.e. the clergy!!!) = no Salvation, for only the clergy can absolve you.. ...etc, of such extremism and "Islamic Biblical interpretation," which they have mastered well along the years, and have thousands willing to support their point of view: blind leading the blind.  Also the preaching to the sinners of Noah's time has been interpreted that: perhaps preaching to the infants and children who were innocent but certainly not to those who willingly opposed the clergy of the day (Noah!). 

If we can just convince a few persons of the few principles I mentioned in bullet points in this mail we would have covered a huge ground.  Our Clergy succeded in immunising the congregation against any teaching which is not approved and rubberstamped by the clergy.  We need to reform our Church from inside, as far as possible, without being dishonest to God and ourselves and without shocking simple people; a very tight rope to walk.

If you understand what Anba Shenouda has said and written in criticism of my writings, you will appreciate my words even better.  HH believes that:"God is Just and Holy, therefore, He must punish sinners by eternal death, or punish Christ in our stead, otherwise He would not be true to Himself and all Christianity falls.  Hell is God's eternal tool of punishment.  God is the MAKER of Hell and death to punish sinners, as they surely and justly deserve, so that He may remain Holy.  Any other opinion is sheer heresy."  Of course this false medieval theology is only promoted because it pleases the hearts of those who do not know or wish to consider mercy and forgiveness to their enemies or even those who merely differ with them in opinion: religious terrorism par excellence.  I was told categorically by Anba Bishoy, on behalf of HH, that: "If you criticise any of my teaching, you are attacking me personally and I must take action against you to protect the dignity and honour of Priesthood (meaning himself and his own image).    We are here on Earth as the defenders of Divine Justice by Church punishments."           

I have been excommunicated simply because I wrote that man is the executioner of himself and not God.  Anba Shenouda for that gave me the title "the warrior against Divine Justice."  God forgive him.  I know that God has done so, because I have asked Him to, because I know that He would not deny me this request.

So if we can just teach and can pass the message of these bullet points in 20 years we would win many hearts to the Love of God.

Come to us let us meet.  I love you and I long to see you already Sir Peter. You are welcome anytime. Hany

----- Original Message -----

From: Peter

To: Hany Mikhail

Cc:

Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 5:38 PM

Subject: Re: Fr Antonious Amin's debates CONTINUED

Dear Hany (if I may),

Swift reply, thank you for that.

To continue the debate, then...        [all green writing by Hany, in reply]

I can maybe accept the notion that God didn't give us a detailed answer to my question about Salvation after Death, however I disagree that The Parable of The Ten Virgins must mean eternal damnation, because I have -finally- decided to not use parables to form doctrines, since parables are by nature subjective to the listener's perception. A good example of an alternative explanation to the parables of eternal hell is this one on The Parable of Lazarus & The Rich Man.  [Agreed]

What you have mentioned, sir... is pretty much what I had read earlier in other places that discuss the subject based on christian text.

I would like to add the following in introduction, though:

1- This is an important issue, not theological chit-chat, because in the spiritual sense, I need to believe in a God who's better & more loving than myself, which is the main attraction & the most solid argument in almost everything I've began to believe in lately. [agree entirely regarding conviction, but others may not tolerate some consequences of this thought]

2- Through God's revelations to people, people grow in Him. I'd like to believe that God arranged for me to read & hear all these things as part of my teaching, even if these beliefs are to be refined later & some of them left behind, I still believe it is part of my training. [I love this conviction and Divine Romance]

Now to properly define the problem, the clearest definition I have seen is this , [I enjoyed reading this excellent link]   however it neglects christian text since it is a independant of christian beliefs & should apply to all beliefs that hold the view of eternal damnation & an all-powerful, all-knowing & all-loving God. [much of it is Christian and Patristic]

In the christian text we find a couple of verses (I avoid those in parables now [correct, and parables were meant to be a metaphor to press one single similarity with the truth, but not to apply every word in it to a spiritual meaning as some do, changing metaphors into myths] because I'd like to point to the clearer unambiguous verses first) that go further with the issue:

1- 1Pt 3:18-21 establishes the possibility of salvation after death.
2-  1Cor 15: 20-28 establishes the necessity of salvation after death.

(unless somebody can come with a convincing different interpretation of them both)

or as you put it:

1- 1Pt 3:18-21: there has been an invitation (preaching) by Christ to those who were sinners in the days of Noah and not only those 8 persons who were in the ark, AFTER Christ was crucified and went to visit them in the Prison, hence after their physical death. Read it carefully.

