Debates over reforming the Coptic Orthodox Church have sparked controversy among Copts. At the heart of the problem, argues Mariz Tadros*, lie questions of loyalty Eight years ago, together with the late Hosny Guindy, the founding editor of Al-Ahram Weekly, I visited Mother Irene, Mother Superior of the Abu Sefein convent, to interview her for a series on monasticism. After the interview appeared, one of the counsellors and "spiritual fathers" of the convent told me he had found my comments about Mother Irene's democratic running the convent out of place and inappropriate. "There is no democracy in the church", he said. "Democracy is a worldly concept and you should not apply it when referring to spiritual institutions." When I explained that I was impressed by Mother Irene's leadership style that encouraged a high degree of participation and involvement in the decision-making processes in the convent, he insisted that this was not something that needed highlighting. Issues of power sharing and participation can be shelved, perhaps, in a monastic context where vows of obedience have been taken. They cannot, however, be overlooked in the wider context of the church, which is built on the concept of the full participation of the community of believers. The internal affairs of the Coptic Orthodox Church are currently the subject of intense debate and controversy. A deluge of articles has appeared in the press calling for reform in the governance structure of the church, for greater transparency vis-à-vis cases of excommunication and the expulsion of members of the laity and of ecclesiastical orders. The reaction of the church establishment has been uncompromising: the church has never been stronger; hundreds of Coptic churches have been established in the diaspora; there has been a resurgence of monasticism and a massive renovation of monasteries. Meanwhile, millions of devotees flock to their local parishes every week. In such a context, what reform can we possibly talk about? What some Coptic voices within the church are advocating is a reform of the system of church governance. Respect for the ecclesiastical order is necessary but where do you draw the line between respect and the right to actively engage in the church, not as object but as subject, with a contribution to make vis-à-vis the management of church affairs? What has happened to the role of maglis al-melli, the "lay arm" of the church that, until the 1950s, played a crucial role in governance? What to make of Coptic NGOs and to what extent are they able to function as independent civil society organisations rather than an extension of ecclesiastical rule? Such questions, and others like them, were at the heart of the presentations and debates that took place at two "secular" conferences organised by Coptic Orthodox scholars, activists and writers. All members of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the organisers, are not a homogenous group: they neither belong to one particular political party nor do they have similar ideological inclinations or roles within the church. The second conference, held on the 26-27 April, had three main themes: Copts and civil society, proposals for dealing with church trials, and reform of the maglis al-melli law. The first session focused on civil engagement. The opening paper was presented by Emad Gad, a researcher at Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic and Political Studies. The second paper was delivered by independent researcher Akram Habib. In the subsequent session lawyer Nabil Mounir put forward a draft law for maglis al-melli, based on the premise that the lay arm of the church should operate on a diocesan and parish level as well as the current national one. The suggested change represents an attempt to promote greater grassroots participation on the part of laypeople. On the second day of the conference a draft law for church trials composed by Judge Labib Halim was read and debated. Currently, the process of church trials is effectively unregulated. Halim's draft law aimed at establishing procedures and setting norms, conditions, and punishments. It was an attempt to move away from the centralising of power in the hands of a single bishop -- something that has been heavily criticised -- and establish a due process to be applied in all trials. The debates dealt exclusively with matters associated with the internal administration of church affairs, policies and laws. The conference had nothing to do with theology. Participants did not broach matters to do with doctrine or creed. As the statement issued after the second conference underlined, such issues were not on the agenda. This did not prevent the conference from provoking sharp reactions from the church, with bishops and priests accusing the organisers of being agents for Mossad -- and you can guess the rest of the list of favourite charges with populist appeal. They were proxies of American imperialism, agents of national strife and instability, promoters of homosexuality... My guess is that the majority of Copts, at least in Egypt, do not have the remotest idea about the church's campaign against the conference, nor of the initiatives undertaken beneath its umbrella. The low level of participation in the two conferences, though, certainly raises some interesting questions. Is it that Copts do not think the issues raised important or relevant to their lives and the future of the church? Some Copts do sympathise with calls for greater transparency in the running of church trials -- think of the events just a few weeks ago when hundreds of Copts from Nage' Hamadi, Qena, gathered in the Cathedral to protest against the decision to try Metropolitan Bishop Kyrollos. Other Copts are weary of the hegemony of the ecclesiastical order over every single aspect of their lives. They think a balance of forces, between the secular and the divine, would better promote the health of the Coptic community. The costs of openly participating in a conference vilified by Pope Shenouda personally, and by a number of senior bishops, cannot be underestimated. It could result in exclusion from the church. Such exclusion for Copts carries not only spiritual costs but social and cultural ones. It is why those that sympathise with calls for reform express them secretly or choose to keep quiet. It is also true that the majority of Copts resent calls for reform of the Coptic Orthodox Church for reasons that have little, if anything, to do with the content of the proposed reforms. There is a deep sense of the church being the only refuge for Copts against the outside world. The church offers a sense of community at a time when many Copts feel vulnerable to social exclusion on religious grounds and suspect they are subject to various forms of political and legal discrimination -- the recent court ruling stating that the Ministry of Interior is not obliged to issue ID cards with Christianity as the stated religion for Copts who converted to Islam and who wish to reconvert serves only to exacerbate this sense of marginalisation. In such a context, calls for church reform are easily interpreted as an attack on what is a safe haven for many. Openly discussing church affairs is also interpreted by some as the equivalent of airing dirty linen in public. They argue such discussions should take place behind closed doors. The reality, though, is that church officials, be they in the Cathedral, on the metropolitan level or the parish level, would never allow the laity to engage in an open, honest and critical examination of matters pertaining to governance or the administration of the church. Other than the obvious threat to the ecclesiastical order from such an exercise, there is a feeling of being immune to calls for accountability from the laity. The Coptic community's rejection of the conference's calls for reform stems largely from loyalty to the Coptic Orthodox Church. To participate in such a conference would be an act of treason, an act of rejection of one's faith and of one's cultural and historical heritage. And herein lies the crisis. The majority of Copts with close links to the church have undergone years of indoctrination. The prevailing sentiment is that to criticise the church leadership's performance is tantamount to attacking the faith. The distinction between allegiance to the Coptic Orthodox Church (as an embodiment of their religious affiliation, heritage and belief system) and allegiance to the bishops and ecclesiastical order that are governing simply does not exist for a great many Copt. As long as Copts, as believers, feel that the hierarchy and leadership is the church -- in other words, the bishops and leaders are the embodiment of faith -- then prospects for reform are slim. The weakness of Copts' engagement in civil society or any form of activism outside the church is a worrisome, one might argue dangerous, element of the current crisis. Throughout modern Egyptian history, Copts' civil activism was crucial in creating checks and balances for the power and hegemony of the ecclesiastical order. It was through active participation in governing the church that transparency was secured. Historically, the level of Coptic engagement in matters pertaining to reform was much stronger than is the case today, a result of the awareness that to critique, discuss, contest and question matters was not a sign of treason. On the contrary, it testified to a commitment to make the Coptic Orthodox Church stronger. * The writer is a visiting assistant professor of political science at the American University in Cairo.
