When the Homily is about Immunology

Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions

Opening of boxes long ago sealed, has revealed a host of reading material I had either never begun or had never finished. In the case of the title above, a school text I had written by Fr. John Meyendorff, I had only browsed and referenced with regard to specific topics while in school. So, I've cracked it anew and am plowing through it. Nearly right off the bat I am enlightened by a portion regarding the Christian divisions and Imperial unity - and to some degree my previous notions are dashed.

...strong evidence shows that initially both Nestorians and Monophysites were consistently loyal to both the imperial idea and the Empire itself...recent research does not condone the view that non-Chalcedonian Copts welcomed Muslims as liberators from the Roman rule: even then, and in spite of Chalcedonian persecutions, there was widespread loyalty to the Christian empire. It appears, therefore, that it is only under Persian or Arab, and later Turkish rule, when intellectual contacts with Greek theology were lost and every connection with Byzantium was viewed with suspicion by the new masters, that the Non-Chalcedonian Christian communities of the Middle East became close-knit national-churches. As long as they were part of the Roman oikumeme, Syrians and Copts remained basically loyal to it ideologically, even if they had, in their majority, rejected Chalcedonian orthodoxy and suffered persecution.

Now I had read numerous lamenting Coptic accounts of the Arab invasions of Egypt, but I was still always under the impression that generally Muslim rule was welcomed over Byzantine rule because of the religious "freedom" it brought the Non-Chalcedonians. But perhaps that notion is revisionist history? An attempt to find some benefit to what otherwise would be seen as a miserable situation? By that I mean: in hindsight the Non-Chaceldonians can look back and see that they were granted freedom from Constantinople (I believe there is a natural tendency for people to try and find some "good" in a situation which they can neither reverse or change much for the better), but it would appear that the people of the time did not see it so. Fr. Meyendorff notes that the Non-Chalcedonians perceived that they could still have loyalty to the institution of the Christian Empire while praying for the conversion of the "heretical" emperor. Certainly we Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians have similar examples in our Saints who suffered persecution from a variety of heretical emperors. (iconoclast, Arian etc.) And, as we know finding oneself outside of the reach of heretical emperors did benefit some Saints' campaign against the heresy...but it was not a requirement for the success of Orthodoxy as many a disfigured or martyred Saint could tell you.

I think one can hardly argue that the Non-Chalcedonians have exactly flourished under political Islam - quite the opposite really. Still today they suffer as recent news suggests and as any Copt can tell you. By the same token who can say how they would have faired if Constantinople was able to keep their ship afloat against the rising tide of Islam? Would a modern Greek dominated Turkey offer more freedom to Non-Chalcedonians? What would Egypt look like today if the Arabs invasions had been turned back? Some might argue that Islamic empires had preserved the Non-Chalcedonians and they might well be right - who knows? But, now, I imagine they would rather like to join the rest of the world for a bit more of the religious freedom most of us enjoy today. So that even if Fr. Meyendorff is wrong about the initial sentiment of "liberation", things have certainly changed such that a new liberation seems in order - though this time, we may hope it will come through a united outcry of the full and broad spectrum of religious and political opinions in favor of absolute freedom of conscience.