We have seen that cloning raises some incredibly difficult ethical and moral questions. But before we attempt to address them, it may be helpful to look at things from the perspective of the infertile parent, and also to survey various religious positions on the matter.

 It is important to appreciate that these are not just hypothetical questions that people in ivory towers can enjoy discussing over a nice cup of tea. They are questions that influence the lives of many people, real living people. I have encountered couples dealing with infertility, and I can assure you, it is no small matter. Until you have gone through the experience yourself, I don’t think you can really understand what it means to be denied the chance of having your own children. In the Bible, it was considered a terrible curse, a cause of shame and social ridicule, and perhaps even a sign of God’s disfavour. Just think of Hannah the mother of Samuel crying soundless prayers of desperation in the temple, or Sarah the wife of Abraham and Elizabeth the wife of Zechariah. We no longer see infertility as a sign of God’s anger, just as we no longer see disease of any kind in this light. But the personal, emotional and psychological damage it does is still tremendous.

So anything that can help to bring about a child for a childless couple is worth taking very, very seriously. Here, if anywhere, is the place to apply the Pauline principle of “All things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:22). We should begin with the assumption that this new technology is a good thing, and see if there is anything to disqualify it, rather than beginning by assuming it is a bad thing and seeing if there is anything to redeem it. Let’s take a quick tour of the stated opinions of a selection of religious bodies.

 The “all things are lawful – first” approach is indeed to be found among some of the bishops of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Back in 1987, the forward thinking scholar, the late HG Bishop Gregorius delivered a lecture and subsequently published a book on IVF. In it he presents a beautifully balanced critique of this powerful technology, highlighting the benefits it offers to infertile couples as well as the likely problems with progress in this kind of medical technology. His words, summarised by Dr Botros Rizk (see link below) are strangely prescient, and the ethical and moral principles he outlines remain the foundation for our attitude towards the subject today, including the condemnation of commercial trade in eggs or sperm and surrogacy.

HG Bishop Moussa in a 2006 article (see link below) takes a “wait and see” approach: “We are now waiting to see what man will do with knowledge. Will he make it the means of human growth and development or will he make it a means of destruction and distortion?” On the other hand, HG Bishop Serapion of LA (see link below) takes a much harder line: “Cloning is against God’s plan for human reproduction. It is very hard to draw a line between therapeutic cloning for research and human cloning … Christians should oppose any proposition that advances embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning.”

Given the differences in the opinions of Coptic Orthodox authorities on some of these issues, such as therapeutic cloning, for example, perhaps it is time for our Church to formally study these issues in depth and produce a definitive statement. On the other hand, a wide reading of the literature from all sources leaves one with the strong impression that no one has yet formulated waterproof arguments on many of these issues, so perhaps there is a wisdom in allowing the discussion to progress further before an official position is published by the Church?

 The Catholic Church has officially banned all forms of human cloning (see link below). This is consistent with its hardline pro-life positions on abortion, IVF, stem cell research and even contraception. In contrast, the Coptic Church’s pro-life position encompasses only the injunction to not kill; there is no injunction about preventing conception. Thus, while we are opposed to abortion (with the exception of situations where the life of the mother or the infant are in danger) and opposed to IVF or stem cell procedures that involve the destruction of embryos, we have no problem with any form of contraception that does not involve destroying an embryo. For those who are interested, that only rules out IUDs and the morning after pill, both of which have been shown to have a significant risk of acting by destroying an already fertilised embryo.

You may recall that Dr Savos gained the blessing of the senior Imam of Hammas in Lebanon for his cloning work. Interestingly, this is in direct contradiction to the publicly stated “official” Islamic position on the matter. At least one respected Islamic authority has declared human cloning ‘haraam’ (see link below).

 Next time, we’ll go back and bravely have a go at taming some of those really tricky ethical questions.

 Fr Ant

 ______________________

 Links to various religious views on Cloning:

 http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?mf05031 The views of the Coptic Orthodox Church on the treatment of infertility, assisted reproduction and cloning. Botros Rizk, M.R.C.O.G., M.D, 2005.

http://www.stmina.hamilton.on.coptorthodox.ca/index.php?action=view&id=29&module=newsmodule&src=%40random44d36c519a457 The Christian View Of Cloning. HG Bishop Moussa, 2006.

http://www.lacopts.org/articles/the-churchs-perspective-stem-cell-research The Church’s Perspective on Stem Cell Research. HG Bishop Serapion,

http://www.americancatholic.org/news/cloning/default.asp Roman Catholic position on Human Cloning, 2003.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/493/06/PDF/N0449306.pdf?OpenElement  United Nations Declaration

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/21582/clone Islamic Fatwa denounces Human Cloning as ‘haraam’.

 If you think the ethical questions raised by IVF are tough, you’ll be totally flummoxed by those raised by human cloning. Claims of human cloning have occurred sporadically since the turn of the 21^st century, yet none of them has been substantiated – with one exception. Dr Panayiotis Zavos, a Greek Cypriot immigrant to the USA, may soon go down in history as the person responsible for the first ever successful human clone. He has so far made a number of unsuccessful attempts, but with each one, the knowledge gained is bringing him and his team a little closer to success. I have included some links at the end of this blog for those who wish to learn more about him and his very controversial work.

