**1. Introduction**

The ecumenical relations in Romania are currently going through a challenging phase. Some even consider it a crisis of the ecumenical dialogue in its institutionalised form (See: Plaatjies van Huffel 2017; Davids 1999). The relationship between the orthodox and the evangelical Christians in Romania is no different, and, so far, there have been no official dialogues between the two communities. There are many possible causes for the lack of cooperation, but they seem to be different from those affecting the ecumenical dialogue at a global level. Both Christian communities are responsible for the current situation. On the one hand, evangelicals motivate their lack of openness towards dialogue with the orthodox through the historical wounds caused by the persecutions on the part of the orthodox Christians towards evangelicals. On the other hand, the orthodox are more reserved because of the aggressive proselytism practiced by the evangelicals in some cases, but also because evangelical theology is relatively new in Romania (in comparison to orthodox theology), which sometimes gives birth to a condescending attitude towards the evangelicals. When presenting the history of the evangelicals in Romania in the second half of the XIXth century, Dorn Dobrincu talks about the persecutions the baptist and pentecostal evangelicals went through, caused both by the state and the historical churches (Dobrincu 2018, pp. 48–77). On the other hand, the accusations regarding proselytism from the part of the evangelicals have been commonplace in the orthodox environments for a long time now. The orthodox thus claim that the evangelicals use any means (more or less honest/fair) to attract orthodox believers to their churches. (Mănăstireanu 2018, p. 271)

Still, there have been several initiatives to encourage a dialogue between the two communities. From personal relations among theologians to conferences open to scholars belonging to both traditions, these initiatives sometimes materialized in notable theological research studies (See: Oxbrow and Grass 2021, 2015; Grass et al. 2012; Zondervan et al. 2010). The purpose of this article is to offer an inventory of some convergent theological topics, more specifically those identified by evangelical theologians in Eastern orthodox

**Citation:** Sonea, Cristian. 2021. Ecumenical Convergences: Romanian Evangelicals Exploring Orthodoxy. *Religions* 12: 398. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/rel12060398

Academic Editors: Bradley Nassif and Tim Grass

Received: 30 April 2021 Accepted: 26 May 2021 Published: 31 May 2021


**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

theology. The article is an attempt to offer some answers to three evangelical authors who present their views on how orthodox theology approaches topics such as the authority of the scriptures (Paul Negrut,), the orthodox soteriology (Emil Bartos,) and the orthodox ecclesiology (Dănut, Mănăstireanu). These topics include important points of convergence, as well as some differences, so they could constitute a good theological ground for official dialogue between the Romanian evangelical and orthodox communities.

#### **2. What Is the Meaning of Ecumenical Convergence?**

Generally speaking, the term convergence refers to the effort made by two entities in order to reach the same point or to achieve the same goal. In other words, the process is initiated with the purpose of reaching unity by accommodating two separate realities. From a theological point of view, we use the word convergence when referring to the relations between Christianity and non-Christian religions. So, on the one hand, theological convergence is a process that refers to the necessity of finding common ground when interacting with a different religious tradition, and, on the other hand, it is a notion used to describe the encounter between two different realities (Dhavamony 2003, p. 245). In an ecumenical context, convergence involves the complex effort of the divided Christian communities to reach unity. The purpose of the institutionalised ecumenical movement is to offer a common Christian witness to the world. Thus, the declared aim of the ecumenical movement is to achieve the visible unity of all Christians. For this purpose, all those involved in the ecumenical dialogue, based on their spiritual, liturgical or sacramental experiences and inspired by their own traditions, elaborate various ecumenical syntheses that although not always the result of theological consensus do however represent factors of theological convergence, in hope of a future Christian unity (Leus,tean 2002, pp. 40–41).

There is a risk of interpreting the hermeneutics of ecumenical convergence as an attempt to level out the differences between the evangelicals and the orthodox, in the name of unity. However, this type of approach does not postulate in any way the absence of divergences, which are of course numerous and, in most cases, well known both by the evangelicals and the orthodox. In fact, the differences are emphasized to such a degree, in the Romanian context, that the more radical representatives of the two communities go as far as denying any convergence. That is why I decided to give priority to the ecumenical convergence here and to place it at the very basis of the ecumenical dialogue and perhaps a future study could discuss the theological differences as well.

