Tahrir Square, January 25, 2012

In Tahrir and in squares throughout the nation, Egyptians once again filled public space. In fact, by appearances they did so in greater numbers than at the height of the January 25 revolution which deposed President Mubarak. What is not clear altogether is why they were there, or who they represent.

Tomorrow may tell.

Some Egyptians, the revolutionaries, are very clear. They demand the fall of the regime, just as they did a year ago. Mubarak, they say, was only the public face of a military regime that still stands. For Egypt to be truly free, the army must return to its barracks, guard the borders, and yield to a civilian president.

There are different variations on this theme. Some want power immediately transferred to the parliament, with its speaker as head of government as an interim measure. Others desire the formation of a civilian presidential council to guide through the writing of a constitution and election of a president proper. Nearly all, however, find the military council to be leading the counter-revolution seeking to preserve the status quo under a new guise, and many find the Muslim Brotherhood to be complicit in a power sharing agreement.

The Muslim Brotherhood is also in the square. Their presence is less clear. They have taken the lion’s share of responsibility to secure entrances to Tahrir, to prevent unruly factions or clandestine weapons to enter. They stop short of proclaiming today as a day of celebration, but they are pleased. One of their leading figures declared revolutionary legitimacy is in the hands of parliament, and no longer in Tahrir. Yet they still speak of an unfinished revolution, though they rarely speak ill of the military council. Another leader has proposed the idea of a ‘safe exit’ for the military, implying they have committed crimes while in power. Yet they firmly stick to the announced military timetable to hand over power, after presidential elections in June.

Salafis are also in the square, but their voices are diverse. Some are very anti-military council, others less so, equally pleased with their gains in parliament. Yet Salafism is not a united movement, even having banded together under a political party. While committed throughout their ranks to a state which enforces sharia law – however gradually – some see military rule as an obstacle while others see it as a fight not worth waging, as long as they have room to transform Egypt socially. Salafi presence is not a dominant makeup of today’s protest, but they are there.

Then there is the average citizen, who is impossible to qualify. The military council has been heavily lauding the January 25 revolution, billing today’s anniversary as a great celebration. They praise the heroism and bravery of the youth. They also praise the armed forces, as guardians of the revolution. Revolutionaries claim they have brainwashed the people through state media; equally likely is that the average citizen has always trusted the army, as most men have served within its ranks. Is the average citizen there to celebrate with them?

Or has the average citizen, at least in Tahrir, come to see the military council as the problem? Following the most recent clashes on Qasr al-Aini Street outside the Cabinet building, a female volunteer at a field hospital in Tahrir was beaten by military personnel and in the attack stripped of her full length niqab, revealing a provocative blue bra. This image was widely circulated, and a newspaper the next day posted it on its front page, with the title – Kazeboon (Liars). The military denied using force to dismiss the sit-in, and this paper was outraged.

In the weeks following this incident activists have created a Kazeboon movement, taking a projector through the lower class streets of Cairo and showing footage of the clashes in public spaces. They have often been resisted forcefully by military sympathetic residents, or, according to some accusations, paid thugs.

Has this campaign affected the average citizen? Is this why the numbers in Tahrir have swelled?

What is clear is that the numbers came from everywhere. Previous demonstrations used Tahrir as a gathering point; this effort recalled January 28, 2011 when marches set off from around the city to converge there. Most of these marches today appear to have been of revolutionary sentiment, and found Tahrir Square filled before they even arrived. As such they encamped in the side streets and on bridges crossing the Nile, while the mixed groups described above gathered around their various stages – Islamist, liberal, socialist, and families of the martyrs.

The differences are immense, one year to the next. In 2011 the demonstrators were met by security forces who confronted them with batons, water cannons, and tear gas. From a different angle, once the demonstrators secured the square after the withdrawal of security, there were no stages in Tahrir; all the people were one. Now, the paths to Tahrir were open to all, but divided once they arrived.

This description illustrates why tomorrow may be indicative. Revolutionary groups have announced efforts to conduct an open sit-in. Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood has announced they are leaving the square. The average citizen will go back to his home and sleep. What will he do tomorrow? Today, the numbers were immense; what will they look like tomorrow?

Perhaps tomorrow will not be deciding, in the same manner January 26 meant little last year. Yet still, the script is flipped. On January 25 the demonstrations were led by activists, with the Muslim Brotherhood wavering on the sidelines, and the Salafis largely maintaining political quietism. The 26^th and 27^th were met with smaller confrontations, but momentum was building in anticipation of Friday, the 28^th, the Day of Rage. On the weekend, following Friday prayers, the nation was asked to validate the revolution. They, including the Muslim Brotherhood, did.

This time, religious groups have begun in participation, but at least in the case of the Brotherhood, now withdraw. Tomorrow, the 26^th, will see a sit-in, but what will be of Friday, a day earlier this calendar year, on the 27^th? Tomorrow and continuing there will be no conflation of Tahrir revolutionary celebrants; all who continue will be revolutionaries.

Without the Brotherhood and their vast skills of mobilization, can they succeed?

The question may not be that simple, as we still have a day in-between to change the equation. Since the fall of Mubarak sit-ins have ended violently. Often there has been an attempt at escalation, which eventually was met by force. Some say the escalators are infiltrators seeking conflict so as to mar the public opinion of continued revolution. Others say the escalations have been peaceful, and met with a security response that has been unwarranted and reminiscent of the Mubarak regime, or worse. What will happen with tonight’s sit-in, if anything?

Already some of the revolutionaries have moved the place of protest from Tahrir Square about three blocks to the north to the Maspero Radio and TV Building – the seat of state media. In occupying this site they wish to highlight what they believe to be media distortions, but they do so at a point of great state sensitivity. Will they be allowed to stay? Or, do some wish to storm it altogether? If so, are they infiltrators looking to spark a fight?

Also in the air are rumors the demonstration will move to the military hospital where Mubarak is residing, so as to bring him to the square for trial. Additionally a procession is foretold that will move to Tora Prison to bring his sons and other remnants of the regime yet to receive full trials. If these are more than rumor, they will certainly merit resistance. But who issues the rumor/plan – revolutionaries or infiltrators?

Engineered or otherwise, the spark that may change the equation is violence. A simple attempt by police to violently clear a small sit-in in November made immediate waves on Twitter. Within hours it brought a deluge of support, leading to five days of street fighting on Mohamed Mahmoud Street outside Tahrir. The square itself filled once more, leading to the sacking of the government when all was said and done.