Dr Zavos is an enigmatic figure who proves yet again just how much truth is stranger than fiction. He is a practicing Greek Orthodox Christian, and he puts forward arguments based on Bible verses in support of his work, even though most Christians would disagree with both the work and his interpretation of the Bible. Having been blocked by the laws of Western countries, he moved his work to Beirut in Lebanon where there are no laws to prevent human cloning, and he even met with the spiritual leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon to get his ‘blessing’ on the work of human cloning.

What sets his efforts apart from the other unsubstantiated claims of human cloning by secretive doctors and strange cults is that Dr Zavos has allowed independent journalists and a film crew to document his progress. A documentary was recently aired on pay TV and leaves no doubt that he is doing exactly what he says he is. This is not enough for others in the medical profession, though, who insist that Dr Zavos must open his work to the scrutiny of his peers, and accuse him of being after nothing more than fame and glory and a mountain of cash. Dr Zavos in turn responds that fame is not on his agenda, and that he is motivated mainly by the desire to help couples for whom every other avenue for having a child has failed them. His choice of candidates for his technique would certainly support this claim.

But we are not her to judge Dr Zavos, but to assess the process of cloning a human being. First we must turn to the ethical problems with the technique as it stands today.

One of the major objections raised against human cloning is that the procedure damages the genetic information in the cells, resulting in a very high rate of deformed individuals. Dolly, the famous sheep who broke open Pandora’s Box when she was cloned from a six year old sheep in 1997, took no less than 277 attempts before her creators got it right. Many of those were deformed sheep that did not survive. We may be willing to accept that attrition rate for sheep, but have we the right to do that to human beings? Thus, Dr Zavos is criticised for trying to do this far too early. Let us wait, his critics say, until we have improved the technique using animals. Once we have got it right, we can think about using it on humans, but to attempt it now on humans is criminal.

Then there is the risk of abuse. Earlier I compared human cloning to nuclear power, maintaining that both are technologies with tremendous potential for both good and evil. The horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was so terrifying that no one has used a nuclear weapon in anger ever since. And yet, we still live in fear for we cannot be certain that some rogue state will one day break this taboo, with dreadful consequences. Human cloning too has the potential for dreadful consequences. What do you think of the following potential scenarios:

-          A mother loses her 10 year old daughter in an accident. She saves a little of her daughter’s genetic material and has her cloned to ‘bring her back to life’ again.

-          A laboratory clones a number of human beings but only allows them to grow to about 30 cells, never implanting them in a womb. They remove cells whenever they grow to 30 cells and use the removed cells for research. If you consider life to begin at conception, is this any way to treat a human being?

-          A government decrees that the population needs to be ‘beautified’ or made smarter, and that henceforth, no natural children will be born, but only clones of the most beautiful or the most intelligent people.

-          A caste of human clones is genetically engineered to be a servant class with very low IQ but large muscle bulk and stamina. The company that produces them rents them out for $20,000 per year (plus food and board, but only the most basic needs, since they are bred not to complain).

-          Astronauts in weightless space have no need for legs – they use up energy and serve no purpose. Thus, NASA clones an astronaut race with no legs who can travel to far distant planets, happily living on spaceships for years with no legs.

-          A billionaire realises he is getting old. He secretly clones himself ten times and locks up the clones in a hidden complex underground beneath his mansion. They are given only the most basic of their needs – food and water and warmth. They are not educated, they never learn to speak or understand speech, they never see the outside world. When the billionaire’s heart or liver or kidneys start to give out, he simply kills one of the clones and, hey presto! Instant perfect genetic match for a donor!

-          Eventually, even the bank of identical organs can no longer keep the billionaire alive. His body is just too old. So he attempts a radically new procedure: he has his brain transplanted into the healthiest of the young clones, effectively giving himself another lifetime on the earth. If it succeeds, there may be no limit to how many times he may be able to jump into a new body, genetically, his own body.

Some of these scenarios are still science fiction, but some are possible today. The first one is the actual profile of one of Dr Zavos’ patients, and the second scenario is a reality right now in South Korea. The disturbing thing is that even the most fantastic of them may be a real possibility within the lifetime of people alive today.

Are we really mature enough as a human race to handle this kind of power? What will it do to the nature of our society, our families, and our relationships? If you cloned yourself, would the resultant human being be your brother or your son? What is the legal status of a clone? What inheritance rights would it enjoy over its donor? What are the psychological effects of being brought up by your genetic twin? How will the family unit be affected if cloning becomes widespread, and what effect will this have on society as a whole? We know that identical twins are more likely to suffer from heart disease and diabetes than non-identical twins: will there be increased health risks for clones? What about the danger of creating distinct classes in society based on genetics: what if we end up with a super race that considers all other humans their inferiors and servants? Are we willing to give up on the principle of the equality of all human beings?

