Coptica v. 16 2017

Reviews

97

Oriental Orthodox Perspective, is largely populated with chapters on the Christology of the Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopian, and Armenian churches, with a second set of chapters focused on Christological passages in their respective liturgies. (The chapter by Baby Varghese, pgs. 363-77, is especially noteworthy on that front.) In all, however, one will search in vain for analogous discussions in Part I: Eastern Orthodox Perspectives. This is more than a product of the chapters or authors sampled by this volume; rather, it demonstrates an implicit, pervasive pattern. Fundamentally, the Oriental Orthodox find themselves repeatedly having to prove the soundness of their Christology; hence, one finds something of an apologetic tone in the chapters presented by anti-Chalcedonian authors. Nonetheless, at what point, one may ask, will it be no longer necessary to prove what has already been repeatedly demonstrated—the orthodoxy of the Christology of the anti- Chalcedonians—and to move concretely toward reunion? More to the point, the volume cannot help but underscore an unspoken, yet nagging question that defies a simple explanation: Why are the Orthodox still at odds with one another? The strong consensus as to the orthodoxy of both parties is not disputed by any but ultra-partisans who refuse to see anyone other than their own confession carry the label of “Orthodox.” (It is here that the undocumented intra-confessional rivalries and competing hierarchical claims and prerogatives play a significant role.) Moreover, there is still something of a distrust of the other that lingers in both camps (e.g. see pgs. 183 and 241). In all, however, the sorrowful state of Orthodox ecumenism is not due to passionate, earnest disagreements over Christology, but rather the tacit acceptance of a fragmented, though functional and utilitarian status quo (an un -orthodox ecclesiology). Sunday after Sunday, Copts attend Coptic churches, Greeks attend their own parishes, and the Russians do the same; unity, or the lack thereof, matters little in such a narrow, grassroots level. In essence, living apart for so many centuries, the various jurisdictions have forgotten what it was like to be united, and how that unity did not shrink or diminish anyone’s jurisdiction, but rather strengthened all. Fundamentally, none feel an urgency to reunite, and until the various jurisdictions make the visible unity of the Church a priority, not something abstract to pray for, but a concrete imperative that one must work toward, not much is likely to change in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, if the articles and statements edited in this volume are taken seriously, this book may, indeed, act as an important step along the winding and elusive path to Orthodox unity.

Maged S.A. Mikhail Professor of History California State University, Fullerton mmikhail@fullerton.edu