Why Must the Christian Evangelise

Today, Christians are often afraid to share their faith. There exists a stigma within society in today's Western Rationalism to look upon the Christian who openly confesses their faith with an air of concern or with a feeling of superiority. That the Christian is somehow less intelligent for believing in something that is of what they consider the ‘dark ages.’

The Christian unaccustomed to the mental downplay meets these interactions with a feeling that either the atheist is correct in his worldview or that there should be a silence in the individual's heart to not openly be a confessor of the truth.

This open lack of confession and secularisation causes a conflict where laws are being proposed within Australia that now ask to hire individuals in Christian schools who do not share the faith that Christians have in our Lord Jesus Christ, threatening raising our children from the unique Christian ethos.

The Christian, in this case Orthodox, should consider why he should be open in his individual evangelism of God, the Church, the Most Holy Theotokos, and all the saints. They should consider the following arguments: the individual's knowledge of the truth and the role of the layman as expressed by our Lord and his Church and the consequences of complacency.

Plato’s allegory and the Christian journey

In Plato’s The Republic, the Allegory of the Cave describes prisoners who have been chained in a cave their whole life. They can only see shadows projected on the wall from objects lit behind them. These shadows are all the knowledge of reality. One prisoner is let go, allowed to be freed, as Plato comments:

What we receive in this allegory is that the cave is ignorance, or limited perception; the shadow’s false beliefs, illusions, and philosophies; the journey out of the cave, enlightenment; and the light, the truth. What should the Christian take away from this? The Christians are the ones who have been given the full revelation of the truth. The atheist sees this journey out of the cave not as an enlightenment but as a regression into the darkness.

However, there is a problem in this category of thinking for the atheist. The atheist must acknowledge the full breadth of knowledge of the biblical and church tradition but also supplement that with scholarship of all other knowledge within the world and still find in him the possibility that there is no God. If not, the conclusion is not that the individual is an atheist but an anti-theist or a moron. 

Dawkins Problem

Why come to this conclusion? If we look at the face of modern New Atheism, for example, Richard Dawkins, who some in the Neo-Atheistic spheres consider to be a prophet of the 21st century, in his book, “The God Delusion” (2006), he makes some good points about the temporal aspect of the church and its later secularisation, reflecting a sentiment that the earlier.

While it is true that there has been the abuse of the institution of some churches, we must see in this description that Dawkins does not express an already held Christian opinion but rather the consequence of American consumerism, a by-product of Atheism.

Since the hole left by nihilistic rejection of God leads only to hedonism or authoritarianism, as expressed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1878). And later revealed prophetically with the decline of the Soviet state under atheism, which led to the church alliance in 1943 to stop the fragmentation of the Soviet Union and propagandise the church in the event of the Second World War (Bociurkiw, 1959).

This society began to reflect what Dostoyevsky stated would occur with the rise of the alcoholism pandemic, the gulags, abandonment of the nuclear family and the abandonment of children, genocide and vocal repression of the clergy and laymen alike, and the cult-like following of the Soviet religion, Communism (Solzhenitsyn, 1968).

This description that Dawkins considers to be the correct option has already been tried and tested throughout the 20th century, and all that remains of this experiment is dust, blood, and bone, showing that Dawkins does not have any knowledge of supplementation of the consequences that he preaches, other than his cynical material idealism.

It should also be noted that these issues that have infiltrated the church are not a consequence of anything the church, namely the Orthodox Church, has directly caused, rather these things are the result of the same cynical materialism which Dawkins preaches as a whole.

Furthermore, Dawkins does not reflect any knowledge of the church's tradition or teachings. Instead, Dawkins seems to instead rely on strawman arguments and ad hominems to mock Christianity and many of the saints, including St. Gregory the Theologian’s miracles, as not “honest lucidity,” implying delusion, and his theology as “characteristically obscurantist” in flavour as opposed to modern science. The problem with his argument for empiricism is that it is epistemically flawed. With mathematics, David Hilbert wanted to formalise all math into a consistent system.

He further writes in his book that somehow Christians are in fact polytheists in their belief of the saints in heaven. In his straw man argument, he has no knowledge of intercession or the unity of the body of Christ, or if he did, he did not apply one. Instead, he goes on a rant about the “tasteless Kirsche” of Roman Catholics to make up details as they go along.

Not seeing the hypocrisy of his own argument. This is further proven by his less initiative attempt to argue against epistemic arguments for the existence of God and only focus on Thomist arguments and Roman Catholic theology and never go to the Orthodox understanding of God. This demonstrates that not only does Dawkins not hold a full, unbiased view of his knowledge, but also that he falls victim to his own epistemic biases.

Now let us consider the usual atheist. They are often not as intellectually gifted, nor have they read an actual Bible, but rather pander to these “intellectuals” as their own form of idolatry, repeating what was originally allegorized by Plato’s Republic. This shows two things: one, the Christian should always continue to learn and become more accustomed to outside knowledge, and two, the Christian should not feel inadequate to the criticism of atheists, since not all of them have actual knowledge but rather a false “intellectualism” to justify the rejection of God, making them morons and anti-theists and not atheists in the pure ontological sense.