The deepest of these questions lead us to ask perhaps the most basic question of all: what is it that makes a human being? Is it just the physical body, including its unique set of genes? Is it the experiences they go through in life, which have little to do with genes? And what about the unique spirit that God gives to each individual at conception: can it be transferred from one body to another as in the case of the brain transplant mentioned above? Is the spirit of a person linked to their genes, or their brain?

Should we clone human beings simply because we can? There are those who would say that human cloning is inevitable and it is foolish to think it can be stopped, as foolish as believing that one day all nations will destroy their nuclear weapons. If they are right, then we who are Christians need to come to grips with this bamboozling situation. Indeed, the whole world needs to, and fairly soon, too.

 In the last blog under this topic I will survey what various religions have said about human cloning and then bravely attempt to address some of these moral and ethical questions, and try to at least point the way to some possible answers.

Fr Ant

 ______________________________________

Links to info on Dr Zavos and his attempts to clone a human being:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panayiotis_Zavos

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fertility-expert-i-can-clone-a-human-being-1672095.html

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-and-ethicists-unite-to-attack-doctors-clone-plan-1672701.html

 One of the major issues challenging our ethics in the 21^st century is the issue of human cloning. There are compelling parallels to the rise of nuclear energy 60 years ago. Whilst nuclear energy has given us a relatively clean source of incredible amounts of energy, and is even used in medicine to save lives, it also brought with it the ability to destroy the world as we know it. Would we have been better off if the power within the atom had never been unleashed?

Cloning today provides a stunningly similar set of ethical questions. Most people are happy with the idea of cloning plants or even animals if it will provide some benefit to humanity, but when it comes to considering cloning a human being, we run into a minefield of questions, for most of which we have yet to find satisfactory answers.

Nor is it a hypothetical question any more. At this very moment, as you read these words, there are serious efforts underway to produce the first living human clones, and they are getting closer and closer to succeeding.

Firstly, a few basic definitions. I am talking here about reproductive cloning, the production of a fully functioning living human being from the cell of another human. This is different to therapeutic cloning which only involves the production of groups of cells or even tissues from the cells of a human being. With reproductive cloning, the cloned individual is genetically identical to the donor, sort of an identical twin, except they might be born 30 years apart!

Now, we have had test tube babies (IVF) for a few decades. But IVF involves combining genetic material from two individuals to produce a baby, much the same as nature does. Even here, we find a multitude of ethical questions…

-          When does life begin?

-          Can we destroy unneeded embryos?

-          Is it right to implant an embryo in a surrogate mother?

-          If the husband is unable to provide viable sperm, is it acceptable to use sperm from a stranger? Could this be considered a form of adultery (although no actual adulterous relationship has occurred, the results are the same).

-          Is it acceptable to use IVF to give a gay or lesbian couple their own child?

The Coptic Church has a more developed position on these sorts of questions than it does about cloning, obviously because IVF has been around for a lot longer as a real world issue. We consider that life begins at conception, for that is the first moment at which the embryo has all the genetic information that makes her who she is. In a sense, the only difference between a fertilised egg and an adult human being is one of number, not nature. Both are individual human beings, but one has one cell, the other has trillions.

This answers the question of whether it is right to destroy unneeded embryos – no it isn’t, for that means killing a human being, one that is unable to defend itself too. With the issue of surrogacy we start entering muddy waters. There are many social and psychological pitfalls here, and most in the Church would say surrogacy is not an acceptable option. Certainly not for money. Others might say it is in a way an extension of the “wet nurse” that is even mentioned favourably in the Bible. Instead of another woman providing milk for a newborn baby, she is now providing a little bit more – sustenance and protection for the nine months before birth. Interestingly, there is an old Egyptian tradition that says that you cannot marry a person who has suckled from the same breast as you, for that is considered to have made you siblings. I wonder how that might apply to surrogate motherhood? Especially since breast pumps have made wet nurses obsolete these days.

Then of course there are extensions to IVF that haven’t yet happened, but are quite possible. Techniques are available today for finding out quite early whether an embryo has the genetic defects that lead to serious and sometimes life threatening hereditary diseases. Although the Church would not condone the fertilisation of a dozen embryos and then the destruction of those with the faulty gene, it can accept using genetic engineering to correct the problem in a gene and thus produce a healthy child instead of a sick one.

But imagine a donor catalogue where parents could choose the sperm or egg donor with the characteristics of their choice. Choose a famous concert pianist and get a child with musical genes! Genetic Engineering may open up the way to creating your own baby, much the way you create your own computer at a Dell website. Instead of choosing the specifications of your RAM and hard drive, you choose eye colour, height, physique and so on.

A brave new world indeed! Are we ready to cope with such power? Disturbing images of the Tower of Babel spring to mind. Do we have the right to “play God” in this way? Is there anything morally wrong with parents choosing the eye and hair colour of their children, or the inherent abilities they will have? Or were we meant to just accept whatever God gave us? How do the Christian concepts of humility and surrender to God’s will apply to these issues?