Surely the military council will not use violence tomorrow, but who knows? Or, will someone use violence in effort to pin blame on them, or their supposed plain clothed thugs? If violence occurs, will it keep people away, or attract them in numbers? So much is unknown.

Equally unknown is the reaction if no violence occurs. How big will the sit-in be? Will it grow on Friday? Can it maintain itself until forcing the military council to hand over power somewhere? Will it maintain its presence until June, waiting for presidential elections? So much is unknown.

And, equally unknown is where the Muslim Brotherhood will be. By siding against Tahrir now do they reveal an understanding with the military council? Or, are they the best revolutionaries of all, seeking to undo the military state via an elected parliament with widely accepted legitimacy? Do they risk losing their own popular legitimacy among the people? Or, are they waiting in the wings – perhaps as before – to see where the winds blow? The Brotherhood has consistently denied any interest in securing the presidency since the first days of the revolution. Yet if the military council were to fall, might they claim this prize as well, maintaining public posture that they never sought it?

Of course, the next few days may pass entirely without incident. If it is true the majority sentiment from January 25 is against military rule, perhaps today is only a preview of June, in case of delayed presidential elections or the ascension of a military candidate. The Brotherhood, and the people, may not wish confrontation now – might the numbers padded through their mobilization have been a warning shot?

Such is Egypt during revolution, one year on. It is nearly impossible to read the tea leaves, as conventional wisdom is consistently turned on its head, and surprises await around every corner. Even today, no one expected these numbers.

Tomorrow may bring more clarity.

May.

From a Year Ago:

• Police Day Palpitations, January 25, 2011

• Egyptian Protests, January 26, 2011

• Friday in Egypt: A Decisive Day, a Turn to Religion?, January 27, 2011

And then the internet went out.

Egypt’s parliamentary elections are over.

While noting irregularities, former US president Jimmy Carter, through his Carter Center for promoting democracy, has judged the elections to be “acceptable.” When the first post-Mubarak parliament opens session today (January 23) its composition will be 72 percent Islamist.

The celebrated chant of Tahrir Square – “Muslims and Christians are one hand” – has given way to sectarian politics in which liberal parties, favored by the great majority of Copts, received a crushing defeat.

The Democratic Alliance, dominated by the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) of the Muslim Brotherhood, has won 46 percent of the seats. The more conservative Salafi Nour Party has captured 24 percent. A handful of smaller Islamist parties add another 2 percent. Liberal politicians, who were once hopeful, are reeling from their losses. Coptic Christians are left pondering their murky future.

Today, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed article about risks to freedom that observed, “Especially critical is protection for Copts, the canaries in Egypt’s coal mine. The fate of Egypt’s democracy—and the chances for the emergence of non-Islamist options—will rest on whether this millennia-old community, as well as an array of other groups, feels comfortable in the new Egypt.”

Amin Makram Ebeid, a Coptic intellectual and author, summarizes four primary Coptic responses:

• A minority, though sizeable, is planning to emigrate.

• The largest group is looking for spiritual, perhaps even mystical solutions.

• A smaller party is dedicated to stay and fight for their rights, especially in securing a non-Islamist constitution, which according to the national referendum in March is the provenance of parliament.

• Finally, there is a group that is looking to cooperate with Islamists, provided Copts do not lose their identity in the process.

Paula Magdy, a 24-year-old volunteer librarian in a Coptic Orthodox Church in Cairo, illustrates the group seeking spiritual solutions. “We pray to God to save us, but I am not afraid. Up until now we have not been sure about anything. Maybe they have won elections, but we will win the war?”

Fawzi Khalil, a pastor at Kasr el-Dobara Church also estimates most Christians fall into the spiritual solution category, with only about 10 percent actively participating in shaping the political outcome for Copts.

Standing their Ground

Emad Gad is one of the 10 percent, representing the group wishing to stay and fight. He is a Coptic leader in the liberal Egyptian Social Democratic Party, winning a parliament seat in the north Cairo district. Naturally, he offers political perspective.

“We don’t fear the result of elections because there were many violations that skewed results. In any case, parliament will not form the government, the president will, and the military council also maintains its influence.”

For him, the constitution is the largest battleground, but liberals are working on an agreement with Islamists for each party to nominate a limited number of members to the committee which will draft it.

Nevertheless, “If Islamists reach toward a Saudi-style government we have many means to resist. Certainly the new generation is able to go once again to the streets. I expect Egypt will remain a civil state.”

Fr. Philopater

Father Philopater will also stay and fight, but his is a religious perspective. A controversial priest in the Coptic Orthodox Church who has repeatedly clashed with the hierarchy, Philopater expects a continuation of the suffering of Copts.

“The one benefit is that persecution will now be obvious, as under Mubarak it was always assigned to hidden hands or deviant people.”

Furthermore, Copts should not cooperate with Islamists. ‘It is true some speak of protecting Copts, but others speak about jizia, call us infidels, or instruct Muslims not to greet us in the street.’

Ebeid agrees with non-cooperation. “Christians should not support them in their quest for power. If we sell ourselves, why should liberal Muslims continue to fight?”

Cooperating with Islamists

Then there is the group which promotes cooperation. Rafik Habib, son of a now-deceased prominent Protestant pastor, represents a tiny Coptic constituency that actually favors Islamist rule. He is among roughly one hundred Copts who are founding members of the Brotherhood’s FJP, and serves as one of its vice-presidents.

He believes Egypt must accept the essential religious basis of society, not deny it.

“Secularism surrounds Christianity and the church and weakens its role in society. Under an Islamic state it can be completely different because the main function of the Islamic state is to protect religion, not to restrict it.”

Youssef Sidhom

More typical are Copts who wish to cooperate with Islamists but due to necessity. Among these is Youssef Sidhom, editor-in-chief of the Coptic newspaper Watani.

“In order to keep any vicious Islamist appetite at bay we must stay at the table with them and remind them they promised not to hijack Egypt.”

Unlike Philopater, Sidhom has a degree of trust in the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, who through his interactions with them finds them to be decent people.

“I believe the Brotherhood wants to prove they can create a form of democracy that respects the rights of all Egyptians.”

Similar to Social Democrat Gad, however, Sidhom is prepared.