This repeats what Fr. Seraphim Rose said: “Atheism, true 'existential' atheism burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful God, is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true God.… Nietzsche, in calling himself Antichrist, proved thereby his intense hunger for Christ.” Since the Christian acknowledges the truth, they should not be afraid of confessing it.

The Role of the Layman

There exists in the scripture a purpose given to the layman distinct from that of the priest and bishop, which has been blurred, confused, and become complacent. This purpose is specifically tied to the reason why Christians should evangelise. The laymen are not secondary to the clergy that make up the church; they are still of importance to the church's hierarchy.

First and foremost, they are chosen participants in the liturgical, prayerful, and daily life of the church (1 Peter 2:9). The layman offers his life as a living sacrifice, a calling to sanctify daily life in the family, in the community, and at work (Romans 12:1). The Christian life, then, is not just autonomous moral improvement which some ill-informed contemporary have proposed but rather worship of the logos and the transformation of the individual within the body of Christ, the Church (Romans 12:5 and 2 Corinthians 3:18).

Second, the layman is commanded to always give a defence to the truth of the faith (1 Peter 3:15) and to evangelise. These first two roles are often interconnected, as often the actions of living the faith are enough to evangelise and make many question you about your faith. St. Seraphim of Sarov quotes this same sentiment when he says, “Acquire the Spirit of Peace, and thousands around you will be saved.” What it shows is that the transformations of the individual laymen have the power to make many see the truth.

Furthermore, living out the traditions allows for the individual laymen to be defenders and bearers of the Orthodox paradosis, or holy tradition, especially in the midst of persecution (2 Thessalonians 2:15). This can be seen in the Council of Florence, where the bishops and priests that made up the church were going to betray the ecclesiology of the church to rejoin the Latin church, all but St. Mark of Ephesus, who refused to rejoin Rome, and many of the unionists were rejected by the monastics and laity, being witnesses to the faith (Ware, 1993).

Through this purpose of the layman lies the fruit necessary for the evangelism of the others and salvation through Christ. This, however, contrasts with the Western ethos for evangelism and the purpose of the laity. This next paragraph is intended for those unaccustomed to the history of the Reformation and post-Reformation and require background information as to why the Orthodox Church has the correct interpretation of the scripture and understanding of the role of the laity.

Reformation and Rupture

The Reformation, as most people know, began in Wittenberg, Germany, in 1517, when Martin Luther published the Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, commonly known as the 95 Theses. However, what is often overlooked is that these theses were not directly concerned with allegory, typology, or the famous solas of the Reformation. Instead, they focused primarily on the nature of repentance and the abuse of indulgences.

The solas and Luther’s broader theological critiques developed over time through various treatises, essays, and theses. Key works include Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520), The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), The Freedom of a Christian (1520), and the Small Catechism (1529). These writings helped lay the theological groundwork for the Augsburg Confession (1530), which was formalised by Philipp Melanchthon, not Luther.

Presbyterian theology and Lutheran Pietist theology would unintentionally contribute to the theological and cultural soil from which the First Great Awakening in the 18th century emerged, which would result in the Evangelical church and finally the Pentecostal-charismatic movement.

It can be seen that slowly any context that would have originally been taught by the original members of the church is lost in the storm of theological and philosophical developments, leading to a dispensational, literalist, and anti-allegorical reading of the text. The consequence to evangelism in Christianity would be devastating.

Literalism and the Loss of Mystery

The consequence of the Protestant Reformation had on the view of the laity, the impact of evangelism, and its role within the life of the church. The Reformation led to three developments in the interpretation of scripture: dispensationalism, literalism, and finally anti-allegoricalism, often overemphasising them for the sake of the solas and not realising the full theological weight of what they read.

Literalism started with Luther and Calvin, who argued for a literal interpretation of scripture, asserting from a nominalistic perspective that scripture should be interpreted from a sensus literalis, that scripture was plain enough to understand, and only required a literal understanding. This empowered the laity to a role, removing the hierarchical intermediaries, believing instead the priesthood was for all believers, destroying the episcopal system.

This led to a series of issues; for example, the laity were disconnected from the participation of the mystical element of the sacraments, and for readers of a text, it destroyed allegory and typology, which were traditional for both temple worship and the early church. This literalism led to the 19th-century theological ‘development’ of dispensationalism, which argued that scriptural history was not in accordance with types or τύπος, as asserted by John Nelson Darby, but with epochs or dispensations, which argued for an overuse of literalism.

This created sharp distinctions; for example, Israel and the Church were seen as completely distinct from one another and not a τύπος, pattern, or fulfilment of one another. This can be seen in Romans 5:14, where it describes Christ as the new Adam. Dispensationalism would create notable distinctions, dividing between that of Law and of Grace, seeing them as their own dispensations rather than fulfilments of one another. This had several effects on the laity.