2- 1Cor 15: 20-28: This suggests that no part of the creation will remain "outside God" (=Eternally Dead).

Now you said afterwards that these are mere speculations, so I must ask how can they be? If  there is no alternative interpretation of the verses, or is there? [yes, the authoritarian-conservative can give more than one alternative, even not logical, but if from a clergy you cannot wash the illogic that is glued by clerical customary infalibility] you said:

1- As long as free will exists, Hell exists.

true of course, but the idea of universal salvation does not negate free will   [only if you add the proviso that God will still give us all a chance to re-learn and make a new start and new free choice after departure from this life, which the Bible does not spell outright]  , it just says that God's Love for us & Patience will be greater than Man's hatred of himself & stubborness, it adds that since God is all-powerful & is outside Time & the material world & he has no deadlines, He will patiently & ultimately get us all back to Himself (The Parable of The Lost Sheep comes to mind when we imagine God's perseverance & determination to save us), H e will not force us,  because you can't "force" somebody to believe or see some Truth. but will patiently draw us to Himself & use everything in his power - being boundless is important here- to make us see that Truth, accept that Life & walk down that Way with Him, in Him. [I totally share your belief and conviction but we do not have enough documented Biblical support for our good aspirations to teach such convictions on the pulpit]

2- So we must make the best of the one and best (even if not the only) chance of repentance and Salvation that we now have.

Well that's the thing, this sounds like people who believe in an ultimate salvation for all mankind may become decadent & wasteful of God's Grace. This may be true sometimes but it reminds me with the Doctrine of Reserve.

this was a supposed practice that hid certain biblical ideas from a new believer in order to not shake their faith, but the problem is that the other idea on which that doctrine is based is that fear of eternal death (hell) can save some people, which I will not accept. plus it is contradictory to the belief that Truth will set us Free.  [ It is not a matter of truth and lies. It is a matter of bite only what you can chew and eat what your stomach can digest, and gradually move from drinking the milk of children to solid food of adults, as St Paul says]

I understand that people cannot understand the entire Truth in God at once, this I believe is the reason Jesus spoke in Parables. & it relates to how God gives Faith to people in the form of gradual Revelations, so I can understand why people would hesitate to talk about any of that universal salvation stuff, but I refuse to believe that some people are saved through fear & others through Love! a woman cannot marry a man she is afraid of rather than in love with, it is not a healthy marriage, the same applies to the Kingdom of God. [I agree according to personal experience but some people need gradual training after centuries of Islamic and Kor'anic Biblical interpretation by our clergy, otherwise they will vomit and get confused.  I have met a few of those and some were treatable but in a few years not a few hours of talk]

In addition, this point -the necessity of repentance while we still have the chance- comes into new light with the view that God is Life, meaning that if being with God is being alive, then sinning now & repenting later becomes a meaningless (& indeed painful) practice, if you refuse God you refuse Life... that is hardly something any of us would enjoy whether here on earth or in the age after. you agree that sin carries its punishment inside it, it carries misery & sickness & death.

I believe one of the biggest triumphs of the devil is that he convinced most christians that sin is a beautiful thing that God is denying us... [ and the blinding teaching by some of our clergy on the Church by terrorism!!!] it is true that we desire sin sometimes, but that is quite literally a sickness, due to our sick post-fall nature that God is fixing. The view that you refrain from sin ( here it is equivalent to pleasure) & lead a miserable worldly life in order to get pleasure in the afterlife is completely incorrect & doesn't sound christian at all.

this also answers all the questions of "what if I sin all my life and repent at the last minute?" & "How can that be fair to people who were saints all their lives" & all the questions that run along those lines in our heads (The Parable of The 11th Hour Workers comes to mind) God wants to give you Life, when you take it is up to you, if you postpone it, you'll be miserable (spiritual death in seperation from God). so it's not a matter of choice & reward, it's a matter of when you choose to accept the medicine, until then you'll hurt & keep wondering why & looking elsewhere for a happiness that lasts without finding any. so making the best of our time now doesn't fit in this picture, at least not in the direct sense of the phrase. [I meant making the best of our life now, i.e. repenting and growing in God's knowlege, during the one chance I know best and sure of, that is the present moment] 

Moreover, this also sheds a new light on the process by which God is saving us, he is not only trying to make us choose Him (where our Free Will poses a problem), he is doing so by Teaching us & Healing our sickness (which has enslaved us, so he is Freeing us from the bonds of sin), after that choosing him over sin can't be a very difficult choice. I mean to say that here we look at God as a Teacher & a Doctor, rather than a Salesman! This also addresses the issue of Free Will & may give more meaning to it while preventing it from being an obstacle to the greater hope that all will be saved.