“Our Plan B if Islamist groups seek an Islamic state is to oppose their constitution in a referendum, but if it is accepted, Copts and liberal Muslims – 40 percent of the population – will take again to the streets.”

All Politics is Local

While these responses are varied, it is “the street” that decides. This is not the street of Tahrir Square, but the poor, crowded neighborhoods in every city of Egypt.

In Warrak, a suburb of Cairo, Shadia Bushra, a 45 year old Coptic widow, cast her vote for the Freedom and Justice Party.

“I don’t know much about politics, but I followed the general view of the neighborhood.”

Essam Sharif

It did not hurt that when her local church failed to intervene to defend her rights in a property dispute, Essam Sharif, her Salafi neighbor and a leader in the Nour Party stood by her side, retained a lawyer, and helped win the judgment against wealthier Christian neighbors.

“I told her I would have done the same if she was opposed by Muslims,” stated Sharif.

Stated Islamist commitment to the rights of all has also won support from Copts in Maghagha, a small city in Upper Egypt. Sheikh Hamdi Abdel Fattah is a candidate for the Nour Party.

“I will consider myself the candidate of Christians ahead of Muslims, even if they do not vote for me. As such, I have to demand their rights. This is both democracy and Shari’ah law.”

Sheikh Hamdi and Fr. Yu'annis

Father Yu’annis is a Coptic Orthodox priest in Maghagha and has campaigned openly for Abdel Fattah.

“I don’t support him as a Salafi or as a Muslim, but as a person. He is from our village and I hope all Salafis will be like him.”

Yet he is pragmatic as well. “If we see more than two-thirds of the people are for an Islamic state we cannot stop them from having it, so as the Egyptian proverb says, ’With him who wins, play with him’. I must do my village duty to stand by him, so he won’t say I caused him to lose, and if he wins, he will be thankful.”

Perplexing Questions

The seismic politic changes in Egypt during the past 12 months are still underway. Copts and others fill this resulting uncertainty with fears and expectations in wildly different directions.

Essam Thabit, a Coptic school teacher in Maghagha, believes all will be well. “Whoever comes to power will make sure they treat Christians better than the old regime, even though they know Christians won’t vote for them. I expect many churches to be built.”

His Coptic colleague Yasser Tekla from the neighboring city of Beni Mazar expects, and oddly welcomes, the worst. “I will vote for the Salafis now so they will come to power and people will see them truly, and then reject them afterwards.”

Many Copts hesitated during the revolution, while others joined wholeheartedly. The initial celebrations of Tahrir – where Muslims and Christians alternated protecting each other at prayer – have been followed by multiple instances of bloody sectarian conflict.

This has prompted Copts to ask themselves hard questions: Should Copts take refuge in the military council against Islamists, or with Islamists against the military-as-old-regime? Should they enter the political arena and trust its processes, or enter their churches and trust in God?

So far, clear answers to these questions seem beyond the reach of Egypt’s Christian minority.

This article was published originally at Christianity Today. Please click here to view it at that site.

Pope Shenouda, head of the Coptic Orthodox Church

Many Christians in America are keen on emphasizing that the ‘separation of church and state’ is found nowhere in the constitution. Rather, they state, it was from the personal letters of Thomas Jefferson – his guiding opinion, of course, but never adopted in America’s founding documents.

This is true. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion for the individual, while also keeping government from imposing a religious test for any public office. Many Christians, however, find that the modern interpretation of these clauses – read through Jefferson – squeeze religion from public life.

They don’t know how good they have it.

Coptic Christians in Egypt are currently caught between two relatively good systems. The modern secular state, as in America, allows personal freedoms and independence of religious institutions. This was somewhat the promise of Mubarak, but never really arrived. Especially in light of the Arab Spring, many Copts look to the west and hope for the implementation of such enlightened policy.

Yet on the other hand, also driven by the Arab Spring, is the understanding that Islam-as-state protects a subservient church. This also is enlightened, and for many centuries Christians lived comfortably under the caliphate, participating in society, economy, and government. There were abuses in history, and it is not the equivalent of modern citizenship. Yet many Copts are fearful of such a return, while Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis are head-over-heels trying to assure them their fears are baseless.

Unfortunately, Mubarak muddled between the two.

While the church was officially independent, it was not free. Relations between the president and the pope were conducted along the lines of the old caliphal system. No jizia was paid, but in exchange for guaranteeing the subservience of the Christian community, the pope received a direct line to the leader and relative freedom of internal rule. If Christians got out of line, though, or if it was necessary to hold them in line, a measure of sectarian strife was allowed. Some say it was even encouraged, if not promoted.

A few days ago I posted about a controversy in the church, which erupted during Christmas celebrations. With the massacre at Maspero in the background, Pope Shenouda welcomed the military council, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. The church has regularly welcomed representatives of the state, which in the past have been members of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party.

This year, it is members of the military council, and of the triumphant Islamist powers. Though the faces have changed, the pope was following a protocol long established.

Revolutions, however, disrupt protocol. Many young Copts invested themselves heavily in the revolution, seeking greater freedom for society at large. Instead, at Christmas, they find the pope continuing the same pattern. The military, they believe, killed demonstrating Copts at Maspero, and no one has been held accountable. The Muslim Brotherhood is an open question; will they simply continue politics-as-usual, with a democratic face?

If these young Copts desire freedom throughout the society, they desire it on the part of the church as well. It was humiliating, or else cowardly and insulting, to see the pope receive those who shed Coptic blood, as well as Islamists who seem very comfortable with the military.

They want the pope to be revolutionary. They want him to refuse greetings until justice is met. To a large degree, they want a western version of freedom of religion.

They are not alone. Many Egyptians desire this, including many Muslims. The question is: Is it best for the church?

The pope is a man of tradition, and old men are set in their ways. He is also a fountain of wisdom, and he knows his society. He believes the church is safest under the protection of the state.

Is he wrong? Maybe. Jesus was a revolutionary, though of a different kind. But he was willing to sacrifice himself for what was right. If the church challenges the state – currently constituted as the military council – it might rally both Christians and Muslims to continue the revolution until military rule is abolished. Then, with governance in the hands of civilians, even an Islamist parliament would be free to … well, what would it do?

Or, if the church challenged the state, the state might hit back. Would Muslims rally behind it? If so, would they be strong enough? Or would this only push them deeper into Islamism, seeing Coptic comeuppance, ‘those ungrateful Christians’?

