That's a slippery slope. Miatheism is weak. Why we say "Miaphysitism" and not "Monophysitism" is to show that there are distinguishable elements of the united hypostasis of Christ, i.e. humanity and divinity, unity of two "physes." But with Miatheism, one has to say there are elements of a united Godhead, unity of three Gods. Almost a "Tritheism." It is why the Church fathers used terms like "persons" or "hypostases" to stay away from any idea that they believe in more than One God.
We shouldn't be afraid of the term "Monotheism." To Dr. George, Monotheism has three "downfalls:"
1. A sense of anonymity, i.e. inability to identify God.
2. A sense of negativity, i.e. negating other "gods" around it.
3. Soleness does not have a relationship in it, and does not lead to a relationship with us.
However, what Dr. George seems to reject, I seem to accept TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. Without those three characteristics, to me, we may become "Pantheists," like Hinduism. But at the same time, we do not want to strictly judge God by these three characteristics as in Deism, or Islamic Monotheism. Let me take each of his criticisms of Monotheism one by one, and talk about them:
1. Anonymity: Dr. George referenced Matthew 26:51, where it is mentioned "one of Jesus's followers" cut the ear off. Who is this "one"? Of course, we know through the gospel of John it's St. Peter, but taken with this gospel alone, we don't really know. It's a sign of anonymity. Nevertheless, while I agree with Dr. George we are not like Islam at all, where there's no chance of knowing God in His identity, nevertheless, it is a central belief in theology we do not know God by His essence. Therefore, to a certain degree, God is still anonymous. Only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit know each other by essence, but we know them by divine grace, and especially even more intimately through the Son Incarnate, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Negativity: Dr. George references the Old Testament practice to cure Judaism from the sins of polytheism. In other words, all other gods are false gods, "I am the Lord your God, ye shall have no other gods besides me." Of course, later on, right before the incarnation of Christ, it seems the Jews finally had a sense that the other gods do not even exist anyway. It's understood that Jews went from "Henotheism" to "Monotheism" later in life. Indeed, if we were to continue to be "Henotheistic," I would agree that this is a sense of negativity. What good is there to disprove other gods, and yet not talk about your very own God? So, I sympathize with Dr. George in that keen observation. Nevertheless, it is not something that we ignore. Rather than calling it "negativity," I'd rather call it "exclusivity." And indeed, our God is exclusive. He is the One True God, and no other gods exist but Him. He exists in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is necessary that when mentioning the Trinity as the True God, and Christianity, the True religion, it is in essence implying exclusivity to itself, negating all other religions around it. When Christ said, "I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME," Christ in essence has negated anything else but Him, and has made Himself, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, exclusive. Therefore, I cannot deny this characteristic that bothers Dr. George either.
3. Relationship: Dr. George said that God never said "I AM One," rather God said "I AM WHO I AM." But that really isn't saying much to me. Yes, I agree, if you put yourself alone, as a sole figure, there is no relationship in you, and you cut yourself from others. But God said something much more profound than "I AM One." He described His nature, His eternity. Christ described His eternity as well, "Before Abraham was, I AM." This was blasphemy to the Jews, who wished to stone Him, making Himself equal to God in His eternity. But while they were blind to see Christ as who He is, the Incarnate I AM, they're not incorrect in their thinking that any human being cannot have the same essence as the Godhead. Therefore, I think this is a valid point even in the Christian understanding of God, for just as we cannot know God in His essence, we also cannot have a relationship with God in His essence. It is all through grace, and again, in a much more intimate form through the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity.
So in conclusion, what Dr. George is describing as the downfalls of Monotheism is to me, not at all downfalls. If taken to its extreme, then yes, these would be downfalls. Nevertheless, they are still essential characteristics of the Godhead, and thus, rightly defining Christian theology as essentially Monotheistic based upon these three characteristics of Monotheism that Dr. George doesn't seem to appreciate. If it was up to me, this is how I would consider it:
1. God is indeed anonymous in His essence, but contradictory to Islam, He is known by grace, and revealed in Christ.
2. God is indeed negating all other religions around Him, but more importantly, our love and faith to God especially by grace and in Christ, becomes exclusive.
3. God is indeed incommunicable in His essence, but contradictory to Islam, we can partake of His divine nature by grace, and in a much more intimate way through Christ.
In conclusion, I believe it is necessary to say Christianity is indeed Monotheistic, but contradictory to Islam, it is also PanENtheistic.
Now I know it may seem like I "refuted" Dr. George, but actually, more than anything, I simply wanted to show perhaps how semantical he has become in this particular argument. I think this would be one thing that would be quite hurtful for his reputation for those who especially enjoy assassinating his character. One can see that his choice of words may be just scratching the surface as to see why people in the Coptic Church had problems with him. Now, I've listened to enough of Dr. Bebawi's lectures to find him very edifying, and I will repeat this, so that I stand out from others who wish to jump to conclusions and call him a heretic. Nevertheless, he is not without fault in this, even if the essence of his rejection of Monotheism is not heretical.
There's still more in this same lecture to talk about on this same subject of Monotheism. For instance, one person asked him, "Well, George, would you say we have 3 Gods then?" And Dr. George's answer shocked me, where he pretty much said and I'm paraphrasing, not really quoting verbatim here, "Unlike other Christians, I'm not afraid to say 3 Gods, but of course this is a poor choice of words. I'd rather say 3 persons."
In addition, Dr. George in this same lecture also seems to hold an Augustinian view of the Trinity, which I don't see as erroneous in my humble opinion, but limited. In essence, for those of you who do not know what the Augustinian view of the Trinity is, it is that the Holy Spirit is the reciprocation of love between the Father and the Son. In another lecture, Week 5, Dr. George even recommends his students to read St. Augustine's work on the Trinity, as he finds it quite a profound and beautiful summation of the doctrine of the Trinity, which I know will make some "anti-Augustinian" Orthodox cry foul. Again, I'm not condemning Dr. George of heresy, but his poor choice of wording as well as his choice of literature on the Trinity that is conflicts with many Orthodox Christian's choices of writing.
There is more in this particular lecture, but I'll stop here, as I've written too much. But these are my worthless opinions on the matter, and I'd appreciate it if anyone tells me what they think, and if I erred anywhere.