The
sessions of a conference entitled, ‘Laymen and the Church,’ closed after two days of
discussions. There
were different evaluations of the conference and its final recommendations. Mustafá Sulymān
from
al-‘Usbū‘ periodical estimated that the conference was successful despite some problems that
arose before and during its sessions. There were disagreements between the laymen
themselves.
Kamāl
Zākhir Mūsá, the coordinator and president of the
conference, attacked the Orthodox Community Council
considering it to be “an elitist council” interested in
the “Bourgeoisie elite” only. At the end of the conference,
Zākhir called for changing its name.
Zākhir stressed the need to reform the Orthodox Community Council,
claiming that its funds belong to
the people and that the money should be invested in developing projects.
To that,
Zākhir
accused some people of trying to disturb the conference and arousing rumors against it in the mass media.
Zākhir expressed that the main reason of the conference was to invite the elderly thinkers. Some
individuals who were
invited did not attend as they feared the church’s reaction. He asserted that he was
personally an admirer of Pope Shenouda,
and that when he was younger he had been one of the pope’s
students.
In the conference Zākhir expressed that
the main problem of the church was its lack
of knowledge and that he found it interesting that some of the Muslim
participants decided to hold similar
conferences to present the Muslim laymen’s viewpoints concerning the Islamic
Institution.
Egyptian
publications agreed on the fact that the first day was relatively calm in comparison to the
second day of
the conference where hot problematic issues were discussed.
Dr. Nabīl Lūqā
Bibāwī, known to be pro-Coptic Orthodox Church, did not participate in the first day. He only
stayed in his car
in front of the Egyptian Association for Enlightenment where the conference was held, and
asked one of his men to fetch him
the papers. On the second day however, he presented a paper in which he
asserted that the church was directed in a democratic
way and that its funds are in safe hands.
When
Zākhir said that Bibāwī was sent to the conference
by the Coptic Orthodox Church the
latter denied, saying that he came because he thought that things would be discussed in a
democratic
objective way.
Bibāwī criticized the conference for exposing the church problems in the
media. He also criticized the participation of Muslims in the conference arguing that they are not
qualified to attend a
conference that discusses the church’s private problems, and that, for example,
Christians could never be invited to
participate in a conference about the Azhar problems.
Bibāwī also criticized the timing of the conference that
corresponded with the annual
anniversary of the Pope Shenouda III’s consecration at the Holy See.
Midhat Bishāy
participated in the conference and criticized its opponents who criticized it and considered it as failure
before it had even
begun.
In his interposition in the conference, Bishāy asserted the
pastoral’s role that was missing in some
churches, expressing that the pastor and his role is the corner
stone in any religious institution.
Bishāy
described Pope Shenouda III as a good pastor and a
noble symbol of the present Coptic Church. He also denoted that despite
the various disagreements and
controversies in the Coptic Church, Copts still believe the Pope Shenouda has white hands
[Reviewer:
Meaning that Pope Shenouda was not involved]in many positive incidents in the church.
There were many
echoes about the conference in the Egyptian media. Dr. Nabīl Lūqā Bibāwī
published an
article entitled, ‘Pope Shenouda III and the Future of the Church,’ in al-Ahrām,
in which he described the
people of the conference as the “Christian Khawārij” who broke out
of the Orthodox religious
traditions.
Another accusation was launched by Najīb Jibrā’
īl in al-Ahrām al-
‘Arabī of November 18th when he
announced his rejection to Kamāl Zākhir and
Jamāl As‘ad’s public
comportments that destroy the national unity, highlighting a similar activity by
Kamāl Zākhir
five years ago when they issued the so-called ‘Reform Paper.’Jibrā’īl referred to
the paper
as one of mere insults. [Reviewer: Jamāl As‘ad is a Labor Party member and former parliament
member, who often critiques the Coptic Orthodox Church. For more information see link
http://www.coptichistory.org/new_page_1108.htm]
Hānī Labīb, the second
coordinator of the
conference criticized Bibāwī’s article and expressed that the organizers
of the conference were not against the
Coptic Orthodox Church, but that they merely wanted to represent a
secular progressive look from within the church.
Labīb asserted that it was Pope Shenouda alone who
was authorized to launch new initiatives.
Labīb
clarified some points about the conference.
He expressed that Max Michael was not invited, and that the rejection of some
Protestant and Catholic
papers were for diplomatic reasons for the organizers did not want the conference to be a place for
settlement between the different churches.
‘Ādil Jirjus Sa‘d commented
in Rose al-
Yūsuf of November 15 that the citizenship issues should not be discussed by a
certain elite of society. Citizenship
cannot be discussed from a Coptic viewpoint only because it will
appear to be deficient. He criticized the conference for
inviting Muslim people, arguing that the simple
public will understand it as a form of Islamization of the church.
In
the same context Ahmad
Bāshā wrote in Rose al-Yūsuf of November 18-24 that the Muslim participant,
Dr.
‘Usāmah al-Ghazālī Ḥarb, used the intensive media presence in the conference to propose his
personal
political program that does not concern the church. He tried to mix up papers attributing the
Copts troubles to the general
political atmosphere and lack of democracy. [Reviewer: Dr. al-
Ghazālī Ḥarb is a member of the Egyptian
Shūrá Assembly, and general
secretary of the Egyptian Council of Foreign Affairs; he also occupies many
positions. For more information
see links http://www.arabdecision.org/show_cv_5_14_21_1_6_577720430.htm; http://www.ecfa-
egypt.org/En/Default.asp; http://www.shoura.gov.eg/Shūrá_en/index.asp ]
To that, the conference
came out with five
final recommendations: first, establishing a strong relationship between Copts and the
government on the one hand, and Copts
and the Community Council on the other by activating the citizenship
policy.
Second, reforming the relations between
laymen and the clergy to move from dependence to
integration in order to develop the institution of the church, and support
laymen in their public and
social work.
Third, issuing a legislative reference to control the church
trials.
Fourth,
decreeing a draft law concerning the Community Council.
Fifth, decreeing a draft law about the
Patriarchal elections according to the canon law and defining special rules for ordaining bishops and
priests, in addition to
the importance of changing the patriarch’s assistants to prevent creating power
centers and establishing a means to
facilitate the public communication with the pope.
At the end of
the conference Kamāl Zākhir
Mūsá announced that the second conference on ‘Laymen and
the Church’ will be held on the 21st of March,
on Mothers day; for Egypt is the first mother and
the church is the other.