One might pragmatically say the church should stay by the side of the military against the Islamists, as under Mubarak. Activists, and most Copts, would now say that Mubarak did not work out so well for them. They were certainly very critical of him before the revolution. But will Islamists be worse?

Pope Shenouda is probably not making bets for one side or the other. In all likelihood, he is simply following protocol. He is not promoting the military council or the Muslim Brotherhood. He is acknowledging their place in the governance of Egypt.

History is riddled with examples of minorities who backed the wrong side. If Pope Shenouda is licking the boots of the powers-that-be, this is beneath the dignity of his position – indeed of any Christian, or of any individual human being. But if he were to thumb his nose, this also is a threat to dignity, and more.

Perhaps unfortunately, revolutions demand one choose a side. This puts Christians in a very difficult position. On the one hand, their religion encourages them to sacrifice themselves for others, for truth, and for the cause of justice. On the other, it encourages fealty to the ruling powers, with prayers offered on their behalf. How, then, should a first loyalty to God drive a Christian in Egypt today? How should it drive the pope?

Perhaps Pope Shenouda leans a bit too much in deference to the state. This is certainly the activists’ charge. Yet it must also be noted this criticism is leveled from the perspective of a western system of religious freedom, or at least from the longing thereof.

It may well be Egypt is moving back to an official caliphal system, where the pope represents his community. Or perhaps the mixed-Mubarak system will stay in place. The future could be very bad, or it might not be bad at all. Activists must continue to labor for what they believe in, and convince others of the same. The pope must be given room to do the same. Indeed, his conduct now may be guaranteeing activists their relative freedom of operation.

Americans, imagining themselves in the middle of all of it, might wish for a little more Jefferson.

God,

There is calm before a potential storm. Unlike the situation of many previous weeks, there is clear picture of the status quo. What is not clear is if it will be upset once more, as January 25 approaches. Will people celebrate their revolution, or renew it?

What is known can be understood, for the most part. Islamists have convincingly won the parliament, which will sit officially on January 23. Its legitimacy is widely acknowledged, setting up a parallel legitimacy with the army, which still occupies the role of presidency. There are unknowns: Will the Muslim Brotherhood ally with the Salafis for full Islamist control? Will parliament confront the legitimacy of the army? These are unknowns, but they are politics. Politics confuses, but it is not revolution. To a large degree, the scene it set. To a large degree, it is an acceptable scene.

God, give wisdom to those who play this game. Moreover, make it not a game, but a trust, especially as it pertains to writing the constitution. Help the game to be civil. Give trust to the participants; give insight to know whom not to trust, and when. Make bedfellows, God, and undo them. But may all bedfellows value fidelity and transparency, as contradictory as this hope may be.

So far, there is one fellow who refuses to bed. Mohamed el-Baradei has left the arena, decrying the lack of fidelity and transparency. Soon, presidential candidates will declare; he will not be among them. Is his judgment sound? Is his politics sounder? Does he lack fidelity and transparency himself?

These are the questions, God, that resound on January 25, engulfing all those who still consider themselves revolutionaries. Has the democratic process been botched, hijacked, or rightfully transformed into politics?

Those who urge further demonstrations, are they simply sore losers, or defrauded pioneers? Is their vision clearer than those who settle, or does ambition prevent their perception of success?

Regardless, God, protect Egypt on January 25. Most revolutionaries do not promote violence. Do some? Will some use the peaceful cover to ferment mischief? Or will others seek to defame them by doing mischief in their name?

So much can be volatile, God. The government is orchestrating celebrations in Tahrir; the revolutionaries are calling for demonstrations in Tahrir. Little organization is advertised; how can confrontations be avoided?

God, preserve Egypt. Sort through the politics in your wisdom, but keep peace between the people. Let not the gains of the revolution be spoiled – especially what was crafted in unity, creativity, and healthy pride. Honor Egypt, God. Honor her people.

Amen.

Young Coptic activists disrupted Christmas mass in St. Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo on January 7, shouting slogans against the military council.

Around ten individuals coordinated to erupt the moment Pope Shenouda, head of the Coptic Orthodox Church, extended Christmas greetings to military members, as captured on YouTube.

Among these was Gen. Hamdy Badeen, head of the military police. Many activists hold him responsible for the deaths of 27 people during a mostly Coptic protest at Maspero in October.

The pope has faced challenges leading the church during the revolution. Even so, he welcomed those whom many activists consider at odds with the Copts. This represents not only the military council, but also the Muslim Brotherhood, reported previously by Lapido Media.

Ramy Kamel

Ramy Kamel organized the Christmas protest in the cathedral – a rarity in the hierarchical church where the holiness of the pope is widely respected.

‘It has not yet been three months since Maspero and they invite the military council?’ Kamel stated.

Sameh Saad of the Maspero Youth Union echoed this dismay.

‘We are very angry because the Pope invited them. Nothing has happened to hold anyone in the military accountable since Maspero, and we do not want to greet them.’

‘Still, we will be silent because we love the pope.’

Kamel had been a leading member of the Maspero Youth Union, but resigned due to silence like this.

‘The organization was becoming content simply to issue statements, but people need to be awoken into action.’

Nevertheless, if not for his mother, Kamel would have passed the holiday at home. He states church security threatened him with attack dogs if he led a demonstration inside the cathedral.

Ramy Kamel's Mother, with grandson

Karima Salama is Kamel’s mother. ‘I pushed him to go. The common Copts here in our neighborhood are outraged, so how could my son sit at home doing nothing?

‘We must not say the pope makes mistakes but here he did.

‘The church should welcome all but the pope should not have invited them.’

Bishop Bisenti emphasizes such open reception in defense of the pope.

‘The pope expresses his love to welcome all, and if they want to come they are invited as brothers.

‘Those who reject this are looking from the point of view of punishment for what happened in Maspero, but we look from the point of view of love.

‘The question of punishment is left to the judge and we will accept this.’

The military council has stated lower ranking officers are being investigated concerning the tragedy at Maspero. Official charges, however, have only been leveled against activists.

A week before Christmas, Coptic confusion increased over the church’s reluctance to demand military accountability. Pope Shenouda stated peace and security prevailed in Egypt due to the military council, as reported in the local press.

Amir Bushra, another member of the Maspero Youth Union, was among those affected by Kamel’s protest.

‘I personally apologize to Ramy Kamel because I was opposed to doing anything in the cathedral, but realized I was mistaken when I saw Pope Shenouda with Gen. Hamdy Badeen.