I will try to address these questions and raise some more regarding human cloning in coming blogs. In the meantime, your comments are most welcome.

 Fr Ant

"Drinker" by Paul Cezanne. In today's world, drinking is seen as a normal part of life. As Copts, we go against this trend and often suffer ridicule for doing so. Why do we take this narrow path?

What’s wrong with having the occasional alcoholic drink? Why does the Coptic Church make such a big fuss over this issue?

The Coptic Orthodox Church strongly recommends that alcohol not be a part of its member’s lives, apart from Holy Communion of course. Today, I’d like to take a look at both sides of the story.

Critics of this policy attack it on the following grounds:

- The Bible never condemns the drinking of alcohol, only drunkenness

- Jesus Himself changed the water into wine.

- Most other Christian Churches allow social drinking of alcohol. Even their clergy drink.

- The Coptic Church bans alcohol only because it exists within a Muslim society where alcohol is banned by Islam.

- Alcohol is not evil in itself. What counts is how you use it. People are responsible enough to use it wisely, so there is no need for it to be banned.

I will address these points below. On the other side of the debate, the following points need to be made:

- Alcohol is responsible for a tremendous amount of disease and death in our society.

- Alcohol is a drug. If it were only newly discovered today, it would never be released for use, not even on prescription, because of its incredibly toxic profile of side effects. It is far more harmful than many other drugs that have been scrapped because of their side effects.

- Alcohol is a drug of addiction. Research has shown that 10% of “social drinkers” will go on to become alcoholic at some stage of their life. Interestingly, this cuts across all social classes, both genders and all personality types. There appears to be no such thing as a ’strong personality’ who is less at risk of becoming alcoholic – we are all equally vulnerable.

To my mind, the most powerful arguments against the use of alcohol are the health issues. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Our health is a gift from God, a wonderful gift that we don’t appreciate perhaps, until it is taken away from us. Alcohol is a known poison. Yes, you can die directly from alcohol overdose – it is rare only because the drinker usually passes out before he can kill himself. Does it make sense for the faithful Christian to abuse this gift in this way?

On a statistical level, while I have no actual figures, I can say with some confidence that within our Coptic community the incidence of alcoholism is vanishingly small. It does happen, but it is very rare, and certainly nowhere near the incidence of the wider Australian community. I have no doubt that this excellent health outcome is due to the Church’s policy against even social drinking. Weigh it up: what do we lose and what do we gain? We lose a little bit of chemical stimulation at social events, but we gain better health for thousands of husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, who are allowed to continue caring for their families and living useful, fulfilling and productive lives.

In Biblical times, there was little choice in what a person had to drink. They didn’t have the rows upon rows of juices and soft drinks we have today. Nor did they always have clean water, and at times, alcoholic drinks were much safer to drink than water from a polluted source. Alcohol can have short term beneficial effects as well, and was often used as a medicine, but today we have far more effective and far less dangerous medicines available to us.

The Church also bans cigarette smoking. No one disagrees with that policy,even smokers, who spend most of their smoking life wishing they could stop. And yet, cigarettes and alcohol cause damage to the user of roughly the same magnitude. I wonder why there is a difference in the community’s attitude between the two?

In response to the arguments above in favour of drinking, think about this:

- Whilst the Bible never condemns alcohol in itself, it does teach us to be wise in how we use our Christian freedom. “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” 1 Corinthians 6:12. To be a social drinker is to put oneself at a 1 in 10 chance of being brought under the power of a drug. “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.” 1 Corinthians 10:23. Alcohol does not edify – it does not build us up or improve us as human beings, and it certainly does not help us to become better spiritually.

- At the wedding of Cana of Galillee, Jesus changed the water into oinos. This is the Greek word used in the Gospel of John. It actually denotes the juice of the grape in general and was most likely very low on alcohol content. Dr Morris writes: “This ‘good wine’ had been miraculously created by the Creator and was brand new, with no time to ferment and become old, intoxicating wine. The Greek word oinos was used for the juice of grapes in general, the same word for both unfermented and fermented wine, with the context determining which.” (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/wine.html).

- Other Christian Churches do indeed accept social drinking. But is it good for them? I recall one day having a discussion with a teenager at Church on the topic. “I go to a Catholic School, Abouna,” she told me, “and we had a celebration there the other day. The Catholic priest was drinking alcohol.” She said this confidently, but then paused in thought. “Actually,” she went on, “he got drunk.” Why leave this door open? If even a consecrated and celibate clergyman can give in to the temptation of drinking to excess, why should I put myself in that position? What’s the point of asking God to, “lead us not into temptation” when I am going to live my life in a way that plummets me into temptation on a regular basis?

- Doubtless, the Muslim society in which the Church has developed for fourteen centuries has contributed to this no alcohol policy, but what difference does that make? Does it matter why we have the policy? Isn’t it much more important whether it is a good policy to have or not? I think that there are many public health workers today in Western societies who wish dearly that they could introduce a policy like this! Practically speaking, this is probably too hard, as the prohibition days of the 1930s in the United States proved. But imagine the health benefits if it were possible! We as a Coptic community already have this policy – who cares where it came from?