Therefore, this particular concept—ecumenical convergence—represents the filter through which the present study analyses the positions on various theological topics of several theologians belonging to the two traditions. More specifically, I started by identifying evangelical theologians who published research on orthodox theology, and I then tried to synthetize and offer a critical evaluation of the convergent elements I found in their works. For this particular research, I selected only three authors for the following reasons: first of all, it would have been impossible to offer an extensive account of all the evangelical authors who wrote about orthodox theology, even if I had chosen to organize the material thematically. The second reason is connected to the particularities of evangelical theology, in which personal theological approaches do not have to be accepted on a general level, so personal views can and should be emphasized anyway. The third reason has to do with a certain degree of openness towards the dialogue of the three authors, which made it easy for me to identify the convergences. From the very beginning, I would like to state that the arguments presented in this paper can be included within the framework of an inclusivist orthodox ecclesiology, adopting George Florovsky's theological opinion regarding the limits of the church. Florovsky argues that the charismatic limits of the church can be mystically found in other Christian communities as well (See: Florovsky 1933, pp. 120–29). I will also mention Dumitru Stăniloae here, according to whom although non-orthodox confessions did indeed separate from the church, they kept a connection with her and are, in a sense, contained by her, to the extent to which they did not completely part from the Tradition of the Church (Stăniloae 1997, vol. 2, pp. 275–76).

### **3. Hallmarks of the Orthodox-Evangelical Dialogue**

Besides the interest that Romanian evangelicals have for the orthodox faith in a country that is mostly orthodox, we also acknowledge the more general interest evangelicals have towards traditional faiths.

Thus, Daniel Clendenin notices that the evangelicals have promoted an ahistorical faith, out of ignorance, because of a superficial understanding of sola scriptura, or due to the conviction that "Bible believers" should and can keep the distance from a corrupt society. At the initiative of Robert Webber, Donald Bloesch, and Thomas Howard, the evangelicals organised a conference for those who had a certain appreciation for the "orthodox evangelicals" and issued a document entitled "The Chicago Call: An Appeal to Evangelicals" (1978). Among other things mentioned in the document, we find the idea that evangelicals have neglected history and allowed themselves to be led by a sectarian spirit and proposed a return to a faith connected to patristic theology, councils, creeds, and "the catholicity of historic Christianity" (Clendenin 2003, p. 178). Similarly, in 1936 at the International Congress of the orthodox theologians in Athens, George Florovsky was urging the participants to go "back to the Fathers of the Church!" and he expressed his belief that the divisions among Christians can only be overcome "by a return to the common mind of the early Church." (Gavrilyuk 2015, p. 2).

Again, part of the same trend of returning to the primary sources, we find the story of Peter E. Gillquist who, together with a group of colleagues started studying church history and became acquainted with the earliest forms of Christianity. In 1973, they started a network of house churches in the United States, with the purpose of restoring the "ancient church", which they called the New Covenant Apostolic Order. After some research about the early church, they then started practicing a more liturgical type of worship and became interested in the idea of apostolic succession. This eventually determined most members of the group to join the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1987. Thanks to Gillquist's efforts, seventeen parishes with 2000 members converted to the Antiochian Archdiocese and they became known as the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission (Gillquist 1989, pp. 5–8).