‘The church should take pride in her sons, because their chants are the chants of all who lost loved ones at Maspero.’

A subsequent blow of protest was issued a week later at mass by Fr Yuhanna Fuad, priest of the Virgin Mary Church in Old Cairo, and presented on YouTube. He was present at the cathedral on Christmas.

‘Hamdy Badeen greeted me. I apologize I kissed him and shook his hand and was pictured with him. He arranged this to improve his image.

‘You have to know that your priest is honest and has to say the truth. These people are unjust. They are liars and thieves, holding on to power.’

Samir Morcos is a respected writer and researcher in Coptic Church affairs. He states, ‘This is a new dynamic we must accept after January 25, especially among the young people.

So it must be noted that while Bishop Musa [bishop of youth affairs] justified the presence of the military council, he did not condemn the youth.’

Samir Zaki, who works under Bishop Musa as the general secretary for encouraging civic participation, makes clear this perspective.

‘The system works that security and VIPs always come to Christmas, and we issue invitations to allow them through the doors of the cathedral. The military council stated they are coming to wish Christmas greetings. Should we not say thank you?’

As concerns the demonstrating youth, Zaki states, ‘The pope put forward the official church position, but they were representing their personal opinion. No one has done anything to them.’

Samir Morcos believes no one knows exactly the extent of Coptic frustration with the church, in its accommodation to the military council.

It is clear, however, there is an undercurrent of revolutionary sympathy. Ramy Kamel wants it to transform the church.

‘No one should be able to represent the position of the church absolutely, no matter who he is.’

For many, this itself is a revolutionary idea.

Please read the published article on Lapido Media.

Related Articles:

• Clashes, Deaths at Coptic Protest in Maspero – my day after, first hand account
• Video Analysis of Maspero – examining YouTube footage to determine events
• In Aftermath of Maspero, a Muslim Holds a Cross – a very unique picture

The Relics of St. John the Short

The Coptic Orthodox Church is filled with the stories of saints, so much that the production of their movies has become a cottage industry. They are not always the best acted or of the highest Hollywood production value, but they open a window into the worldview of Egyptian Christians.

I first heard of St. John the Short when I visited the Monastery of St. Makarious, located in the Wadi Natrun Desert between Cairo and Alexandria. It is there I saw his relics; the monastery also houses those of John the Baptist, Elisha, and the Three Makarii, after one of whom the monastery is named.

The Relics of John the Baptist and Elisha the Prophet

The Sign above the Previous Photo

Relics of the Three Makarii

St. John the Short’s relics came to settle here as it was his abode for most of his monastic life, indeed, his life entire. John left Bahnasa near Minya in Upper Egypt at the age of 18. He was raised by Christian, God-fearing parents, though his mother was distraught he fully followed his spiritual commitment into monasticism. His father was more accepting, as was his older brother who bore family responsibilities preventing his own monastic choice until after his parents passed away.

John’s path to monasticism led him to a company of hermits who abused him incessantly in tests to decipher his commitment. In general a monk is by nature an individualistic solitary; the film presents them with few social skills. Yet for the most part it was a ruse, and John proved faithful. Eventually an angel appeared to the abbot and commanded him to accept John into their band.

Even so, the testing continued, leading to the event for which John is best known. The abbot instructed John to find deadwood in the desert, plant it, and then water it every day from a river twelve miles away. Faithfully, John did so, as obedience is a mark of Christian character. The abbot was astonished, for John kept at his work, never complaining a word.

This was only the beginning of the astonishment. After a long duration (stated in Coptic records as three years), the deadwood sprouted leaves, produced fruit, and became a full-grown plant. In popular Coptic lore it is known as the Tree of Obedience.

The Tree of Obedience, in Wadi Natrun

Years later John would give example to the fact that however monks desired independence and were often caustic with each other, beneath it all was a foundation of love. The abbot who abused John for so many years grew to love him like a son, and John cared for him in his debilitating illness over twelve years.

John’s miracles were many. The film displays him driving out a demon from a woman who aimed to kill him. He gave sight to the child of a woman to whom he was led from charity to give bread. He healed the stuttering of a man for whom he also cured his withered hand.

Yet despite his miracles he cared most for the cure of souls. A wealthy woman in the nearby village discovered the joy of the Lord when she gave away her possessions to the poor. Yet upon their exhaustion, none cared for her in return, and she slipped gradually into a life of ill repute. John went to her and rebuked her, but with the love of one who cried over a broken masterpiece.

The woman repented and followed John through the desert to take residence in a nunnery. John pushed her, urging her on as penance for her descent into sin. When she could go no further John allowed the opportunity for both to sleep, yet awoke in the morning to find her dead. He wept at his error, cursing himself that he allowed her to die before her sins could be expunged. Yet an angel appeared to him to lift his sorrow. God had forgiven her sins at the moment of repentance, and had now accepted her into paradise.

Eventually John moved from Wadi Natrun to the present day area of Suez. The film does not give the reason, but Coptic records state it was in response to Bedouin raids on area monasteries. Yet in Suez he faced another danger; the Roman prelate Clopas demanded to see who was giving comfort to the tortured village Christians.

He did not have opportunity to torture John himself. God struck Clopas with a painful disease, semi-comically labeled in the film as ‘chicken pox’. It drove him blind and gave him unbearable shivers. A palace servant instructed Clopas to beg healing from John, as he had healed others. When all other options failed, he humbled himself to do so.

In what struck me as odd, John refused. He sent message to Clopas he would not come unless he renounced his gods and worshipped Jesus, the Son of God. Encouraged to come, John heard his confession, and restored Clopas to full health.

John came to Suez in 395 AD, and died in his nearby isolated cave in 409 AD. An angel visited him the day of his death to declare his acceptance before God, that he had finished the course. Coptic records state he led the majority of Suez’s inhabitants to Christianity.

In an earlier post I wrote about Coptic miracle stories and the pervasive acceptance of these throughout the community. I also wrote once about the value of monasticism, though I don’t wish to rehash either of these reflections here.

Perhaps the only remark is the didactic simplicity of these films, seeking to bring the life of the saints into greater focus for the modern world. The cheesiness factor relates mostly to them being dated, but didactic films are often not that entertaining anyway.

