Unity of the Faith
Some thoughts on how Jesus's prayer in John 17 might become reality
A week from tomorrow (June 2nd), I will be on a plane to Rome via Paris.
Sounds pretty exciting, right? Let me temper this by saying flying on a night flight in Economy Class to Europe is nothing to get excited about. Alas, since all my travel currently comes out of my own pocket, Economy it is!
More importantly, why am I flying to Rome?
I was invited to present a paper at an academic conference, Nicaea and the Church of the Third Millenium: Towards Catholic-Orthodox Unity, co-hosted by the International Orthodox Theological Association (IOTA) and the Institute for Ecumenical Studies of the Angelicum, a specialized institute within the Faculty of Theology of the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. You can find the conference information here.
The title of my paper is Contemporary Witnesses: Conveying the Lordship and Divinity of Jesus Christ to 21st Century Faithful in a Syriac Orthodox Context. To give you a better idea, here is the abstract of my upcoming presentation in Rome:
This paper explores the contemporary implications of conveying a Syriac Orthodox understanding of the lordship and divinity of Jesus Christ to diaspora groups of Syriac Orthodox faithful. It seeks its mooring in the rich theological tradition of this ancient Church. From the foundational beliefs of Syriac Orthodoxy regarding the nature of Christ and the Trinity, this paper seeks to demonstrate how these doctrines can shape the faith and practice of believers today. Drawing upon the theological writings of the Syriac Orthodox saints and their confession of Christ's lordship and divinity, the paper will offer insights into how spiritual life and commitment can be fostered and advanced, especially for younger generations living in diaspora settings. Additionally, it will address contemporary challenges and debates surrounding these doctrines, considering their relevance in ecumenical dialogue and the pursuit of Christian unity.
It is the first paper I will give since this momentous occasion last year, my PhD hooding:
As usual, this is just the story (but I do like to replay that special day in my head - all glory to God!) to lead up to what I want to write about today:
The unity of faith between the churches of Christ.
Since I can’t tackle everything at once, I wanted to share where my mind has been over the past few days as I researched and wrote for my paper. The other day, while searching for information on St. Cyril of Alexandria, I came across a post by Dr. Clark Bates, a Professor of New Testament at Forge Theological Seminary. In it, he wrote:
Elsewhere, Monophysites like Severus of Antioch, maintained that Christ’s natures were joined in such a way as to make them one without discernment, and that they held to a proper understanding of Cyril’s formula. Severus believed that the council’s adjustment of the phrase to read “in two natures” created division within the being of Christ.
(note: bolding mine)
I must admit that I was sad to see this, but he is certainly far from being the only writer who makes this error. I decided to reach out to Dr. Bates, but he insisted that this was the proper characterization. This conversation prompted me to read more over the past few days. I had touched upon the differences between dyophysitism (or Chalcedonian Christology, as found in the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and, by extension, Protestant churches) and miaphysitism (what the Oriental Orthodox, or non-Chalcedonian, Christology is rightfully called) in my dissertation.
I am not a trained theologian, although I did take theology courses as part of my two seminary master's degrees: Master of Arts in Religion with a focus on Biblical Studies and Master of Divinity in Missional Studies. As you can see from the titles, my focus was on other areas during my time in seminary.
Even when I was writing my dissertation and researching the differences, I must admit that I didn't see it. From my reading, both sides were saying the same, only expressed in different terms. Since then, I have met people who adamantly argue for their position and make it sound really different from the other side.
So fast-forward to this past week. During my doctoral research, I purchased a book titled “Restoring the Unity in Faith: The Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Theological Dialogue.”1 I highly recommend you get a copy! After my conversation with Dr. Bates, I picked it back up.
I am someone who, in my daily prayers, prays fervently for the unity of the churches of Christ. Not in a Kumbaya, all-goes mode. No! But from a reasoned and irenic conversation. From exchanges like the one I will have in November with my dear friends from the Lausanne-Orthodox Initiative at our consultation in Egypt, where we learn from each other in love. I urge you to prayerfully and financially support organizations such as IOTA and LOI.
Conversations about the unity of the churches have been ongoing, as recently as September 2024, when representatives of the Orthodox churches met at the Monastery of Saint Bishoy in Wadi El Natrun, Egypt, at the invitation of His Holiness, Pope Tawadros II.