Apart from these quests for the traditional forms of Christianity, another event that marked the relations between the two traditions was the Canberra Assembly of the World Council of Churches, from 1991. The topic of the Holy Spirit's presence and activity in creation led to a heated debate regarding "spirits", stimulated particularly by Chung Kyung-Hyung's plenary presentation. Two of the groups participating in the conference were extremely critical towards Chung Kyung-Hyung's presentation: the orthodox and the evangelicals. The two groups expressed their concern in open letters that were read out loud to the other participants. The orthodox remarked that "some have the tendency to easily affirm the presence of the Holy Spirit in many movements or evolutions without proper discernment" and warned against "the tendency to wrongly identify the personal spirit, the spirit of the world or other spirits with the Holy Spirit" (Pirri-Simonian and Beek 2012, p. 6). They also brought up other subjects such as the dialogue with other religions and the understanding of salvation through Jesus Christ. In their letter, on the other hand, the evangelicals insisted that "a lot of discernment is necessary in order to identify the Spirit with the Spirit of Christ" and they pleaded for a high Christology as the only authentic Christian basis in dialogue with those "belonging to other faiths" (Pirri-Simonian and Beek 2012, p. 6). They also remarked upon the many "engagements and theological preoccupations they had in common with the orthodox" and asked to "start a dialogue between the evangelicals and the orthodox as soon as possible" (Pirri-Simonian and Beek 2012, pp. 6–7). After the event, three important consultations took place: one in 1993, in Stuttgart, with the topic: "The Bible and the Tradition", one in 1995, in Alexandria, with the topic: "The Proclamation of Christ today" and another one in 1998, in Hamburg, with the topic: "The return to God—Joy in hope"(Pirri-Simonian and Beek 2012, pp. 15–18). The meetings continued at the Ecumenical Institute from Bossey in 2000, 2002, 2006 (Grass et al. 2012). The first meeting (2000) dealt with the topic of salvation and concentrated on the question whether

salvation is the result of a single moment when an individual is "born again", or if it is a continuous process or perhaps both. In 2002, the topic of the meeting was the role and the place of the Bible in the two traditions, while in 2004, the meeting dealt with the nature and the purpose of the Church. The last meeting, organised in 2006, approached the more sensitive issue of anthropology (Sauca 2012, pp. 3–4). In 2013, another series of consultations started, as part of the Lausanne-Orthodox Initiative, which is continuing until today (Consultations 2021). These consultations are oriented specifically towards mission, and have been documented in Oxbrow and Grass (Oxbrow and Grass 2021, 2015).

#### **4. Romania—A Christian Country for Both: Orthodox and Evangelicals**

In comparison to other European countries, Romania has a very high percentage of believers. Special Eurobarometer, 493, published in 2019 by the European Commission, indicates that Romania is the country with the smallest number of atheists in Europe: 1% (Discrimination in the European Union 2019), and according to the Special Eurobarometer, 73.1, from 2010, on the topic of biotechnology, Romania had a 92% of believers, most of them Christian, coming second in Europe, while the first place was occupied by Malta (Biotechnology 2010). It is thus obvious that religious practices in general, and especially Christian religious practices occupy an important part in the life of most Romanians. Although the number of practicing Christians is smaller than the number of those who simply declare themselves to be Christian, Romanians still seem to be very attached to their old traditions and they tend to integrate culturally or educationally many of the Christian values.

Around 324, Eusebius of Caesareea writes about the beginnings of Christianity on the Romanian territory and I will note here that his position is officially accepted and adopted by the Romanian Patriarchy. According to this tradition, Saint Apostle Andrew went from Asia to Scythia Major and then to Scythia Minor (present-day Dobrogea, Romania), and he preached in some of the Greek towns on the Black Sea shores (Păcurariu 1991, p. 13). Although this account has been contested by some theologians (including some Romanian theologians) (Stan and Turcescu 2007, pp. 47–48), who considered it to be part of a so-called protochronism (from proto-chronos, meaning "first in time"), a tendency that can be identified in many countries from the Balkans, and which promotes the idea that the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people coincides with the process of Christianisation (Stan and Turcescu 2007, p. 48). Interestingly, the apostolic origin of Romanian Christianity is also assumed by some in the evangelical communities. The former president of the Penticostal Chrisitian Community, Pavel Rivis, Tipei, writes in Cuvântul Adevărului (the official magazine of the Romanian Pentecostal Community) about the apostolic origin of Pentecostalism on the Romanian territory: "We generally talk about a period of 85 years that have passed since the first Pentecostal church was founded in Romania, at Păulis, , Arad county, on 10 September 1922, but the beginnings of Pentecostalism can be traced back much earlier than that [ ... ]. The Apostle Andrew was neither catholic, nor orthodox, but he was surely a Pentecostal as he was baptised with the Holy Spirit." (Rivis,-Tipei 2007, pp. 3–4).