Pope Shenouda opens each of these films with footage from one of his weekly meetings forbidding the improper copying and distribution of these films. He states that those who made them have a right to their intellectual property. In Hollywood, the FBI issues such a warning, threatening imprisonment or fine. In Egypt, it is the head of the church, threatening nothing in particular, but you know where this can go…

I mostly jest. I do enjoy the films, though their re-watch-ability is nil. But as I opened, they are a wonderful window into popular Coptic spirituality. The question is if I profit spiritually myself, or only as a sociological student. The former is far better, and St. John the Short offers lessons, to be sure.

Yet I am far too Western to give too much credence to the details of the story. Perhaps here there is a spiritual lesson to come, when I receive my comeuppance.

There is another question: Tonight, should we watch the more modern tales of Sister Irini, or Pope Kyrillos? Any suggestions?

Related Articles

• John, the Would-Be Monk, Eventually – a modern day novice waits his turn

• Daddy – Daughter at the Monastery – taking Emma on the pilgrimage

• From Poverty to Riches – how a modern day monk became a celebrated saint

God,

Egypt now is waiting. Waiting for the 25^th. In many cases, preparing for the 25^th.

The ruling military council has declared the day a national holiday, and is preparing grand celebrations. Meanwhile the revolutionaries scurry around street corners showing films meant to discredit the military council and gain support for continuing the revolution.

Both will be present, presumably in the same places, on the 25^th.

There are still Fridays between now and then to pray for this date, but it is good to ask for your providence now, God. Make this a day of safety, celebration, and continued commitment.

Until then, guide those who are preparing. Weigh their motivations and sift the wheat from the chaff. Do you approve that mass mobilization gives way to politics? Or are the politicians conniving benefactors of others’ work? When one appeals to the ‘martyrs’ is it from grief and desire for redemption, or lip service in the quest for legitimacy?

God you know the answers to the questions of men’s hearts. Whereas much of Egypt is confused, give insight for where to put their confidence and support. Direct men to the proper consensus; that which yields what is right and best. Give humility to the vanguard, give reflection to the masses. Give wisdom to the nation’s leaders. Take away fear; replace it with power, courage, and love.

God, the 25^th may be huge, or it may come and go as one more day on the path of transition to somewhere. Regardless, may the outcome be towards a system that honors people, respects their dignity, and protects their sovereignty. Bless Egypt, God. Make her whole.

Amen.

MB Delegation Outside a Helwan Church

Following two years of bloody winter holidays, and following also resounding Islamic success in elections, the Muslim Brotherhood coordinated with security forces – and probably Orthodox Church leadership – to stand watch outside church buildings throughout Egypt.

I was able to visit one installation in Helwan, to the south of Cairo. After moving from church to church in the district of Maadi, finding no Brothers present, I happened upon a Christian taxi driver who told me they were at his church, to which he subsequently brought me. It would have been difficult to find on my own.

I wrote about this story for Lapido Media, a British website focusing on telling religious aspects of the news which might be overlooked by other outlets. That the Brotherhood would come and spend Christmas with Copts is a fairly big deal, but many Western news agencies missed it. Not only is the event newsworthy, but so is its undercurrent. Please click here to read the story.

The basic question is this: Is the Brotherhood coming to Christmas celebrations because they love Copts as fellow citizens and Egyptian brothers? If so, this is wonderful.

Or, does their effort to ‘defend’ Christians issue from a place of Islamic superiority which offers protection to religious minorities in exchange for their acceptance of an Islamic system of government? If so, this is concerning.

Read the story for several wonderful quotes which insist upon the former. Yet upon pushing them for their eventual goal – after reestablishing security, economy, and demonstrating the virtues of Islamic government – they deftly skirted the issue. They insisted it was not proper to speak about Christians under dhimmi protection ‘now’.

I don’t necessarily doubt their sincerity. I believe that most Brothers, being Egyptians, have a love of their fellow Copts. It is a laudable feature of Islam that it urges Muslims to defend the rights of (at least Abrahamic) religious minorities.

Every religion has a natural chauvinism with which it imbues believers concerning their own faith. One of the prominent interpretations of Islam insists it has the right to rule – and rule justly – but to accord non-Muslims a special place in subservience to an Islamic order. Even if the Muslim Brotherhood does not have a ‘strategy’ to turn Copts into dhimmis, this aspect of their faith may be bubbling to the surface, no matter their simultaneous sincere expressions of love and equality.

Being a dhimmi may not even be a horrible thing, but neither is it liberal democracy. Currently the Muslim Brotherhood straddles the fence, insisting both on a civil state with equality of citizenship and an Islamic reference to guide legislation. Can they pull it off? Time will tell.

Yet despite the desires of many Muslim Brothers to postpone this question, it is essential it be answered now. Otherwise, the system may take root and produce effects from sources far more deeply rooted than assertions of national unity. These assertions are true, they are even sharia. Yet historically, sharia also often included dhimnitude.

Muslim Brotherhood overtures at Christmas hint in both directions. As one Brother states in the article, he wants Christians to know what is in their heart. This is good, but Copts also deserve to know what is in their vision.

Translation: Constitution

Following the revolution the status of Article Two in the Egyptian constitution has been a subject of great debate, as it serves to great degree to define the identity of the state. It reads: Islam is the religion of the state, Arabic is its official language, and the principles of Islamic law are the chief source of legislation.

Hani Labib, managing director of the Center for Intercultural Dialogue and Translation, moderated the discussions, which were held at the Association for Upper Egypt in downtown Cairo.

Labib provided an identical introduction to each of the three groups. He stated clearly that CIDT does not take an official position on Article Two. Yet given that this article has become a point of contention between groups who wish it to remain as it is, to be amended, or to be removed altogether, Labib asked each participant to provide answers to three questions:

1. Do you wish the article to remain in the constitution?
2. Do you believe the article is in need of amendment?
3. What is the proper formulation for Egyptian society?

Not all participants answered these questions clearly, yet most provided insights to illuminate the discussion and did not shy away from controversy. Summaries of their responses are below.

The Clerics’ Roundtable

Fr. Rufaeel Tharwat, a Coptic Orthodox priest, opened the discussion by stating that Article Two provided peace and security to Egypt. Nevertheless, he recognized that the 40% of the population which is illiterate demand that clerics from both religions interpret it correctly for the people. This would help assure that the government is for the nation and not for any particular part of it. In accordance with this, he wishes assurances that judges would not be able to use Article Two so as to change the law as they see fit. One particular area of concern – worthy of amending the article – is that non-Muslims be guaranteed to be ruled by their own religious laws. This would help ensure the principles of citizenship and prevent any possible loss of rights on the basis of Article Two.