- It is true that alcohol in itself is not evil. That is why we can use it as the material which becomes the very Blood of Christ. It is a good antiseptic that can prevent nasty infections in wounds. Emergency doctors can use it to save lives – given intravenously, it is the antidote to poisoning with antifreeze. But we have seen that addiction to alcohol does not discriminate. Anyone, regardless of who they are, is vulnerable. The simple fact is that all of us will go through times of great stress in our lives. If alcohol is available, 1 in 10 of us will be drawn to it and find comfort and escape through it, thus falling in to the pit of alcoholism. If alcohol is simply not an option – it is not in our homes or on our dinner tables in the first place, then this solution to our problems with all its drawbacks will simply not even come up, and we will find other ways of coping.

Finally, think about the others in your life. You might be one of the 9 in 10 who could drink socially all your life and never become an alcoholic. But what if your child is among the 1 in 10? By allowing alcohol to be a part of your home and your family customs, you are partially responsible for his or her suffering.

Is it worth it?

Fr Ant

Navigating the Bible can be confusing at times. Understanding the very nature of human language can help to clear up some of the confusion.

Recently I’ve been delving into alleged “mistakes” in the Bible. There is a lot to say on this subject, but I’d like today just to throw a few thoughts into the ring.

In considering whether a Bible passage has made a “mistake”, it is crucial to understand what we mean exactly by “mistake”. Language is used in so many different ways, and it is by no means exact in the same sense that the language of mathematics may be said to be exact.

If I propose, for example, that E=mc², I am proposing something that is quite unambiguous. I have defined exactly what I mean by each of the symbols. For example, I have defined mass as being that particular property of a thing that allows it to be acted upon by forces like gravity. I would have a clear distinction in my mind between the concepts of mass and weight, the weight being of course the force exerted by gravity on the mass: proportional to it, but not identical to it. I would also know exactly what the ‘square’ symbol means – to multiply the preceding pronumeral by itself, to do so once and only once. I know that it means that the ‘c’ is squared, but not the adjacent ‘m’, according to a convention where in the absence of brackets, you square only the one pronumeral. And so on; it is a brief yet incredibly precise statement that leaves no room for misinterpretation, given modern mathematical conventions.

But how precise is a sentence like “And she brought forth her firstborn Son” Luke 2:7?  What does the language tell us, and what does it leave open to interpretation? There are of course some implications that no one would object to, such as:

• Mary was the biological mother of Jesus.
• Jesus was the first child to be born of Mary.

Then there are some points that we could be reasonably confident about:

• Mary gave birth to Jesus in a natural way (not by a miracle – He didn’t suddenly appear outside her body without passing through the birth canal).

Then there is speculation:

• Since the text uses “firstborn”, this implies that there must also have been a second at least, and possibly more children born of Mary in later years.

This last assumption is of course the source of debate between those Christians who believe in the perpetual virginity of St Mary and those who believe that Jesus had biological brothers. The debate remains inconclusive (in the sense that neither side has convinced the other) partly because the actual text leaves the issue open. In fact, “firstborn” refers only to what came before, not to what came after. A firstborn son may just as easily remain an only son.

This imprecise nature of human language becomes a more pressing problem when we are faced with what may appear to be an outright mistake in the Bible. Here is an example, quoted on a popular atheist website:

Source: http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm

What has the critic done here? They have read the text in one, narrow way, and then used that reading to show that the author believed in a flat earth. The implication is obvious: the author of this was backward and just plain wrong about the world; people who still believe in it today are the same.

But let’s go back to the text. Is there anything there that narrows the meaning to necessarily imply that if one went to the top of a mountain high enough, one would naturally see all the kingdoms of the world? In fact, it is easy to apply a number of alternative readings. For example:

• The devil took Jesus up onto the high mountain for effect, not for a vantage point. Everyone knows that things look tiny when seen from a distance – that is not impressive! The top of a mountain was more likely chosen for a sense of height and loftiness that might inspire Jesus to desire greatness.
• If the devil showed Jesus the kingdoms of the world in a vision, or described them with words, then in fact, he could just as well have shown them anywhere, even in a cave.
• If we take the word ‘all’ literally, then “All the kingdoms of the world” must necessarily mean all kingdoms, not only in geography, but in time as well. Thus, the devil must have shown him kingdoms long gone, and more importantly, great kingdoms yet to be. Being on a mountain top will not help you see into the depths of time – no one has ever thought that. Therefore, the vision of the kingdoms was a supernatural one, not a natural one.

The point of the author is not to illustrate how far you can see from the top of the highest mountain. To focus on that aspect of what he wrote is to completely miss his point, which means, unfortunately, to make your argument unworthy of serious attention. The point was that the devil lay before Christ the temptation of great power. It does not matter whether he offered him absolutely every single kingdom from the dawn of time to the end, or if he merely offered Him a selection of the top five only. It does not matter whether he included in the deal only royal monarchies, or whether he also included democratic oligarchies, dictatorial theocracies and any other form of political system. One might just as well point out that since he only said “kingdoms of the world”, he was unaware that any other political systems existed and was thus painfully backward and just plain wrong.

But language is not meant to be treated this way. When we read a passage, any passage, Biblical or otherwise, our purpose is to understand the message the author wants to communicate to us. Human thought is so rich and variegated that using language well is considered not a science, but an art. Meaning cannot be tied down as precisely as a physical concept like the equivalence of energy and mass so simply expressed in Einstein’s iconic equation above. Nor would we want it to.

The critic of the passage above is nit picking, plain and simple. That’s a great way to go if you don’t care about knowing the truth about things.

Fr Ant

Fr Mina Nematalla and his family as a layman, not long before his ordination, together with his uncle, Pope Kyrollos VI.

Tomorrow, July 1st, marks the the tenth anniversary of the passing of Fr Mina Nematalla, the pioneering Coptic Orthodox priest of Australia. In 1969 he became the first Coptic priest to settle in Australia and established the Coptic Orthodox Church on this continent. Today I would like to share a few personal thoughts to mark this occasion.

Upon my ordination back in 1991 I was assigned by HH Pope Shenouda III to serve at Archangel Michael and St Bishoy Church as an assistant to Fr Mina. At that time, Fr Mina was alone in the parish, and very, very sick. In fact, it was during my ordination and stay in Egypt that Fr Mina finally underwent a complex kidney transplant that saved his life and released him at last from the tyranny of constant renal dialysis.

I arrived at the parish not quite knowing what to expect. My family had had some contact with Fr Mina back in the 70’s but that was very limited. I would go on to serve with Fr Mina until his passing in 2000, and during that time, I got to see him at his best, and at his worst. I came to respect the man as I have few other people on this earth. He had his faults – there is no denying that – we all have. But this is a day for remembering and celebrating the positives. Perhaps his legacy can then live on in our own lives, thereby enriching and encouraging our own journey to the God he loved so much.

The chief characteristic of Fr Mina that dominates his picture in my mind was his absolute straightforwardness. He was the kind of person who never left you guessing what he was thinking. With Fr Mina, what you saw was what you got, without fail. Some people found this confronting, others found it perhaps even discourteous. But I revelled in it. How much simpler and easier life becomes when people are honest with each other! This also meant that it was so easy to trust him. He was a man of his word, the kind of person who kept his word, even to his own disadvantage.

I fondly remember the times when I, as a young inexperienced priest, messed up. He would call me over for a private chat in which he would simply and clearly point out what I had done wrong. Following a genuinely two way discussion, he would give me my admonition, and then tell me that that was the end of the matter. And it was. It never came up again and it never changed his attitude towards me.

This straightforwardness was also an important part of his spiritual life and practices. No doubt, anyone who grew up serving with Fr Mina the Hermit (later to become Pope Kyrollos VI) should have a good grounding in the spiritual life, but what impressed me deeply was just how ‘organic’ his spiritual life was. His prayers were not for show – they were from the heart. There are many who still remember his deeply emotional liturgy, the wide inflections of tone, the profound expression in his voice and upon his face, the tears that sometimes leaked out. All of this came from the heart. To behold Fr Mina at the altar felt like beholding Moses at the Ark of the Covenant – that same sense of man bare before God is evoked. And the same may be said of his love for the praises of the Church, praises he refused to miss even in his illness. The obvious childlike delight he took in praising God served as an inspiration for many, yet it was a genuine delight in God, first and foremost. Even the smallest discussion with him on the topic revealed just how deeply that delight in God ran.

Another fond memory involves children. Fr Mina loved children, whether they were his own offspring or anyone else’s. People sometimes complained that the sanctuary had been turned into a nursery during the liturgy. He would love to have up to a dozen young deacons around him, teaching them how to chant the responses, when to bring the censer, how to behave in the sanctuary. This was a reflection of his generosity – he saw service in the sanctuary as a great honour, and he wanted to bestow that honour upon as many children as he could. We are still enjoying the benefits of this policy today in our parish, for it produced generations of deacons who genuinely love and respect the service of the liturgy, and particularly that sacred service of the sanctuary. We can only pray that we pass this tradition on to coming generations.

I was blessed to serve with a sensible man. In the tug and pull of parish service, with so much respect heaped upon the clergy by the congregation and so much pressure to follow the faith to the letter, it is not uncommon to find clergymen who lose their common sense. But Fr Mina was not one to fall into the this trap too easily. Deep down inside him was a heart of genuine humility, a humility that was not for general display, but guided his every action nonetheless. This humility, this sense of his own weakness and fallibility was, I think, what kept his feet so firmly on the ground. Many times did I see him wisely rejecting more fanatical directions suggested by others in favour of things that made sense, and worked in the real world in which we live.