According to the latest census, the majority of the Romanian population is orthodox (86.5%). Additionally, the numbers indicate that the Romanian Orthodox Church has the second-highest number of orthodox believers after the Russian Orthodox Church. According to the same census, the evangelical communities, including pentecostals, make up for 3.3% of the entire population and they represent the only Christian community that had registered a growth in the number of believers since the previous census. In the 2002 census, 1.49% of the population was Pentecostal, while in 2011, the percentage increased with 0.41%, to a total of 1.9%, as well as an increase in the number of followers with 43,476 (INS 2011). Allen Anderson notes that the more conservative sources claim that the number of Romanian Pentecostals is somewhere around 300,000, while other sources claim it is close to 800,000 which would turn Romania into the most pentecostal country in Europe (Anderson 2004, p. 100).

Apart from the numbers, which are obviously important, it is also worth mentioning that in the collective mentality of the Romanians, the Christian faith is also part of their ethnic identity: regardless of confession, they all agree that the Romanian nation was "born Christian". So, although the first evangelical communities appeared at the beginning of the 20th century (Dobrincu 2018, p. 42), they still seem to be inclined to define their own theology as rooted in the Romanian culture (Rogobete 2001, p. 262, note 14). We can thus identify the influence of the traditional Churches in some of their teachings and practices. Just to give a few examples, in some Romanian evangelical communities, such as the Romanian Evangelical Church (the so-called tudorists who continue a movement initiated by the former orthodox priest Teodor Popescu), infant baptism is still practiced. Another similarity concerns the organisation of the ecclesial structure in the evangelical communities in comparison with the consecrated ordained members of the ecclesial body in the traditional churches. Here is an example:

"The deacon is in charge of the administration of the offerings received by the church. He can officiate Lord's Supper, he can perform the blessing of children or funerals, if the pastor is not able to perform them. The presbyter can officiate all services, at the recommendation of the pastor. The pastor officiates all services and is in charge of the pastoral care of a local church." (M ˘arturisirea de credint,a˘ 2021, p. 22)

"The bishop can perform all Holy Sacraments and all church services [ ... ]. The priest receives, from the bishop, through ordination, the three gifts: of teaching, sanctifying and leading [ ... ]. The deacon serves as a help for the priest and the bishop." (Belu et al. 2011, p. 57)

I am not going to discuss here the theological differences, which are obvious. However, we cannot ignore the similarities regarding the relations among various sacerdotal positions. The pastor, in this case, seems to have a role that is similar to that of an orthodox bishop, who is the leader of a local church or bishopric. The presbyter, who can officiate all religious services, at the recommendation of the pastor, is similar to the priest in the orthodox tradition, who performs all liturgical services, with the consent of the bishop, while the deacon helps the other members of the clergy. Obviously, not all evangelical communities have this kind of organisation and also, even those that do have it do not necessarily admit that it is an influence of the Orthodox Church, but rather say that it has biblical roots.

The similarities can be explained through the fact that the evangelical communities once belonged to the traditional churches and then separated from them. In fact, their conversion to the evangelical movements was perceived as sheep-stealing, as a result of proselytism, while the evangelicals regarded it as a return to biblical Christianity. This is actually the main reason why the relations between the two Christian communities have often been tense. Thus, the evangelical theologians who show interest in orthodox theology, do so with the declared purpose of finding reconciliation with the other Christian traditions, in this case with the orthodox, but also because they are making an attempt to define a Romanian evangelical theology (Rogobete 2001, p. 262, note 14). We are yet to find out whether the orthodox are receptive or if they are willing to answer with the same kind of attitude. According to Bradley Nassif, "the country holds much promise for constructive relations. At present, however, the dialogue in Romania remains weak and indirect, consisting mostly of a growing awareness of the need to explore the points of contact between each other. Academically speaking, there are more evangelical students of Romanian orthodoxy than there are orthodox students of Romanian evangelicalism" (Nassif 2000, pp. 29–31).