Fr. Philopater Gameel, a Coptic Orthodox priest and leader in the Maspero Youth Union, followed by stating the worthiness of some of these points, but found that the emergence of more radical Islamic groups necessitated the cancellation of Article Two, keeping the constitution from any religious reference. He stated he had proof, for example, that judges have used Article Two to protect Muslims following crimes against Copts, as sharia, he maintained, does not allow execution of a Muslim for the killing of a non-Muslim. He fears also the article could be used to impose jizia (a tax on non-Muslims), as well as support accusations of takfir (calling someone an infidel). Article Two would be improved if it contained a clause to allow non-Muslims recourse to their own religious law, but this would only solve some of the issues, so it is best to remove the article altogether.

Abd al-Fattah Asakar, an Islamic writer and apologist, offered a completely different understanding of the Egyptian religious scene. He said there is only one religious community – Muslims and Christians together – for they are all monotheists and Egyptians. Anyone who harms a Copt harms God himself, for in his eyes the value of a Copt is more than the value of, say, a Pakistani Muslim. The Islamic liberal system is the best the world has ever known for protecting human freedom – even that of an atheist – but some have corrupted it by following men, such as the un-Islamic Salafis. There is no problem with Article Two, for a Muslim is a Christian and a Christian is a Muslim, but there are problems with the people and cultured Egyptians must educate better about true religion. All the same, he favors the amendment of the article to include a clause mentioning also the Gospel and the Torah.

Muhammad Muhammad Abdo is a professor of sharia and law from the Azhar University, and finds that Article Two is a guarantee for Copts as it is for Muslims, and should stay as it is. He agrees that Copts and Muslims have always lived closely together in one country, and that problems lie with the people, not the article itself. As for those who fear the article, he says it refers only to the broad principles of the law, protects diversity, and cannot be applied on laws in particular. Keeping a religious reference, on the other hand, prevents Egypt from going the way of Europe in adopting secularism with the resulting change in society; people must always be religious to something.

Fr. Antonious Aziz is a Coptic Catholic priest who is against any reference to religion in the constitution, even in personal status laws. He stated that Spain is assumed to be a Catholic nation, but it allows homosexuality, and the church takes no role in legislation, but rather supports human freedom. Consider the Bahai or atheist, he said. Shall a religion legislate against even these? No, religion should not have a dominating role in any state; it is not needed, for everyone has a conscience.

Muhammad Hajaj, a lawyer, like others looked to history and proclaimed that Muslims and Copts have cooperated in order to secure a state of justice. Problems that have existed recently, he claimed, were sown by the former regime. The constitution is meant to speak to broad principles, not details; as a sequential document he wondered why there was a problem. Article One establishes Egypt first and foremost as a democratic republic built on citizenship, and only then does Article Two build on this foundation. Further articles also establish equality between citizens and protect the right of religious practice. If anything, the article should be amended to remove the word ‘principles’, since such a word is dependent upon interpretation.

Osama al-Qusi is a doctor and Salafi preacher of Islam, and also believed the former regime’s corruption, oppression, and lack of transparency hurt the national fabric. Ibn Taymiyya for one praised the just government, even if it was not Muslim. Furthermore, if we say there is no compulsion in religion, how can we judge someone by a religion not their own? As such, this is present in Article Two, which would not differ if we amended it to say ‘all heavenly religions’, for example. Each religious community should be able to govern itself by its own laws, under the system of a general law for the nation.

Rev. Rifaat Fikry is an evangelical pastor in Shubra, who finds no civilized country in the world which puts religion in the forefront of its constitution. Secularism is needed, which is not that people leave God but that all are treated equally regardless of religion. In 1923 the constitution did establish Islam as the state religion, but it made no mention of sharia until the ‘believer president’ Sadat inserted it, and people have been playing with sectarian conflict since then. He agrees that Egyptian society is not ready to cancel Article Two, but it should be amended to say: “Islam is the religion of the majority of the population. Arabic is the official language of the country. Principles of all religions’ shari’ahs and international treaties for human rights are the principal sources for legislation.”

The Media Roundtable

Said Shuaib, a journalist, stated he was against Article Two, since the constitution does not represent the majority but the entire country. Sanctity of belief must be protected, and as such the constitution should be free of religious bias. For those who believe the article protects the Islamic identity of the state, he recommended the identity of Egypt is more properly grounded in that it protects the rights of all people equally.

Alaa Azmy, a journalist, is also for cancelling Article Two from the constitution, since he recognized a large part of the problem lies in that the general population does not understand the terms of debate. Therefore, the article should be dropped, an education campaign launched, and then a general societal debate should take place without calling one group religious and the other infidels. Currently, Article Two not only harms Copts, but Copts and Muslims together.

Wafaa Wasfy, a journalist, is against Article Two since in effect it cancels the state in favor of religion. Noting that Egypt is a religious society, she finds its people can sometimes run behind ideas rashly without sufficient thought. As such, society should move gradually in accord with what people can accept. This way, decisions made now might also be acceptable fifty years from now.

Bashir Abd al-Raziq, an editor, believes that Article Two is acceptable, but not in the way it currently is used by different groups for different interpretations. It must either evolve into something that all – Muslims, Christians, and Jews – can agree on together, or else it should be dropped entirely.

Robair al-Faris, a journalist, is against the merger of religion and state, but finds that as the majority of the population is illiterate, this means democracy will be the rule of them over the rest, which is dangerous. As such, he is not against cancelling Article Two, but it must be done the right way. First steps include removing the religious reference from the ID card, and then from education, so students do not receive religious orientations. Only then will society be prepared to accept cancellation of this article.

Said Tawfiq, a journalist, is in favor of keeping Article Two, since the problem is not in the text but in its application. Nevertheless, it should be amended to better guarantee the rights of Copts. A major problem lies in the fact that the governments of the region have always played with religion, but politics is a part of Islam, and who can reject Islam? Many people have reservations against the article, he believes, but will be afraid to speak up out of deference to the will of the majority.

Remon Edwards, a journalist, supports cancelling the second article, but believes reform in education and the media is necessary first. There should be no religious reference in the constitution, but the liberal parties who espouse such a position generally do not conduct activities in the street, so the message does not reach the majority poor.