My Emails to Dr. Hany Mina - 3

Email: 3
From: me
To: Dr. Hany

Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 7:38 PM

Dear Hany (if I may),

Swift reply, thank you for that.

To continue the debate, then...

I can maybe accept the notion that God didn't give us a detailed answer to my question about Salvation after Death, however I disagree that The Parable of The Ten Virgins must mean eternal damnation, because I have -finally- decided to not use parables to form doctrines, since parables are by nature subjective to the listener's perception. A good example of an alternative explanation to the parables of eternal hell is this one on The Parable of Lazarus & The Rich Man.

What you have mentioned, sir... is pretty much what I had read earlier in other places that discuss the subject based on christian text.

I would like to add the following in introduction, though:

1- This is an important issue, not theological chit-chat, because in the spiritual sense, I need to believe in a God who's better & more loving than myself, which is the main attraction & the most solid argument in almost everything I've began to believe in lately.

2- Through God's revelations to people, people grow in Him. I'd like to believe that God arranged for me to read & hear all these things as part of my teaching, even if these beliefs are to be refined later & some of them left behind, I still believe it is part of my training.

Now to properly define the problem, the clearest definition I have seen is this , however it neglects christian text since it is a independant of christian beliefs & should apply to all beliefs that hold the view of eternal damnation & an all-powerful, all-knowing & all-loving God.

In the christian text we find a couple of verses (I avoid those in parables now because I'd like to point to the clearer unambiguous verses first) that go further with the issue:

1- 1Pt 3:18-21 establishes the possibility of salvation after death.
2- 1Cor 15: 20-28 establishes the necessity of salvation after death.

(unless somebody can come with a convincing different interpretation of them both)

or as you put it:

1- 1Pt 3:18-21: there has been an invitation (preaching) by Christ to those who were sinners in the days of Noah and not only those 8 persons who were in the ark, AFTER Christ was crucified and went to visit them in the Prison, hence after their physical death. Read it carefully.

2- 1Cor 15: 20-28: This suggests that no part of the creation will remain "outside God" (=Eternally Dead).

Now you said afterwards that these are mere speculations, so I must ask how can they be? If  there is no alternative interpretation of the verses, or is there? you said:

1- As long as free will exists, Hell exists.

true of course, but the idea of universal salvation does not negate free will, it just says that God's Love for us & Patience will be greater than Man's hatred of himself & stubborness, it adds that since God is all-powerful & is outside Time & the material world & he has no deadlines, He will patiently & ultimately get us all back to Himself (The Parable of The Lost Sheep comes to mind when we imagine God's perseverance & determination to save us), He will not force us,  because you can't "force" somebody to believe or see some Truth. but will patiently draw us to Himself & use everything in his power - being boundless is important here- to make us see that Truth, accept that Life & walk down that Way with Him, in Him.

2- So we must make the best of the one and best (even if not the only) chance of repentance and Salvation that we now have.

Well that's the thing, this sounds like people who believe in an ultimate salvation for all mankind may become decadent & wasteful of God's Grace. This may be true sometimes but it reminds me of the Doctrine of Reserve.

this was a supposed practice that hid certain biblical ideas from a new believer in order to not shake their faith, but the problem is that the other idea on which that doctrine is based is that fear of eternal death (hell) can save some people, which I will not accept. plus it is contradictory to the belief  that Truth will set us Free.

I understand that people cannot understand the entire Truth in God at once, this I believe is the reason Jesus spoke in Parables. & it relates to how God gives Faith to people in the form of gradual Revelations, so I can understand why people would hesitate to talk about any of that universal salvation stuff, but I refuse to believe that some people are saved through fear & others through Love! a woman cannot marry a man she is afraid of rather than in love with, it is not a healthy marriage, the same applies to the Kingdom of God.

In addition, this point -the necessity of repentance while we still have the chance- comes into new light with the view that God is Life, meaning that if being with God is being alive, then sinning now & repenting later becomes a meaningless (& indeed painful) practice, if you refuse God you refuse Life... that is hardly something any of us would enjoy whether here on earth or in the age after. you agree that sin carries its punishment inside it, it carries misery & sickness & death.

