The “New Evangelization” in Post-Communist Romania: Conflict, Common Witness and Dialogue Between Orthodox and Evangelicals

Abstract

In post-December Romania of 1989, after the fall of the communist regime, the presence of Christian Churches or groups in the public space became possible again. As a majority Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church (ROC) considered itself entitled to initiate new evangelization activities. At the same time, from the perspective of Western missionary groups, Romania was a terra missionis, which triggered a new wave of hetero-Orthodox missionary projects. Over the course of the last three decades, inter-Christian relations in Romania have gone through conflict, common witness and even dialogue. The primary objective of this research is to offer a revised understanding of the “new evangelization” paradigm in Romania in the late 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries, from a missiological perspective, considering the Romanian Orthodox–Evangelical relations. This research will also critically present the most important moments of the Christian dialogue, which moved from conflict to common witness and even to official and unofficial dialogue.

1. Introduction

This study is undertaken out of both personal experience and missiological concern. On numerous occasions, through our attendance at inter-ecumenical conferences, we have been afforded the opportunity to problematize the “new” situation in post-communist Romania, following the achievement of public religious freedom. During that particular moment, Western missionary groups were in a position to allocate funds and even missionaries for the “new evangelization” of Romanians. Obviously, for the majority Church, that is, the Romanian Orthodox Church, this new reality has represented a continuous challenge since then and until today.

According to Orthodox theology, evangelization is part of the Church’s mission to proclaim the Word of God. Re-evangelization is addressed to those who were Christians, but for various reasons have renounced those values. The concept of new evangelization includes both the baptized and the unbaptized. In Romania, the “new evangelization” refers to the missionary activities undertaken especially by Protestant denominations, carried out after the fall of communism. Proselytism refers to the evangelization activity in spaces or among people who already belong to a Christian Church.

The evangelization or re-evangelization constitutes a broad theme relevant to all Christianity. However, credit is due to the Catholic Church for having reintroduced to the discourse the significance of the “new evangelization” of the world and contemporary humanity. This is particularly observed in papal homilies after the Second Vatican Council. Pope John Paul II resumes the theme of evangelization on repeated occasions (Redemptor Hominis 1979; Christifideles Laici 1988). Under the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI, The Pontifical Council for promoting the New Evangelization was established (Ubicumque et Semper 2010), which later on, under pope Francis, in 2022, developed into Dicastery for Evangelization (Praedicate Evangelium 2022).

In the official documents approved in 2016 at the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, we observed that the concept “new evangelization” is not employed as such. Instead, the synodals opted for the term “re-evangelization”. The main idea is that “evangelization” seems to be the same in essence, rather than being something “new”. Furthermore, according to them, evangelization is for those who have not yet come to know and accept Christ, and re-evangelization is addressed to the secularized individuals, and even societies, who are in the process of de-Christianization. Some documents approved in Crete speak about evangelization as mission or witness to convey or to proclaim the Gospel. However, a persistent criticism is that the document The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World entirely omits use of the concept “evangelization” or “re-evangelization”. We believe that this lack of understanding affects the current missionary perspective of the Orthodox Church.

Accordingly, the present study offers a rigorous analysis of the paradigm of “new evangelization” within the Romanian context. Its development starts from the phenomenon of religious proselytism that emerged after the December 1989 uprising, to the legalization of inter-confessional relations mediated by the State, and to the current situation, characterized by common witness in response to the challenges of the contemporary world. In order to achieve these three major objectives, we will take into consideration the Romanian Orthodox–Evangelical relation and we will structure the study into the following sections: “Romanian Orthodox Theology on Evangelization”, “The Identity of Romanian Evangelicals”, “Proselytism or Evangelization?”, “The Law for Cults in Romania and Religious Freedom”, “Common Witness of the Orthodox and Evangelicals in Romania”, and “Ways of Dialogue Between Orthodox and Evangelicals”. Naturally, the study will conclude with the presentation of our final observations and findings. From a methodological perspective, this study will employ several research tools: the results of the 2021 Population Census, to highlight the demographic contrast between the Evangelical and Orthodox communities in Romania; Law no. 489 of 28 December 2006 on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Cults; and the results of two projects debated in Romanian society, namely Religious education in public school (2015) and the Referendum for the family (2018).