I truly believe that unity, at the very least, between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox is possible in our lifetime, with the help of the Holy Spirit. With a new Pope in Rome, valuable exchanges with the Vatican will prayerfully also continue, even though this path is undoubtedly more challenging.
I pray you join me in fervent prayer for the unity of our churches. May the Holy Mother of God and all the saints pray with us to the Lord that His words in John 17 will come to fruition: “…that they may all be one, just as you are in me, my Father, and I am in you, that they may also be one in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me.”2
Without further ado, I will present a few comments gathered from patriarchs and theologians on the conversations held in the past, taken from the above-referenced book.
Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I, 122nd Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch:
From our discussions so far, I come to feel that there are no insoluble problems of doctrine between us concerning the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. We (Oriental Orthodox) affirm that our Lord Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect man, and that he is one Person and one nature. You (Orthodox) also maintain the same faith by affirming that he is "in two natures." Whereas we emphasize the union of natures, you insist on their distinctness.
Greek Orthodox Theological Review 16:1-2 (1971), 75
I would like to point out that human pride played a part in the schism regarding Chalcedon. Leo refused to accept the Second Council of Ephesus because his Tome was refuted. The Alexandrians refused to accept Chalcedon because it deposed Dioscorus and persecuted Bar Sauma. Let us not forget these human factors.
Greek Orthodox Theological Review 16:1-2 (1971), 23
Fr. John Meyendorff:
Our century has witnessed significant steps towards better understanding and doctrinal unity between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Eastern Christians. Of course, the basis identity of Christological understanding was affirmed much earlier....
In this century, the many encounters and dialogues, involving responsible bishops and theologians from both sides, have all reached the same conclusion: the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria is our common Christology, and the schism involves only a different understanding of formulas and expressions which have been accepted as standard and doctrinally binding by one side or the other.
St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 3:3 (1989), 319
Professor John Karmiris:
I have read the texts on both sides of the dispute. I have come to the conclusion that there is no real difference between the Orthodox and the non-Chalcedonians as far as the essence of Christological doctrine is concerned, as all of them accept the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. There is a difference only regarding the terminology and formulation of this dogma. In the same way, there are secondary differences regarding worship, canon law, customs and uses, etc. But none of these should divide the Churches.
I think that when we agree about our Christological teaching, it should not be impossible to revise the anathemas. The Church is not a static entity, but a living and growing organism.
Greek Orthodox Theological Review 16:1-2 (1971), 42
Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, Coptic Orthodox Church
It became a misnomer used against the followers of Pope Dioscorus that they are Monophysites. On the contrary they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God. None of the natures ceased to exist because of the union and the term "mia physis" denoting the incarnate nature is completely different from the term "Monophysites." Perhaps the correct nomination should have been the "Cyrillian" or the "Miaphysites" instead of the "Monophysites." For example, when we say monogenis...we mean that there is a single and unique Son of God who is consubstantial with the Father. The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in a single nature in Jesus Christ but rather a united divine-human nature.
To conclude, our Oriental Orthodox people should realise that the Orthodox can never be Nestorians since they have condemned the Nestorian teaching of the external union of two persons in Jesus Christ and confessed that the Word of God came in His own person and that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos.
It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies. The two families are called to reinforce each other in their struggle against heresies and to fulfill their call as one body of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.
The positive response of the Oriental Orthodox to the Orthodox interpretation is identified by the lifting of anathemas against Orthodox Fathers and Councils, as well as taking use of every positive element in the teaching and acts of the four later councils of the Orthodox.
The Ecumenical Movement in the Twentieth Century www.metroplit-bishoy.org/english/Dialogue.htm
I encourage you to share your thoughts in an irenic manner.
FitzGerald, Thomas E., Emmanuel Gratsias, Joint Commission of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America, and Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches. 2007. Restoring the Unity in Faith : The Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Theological Dialogue: An Introduction with Texts. Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
John 17:21 in Kiraz, George Anton, ed. 2020. Syriac-English New Testament : The Traditional Syriac Peshitta Text and the Antioch Bible English Translation. First edition. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press LLC.
Hi Elke! Christ is risen! This is Sherry - I am praying for your safe travels to Rome and that the Lord guides this important work you’ve taken on.