First, it mobilised lay people as primarily evangelists because of dispensational eschatology, tasked with sharing the urgent message of salvation and end-times readiness. This was because the dispensationalists believed the apocalypse was close. This overemphasised individualism and individual responsibility and limited liturgical participation. This disconnected all who participated in dispensationalism and overt literalism from individual decision-making and personal faith over transformation, losing the depth of the rich theological and spiritual aspect of scripture found from the traditions of the church fathers and the ecumenical councils.

The laity, while active in evangelism, often experienced a spiritual dryness due to diminished engagement with the sacramental and mystical aspects of Christian life. This would often be supplemented with emotionalism or shallowness to justify continuation with the faith. If evangelism is to be successful in these times, then modern Christians must realise the errors in dispensationalism and over-literalism in the interpretation of scripture and rather return to the body of the Church, established by Christ as the pillar and grounds of the truth. 

The Orthodox Response

Finally, there exist one of the greatest threats to occur within our own Orthodox Church to the state of evangelism today, the sin of complacency and the sin of compromise. This sin is characterised in a myriad of ways. The consequence of this sin is the failure to sanctify the world and the church losing its inherent salt (Mathew 5:13). Complacency as a sin is tied with the passion of sloth, it is linked to the western mentality to seek easier times and not to work hard towards any goal outside of others individual needs.

A new mentality must be placed on the individual as to the reason to work and not be complacent and to not engage others, but for the health of the body of Christ. We have many members in the church and even people outside the church, those people deserve our help, for if we are to follow Christ we need to be of service to everyone, as Christ came not to be served but to serve. Whether this service is for a simple visit to the hospital or a larger job overall like the painting of a gate or the donation of a large sum for a larger project, God always looks to the heart and such actions are reflexive on the individual (Mathew 20:28).

We should consider the actions of the saints and how they acted in the world. There is a story of a monk who was bed-ridden from illness and could not clean his room, Saint Porphyrios hearing this would come in at night without the monk's knowledge and clean it (Harvey, 2005) or even consider the life of St Dobri of Bailavo, who though very poor and worked as a farmer and monk, in his lifetime gave up to $200,000 dollars to churches and those in need.

It is in this that Evangelism finds its greatest clause, not exactly the telling of the kingdom of God or the expression of ‘eternal damnation’ that has no merit and is a cold and cruel way to evangelise but rather the expression of it in love and truth which is found in the service of others outside the church. For sure it is necessary to speak of the kingdom of God and the salvation of humanity, however these instruments of evangelism should come with patience and with a person who invites you to speak and listens with genuineness and with love, tenderness and kindness, as though the person you speak to is someone who deserves all the love in the world.

This want to speak only and not do the will of God is directly tied to what was originally made clear with the evangelism movement of the 20th century and the spiritual removal of those outside the body of Christ made evangelism more targeted, psychological and manipulative, not capable of demonstrating the true Christian ethos. This led to generations of Christians who saw the church as nothing more than a box of hypocrites, with innovations like instant conversion, overreliance on marketing and entertainment, street-preaching with condemnation, prosperity gospel, overemphasis of apologetics and debate, none of which express the love that Christ calls most Christians.

We should lead the way to true evangelism found in the service of others, since these things open the hearts of those who would be led astray from the church and given the perspective of cruelty instead of love that is seen by the Christian.

Therefore, the spiritual impoverishment and complacency surrounding modern Christian evangelism stems not merely from societal pressures or secularism, but from theological missteps rooted in the Protestant Reformation and its aftershocks and the complacency of the laity within the Orthodox Church that must be challenged so as for the church to survive. The overemphasis on literalism, dispensationalism, and the abandonment of allegorical and typological interpretation fractured the continuity of scriptural understanding with the mind of the early Church.

These developments removed the laity from their proper liturgical and spiritual participation in the mystical life of the Church, reducing the Christian life to an individualistic and often emotionally shallow experience. Yet the Orthodox Church has preserved the fullness of the Christian life through the Eucharist, sacraments, and ascetical tradition in which the laity are not passive but active participants and witnesses of the faith.

The Orthodox layman is called not to be a mere consumer of doctrine or religious experiences, but to be a confessor of the truth, a bearer of holy tradition, and a participant in the theosis of the world. In a time when atheism and pseudo-intellectualism mock the faith, and society demands the silencing of the Christian voice, Orthodox Christians must rediscover their evangelical identity not through the emotionalism or eschatological panic of dispensationalism, but through the peaceful, radiant witness of transformed lives.

Evangelism is not reduced to slogans or mere apologetic defenses, but becomes the quiet power of holiness, liturgical life, spiritual struggle, and a deep knowledge of truth rooted in Christ. Let the Orthodox faithful, then, reject the spiritual reductionism of modernity and reclaim the mystical and scripturally faithful witness of the early Church.

As St. Seraphim of Sarov reminds us, “Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved”. In the next essay, it will speak to how the Christian should evangelise and what are some pitfalls they should avoid.