Hassan Yahya, a journalist, finds that there is no value in Article Two, since every group interprets it according to their own understanding. Religious questions, he finds, have only mattered in the last several decades, forced upon the region by Israel as a Jewish state. Currently, it is Salafi groups causing problems, especially as they circulate a treatise called ‘The Curse of the Groups of the Coptic Nation’, which accuses Pope Shenouda of seeking to create an independent Coptic state.

Finally, Ibtisam al-Gindy and Shaimaa al-Shawarbi, both journalists, are in favor of amending Article Two. Al-Gindy believes it is biased against the Copts but if it is amended to include a guarantee for Coptic rights then it can remain. Al-Shawarbi meanwhile thinks it should be amended to make sharia ‘a’ source of legislation only, and not the primary one. She adds that if this article were to assist the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood to power, she would be in favor of its cancelation.

The Civil Society Roundtable

Nabil Ahmed Helmi, professor of international law, believes that Egypt has always had a civil government, but that following the revolution Islamist and extremist voices emerged to frame the discussion that liberals are trying to turn Egypt into a civil government. A state does not have a religion, though a majority may. For this latter reason, even though he wants to keep religion from the state, it will be impossible to remove the article; the best that can be done is to amend it.

Imad Felix, a lawyer, weighed in saying that it is not improper to have the principles of Islamic sharia as a source of legislation. The difficulty comes in making sure these principles do not harm the members of other religious communities. It is essential in the coming period to make sure the religion of the majority does not control or influence the minority populations.

Samia Arisha, a writer, stated she was afraid of the future in what might be done through Article Two, agreeing that it would be difficult to remove, and harder still to speak about this with the groups that play with religion. The question is how to amend it. Can it respect the confession of Islam as the religion of the minority while protecting individual freedom? Can each religious community be given to rule by its own sharia? Regardless, anyone who threatens a person outside of his own group’s sharia must be tried in a civil court.

Irini Thabit, professor of languages at Ain Shams Univeristy, for example, questioned if the discussion concerning principles of sharia was in terms of popular understanding, or legal. She asked furthermore if Islamic sharia addressed both Muslim and Christian concerns. Helmi, acting as a moderator, answered yes to the latter question, saying there is no compulsion in religion and Christians are free to govern themselves in religious matters. He added as well he was upset the Jews left Egypt, for then the nation would have even more diversity.

Mahmoud Khayyal, a doctor, also was not sure of the parameters of the discussion, asking if interest was in the opinions about Article Two, or what was best to do with it in the future. He stated though born a Muslim he is an agnostic, and is against Article Two, even if amended to let other groups work according to their religious laws. What would be the outcome, he wondered – 4,000 religions needing to be written into the constitution? Furthermore, resting on the ‘principles’ of sharia does not help either, for principles can change also – look at Afghanistan. No, the article should be cancelled altogether.

Munir Mogahed, an engineer, agreed that Article Two should be cancelled, since the constitution is a proscriptive document, not a descriptive one. Therefore, if remaining, it allows a judge to rule not just based on the law and constitution, but also on his particular interpretation of sharia. Besides the law, the article will also lead to making education religious as well. These factors will push Egypt in the direction of becoming a sectarian country, which is a shame, since Article Two was scripted in bad form, for worldly reasons based on politics.

Tharwat Kharbali, a lawyer, spoke from an Islamist perspective, having been a Muslim Brother and active in the Wasat Party. He agreed there was a danger from extremist religious perspectives, saying there was no place for Wahabism in Egypt. Salafism does not help either, since during the era of the Prophet and Companions, whom they imitate, there were liberals and extremists also. The constitutional court must prevent such developments. He found Erdogan of Turkey to be an example, for during a conference he attended he addressed the concerns of his city (Istanbul), while others pontificated about Islam. Article Two is important, and should remain in the constitution, but it should be amended to define Egypt as a secular state with an Eastern understanding.

Medhat Bishay, a writer, agreed about the power of the Islamist trends, who speak loudly against liberals making the country secular to the level of rhetoric that they will die as martyrs to prevent this. Given the backwardness that exists in Egypt, great care must be taken. This is in light of the desire to bequeath a good nation to our children, requiring wisdom for the moment.

Felix spoke again, wondering if the solution would be to amend the article so as to include respect for international agreements. But he also believed the media would not be helpful, as so many people would require knowledge and definition of what these agreements are. Helmy closed believing the fear expressed was not completely necessary, for the military will never allow extremist trends to rule Egypt. The army, he stated, wishes to rule in accord with Egypt’s nature as a country, but unfortunately, 99% of the population is not able or engaged to have a discussion on the topic as we are doing today.

God,

As Christmas comes to Egypt, Islamists rise to power. The military council stands prominently in the background of both.

What do you wish for Egyptian Christians, God? They are no mere minority, but have little independent power. They are dissolved into every community as part and parcel of the Egyptian fabric. Yet they are different, and sometimes subject to the approbation of ‘other’.

They all will say their security resides in you. As such, God, honor them in this. May their faith be rewarded as political winds vacillate.

But where should their earthly security reside? Is it with the ruling power? Is it with the Islamists? Is it with a democratic system? Is it aloof from all of these? Give Christians wisdom, God, to choose friends wisely during these tumultuous days. Yet beyond gaining friends, cause them to be servants to all, yet servile to none. Give them a sense of purpose to utilize the fruits of their faith on behalf of the nation, bringing to bear what might be missed by others. May their salt savor and their light shine.

Give such wisdom and purpose to Islamists as well, God. You have blessed them with favor from the majority of the people; may they be grateful and humble. Their challenges are many. Help them to draft a constitution of consensus. Help them to navigate relations with the military. Give them the skill of governance, God, for the good of the nation.

Meanwhile, God, the pope has invited both to Christmas. Many Copts are angry, finding both army and Islamists to be against their community. If true, do Jesus’ words demand he invite them? Do Jesus’ words allow for church-state politics? Are Jesus’ words simple rhetoric?

Bless Pope Shenouda, God. Help him to care for his flock, and care for his nation. Sanctify his prayers for the rulers of state, and help him to lead all Christians in this. Guide the church through these days, both the institution and the people, the body of Jesus.

May they find peace and kinship with the community of Muhammad. May all submit to one another in love and trust. Grant both a government in which they take rest, and take part.

Keep Christmas safe tonight God.

Amen.