What do you think?
Rate this book
The Orthodox Dilemma Third Revised Edition: Personal Reflections on Global Pan-Orthodox Christian Concilliar Unity
The Orthodox Dilemma consists of personal reflections on global Pan-Orthodox Christian Unity. The work focuses on the need for establishing sacramental communion between the Eastern, Oriental and other families of Orthodox Churches. The author calls to create a common conciliar platform for Orthodox Churches and to establish dialogues between Eastern, Oriental, Old Believes, Old Calendar, Non-canonical, Unrecognized and New Generation Orthodox Churches.The major aim of the work is to provide different and unique aspects of Pan-Orthodox Christian Unity.The book also sheds light on problems, challenges and scope of inter-orthodox dialogue. This may be first book of its kind to call for the creation of a global platform for all Orthodox Christians.The book tries to provide unique aspects of Orthodox Christianity.The work is a combination of personal thoughts of the author, history, contemporary Orthodoxy, dialogue and Pan-Orthodox Christian approach.
418 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 20, 2015
10 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 2, 2019
George Alexander's vision, reiterated throughout this book, is for Pan-Orthodox conciliar unity. He has also founded an "Orthodox Cognate PAGE" devoted to promoting that vision. What "Pan-Orthodox conciliar unity" means, however, is not altogether clear, despite the constant repetition.
Alexander makes some good points about how divided those Christian bodies that call themselves Orthodox are. Not only are "Eastern Orthodox" (Chalcedonian) Churches divided from "Oriental Orthodox" (non-Chalcedonian), but the Oriental Orthodox Churches are divided among themselves. The only time they ever meet each other in anything remotely approaching a council is as a preliminary to a meeting they have with the Roman pope. When the Coptic Pope of Alexandria Tawadros II ascended his throne his first visit was to the Vatican, and not to his fellow Oriental Orthodox, not even to the Ethiopian Church, with which the Coptic Church has had long-standing historical ties, The Oriental Orthodox Churches seem to be more interested in building relations with the Vatican than with each other.
Similarly, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are more likely to meet each other at gatherings arranged by Protestant bodies, such as the World Council of Churches, or the Lausanne Movement, or by the Vatican, than they are to meet each other.
I think that in this Alexander makes a very good point about the need for more communication among Eastern Christians, but I don't think this book puts it very well.
His vision for regular meetings and for greater cooperation between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian groups sounds good to me. We share a lot in the way of common tradition and a common outlook, even though there is a serious disagreement about Christology. What we have in common is more than we have in common with most Western Christians, and so his appeal that we should give priority to ecumenical relations with our fellow-Eastern Christians rather than with Western Christians makes sense, and might enable the Eastern groups to resist the temptation and pressure to become too Westernised, as sometimes happens in such bodies as the World Council of Churches, where the prevailing Western cultural imperialism caused some Orthodox Churches to withdraw.
But it took me a long time to read this book, because it has several flaws. One of them is that it is very repetitive. This is understandable, because many of the chapters were originally articles published separately in other publications. The one I read was the second edition -- perhaps if there is a third edition it could be edited to eliminate some of the inconsistencies. For example, in several chapters there are references to a schism between the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Indian Malankara Church, but it is only several chapters further on that we learn what that schism was. Editing should remove such inconsistencies, and place the explanation with the first reference to the schism, and not with one of the last.
I also think that George Alexander is a bit too dismissive of the Christological problem that has kept Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonians apart for 1500 years. According to Alexander this problem can be solved by "love and forgiveness", but what is there to forgive? The protagonists in the drama and disagreement have been dead for 15 centuries. We cannot blame each other or forgive each other now for something that happened so long ago. What is needed now is to ask what the declaration of Chalcedon means to us today. And any unity, even Pan-Orthodox conciliar unity, that evades that, will simply not be real.
And there are also consequences that are bypassed in the book. One side castigates and deposed Pope Dioscurus of Alexandria for rejecting the definition of Chalcedon, the other side praises him for heroically resisting it. So was he a saint or a heretic? We can disagree about that, and still meet in love to discuss matters of common concern but whether we can have the kind of Pan-Orthodox Conciliar Unity that George Alexander proposes, I'm not so sure.
And there is also an ecclesiological problem that is not really dealt with in the book. If we were all to agree on Christology, and prepare to unite, who would be the Pope of Alexandria? Theodore II or Theodore II?
Alexander makes some good points about how divided those Christian bodies that call themselves Orthodox are. Not only are "Eastern Orthodox" (Chalcedonian) Churches divided from "Oriental Orthodox" (non-Chalcedonian), but the Oriental Orthodox Churches are divided among themselves. The only time they ever meet each other in anything remotely approaching a council is as a preliminary to a meeting they have with the Roman pope. When the Coptic Pope of Alexandria Tawadros II ascended his throne his first visit was to the Vatican, and not to his fellow Oriental Orthodox, not even to the Ethiopian Church, with which the Coptic Church has had long-standing historical ties, The Oriental Orthodox Churches seem to be more interested in building relations with the Vatican than with each other.
Similarly, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are more likely to meet each other at gatherings arranged by Protestant bodies, such as the World Council of Churches, or the Lausanne Movement, or by the Vatican, than they are to meet each other.
I think that in this Alexander makes a very good point about the need for more communication among Eastern Christians, but I don't think this book puts it very well.
His vision for regular meetings and for greater cooperation between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian groups sounds good to me. We share a lot in the way of common tradition and a common outlook, even though there is a serious disagreement about Christology. What we have in common is more than we have in common with most Western Christians, and so his appeal that we should give priority to ecumenical relations with our fellow-Eastern Christians rather than with Western Christians makes sense, and might enable the Eastern groups to resist the temptation and pressure to become too Westernised, as sometimes happens in such bodies as the World Council of Churches, where the prevailing Western cultural imperialism caused some Orthodox Churches to withdraw.