These things may not seem to be major virtues to some readers, but they made our a parish a pleasure to be a part of. The faith that was both encouraged and practiced was (and is) a real faith, a living faith, rather than a “pie in the sky” faith. People in general felt comfortable to be themselves around Fr Mina, and felt freed to express their love for God through the rites of the Church. Being themselves of course meant that again that one saw both the best and the worst of people; but isn’t that a better way of being Christian?

Fr Mina, you are fondly remembered. Pray for us.

Fr Ant

Australia's first female Prime Minister.

Angela brings up the topic of Australia’s new Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard.

She is right in saying that priests tend to stay out of politics, and so it should be, but I am going to offer a few non-political observations on the political landscape. I have always thought that faith ought to be applicable to every sphere of our lives, without exception. Politics is one area where perhaps we need to apply our faith the most, for it is the sphere where the major decisions that determine the external nature of our lives are made. Living in a democracy, we get to choose who makes those decisions, and thus have a responsibility to make the best choices we can.

Firstly, it is the first time Australia has ever had a woman Prime Minister. Someone actually pointed out to me that we now have a women-only government, starting from the Queen, the Governor General, Prime Minister, Governor of NSW, Premier of NSW and even the Lord Mayoress of Sydney – all of whom are women! In today’s world, the ideal of equal opportunity has, rightly I think, largely emilinated older ideals of the fragility of women. We should get the best person to do the job, regardless of race, colour, creed or gender. There are many who feel at the moment that Julia Gillard is the best person for the job, so let’s see what she can do.

There is no doubt poor old Kevin Rudd, until recently, Prime Minister of Australia, has been dealt with rather harshly. By most accounts (including his own of course) he has been a pretty good Prime Minister. Whether he was heading in the wrong direction in recent months is up for debate, and now perhaps we shall never know. He has always been an unusual politician: meticulous, excessively hard working, driven almost. Reportedly, he drove the people around him crazy with his high expectations of them as of himself. Thus he was never really so popular among his own party, which I find a little sad. One could almost say the reason he lost his job was because he gave too much of his attention to the job of running the country and paid little attention to the job of lobbying and playing the game and shoring up his support among his own party. This is one of the weaknesses of our democratic system as it stands today. Those who are most likely to reach power are those who play the political numbers game the best. If they are also wise rulers, that’s a bonus, but it is by no means guaranteed. There must be a better way to do things!

On the other hand, we have seen another pattern in Australian government that has been both disturbing and disruptive. Here in NSW, we travail under a government that has just been in power for too long. The bright lights that led it into power a decade and a half ago are all long gone, and they do not seem to have paid much attention to getting good people in to replace them – another of the drawbacks of our current political system. You see, if you are in power, you have to be careful not to recruit people to your party who are too capable, or one of them may one day rise up to take your place! This “King Herod” mentality has seen too many long running governments drop in the quality of their personnel and fall into the pit of corruption, hypocrisy, and ineptitude. Perhaps it is not such a bad thing to have a change of leader every few years? Perhaps that will help to keep the government fresh and on its toes? The years will tell.

I was certainly moved to tears for the man, standing at that podium with his family behind him, trying valiantly to keep it all together and go out with dignity. I was impressed with his appearance on the back bench in parliament the same day. It says a lot about his character. I don’t think we have enough of that in modern politics. Too many politicians who stand for nothing, really, except their own ambitions. No doubt there are admirable exceptions, but not enough.

As always, the real challenge for Julia Gillard will be to stick to her ideals and principles in the maelstrom of Canberra politics. Her opposition is formidable. Tony Abbot has long been renowned as something of a pitbull terrier in the political arena, something I always find sits uncomfortably with his openly Christian faith. How does he reconcile the two? Wouldn’t it be intriguing to have a quiet coffee with him one day and find out?

We once invited a group of politicians to Church for a panel discussion on just that topic: the challenge of maintaining one’s Christian faith as a politician. We were enjoying some illuminating discussion until they began to turn on each other and attack each other’s parties and policies, in spite of our clear agreement before the meeting that this would be an apolitical discussion.

Can they help it? Can Christianity be applied to politics, or can politics be played in a Christian way? I can’t help feeling that it can, but it must be incredibly hard. Other Christian politicians I have spoken to describe their bitter disappointment with the system; how those who do the right thing in the right way are almost always trodden down.

And yet, I wonder. If a genuine and sincere politician came along one day. Some one who always told the truth, even if it were against his personal interests. Some who gave his word and stuck to it. Some one who focused on the real issue rather than on merelygaining popularity and scoring political points. Could you imagine the respect and trust such a leader could command? Can you imagine the good they might do? But could such a person ever succeed in our current political system?

There was actually such a person in Australia. His name was Ted Mack, and he had to run as an independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Mack_(politician) ). As mayor of North Sydney, he sold the mayoral Mercedes Benz and used the money to buy community buses.  He always spoke out against the huge superannuation payouts made to politicians, and then put his money where his mouth was by retiring one day before he qualified for his own parliamentary pension. He was a beacon of integrity for a number of years, but his usefulness was limited because of course, you can only do so much if you are not in one of the major parties.

