1) We should do everything in English. We live in an English speaking country and there is no place for Arabic, Coptic or Greek because people don't understand those languages. This opinion has some support from the concept that the Church should "incarnate" itself in its new environment and to a large extent reinvent itself to suit that environment (Incarnational Exodus by Father Michael Sorial).
2) We have to preserve Coptic at all costs because it is our heritage and it would be a great loss for the Church if everything were in English or Arabic. Here and moving forward I will shorthand all Coptic and Greek references as "Coptic" for the sake of simplicity.
The bad news is that if the zealots have their way we will end up with a fragmented church that has to individually cater to each person in the way that they have chosen for themselves. We would have to have an "all English church" and a "mixed English/Arabic/Coptic church" and maybe an "English/Coptic church" and while we're at it let's add an "Arabic/Coptic church" in there, too. If you don't like this church then go to that church. If your kids grow up in the Arabic/Coptic church and they want to pray in the all English church then they can do that when they get their drivers license and you can pray separately.
The good news is that the zealots don't have to win. We can have a church that reflects the Body of Christ with all of its different yet complementary pieces (1 Corinthians 12). In order to do so, however, we must find a way to compromise. By definition this means that the zealots will not get what they want. I don't want this point to be unclear, so I will repeat this in no uncertain terms: if you feel that a specific language is absolutely necessary and another language is completely unnecessary then you cannot have things the way that you want them because if you do then the church will be divided.
Now that I have, unfortunately, irritated and alienated a large percentage of the people reading this, let me state it a different way. If we can let go of the "language conversation" we can start discussing what actually matters - the spirituality of the Church - and maybe then we can make everyone happy. I know what you may be thinking - "How is that possible?! That person wants to pray in a language I don't understand and he doesn't care about me at all! He just wants a deacon show every week!" To which the other side responds - "There is no way I can agree to having a church that doesn't pray the way we have prayed for 2000 years and all they want to do is get rid of all of that for some english sing-a-long songs that somebody made up last week." Everybody relax. Let's step back and ask what each side is really looking for.
The English zealots are looking for accessibility and inclusiveness in our worship. These are good things. These are very good things. We want everyone in the church to feel at home. We want everyone to feel like they are in Heaven. We want them to feel like Heaven is their Home. The Coptic zealots are looking for a preservation of the spirituality and hymnology of our worship. These are good things. These are very good things. We want everyone in the church to feel like they are in the presence of God. Music is a powerful medium that has a tremendous effect on our emotions and is used in various contexts as a way of delivering a message. So what happens when we take the best of both worlds? What happens when we give everyone what they are looking for? We get a Church in which music plays a central role in our spirituality, elevating all of us together as a unified Body of Christ to Heaven. Is this vision overly idealistic? Maybe. Is it impossible? Maybe. Is it worth praying for? Absolutely. Let's look at what we could do to make everyone happy, by evaluating what each side would have to give up to make the other side happy.
First of all, the Coptic zealots need to give up the idea that Coptic is intrinsically valuable in and of itself. The beautiful, spiritual hymns of the Church could have been written in any language and they would still be "the hymns of the Church." They just happened to have been written in Coptic. If one could translate these hymns into English while at the same time preserving their musicality and spirituality then I would say there is nothing lost. I understand that there may be some argument against this based on the "heritage" and "identity" that is preserved in the language, but this is a weak argument and is easily overcome by the reality that many people feel that the native culture should take precedence over the imported culture. Everyone gets to define their own identity and if the identity defined by your church excludes some people then don't be surprised when they don't want to come pray with you.
Second, the English zealots need to give up the idea that Coptic is intrinsically evil. "But I don't understand it!" Yes, I agree that we need to make the hymns more accessible but this is not going to happen overnight. For now, the Coptic language is intertwined to a great deal with the spiritual hymnology of the Church. There are many efforts being made to translate the hymns in a way that preserves their musical spirituality (Midnight Praise, Liturgical Hymns, and even long melismatic Paschal Hymns). It will take a decade or maybe even a whole generation for us to transition to a standardized way of saying these hymns in English. Rushing this process may result in a loss of some of the hymns or the acceptance of a poor translation - either way it would be a great loss and we should take our time and do it properly.
Third, we all need to regard the opposite opinion as a point of view that is worth having because keeping my brothers and sisters in Church is more important than praying in the language of my choosing. It is possible that some churches will eventually pray completely in English, but I hope that this will be with a gradual and natural translation of the Coptic hymns to English over time, and not because there was a mandate to get rid of Coptic. It is also possible that some churches will choose to maintain some Coptic, which also works as long as the congregation is supportive and there is a translation and explanation of the hymns available.
My goal here is not to infuriate both sides. My goal is to reconcile. Unfortunately, I understand that may make me the "bad guy" to both sides and that's ok with me … as long as this is temporary and allows for us to start a conversation that is inclusive of everyone's opinion. Ultimately this decision will fall in the hands of our bishops and priests who will have to balance the importance of unity against the importance of serving different demographics within our congregation. My hope and my dream is that we can preserve unity by truly understanding what is at the core of what everyone wants and giving it to them in our worship, so that our Church is able to truly say with St. Paul in 1 Cor 9:22-23 "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."