I believe one of the biggest triumphs of the devil is that he convinced most christians that sin is a beautiful thing that God is denying us... it is true that we desire sin sometimes, but that is quite literally a sickness, due to our sick post-fall nature that God is fixing. The view that you refrain from sin (here it is equivalent to pleasure) & lead a miserable worldly life in order to get pleasure in the afterlife is completely incorrect & doesn't sound christian at all.

this also answers all the questions of "what if I sin all my life and repent at the last minute?" & "How can that be fair to people who were saints all their lives" & all the questions that run along those lines in our heads (The Parable of The 11th Hour Workers comes to mind) God wants to give you Life, when you take it is up to you, if you postpone it, you'll be miserable (spiritual death in seperation from God). so it's not a matter of choice & reward, it's a matter of when you choose to accept the medicine, until then you'll hurt & keep wondering why & looking elsewhere for a happiness that lasts without finding any. so making the best of our time now doesn't fit in this picture, at least not in the direct sense of the phrase.

Moreover, this also sheds a new light on the process by which God is saving us, he is not only trying to make us choose Him (where our Free Will poses a problem), he is doing so by Teaching us & Healing our sickness (which has enslaved us, so he is Freeing us from the bonds of sin), after that choosing him over sin can't be a very difficult choice. I mean to say that here we look at God as a Teacher & a Doctor, rather than a Salesman! This also addresses the issue of Free Will & may give more meaning to it while preventing it from being an obstacle to the greater hope that all will be saved.

Peter

My Emails to Dr. Hany Mina - 2

Email: 2
From: Dr. Hany
To: me

Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 (I can't find the exact time)

Dear Peter

Thank you for your email.  And thank you for mentioning our Great Saintly Father Antonios Amin.  A Spiritual Giant and Thinker who taught many and now rests in the Glory of God forever.  Of course feel free to pass the 4-hour-links, and any material that I send you, to any friend.  I hope they are of use to some.  I attach the 4 links again with the summary article that I wrote when I sent them to arbible group.  I also attach the 43 page English summary of the 272 page book on Divine Justice, which I also attach as PDF files............

.........  The book as it stands has been approved by the late Anba Athanasius of Beniseuf, who wrote its Introduction, as you can see, and of course by Fr Antonios Amin who has been my spiritual father all the past 36 years and who has written the Introduction of my first book "God, Man and the Universe, 1992," because of which Fr Antonios Amin suffered much. 

Now regarding your question:

Is there hope [in Salvation] after death? 

The straight answer is that God did not give us a clear unequivocal answer of a yes or no.  All what people say on this matter is mere speculation.  There are hints that there is such a hope, in some verses, and others hint to the opposite (e.g. the wise and foolish virgins).  The words of Christ about the possibility of forgiveness "in this age or in the age to come ," when talking about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, seem to some to make a hint, but do they?  Read 1Pt 3:19-20 and you will find that there has been an invitation (preaching) by Christ to those who were sinners in the days of Noah and not only those 8 persons who were in the ark, AFTER Christ was crucified and went to visit them in the Prison, hence after their physical death.  Read it carefully, it was Fr Antonios Amin who pointed this part to me.   Also when the parable speaks of remaining in the prison until "paying the last phils (penny)" and those who will be "beaten more and those beaten less, " St Isaac the Syrian comments, in his commentary "On Gehenna," by saying "all what could be measured must have an end."  Also St Paul tells us that eventually when the whole creation is "subjected to Christ," Christ will also be "subjected to the Father, so that God [the Father] would become ALL IN ALL" (1Cor 15: 28). This suggests that no part of the creation will remain "outside God" (=Eternally Dead).  However, having said all that, which is also discussed in a book by a Catholic Priest entitled "Dare I say all might be saved?"  Some theologians also say that Eternal Death (=separation from God eternally) cannot remain eternal for 2 reasons: 1) this would mean God has been defeated. 2) This means that Death would become ETERNAL, which is in a sense the DEIFICATION OF DEATH!!!!!!  3) the word ETERNAL does not mean "never ending," but it means all what belongs to the system that is "outside Time" as we know it.  Mere speculations, which I only mention as you wished to discuss the matter!

So, this is all a mental and intellectual exercise and brain storming acrobatics, which should not be used to conclude DOGMA, but remain as "opinions"and "speculations", or at best a "HOPE," but not certainty.   Bishop Kallistos Ware, the retired Oxford Univ. Chair Prof. of Orthodox Christianity (Greek Orthodox convert from Anglicanism) put it well by saying: "It is legitimate to hope that all might be saved [and that is why we pray for all who departed], but heretical to say that all MUST be saved... . As long as free will exists, Hell exists." Because God cannot force those who hate Him to remain in His presence eternally; this is against love and free will.  That is the reason St Isaac wrote that Hell may very well prove to be the kindest and most merciful condition, accepted by God, for those who cannot face His healing Light , Holiness and Love, because these attributes of God to them constitute a fiery furnace of shame and agony, when God's Love reminds them of what they reject and hate, hence they cannot tolerate.  Hell is man [and devil] made.   We hope that God has another solution, but if He does, He certainly did not tell us about it frankly.  So we must make the best of the one and best (even if not the only) chance of repentance and Salvation that we now have.

Hany

My Emails to Dr. Hany Mina - 1

This a series of Emails exchanged between me and Dr. Hany Mina of 

 http://copticorthodox-divinejustice.com/, primarily discussing Christian concepts related to the possibility of Salvation after Death.

I have recently decided that I'd like to share those emails with a wider audience, so I am posting them here with slight editing (mainly removing parts irrelevant to the discussion and names for anonymity)

Here goes nothing:

Email: 1
From: me
To: Dr. Hany

Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 8:38 AM

Hello Sir,

first of all I'd like to introduce myself, my name is ..................

I apologize for the late email, .......

I had thought of sending you this email a long time ago, but I waited for an introduction from ..... for 2 reasons, the first is that I wasn't sure if you'll trust me, what with the sad general state of our coptic church, & I don't just mean the points of authority, but those who oppose them as well. The whole thing is quite ugly & bears more resemblance to a theocracy than to a church, quite frankly! & this has driven people to watch their words too closely, which is sad for a family in Christ, but has become a must in a way. 

How I heard of you is through 4 hours of your recorded voice, passed on by a friend that I assume he got from a friend. by the way I have them on the internet at my personal online storage space: .........................................
I hope you do not mind. Please tell me if you do & I will remove them, I just wanted to put them in a place where a couple of friends can download them.

Now why I wanted to email you, well I did have some questions, but it's primarily because of something that was hinted at in one of those hours & later hinted at by Fr. Antonious Amin. a few months before he passed away a friend was at his appartment, & I don't know what were they talking about but he asked Fr. Antonious if there is hope after death, & Fr. Antonious's reply was: Yes there is.

Now I see there must be, but at that time I was surprised he said so, after some discussion with my friends we reached a point where we agreed there must be hope after death, we just didn't know how. Then we remembered you hinted at that in one of those recordings when you said something about people dying in the old testament (& indeed, the new testament as well) not as punishment but -as you put it- God wanted to "get the naughty boy out of the room".

Since that time when I wanted to ask you I have searched for answers for quite some time, on websites & in online encyclopedias & I even ventured into Schaff's compilation of the writings of the Alexandrine fathers, but I have to admit I didn't get so far there.

Now my thoughts on the subject have developed, and I still need you to please get in touch with me & tell me what you had meant by that hint, what is the rest of the thought?

.....................................

Thank you.

God Bless

أين العزاء؟

مشي ببطء ناحية مقدمة الكنيسة، وقف أمام ما يسمونه بستر الهيكل، باب من القماش قرمزي، مخملي الملمس و عليه نقش كبير لفارس في كامل عدة الحرب على حصان أبيض، في يده رمح يطعن به كائن غير معروف، ذو لسان معوج.

وقف منحنيا أمامه، ثم خر على ركبتيه فجأة كمن سقط، و أحنى جبهته للأرض.

قام ببطء، و رفع يداه - و إن لم يرفع رأسه.

جدي رجل قوي، هكذا عرفته دائما.

صعيدي رصين، حازم، ذكي، قوي.

و لكني لم أعرفه أبدا وحيدا، كانت جدتي دائما معه.

و الآن هي ليست معه، أعتقد انه يمكننا الآن ان نسمح له بأن لا يكون قويا و لو لليوم فقط.

جلس في أول صف في الكنيسة بحسب الأصول، و انضم له أبي بعد قليل،  ثم انضممت أنا لهم.

أشعر بأني غير مرئي. أنا خارج الموقف، أراه من بعيد و أكتب عنه في ذهني.

بعد قليل من الوقت يدخل اربعة رجال حاملين صندوقا يضعوه امام الهيكل.

يا الله، كم هو صغير!

كيف يمكن ان يسع هذا الصندوق الصغير إنسانا؟

و لماذا صندوق؟ أليست الصناديق للأشياء لا للناس؟؟

أين العزاء؟

أشيح بوجهي فيقع بصري على لافتة ورقية صغيرة على أحد أعمدة الكنيسة: رجاء محبة عدم لمس الزهور. ابن الطاعة تحل عليه البركة.

يخطر ببالي أنه من الأنسب ان نترك الزهور تحمل البركة، خاصة في وقت كهذا. أذكر نفسي بأن الوقت غير مناسب لهذه الأفكار.

يبدأ الكاهن في تلاوة الصلوات باللغة القبطية القديمة. أفكر لماذا لا يتلو الصلوات بالعربية، خاصة في ظرف بهذه الخصوصية.

أقرر أن غالبا اللغة القبطية أفضل، فربما نبكي إذا فهمنا الكلمات.

بعد قليل يبدأ في القاء كلمة على الحضور. يقول شيئا ما عن ضرورة قرب الإنسان من الكنيسة حتى متى وافته المنية كان مستعدا. لا أنتبه لأغلب ما يقول.

ينهي الكاهن الصلاة، فجأة يندفع جدي نحو الصندوق و يهوي بيداه و رأسه على سطحه. يصرخ و لا أسمع من صراخه سوى "صليلي أحصلك".

يبعده أبي برفق عن الصندوق، يقوده للخارج منحنيا، و أتبعهم أنا.

نقف بالخارج و يمر الحضور بنا، يسلمون باليد و بالتقبيل أحيانا.

أين العزاء؟

يركب أبي و جدي و معهم الكثير من الأقارب سويا في حافلة خاصة صغيرة. تسير خلف سيارة نقل الموتى و تتجه نحو المدافن. أتبعهم أنا في سيارتي.

نصارع زحام شهر رمضان وقت الظهيرة، نصل إلى أرض المدافن. نترجل و نسير سويا، يتقدمنا شابين يعملون بالمدفن يبحثون عن المكان الذي اشتراه و أعده جدي لهذا اليوم.

نجده بعد عناء. يفتح الشابين بابه الأسود الصغير المغطى بخيوط العنكبوت.

يحمل الرجال الصندوق و ينزلونه المقبرة، يحاول جدي ان يمسك به مرة أخيرة. يودعها مرة أخيرة.

يصيح أحدهم ان نصلي سويا فنفعل ذلك.

أبانا الذي في السموات. ليتقدس اسمك. لتكن مشيئتك.

اتأبط ذراع جدي و أسير معه للخارج ببطء. لا نتكلم عن شيئا يذكر حتى نصل إلى الحافلة. أساعده في الصعود و اقول له اني سأراه في المنزل بعد قليل.

أذهب إلى بيت جدتي و نتناول الغداء سويا كلنا، بدونها لأول مرة.

بعد قليل يذهبون و أنا معهم  إلى مبنى ملحق بالكنيسة لنستقبل واجب العزاء من الأصدقاء و الأقارب، في القاعة نسمع بضعة عظات مسجلة، جافة.

يمر اسقف، و كاهن، و شماس.

يلقون هم أيضا عظات جافة.

و أنا مازلت انظر حولي إلى الجميع.

أين العزاء؟

عن الشركة

تحذير: التدوينة دي هتبقى غريبة شوية... فيها كلام في  الدين (المسيحي)... و فيها كلام عاطفي... و فيها كلام عن مصر... يعني غالبا هي مش مناسبة لحد!


الإنسان كائن خلق للمشاركة، ده الفكر المسيحي* في هدف وجود الإنسان. و بتعبر أدق، الإنسان كائن مشاركي (communal)، يستمد وجوده - حرفيا - من شركته مع الله. و هدفه الأسمى هو الاتحاد بالله.
و الفكر ده لا ينظر للإنسان كفرد بقدر ما ينظر للبشرية جمعاء ككيان واحد. يؤمن إنها كلها مرتبطة ببعضها، و ده على المستوى الوجودي مش بس بالمعنى الإجتماعي المعتاد بتاع افعالنا بـتأثر على مجتمعاتنا.
يعني نقدر نقول إن الواحد مننا مربوط وجوده بالله (فكر في "الروح") و مربوط برضه بالبشرية كلها، و البشرية كلها مربوطة بالله.
الرابطة دي من نفس طبيعة الحب، أو نقدر نقول إن الحب أحد تجليات الرابطة دي.


و مع الشركة و الحب مفيش أنانية، نتيجة الفكر ده مفروض يبقى إحساس بأننا "كلنا في الهوا سوا" يؤدي لاسلوب حياة "يا نعيش عيشة فل يا نموت احنا الكل!"
ده على فكرة يفسر حاجات كتير من أول صلاة الكنيسة للعالم كله مرورا باستخدام نظام - يمكن ان نسميه الآن إشتراكي - في توزيع الثروة في الكنيسة الأولى و لغاية الإستشهاد الجماعي في فترات معينة من تاريخ الكنيسة**.


الأنانية - حتى الأنانية الروحية بتاعة فكر في خلاص نفسك - لا مكان لها في الايمان ده خالص، بالعكس، كل أشكال العزلة هي موت روحي، سواء كانت عزلة عن الله أو عزلة عن الناس***.


الفكرة ان علاقة الفرد بالبشرية كلها - و علاقته بكل فرد فيها - مش علاقة اختيارية. و ده شيء مميز في الفكر ده. أنت مش بتختار إن مصيرك يرتبط بمصير كل الناس، لكن أنت محتاج تحدد إزاي ناوي تتعامل مع الموضوع ده.
الألم رد فعله الطبيعي و الفوري هو العزلة لحماية الذات و لحس الجروح، لكن رد الفعل المسيحي - يعني المستمد من الشركة مع المسيح - و بالتالي بيسحب من حساب مفتوح - هو العكس  بالضبط، المتألم يعين المتألمين و المجرب يعين المجربين.
و الألم مش إختياري، لكن العطف على المتألمين و الصلاة لأجلهم و خدمتهم مثلا فعل إختياري و مشاركي و فيه تتجلى ألوهية الإنسان أي مشاركته لله.


و على الناحية التانية، كل محاولة من الإنسان لفصل نفسه عن ما حوله و من حوله غالبا هتنتهي بيه في مكان وسطي لا راحة فيه ولا مكافأة. نوع من اللامكان (limbo). بمعنى انه لا هينجح يفصل نفسه تماما عن الالم الناتج من شركته مع الجميع، ولا هياخد القوة النابعة من عمل الله فيه لاقامة العالم و لا هيحس بالفرح الناتج عن إنتصار الله للجميع من الألم و مداواتهم منه. 


الكلام ده ينطبق على حاجات كتير قوي
ينطبق على عزلة الأقباط داخل كنائسهم. آه هما ظاهريا في شركة مع بعض، لكن في الواقع انفصالهم عن المجتمع و تعاليهم عليه بيهدم الشركة دي و بيسطحها. كأن لما الله نزل للعالم، احنا قلناله انزل أنت احنا هنقعد لوحدنا!


ينطبق على عزلة الكنيسة القبطية عن باقي كنائس العالم و خوفها من البروتستانت و تجاهلها للكنائس الأرثوذكسية و الكاثوليكية الأخرى، و من سخرية القدر - و ربما من تدبير الله لتعليمنا - إن لما اشتدت علينا  الحروب الفكرية و الروحية ماعرفناش إن حروبنا غيرنا برضه بيحاربها، و فيه اللي غلب كمان - واحنا بنحاول نعيد اكتشاف العجلة وحدنا!


ينطبق على عزلة كثير من المصريين و بالذات أولاد الطبقة الوسطى و العليا عن باقي الناس، لغاية لما قامت ثورة شعبية و ظلت نسبة مش قليلة رافضة تعترف بالواقع و بعدين بقت مقاومة له****. بنسمي دول حزب الكنبة و أغلب ظني انهم مش قاعدين على كنب بيتهم، لأ دول مستخبيين تحته!


ينطبق على عزلة كل منا عن مشاكل الناس اللي حوالينا حتى و إن كانت مؤثرة علينا. زي لما أتفرج على تايملاين تويتر بتاعي و ألاقي كل الناس بتتكلم عن شيء ما (غالبا متعلق بمصر الثورة) و ألاقي صديقي اياه مصمم ميتكلمش غير عن إزاي هو نعسان أو جعان أو يتكلم عن دماغ الموسيقى اللي بيعملها. كل ده كلام ظريف و هو حر، لكن محاولاته المستميتة لتجنب الكلام فيما يضايقه تحت إعتقاد إن ده أريح له بيفكرني بالأطفال لما يغموا عنيهم و يفتكروا إن كده ماحدش شايفهم مادام هما مش شايفينه!


ارتباطك بالبشر مش هايتفك لمجرد إنك تجاهلته، في الواقع هو مش هايتفك خالص.


ينطبق على عزلتنا أيا كانت، و في كل عزلة بنبعد عن الشركة.
أنا فاهم كويس قوي إزاي الشركة دي ممكن تبقى مخيفة. مين يقدر يشيل كل الهم ده على كتفه؟
بس احنا مش هنشيل حاجة، ربنا هو اللي شايل الهم، احنا هنشترك معاه على قدنا، و في ده هنكتشف قوة و سعادة و شعور بالكمال. أيوه هو اللي احنا بندور عليه ده.


