Last week's ruling in Obergefell took up a lot of attention, but I've been meaning to link a couple of good articles about Mideast Christians, specifically, their relationship with authoritarian regimes. Outsiders often criticize Mideast Christians for coming to terms with such regimes. But the regimes are often the best alternative in a terrible situation.
First, at Crux, John Allen has been writing a series on Egypt's Copts, who are going through one of the worst periods of persecution in their long history. Yesterday, he posted an interesting piece on relations between Copts and Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. El-Sisi has made a number of high-profile gestures of solidarity with Copts, including attending a Christmas Liturgy, and the vast majority view him very favorably. The Coptic Church is solidly behind him, and for most Christians, Allen writes, “it’s axiomatic that el-Sisi is the best thing that’s happened in a long time.”
But there are dissenting views. Allen interviews a few Copts who say El-Sisi's warmth is just for show, and that his regime continues to oppress Copts, just as the Mubarak and Morsi governments did. Crimes against Copts continue to go unpunished, and there is still “forced displacement, harassment under the country’s anti-blasphemy laws, kidnappings and physical assaults.” Indeed, one commentator reports that, “in virtually every category . . . the number of incidents today is going up rather than down.” Perhaps Christians' support for el-Sisi is misplaced—or perhaps, as most Copts argue, el-Sisi is doing all he can to change traditional Egyptian attitudes and is the best option in a very imperfect situation. My sense, from reading Western news accounts, is that the latter is the case. But I'll admit Allen's reporting makes me wonder a bit.
The second is this wide-ranging interview from La Stampa's “Vatican Insider” with Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem II. Aphrem—who previously served as his church's archbishop in America, incidentally—discusses a number of topics, including Christians' relations with the Assad regime. Here's a snippet:
Some Western circles accuse the Christians of the East of submitting to authoritarian regimes.
“We have not submitted ourselves to Assad and the so-called authoritarian governments. We simply recognise legitimate governments. The majority of Syrian citizens support Assad’s government and have always supported it. We recognise legitimate rulers and pray for them, as the New Testament teaches us. We also see that on the other side there is no democratic opposition, only extremist groups. Above all, we see that in the past few years, these groups have been basing their actions on an ideology that comes from the outside, brought here by preachers of hatred who have come from and are backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt. These groups receive arms through Turkey too, as the media have shown us.”
You have to read between the lines here. What he's saying, it seems to me, is not that Assad is wonderful, but that the alternative for Christians is incomparably worse. Aphrem makes other allegations that seem dubious, for example, that the West is arming terrorist groups that are massacring Christians. I guess he's referring to Turkey's alleged links with ISIS. Anyway, it's hard to argue with his basic point that the West should not judge Syria's Christians for the choices they have to make. Like Allen's piece on Copts, the La Stampa interview is worth reading for a sense of the pressures Mideast Christians face every day.
Mark Movsesian is the Frederick A. Whitney Professor of Contract Law and the Director of the Center for Law and Religion at St. John’s University School of Law. His previous blog posts can be found here.
