Arab West Report Egyptian press summaries and media research for dialogue

The recent killings in Nag Hamadi have engendered various reactions throughout Egyptian society. Some have cursed the darkness, while others have closed up their eyes and ears altogether. Some, however, have been spurred to action, but sensitivity, distance—geographically and culturally, and ignorance make it terribly difficult to know what to do. We at the Center for Arab West Understanding (CAWU) find ourselves in this third grouping. We have a project designed to encourage peacemaking, and we have a region in Nag Hamadi which is in need of peace. We also possess internal compunction to make a difference, but find these motivations are like the hitting of a head against a wall; what can we do? With fractions of ideas we sought counsel from a trusted advisor, Bishop Marcos of the Coptic Orthodox Church, of the diocese of Shubra al-Khayma.

 

Bishop Marcos, in addition to providing spiritual leadership for an influential district of Cairo is also the point person for communication activities of the church. He also serves as a board member for CAWU, and has provided us with advice and insight for many years. Our group was composed of Eng. Sawsan Gabra, head of CAWU, Osama al-Ghazoly, and Jayson Casper, and shortly after arrival we welcomed additional parties to our conversation.

 

Bishop Marcos had informed us by telephone as we sought to gain an audience with him that he was traveling on Sunday to Nag Hamadi with a delegation from the United States and Australia. The news that he was to visit the area was encouraging—we hope that he might provide great service to the church and city—but what was this foreign delegation?

 

As we began our conversation the facts became clear and Bishop Marcos introduced us to the foreigners in question. To say delegation is hardly correct; there are three Orthodox of Egyptian descent who live abroad, two from the United States and one from Australia, and just happened to be in Egypt at the time of his visit, and one Mennonite of non-Egyptian descent—American—who  was coming along as well. These would be enrolled in the larger group of twenty-five or so, headed by the bishop but including other monks and priests of the Orthodox Church. They will be going to offer condolences to the bereaved families of Nag Hamadi, both Christian and Muslim, and provide moral support for Bishop Kyrillos, the presiding bishop of the area.

 

With these also in attendance we began our meeting by briefly summarizing some of our recent activity in CAWU, but quickly moved into the events of Nag Hamadi. Bishop Marcos expressed his clear opinion that the nature of the killing was sectarian, having nothing to do whatsoever with the alleged rape of a 12 year old Muslim girl in Farshut by a Christian young man. Bishop Marcos stated unequivocally that a revenge killing would have taken place targeting the family of this young man; never do tribal customs allow for random assassinations.

 

We asked the bishop if he believed there was anyone else behind the murders other than the three accused individuals who perpetrated the crime. Were they funded or directed by other elements in society, or did they act alone? While we did not assume that Bishop Marcos would have the answers to these questions, we thought that there might be information available in the church that could be close to the source through Bishop Kyrillos. Most likely due to the political pressures facing him, Bishop Kyrillos has changed his public statements about the crime; it is imagined, however, that he would speak freely and comfortably behind the scenes with church authorities. Most likely he will do so with Bishop Marcos on Sunday. In any case, either from lack of information or consideration of propriety, Bishop Marcos did not answer, and changed the subject in a direction that is more important for us as an organization.

 

While we believe that peace and reconciliation must be based on the truth and warrants journalistic investigations, for our project this is secondary to the task of putting a community back together. Bishop Marcos continued his answer by stating that whether or not this was the act of one man, Nag Hamadi is just one incident, and the root causes of this sectarian tension throughout Egypt must be addressed. 

 

We concurred, and inquired what should be done. Bishop Marcos, familiar with these issues on the national scene, spoke of broad topics: lack of Christian presentation on state television, lack of Christian representation in higher administrative positions, and an educational curriculum with a bias toward Islam[i]. We did not disagree with his analysis, but wished a narrower focus. There are many people working towards the rectification of these issues, but we look at the local. Root causes are addressed through people; what should we do to address the root causes in peoples’ hearts in Nag Hamadi?

 

We discussed a few of our initial ideas, most of which were exposed for their flaws. The bishop, however, focused on the local need for justice. If we are able to visit the area, he said, do not go until after the judgment has been rendered on the criminals. There is no ability or usefulness in working for reconciliation until after justice has been done and the law has been applied. The people will be in too uncertain a state, nervous and cautious, until the matter is taken care of. Afterwards, when things settle down and begin to return to normal, your work can begin.

 

Bishop Marcos’ use of the word reconciliation, following our own, gave us pause and prompted conversation long after our discussion ended in the church. We debated if we should change our discourse and drop the word ‘reconciliation’ from our vocabulary. Egypt has witnessed a spate of ‘reconciliation sessions’ in recent years, in which the event is pushed by the government, bypassing the law in favor of ad hoc meetings by local officials and community leaders, in which the guilty often go unpunished (given the ‘reconciliation’) and financial compensation is rewarded to the suffering parties. Many Christians are frustrated by these procedures which seem engineered to deny them their rights and allow freedom to those who commit aggression.

 

This was the use of the word made by Bishop Marcos, but it was not the definition we intended. We agree that a stable and prosperous society depends on the rule of law, but reconciliation, in the sense of people coming together in forgiveness, love, and community bonds, can be promoted independently of justice. If there is a decided lack of justice this will of course be more difficult for people to accept each other following conflict, but the process of reconciliation, not reconciliation committees, can begin immediately. Repeated frustration on our part, however, has made us wonder if we should speak instead of peacemaking, and drop the word reconciliation from our common parlance.

 

Keeping the focus of our current conversation on the local, however, and given that our discussion points toward the wisdom in waiting for our own chance to travel to the area, we asked Bishop Marcos about his own delegation. What message was he to bring? Furthermore, in what capacity would he be traveling?

 

Bishop Marcos is in a difficult position. He is a prominent public figure, and anything he does will attract media attention. It can be interpreted easily that his visit is conducted to express private criticism of church conduct in Nag Hamadi, or at least to supply the official church position to which the local bishop would be expected to conform. Bishop Marcos, however, possesses no authority over Bishop Kyrillos. In the Coptic Orthodox Church there is one pope, and underneath him are dozens of bishops, each with the same ecclesiastical level. Nevertheless, by weight of experience, responsibility, and proximity to the pope, Bishop Marcos can be seen as a towering presence. How will he be received in Nag Hamadi? The official, and true, response will be as one among equals. Is this the reality? Will it be seen as such in the media? Will it be experienced as such by Bishop Kyrillos?

 

Bishop Marcos’ answer revealed that he is traveling as part of an individual initiative, not upon official church business. He is taking with him monks and bishops for the express purpose of ministering to the suffering families and the suffering church. When asked why he is going and not some other bishop, he stated, with inflection, that everyone should go. Bishop Musa visited Nag Hamadi last week, and others will likely travel in the days to come. Bishop Kyrillos, he stated, was under great pressure and was all alone; it is hoped that these visits might provide him with some encouragement, support, and opportunity for discussion and counsel.

 

We had wondered previously at the state of Bishop Kryillos, looking sympathetically at his seeming isolation given the difficulty of the circumstances. We asked Bishop Marcos if there was a church plan or committee to deal with situations of crisis, which unfortunately have been increasing somewhat in recent years. Is Bishop Kyrillos left to his own devices to handle the furor over Nag Hamadi, or is the church equipped to provide immediate and effective assistance? Bishop Marcos was forthright in stating that no such church committee existed, recognizing this represented a lack in preparation which should be addressed.

 

We also wondered about the local preparations in Nag Hamadi. We related the words of Bishop Kyrillos, as reported in one newspaper, that the Christians of the city were ready to explode. Immediately Bishop Marcos responded, “We all are!” We affirmed this was a natural and understandable reaction, but that in the local setting of Nag Hamadi the Christians had once already exhibited their frustrations through violence, and surely this must not happen again. What is the church doing to strengthen its people spiritually?

 

Bishop Marcos uttered with sincerity and confidence: We are teaching in all of our churches, everywhere, that the Christian must respond to violence with patience, forgiveness, and love. This is the message he will carry also to Nag Hamadi, though he is certain it is also there being preached. Even so, he reiterated the need for justice and punishment of the criminals.

 

But what if there is a miscarriage of justice? What if there is another attack? Are the Christians of the area prepared to act Christianly? Should there not be a priority on reconciliation before justice? Bishop Marcos was clear that the church was focused on both issues. We will continue to seek justice and the place of our people in society, free to live, work, and worship as legal citizens of a united country. But we will also continue to preach. We will not neglect the Christian values of patience, forgiveness, and love as we deal with the difficulties in reaching this goal.

 

With this exchange our visit drew to a close. We continued in general conversation about Nag Hamadi and the Christian situation in Egypt for a little longer, and gained the bishop’s approval for his foreign members of the delegation to write for us a report on their experience in Nag Hamadi. We closed with assurance of our prayers and good wishes for the success of their visit and for the wisdom of the church in dealing with this crisis. We thanked the bishop for his good counsel and advice, and left in hope of further fruitful conversations in the future.

---