الهروب مفيش منه فايدة، الحاجة الوحيدة اللي هيعملها هو تطويل مدة الألم.


حلنا الوحيد هو في الإستسلام للحب الإلهي اللي بيزقنا ناحية اننا نحس بالناس و نشترك معاهم.


* لما أقول مسيحى أنا دايما قصدي الأرثوذكسي الشرقي إلا لو قلت غير كده. للأسف، فكر الكنيسة القبطية الأرثوذكسية حاليا هو ابعد ما يكون عن الفكر ده رغم إنها كانت في يوم من الايام منبعه الأول.
** لا يترجم الإحساس ده لعقيدة منطوقة بخصوص الحياة الأخرى في أغلب الحالات، غالبا بسبب مبدأ المستيكية الشرقي.
*** فيه طبعا فكر رهباني ينادي بالعكس و هو ده السائد، لكن أنا دايما هاتكلم عنه بصفته فكر منحرف - مع كامل احترامي و حبي للأنبا أنطونيوس مؤسس الرهبنة.
**** أنا عارف ان رافضي الثورة مش كلهم لون واحد و اسبابهم تختلف. أنا هنا باتكلم عن نوع واحد من الرافضين و أحد الأسباب فقط.

Say that I'm okay

This is a translation of Mashrou3 Leila's song Inni Mneeh
I find myself compelled to translate it. Don't ask why...
I may have got a few words wrong, by the way, so apologies for that.

Come let's burn down this city,
and build a nobler one.

Come let's forget this age,
and dream up a kinder time.

You still have nothing
you would lose nothing.
and I have tired of my own company.

I had wished to change the world, I don't know how the world has changed me.
I had wished to carry heaven, and here I am hardly carrying myself.

Say that I'm okay
Say that I'm okay

Society's Silenced Conscience

Minorities can act as a society's conscience, as they are less prone to adopting an idea just because it is prevalent in the larger society.
However Copts in the past 50 years have been isolated to the point of being unable to communicate with society, silencing that 'conscience'. Other minorities exist of course, & some have been carrying out their role fine.
Not Copts though, no, we became wholly "other", or so we liked to think!
You see, we are completely oblivious to the larger Egyptian society's issues, but that doesn't mean they don't affect us. Our isolation did not - as it could not - protect us from the rest of society, it merely reduced our contribution to it, and so lessened our effect on it, not the other way round.
So Copts got infected with all of society's flaws alright, we just didn't want to think of it that way. After all, we're 'different'. Of course, we had no way to identify with the bigger and similar issues in society, we knew nothing about them.
So we neither understood what was wrong with Society - or us, for that matter - nor could communicate with it properly. So far from being society's conscience, we became a burden on it, and society had no choice but to treat us as such.
True, our isolation was not solely of our making. The Islamization of society's culture contributed to our lack of belonging to it.
Ironically, Copt Leadership believed that to protect us from the effects of that Islamization, they should promote the Coptic identity. The sad result was we only made the Islamist's job easier by shutting ourselves away, while at the same time getting Islamized ourselves!
Today, after Jan25 and the national call for an awakening of the Egyptian identity, we find ourselves confused.

For we've never truly believed there's a thing called the Egyptian identity, the idea was perceived to be at best foolish, at worst un-Christian. This isn't very different from the Salafi idea that "Islam is a Nation, allegiance to another is infidelity". See how Islamized Copts are?
Yet to those of us who are less isolated Coptic identity was not enough. We saw in Jan25 a hint of something bigger we can belong to.
After years of isolation though, integration is difficult & all sides are sensitive towards it.

We know what to expect & we don't like it.

Church groups debate 'our role in society' in endless loops, all afraid to take an actual step outside their comfort zones. And when a rich Copt makes an old joke about Niqab & beards, he gets instantly flamed. The response reads like: Stay in your shell, will ya!
So it seems we're required to slip slowly and inconspicuously back into society. Our role as 'conscience' is not yet acceptable.
Which is expected, I suppose. This role will only be aceptable when our contribution to society is visible & we are fully integrated.
So now, I believe that we must force ourselves to get entangled in all the shit outside Church - as a change from the shit inside - and share in the pain of the Nation, argue for it - rather than for 'us'- & re-enforce the Egyptian identity with our allegiance to it, until someday we become indispensable to society, and it to us... then we can confidently address society's issues as a part of it.

And as bonus, I promise you we'll resolve our own "internal" issues, all the while realizing they aren't really ours alone, but part of a whole that we Copts failed (and in some cases actively refused) to see.