In 2018, the Coalition for the Family, an association of several organizations of the main religious denominations in Romania had the initiative to propose a referendum in order to change the definition of marriage in the Romanian constitution. While in the Romanian constitution marriage was defined as the union between spouses, the Coalition suggested that marriage should be defined as the free union between a man and a woman,

to be more specific "the stable union between one man and one woman". Although the referendum failed due to low turnout, it did succeed in bringing together most Romanian Christian denominations. On this occasion, the Baptist Teofil Stanciu offered a short overview of the relations between the orthodox and the evangelicals for the past three decades. Stanciu explains that Christians belonging to various denominations were united under one cause because they suddenly discovered they had common moral values they wanted to defend. What was interesting, he notes, was that this recent discovery was not preceded by official dialogues between the orthodox and the evangelical leaders on the hot topics of the present-day society. They did not decide together what their position was regarding these issues. There were, however, inter-confessional interactions among academics in universities, but without much echo in the actual communities of believers. Another form of conversation, Stanciu adds, was constituted by the Ph.D. dissertations written by evangelicals under the guidance of orthodox theologians due to the lack of post-graduate programmes available in the evangelical faculties and institutes. However, the debates in the public arena, especially those related to moral issues, determined many to favour the Christian element of their identity, rather than their specific confession. Social media played an important part in this, as well as the global evolutions signalled by the press and the perceived persecutions against Christians. All these, Stanciu notes, gave birth to temporary trans-confessional solidarity. On the positive side, he explains, there is a dialogue in the academia (less influential), and another one on a wider scale, but perhaps more superficial, on the moral issues of the society. Otherwise, the lack of communication is still probably the rule, whether it is because of refusal of mutual recognition, or because of plain indifference. Finally, Stanciu appreciates the fact the orthodox and the evangelicals found some common ground in the current debates from the public arena, but he worries that they might remain stuck in the ideological or political realm. Although certain political, civic or social benefits can result from this, the theological dimension should not be ignored, as it is at the basis of any other initiative. We must find a way, he concludes, to put into practice, "in a creative but realistic way, the concept of unity in diversity" (Stanciu 2019).

#### **5. Convergent Theological Topics**

The divergences between the orthodox and the evangelicals are often intensely discussed in the sermons or other public speeches of the leaders of the two communities. Thus, topics such as infant baptism vs. adult baptism, sola Scriptura vs. the authority of the Tradition, sacramental priesthood vs. universal priesthood, the veneration of Holy Theotokos, the honoring of saints, icons and relics, as opposed to Christ as the only intercessor are just a few of the topics a simple believer can often hear being discussed in church. Besides these differences that surely exist, there are also a lot of convergences, much more rarely discussed, such as the authority of the Scriptures in the life of the Church, the teachings about salvation or the understanding of the church as koinonia.

#### *5.1. The Authority of the Bible in the Romanian Orthodox Church in the Work of Paul Negrut,*

The Romanian evangelical theologians approach a wide range of topics when expressing their views on orthodoxy, such as the authority of the Bible in the Church (Negrut, 1994), the theology of Stăniloae and theosis (Rogobete 2001), Scriptures (Mănăstireanu 2006); eco-theology (Maris, 2009), ecclesiology (Mănăstireanu 2012), justification (Florut, 2018), the theology of participation in God (Oprean 2019), salvation, grace and charismas (S, tefănică 2019), the role of women in Church (Sabou 2012), the ecumenical dialogue (Druhora 2020).

I will start with the classic debate concerning the place and the authority of the Bible in Church. In Paul Negrut,'s view, the debate started with "the translation of Scriptures into modern Romanian by Dumitru Cornilescu and the tension between Scripture and Tradition emphasized in the work of Teodor Popescu" (Negrut, 1994, p. 4), a deacon and a priest who embraced the evangelical principles, which led to their exclusion from the orthodox clergy. "From the interplay between the orthodox paradigm of revelation–communion– deification and the Protestant paradigm of revelation–justification–sanctification adopted

by Cornilescu's movement there emerged within Romanian orthodoxy new hermeneutical communities which emphasize both the mystical and the ethical dimensions of biblical Christianity. Consequently, since Scripture is perceived as the "Book of the community", both laity and hierarchy participate in episteme and praxis." (Negrut, 1994, p. 341)

Negrut, notes that Cornilescu regarded Scripture "as the only source of theological epistemology and the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice". Thus, he continues, Cornilescu "believed that the authority to maintain a balanced relation between episteme and praxis within the Christian community is sola scriptura. Although such a belief represents a radical shift from the orthodox view, the Romanian Orthodox Church avoided any open theological debates with Cornilescu regarding biblical authority, preferring instead to reject his teachings on the grounds that they were Protestant and thus heretical" (Negrut, 1994, p. 79).

Although Bible occupies a central place in the Orthodox Church, it is not considered the unique source of theological epistemology. According to Orthodox theology, the unique source is Christ, Who can be known by the community of faith. This living relationship with God is called Tradition in the Orthodox Church. Christ was known by the members of the first Christian communities, before the first books of the biblical canon were written. Thus, in the orthodox view, the Bible is a written part of the Tradition. It does play a normative role in the sense that the truth of faith cannot contradict the Scriptures, but it is not the only source of theological epistemology. The orthodox Church never embraced Dumitru Cornilescu's and Teodor Popescu's views, which does not mean that the Bible plays a less important part in the life of the orthodox communities. The Romanian Orthodox Church has used the Romanian language in Church services as a liturgical language ever since the 17th century, which made it possible for everybody to access both the actual text and the interpretations of the Bible. A biblical and a liturgical tradition in the Romanian language developed early on, which allowed lay people to read the Bible in their own language. This aspect would be relevant in a bilateral dialogue between the orthodox and the evangelicals as the centrality of the Scriptures constitutes a topic of ecumenical convergence. The special place the Bible occupies in the Romanian tradition has been consolidated by the presence of a group inside the Romanian Orthodox Church called the "Lord's Army". The group has a pronounced evangelical character and although it was initially considered a separatist movement (David 1998, pp. 166–68), it eventually remained inside the Church. Within this considerably large group of orthodox Christians, the reading of the Bible occupies an important part of their church life.

Additionally, the "two source" theory, which placed the source of Divine Revelation in the Scripture and the Tradition and which had been adopted by the Romanian Orthodox Church (Negrut, 1994, p. 164) was later on corrected by Dumitru Stăniloae and Dumitru Popescu, according to whom, the Source of the Revelation is the on-going work of the Son, the Word of God and of the Holy Spirit that are seen as the hands of God that reveal themselves in history (Stăniloae 1996, vol. 1, p. 32) through actions, words and images (Stăniloae 1996, vol. 1, pp. 28–29). As for the New Testament, the Word revealed Himself and, through the Holy Spirit, He was initially passed on by oral tradition and then He continued to be transmitted this way even after the books of the New Testament were written. Thus, Tradition has a wider meaning, preceding and including the Bible, which is simply the written record of the oral tradition (Popescu 2005, p. 66), but they both have one source: the Holy Trinity. This correction places both Tradition and the Scriptures within the limits of the Church and they appear to be woven into a whole through the work of the Holy Spirit.

There are of course different ways in which we can understand the authority of the Bible in the orthodox and the evangelical traditions, but the interaction between them in Romania made the Romanian orthodox biblical tradition consider the Scriptures as a criterion of validity for Tradition, while in the evangelical tradition, there are voices such as that of Dănut, Mănăstireanu that emphasize the necessity of Tradition, not just for the purpose of preserving a Christian lifestyle, but also from the perspective of continuity (Mănăstireanu 2006, p. 55).

Thus, in the Romanian context, the Bible as an authority for faith, life and practice is an important element of ecumenical convergence. Contemporary orthodox Bible scholars identified in this area some common benefits for the two traditions. As far as "Bible literacy is concerned", the orthodox have a lot to learn from the evangelicals, if they want to make "the Gospel of Christ clearer and more central to the life of the orthodox Christians" (Tofană 2015, p. 10), while on the other side, the appeal to the patristic authority in interpreting the Scriptures would prevent personal interpretations from causing separations in the body of the Church (Tofană 2015, pp. 13–14).