But it took me a long time to read this book, because it has several flaws. One of them is that it is very repetitive. This is understandable, because many of the chapters were originally articles published separately in other publications. The one I read was the second edition -- perhaps if there is a third edition it could be edited to eliminate some of the inconsistencies. For example, in several chapters there are references to a schism between the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Indian Malankara Church, but it is only several chapters further on that we learn what that schism was. Editing should remove such inconsistencies, and place the explanation with the first reference to the schism, and not with one of the last.
I also think that George Alexander is a bit too dismissive of the Christological problem that has kept Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonians apart for 1500 years. According to Alexander this problem can be solved by "love and forgiveness", but what is there to forgive? The protagonists in the drama and disagreement have been dead for 15 centuries. We cannot blame each other or forgive each other now for something that happened so long ago. What is needed now is to ask what the declaration of Chalcedon means to us today. And any unity, even Pan-Orthodox conciliar unity, that evades that, will simply not be real.
And there are also consequences that are bypassed in the book. One side castigates and deposed Pope Dioscurus of Alexandria for rejecting the definition of Chalcedon, the other side praises him for heroically resisting it. So was he a saint or a heretic? We can disagree about that, and still meet in love to discuss matters of common concern but whether we can have the kind of Pan-Orthodox Conciliar Unity that George Alexander proposes, I'm not so sure.
And there is also an ecclesiological problem that is not really dealt with in the book. If we were all to agree on Christology, and prepare to unite, who would be the Pope of Alexandria? Theodore II or Theodore II?
November 11, 2017
When I read the title of The Orthodox Dilemma written by George Alexander, the expectation of the subject matter was quite different to the reality of its content. The dilemma, I believed, was much like that of most Christian sects—an attempt to hold to the cannons of the church in an ever-changing society that believes itself to be too modern and progressive to live by two thousand-year-old beliefs.
Alexander’s dilemma was far more complex and it was evident that he was not only well educated on the matter, but also extremely passionate. As a person who was born into a religious Greek Orthodox family with a father who is also very well read on theology and the history of the church, I was under the assumption that I was knowledgeable myself. I knew of the different Orthodox churches, their patriarchs and that they were equal—none claiming supremacy over the others. I knew that other than the Great Schism with Rome, there was one before it and from it was born the Coptic Orthodox church. I’d heard my dad speak of the oriental churches, but what I didn’t know was that all the churches Mr. Alexander speaks of were splintered from each other. It was always my assumption that we came from different countries, but that was all. We were all one and the same.
It’s sad really when you think of it. The church began after Christ’s death as one. It’s people who have splintered it. It’s the darker side of human nature to thirst for power where only humility should reign and politics has no place.
Do I think these Orthodox churches will ever come to agreement? Possibly, but it’s doubtful. More doubtful is the talk of unity between Rome and the East. Too much has changed in the West that the East will never accept.
Honestly, for the masses, they don’t understand the intricate details of the faith that only theologians study. They go to church, and pray to Christ and the saints, and follow the holidays and the traditions. If only the leaders would go back to basics and preach the love Christ came to spread.
If the history and details of the faith is of interest to you then this is a very informative read.
Alexander’s dilemma was far more complex and it was evident that he was not only well educated on the matter, but also extremely passionate. As a person who was born into a religious Greek Orthodox family with a father who is also very well read on theology and the history of the church, I was under the assumption that I was knowledgeable myself. I knew of the different Orthodox churches, their patriarchs and that they were equal—none claiming supremacy over the others. I knew that other than the Great Schism with Rome, there was one before it and from it was born the Coptic Orthodox church. I’d heard my dad speak of the oriental churches, but what I didn’t know was that all the churches Mr. Alexander speaks of were splintered from each other. It was always my assumption that we came from different countries, but that was all. We were all one and the same.
It’s sad really when you think of it. The church began after Christ’s death as one. It’s people who have splintered it. It’s the darker side of human nature to thirst for power where only humility should reign and politics has no place.
Do I think these Orthodox churches will ever come to agreement? Possibly, but it’s doubtful. More doubtful is the talk of unity between Rome and the East. Too much has changed in the West that the East will never accept.
Honestly, for the masses, they don’t understand the intricate details of the faith that only theologians study. They go to church, and pray to Christ and the saints, and follow the holidays and the traditions. If only the leaders would go back to basics and preach the love Christ came to spread.
If the history and details of the faith is of interest to you then this is a very informative read.
November 11, 2017
It was a very interesting and very informative book. I learned so many new things about the Orthodox confessions in different parts of the world. I did not know that the Orthodox Christianity existed in India in the 5th century, long before the Portuguese conquest of Kerala.
I also liked that the author mentions and describes his own experiences, when he was visiting the Orthodox churches in different countries.
I would recommend this book to not only to a person who is interested in Orthodox religion but also to anyone who wants to discover different cultures.
I also liked that the author mentions and describes his own experiences, when he was visiting the Orthodox churches in different countries.
I would recommend this book to not only to a person who is interested in Orthodox religion but also to anyone who wants to discover different cultures.
April 22, 2021
The author George Alexander did a wonderful job in setting the precedent for inter orthodox dynamics and interactions. It’s not only easy fun to read but also insightful and detailed of what takes place between clerics. While pan orthodoxy is a long journey to achieve this work can offer suggestions of what we as orthodox can start with
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews