**12. Difference That Divides**

There is one primary difference between Orthodox and Wesleyan positions on evangelism that is a major stumbling block to cooperative efforts in this direction: the Eastern Orthodox Church is at the center of evangelism for Eastern Orthodox Christians (Lemopoulos 1998, p. 325; Bria 1975; Yannoulatos 2010, pp. 220–21, 81; Bria 1996, p. 9; Tosi 2014, pp. 7–8; Schmemann 1973, pp. 213–14; Veronis 1982, p. 51; Rommen 2017, p. 209; Jillions 2007, p. 44). Different Orthodox theologians will give different answers to the question, "Are Christians outside the Orthodox Church really Christians?" (See Nikolaev 2007). Nevertheless, it is undeniable that for Orthodox Christians, there is something special about the Eastern Orthodox Church (Stamoolis 1986, pp. 16–17, 98–99). This is because it is in the Church that conversion is made complete through participation in the Sacraments of Baptism and (particularly) Eucharist (Schmemann 1973, p. 215; Tosi 2014, pp. 4, 17; Yannoulatos 2010, p. 113; Cyprian of Carthage 2006, pp. 160, 162, 164; Nikolaev 2007, p. 92; Behr 2007, p. 188; Vassiliadis 2002, p. 107).

Orthodox Christians believe that the Church is the first-fruits and image of the Kingdom (Nissiotis 1975, pp. 77, 84; Vassiliadis 1998, pp. 14, 52); as the Eucharistic Community it is the "taste" of the Trinity that is promised in full at the *parousia* (Nissiotis 1975, p. 79; See Plekon 2007, p. 59; Vassiliadis 2002, p. 105). This is because through the Sacraments the Church is "*an event of communion which reflects in history the Trinitarian existence of God Himself* " (Nissiotis 1975, p. 79; See also Behr 2007, p. 196; Vassiliadis 2002, p. 104). God is genuinely present in the Eucharist, allowing human beings to partake of the divine, and **the Eucharist only happens in the Church** (See Schmemann 1988 for a fuller explanation of Orthodox understanding of what happens in the Eucharist; See also Damick 2013).

Additionally, for the Orthodox, the Church is the tie of the Universal connecting Christians throughout time and space. In the Church, that which has been believed as "Christianity" by all people in all places at all times is re-articulated for new people, places, and times (Rommen 2017, pp. 218–19). The Church tells the stories of two thousand years of martyrs, monastics, and missionaries (See Veronis 1994; Nikolaev 2007, p. 88). It is the carrier of memory, the link between the past, present, and future (Hierarchs of the Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas 2000, p. 128; See also Nikolaev 2007, p. 94; Halvorsen 2007, p. 274).

As was mentioned previously, Wesleyans and Orthodox Christians would agree that "there is no such thing as a solitary Christian" (Wesley 1782; Hierarchs of the Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas 2000, p. 102; Tosi 2014, p. 14), that Christianity cannot be lived outside of community (Abraham 1989, p. 54). They would also agree that Christianity is about relationship with God and with others (Hierarchs of the Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas 2000, p. 113; Hynson 1982, p. 32; Tosi 2014, p. 17). They even agree that there is a historical significance to the Church as Body of Christ (Wesley 1796, pp. 34–41; Outler 1971, p. 55; Rack 2002, p. 291).

For Orthodox Christians, the **Orthodox Church** is the location of that community, of those relationships, of that significance. It seems safe to conclude from his laud of the Western Church and denunciation of several branches of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches as "little, if at all, better than the generality of the Heathens" (Wesley 1783), that Wesley would not agree. Additionally, one must look at Wesley's larger understanding of this topic: Wesley certainly had a category for "the Church" broadly as a mystical body, perhaps even as a Universal (Wesley 1785b). However, that which he spoke of in this sense seems rather more mystical than ecclesial. Indeed, given Wesley's eventual conclusion that the most important thing was to "spread vital religion" (Rack 2002, p. 300) within or beyond the bounds of the Church of England—one could make the argument for a Wesleyan approach that is entirely disconnected from the boundaries of any formal religious institution (Rack 2002, pp. 306, 311; Charlesworth 2007, p. 66; See Wesley 1785b).

Clearly, this is a significant difference between Orthodox and Wesleyans that makes for not one road toward Christ, but two—parallel, similar in many ways, but still two separate paths.

#### **13. A Way Forward**

So, if we are moving down two parallel paths, what are the prospects for Orthodox and Wesleyans working together in evangelistic endeavor? How can we travel these separate tracks together? Two clear areas of joint venture are: dialogue toward renewed self-understanding and service together in the name of Christ.

#### **14. Dialogue toward Renewed Self-Understanding**

Although many Orthodox are quick to proclaim Orthodoxy as the "one, true Church," they should be the first to admit that there is often a gap between Orthodox tradition/theology and Orthodox practice (Nassif 2004, p. 85). It is true that there are rays of hope, particularly in America. The Antiochian Archdiocese, for one, has long held evangelism in and for America not just as a value but as a way of life. In 2016, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese's *PRAXIS* magazine dedicated its Fall/Winter issue to the topic "Speaking to Secular America." Additionally, there are many examples at the parish and individual level of a commitment to evangelism in theory and practice.

At the same time, American Orthodoxy has an overall tendency to turn inward, to count as "evangelism" simply doing Orthodox services and living individual holy lives (Krindatch 2017, pp. 20, 148; See also Tosi 2014). These are certainly **essential**, but they are **not sufficient**. It is not just important but necessary to also turn outward—to actively desire the salvation of the whole world and to intentionally seek ways to join God in God's mission in the world and thus to reclaim their core identity as sharers of the gospel.

How does this connect to the earlier conversation detailing differences and similarities in the Orthodox and Wesleyan understandings of evangelism? A significant part of the way forward for both Wesleyans and Orthodox is dialogue with each other. The goal of this mutually enriching discussion is less that the two should teach each other lessons, and more that they might offer each other reminders—that Orthodox and Wesleyans would invite each other to self-reflection that reveals who they genuinely are (See Bria 1984).

Wesleyans can remind Orthodox that their engagement with the world should include their heads, their hands, and their hearts. Wesley and those who follow him most closely evidence a passion for the gospel that goes beyond cold rationality or systematic theology. At their best, Wesleyans show a level of enthusiastic joy that is contagious—if Orthodox Christians delighted in Christ's Resurrection every day in the way that they do on Pascha, what a witness to the world that would be! While some may agree with Metropolitan Kallistos that Orthodoxy is "simple Christianity" (Ware and Neff 2011, p. 39), it is undeniable that the layers of symbolism and Eastern-worldview which inform Orthodoxy can make it seem esoteric and other-worldly in a way that is not always accessible—Wesleyans can also remind Orthodox Christians of the need for practicality and simplicity in evangelism. Orthodox Christians tend to think of things with a long view, one which may cause them

to forget the immediate. Wesleyans can remind them of the urgency of the evangelistic task—that the building of the Kingdom, the salvation of all people and the whole cosmos is for *now*.

Orthodoxy has some reminders that would benefit their Wesleyan counterparts who desire to spread the gospel as well. Wesleyans, like many Protestants, may be tempted to think of Christian history as starting with the Reformation, or even with Wesley. This, however, is inconsistent with Wesley himself, who leaned heavily on Christian Patristics and the Book of Common Prayer (Hynson 1982, p. 35), considering himself to be part of a greater Christian continuum. Orthodox can remind Wesleyans of the depth of their Christian roots, of the long history that connects all Christians to Christ. In postmodern America, Wesleyans tend to be isolated and fragmented, frequently leaving behind the idea of formal "bands" or "classes." Orthodox can remind them of the grace of connection and community, of the necessity of Christ-centered, deep, and committed relationships with other Christians.

Wesleyan and Orthodox dialogue in this sense offers a unique opportunity for those who are willing to engage in respectful discussion which neither demands that the other change nor gives up their own true distinctives. Such exchange can be transformative, challenging both Orthodox Christians and Wesleyans to a deeper knowledge of their own Faith Tradition while also inviting each to a unity of their belief and praxis. Both Orthodox Christians and Wesleyans can remind each other of the need for theology which is deeply meaningful and intellectually satisfying precisely *because* it is applicable to everyday life. Through honest discussion together, Orthodox Christians and Wesleyans can be a part of a lived-theology of humility, repentance, joy, and authentic love.