Where are the Ted Macks of this world? All running away from politics as fast as they can, sadly.

Fr Ant

The moment you decide to go for it, the instant you steel your will and take up your weapons for battle, something has to happen to make your goal suddenly seem that much harder.

Last time I shared my intention to be more punctual – a brave thing to do. What followed was an illness that meant I had to not only not arrive on time for my next few days of appointments, but cancel them altogether! Talk about not keeping your word. The good news is that I’m back out of hospital now with little permanent damage done, and I’m not going to give up! It may well be some time before I can make appointments again, that’s true, but when I do, I am going to try to be punctual to them.

This kind of thing does not surprise me. It is for me one of the indirect proofs of the existence of God. If God didn’t exist, why should it prove so consistently darned hard to obey Him?

It is also good for the soul. Obstacles give us an opportunity to be stubborn in a good way, and that’s something most of us relish. At least you are sure whose side your on. Give me a clear path with lots of obstacles over a confusing path anytime.

Fr Ant

Time Stress...

I have a confession to make.

I am not always very punctual.

The more cynical among you may be thinking right now, “Isn’t that compulsory for a Coptic priest? Don’t they teach that during their 40 days of training?”

Of course, the reality is that Egypt lies at the junction of the Middle East and Africa, two regions of the world where puncuality as a priority rates somewhere between eating your greens and polishing your carburettor. If the West enjoys occasionally being ‘fashionably late’, everyone in the Middle East is a trend leader, while the dark continent loves to remind you, “No hurry in Africa”. No wonder that Egyptians, by and large, are not a very punctual people.

But here’s my problem: not only do I serve with a priest who is abnormally punctual, but I am married to one of the most punctual people I know! I am developing an inferiority complex! If they can do it, why can’t I?

Lateness is an attitude. If you are engrossed in the thing you are doing at the moment, it is easy to lose track of time. It is easy for the person you are talking to now to seem more pressing than the person you have not yet reached. Somewhere in the back of mind lurks the idea that nothing so terrible will happen if I’m a little bit late. And of course, the little bit becomes a little bit more, and little bit more, and… oops.

I can see spiritual benefits in this attitude, not to mention health benefits. Surely it is a good thing to give the person you are with your fullest attention? Doesn’t that let them know that they are important to you? It also means that you can do things properly, rather than leaving things half finished. Then of course, there is the valuable humility you gain from constantly apologising to people when you are constantly late. Healthwise, it is really good for you not to stress over the little details of life. Your blood pressure will thank you, even if the person waiting for you will not.

But my wife said something to me once that gave me pause: “Being punctual,” she said, “is keeping your word.” I had never really thought of it like that. If Egyptians are famous for lateness, Upper Egyptians (of which I am one) are proverbial for keeping their word – no matter what. So every time I am late, I am actually breaking my word to someone. “I’ll be there at 7,” I confidently tell them. When I eventually arrive at 7:30, not only have I kept them waiting for me for half an hour, but I have also broken my word. That’s not a nice thing to do. The message it sends is that the person waiting for you is not that important. Perhaps that your time is more valuale than theirs, so it is fine for them to wait for you.

Punctuality is often viewed as a cultural thing. But if so, I wonder why many of our Coptic youth who have been brought up here in Australia still seem to have the lousy punctuality of their parents. I begin to wonder whether there is not more to it than just culture. Maybe there is a personal choice to be made here. Can an unpunctual person really change? Can a Coptic priest really turn up on time? I have known some who do, on a regular basis!

Well, I’m going to give it a try!

I’ll let you know how it goes … some time …

Fr Ant

"When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (peristeran) and alighting upon Him." Matthew 3:16

I recently came across an interesting little fact. Before I share it with you, I have to tell you that although I love anything mathematical, I am not generally a great fan of Biblical numerology; the study of mathematical patterns in the text of the Bible. However, this one is interesting…

In the Gospel accounts of the Epiphany, the baptism of Jesus by St John the Baptist, the original Greek word used for the dove that appeared above Him is “PERISTERAN”. Now the evangelists tell us that this apparition of a dove was actually a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

You may be aware that in written Greek (the original language of the New Testament), numbers do not have their own unique symbols, but are represented by the letters of the alphabet. The same is true of Coptic. Thus alpha, the first letter, represents the number one, beta, the second letter, is ‘two’, and so on. Once you get to ten, the next letter is twenty, then thirty, and so on to a hundred, then two hundred  etc.

Now it turns out that if you take the numerical values for all the letters that make up the Greek word “PERISTERAN” and add them up, you come to a total of 801.  What’s so special about that?

Well, 801 = 800 + 1.

The number 1 written in Greek is the letter alpha, the first letter of the alphabet. Care to guess what letter represents the number 800?

Omega, of course, the last letter of the Greek alphabet. I quote for you two verses from the Book of Revelation and leave you to put the rest together for yourself:

The Father Said:

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

And the Son said:

Rev 1:11 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,”

And the Holy Spirit didn’t need to say anything…

Fr Ant