2. Romanian Orthodox Theology on Evangelization

In Romanian Orthodox theology, as well as at the popular level, several key concepts essential to Christian spirituality and mission have been partially or widely abandoned, though they are still used within certain spheres of Orthodox tradition and practice. Herein we refer to concepts as evangelization, gathering, conversion, repentance or worship. Since these concepts have predominantly become characteristic of Evangelical groups, Orthodox clergy and theologians rarely utilize them in preaching or written discourse. For example, non-Orthodox believers are most often referred to pejoratively as repentants (“pocăiți”). At a popular level, it has become a negative custom to call someone “repentant” (“pocăit”) when change in a positive Christian sense is observed. In addition, at the level of official and spiritual theology, Orthodox believers give particular attention to the Sacrament of Confession, also called the Sacrament of Repentance. This highlights a discrepancy between official Orthodox theology and the understanding and practice of certain Orthodox Romanians who, despite their affiliation with the Orthodox Church, lack authentic and genuine faith. A similar example can be observed in the non-participation and non-attendance of Sunday liturgical services. The “repentants”, by contrast, regularly attend services, as a common practice. Although this is a normal practice, they are often referred to in a pejorative sense as participants in the “gathering” (“adunare”). From my perspective as a theologian and priest, it is unnatural for an Orthodox Christian to refrain from attending Church services. Nevertheless, this reflects the actual situation in the Romanian Orthodox Church, which is primarily due to the fact that, in most cases, people are not evangelized. They do not read and know the Gospel of Christ. Even when we consider the percentages, they are, in fact, not realistic, meaning that many Romanian Orthodox individuals are only nominal members. Evangelization efforts should begin with them. A Gospel unannounced as Good News is a contradiction in terms.

In the context of written theology, evangelization remains a function or mission of the Church. The example of Ion Bria’s theology could be representative and useful, also because he is well known in Evangelical circles, abroad and in Romania. Moreover, Bria was even the deputy director of the Commission for World Mission and Evangelization of WCC (See Marcu 2022a, pp. 32–33; 2022b, pp. 39–40), and the topic of evangelization or evangelism was often addressed in his studies and books (Bria 1975, 1981, 1993, 1999, 2002).

How is the concept of evangelization understood in Fr. Bria’s thinking? First of all, it should be noted that in the Romanian territory he is among the first missiologists to recover this concept for Romanian Orthodox theology. We have already mentioned that the terms of mission and evangelization have been confiscated by other Christian Churches or groups. However, Fr. Bria uses evangelization with its basic understanding, namely the action of announcing the Gospel of Christ. From a certain point of view, evangelization is subject to certain limitations. However, it remains an important dimension of the mission, especially in terms of conveying the saving message to those who are not Christians or to those who have renounced their Christian beliefs:

“First of all, the church’s evangelistic witness is for the Christian who is not a Christian. There are many who have been baptized, and yet have put off Christ, either deliberately or through indifference. Often such people still find it possible sociologically or culturally or ethnically to relate in some manner to the Christian community. The re-Christianization of Christians is an important task of the church’s evangelistic witness”.

(Bria 1986, p. 34)

From an Orthodox perspective, we believe that the Romanian Orthodox Church does not give proper consideration to the evangelization/evangelism, which is indispensable for Romanian society. It is evident to us that evangelization must be a key element of the Romanian Orthodox Church, and for its theologians it should become a central theme, especially since, at the pan-Orthodox level, the theme of evangelization has been raised by several theologians already renowned for this (Vassiliadis 2013; Tosi 2015; Kozhuharov 2015a; Rommen 2017). If evangelization is abundantly present in Orthodox worship and services, then the dimension of evangelization of the world in the name of Christ must also be reflected in the activities performed by the Church and its priests together with the believers in larger society. The argument that “others” have distorted the concept of “evangelization” is not a solid one because the Gospel is always proclaimed through authentic evangelization. Whoever does not understand this renounces the evangelical perspective of mission (Sandu 2012, 2017). Interestingly, there are other voices that speak of an unpermissive neglect of evangelism even among Evangelicals (Botezatu 2022, p. 73).

Historically, The Orthodox Church possessed a real missiological and evangelization tradition, but unfortunately it often appears to have forgotten it. An initial step in solving this issue is recognizing the need for a missionary vision and evangelization. According to the latest census in 2021, compared to the 2011 census, a decrease of over 2.3 million people has been observed within the declared Orthodox community. In other words, according to these data, the Orthodox community represents approximately 73.7% of the Romanian population, which confers a confessional pride (Recensământ 2021). However, the question remains whether many of them practice a genuine faith or merely a nominal one, existing only at a declarative level. We could conclude that this decrease refers to the nominal Orthodox, but most likely in the coming years other negative figures will be recorded. That is why there is an urgent need for a revival of the vision of evangelization or even a mission of re-Christianization, as Fr. Ion Bria has already emphasized.

We will now present several data on the Romanian Evangelical identity. After this short section, we will turn our attention to one of the three phases of the relationship between Evangelicals and Orthodox, namely proselytism implemented by both sides.

3. The Identity of Romanian Evangelicals

In this section it is essential to understand who the Romanian Evangelicals are. Within the Romanian Orthodox context, this expression is not very known or popular. We must admit that, even in our own experience, this category of the Romanian non-Orthodox believers as Evangelicals is a new one. Generally, within our circles, they are referred to in a confusing manner as Protestants, neo-Protestants or even sectarians. However, in the majority of cases they are designated as Baptists, Pentecostals and so on. When consulting classical literature written by Romanian Orthodox theologians, such descriptions can be found (Petraru 2000, pp. 236–50). Nevertheless, this is an outdated model, through which we attempt to define others without engaging them. Today’s academic rigour requires us to constructively ask them how they define themselves. The book Omul evanghelic (“The Evangelical Man”) represents undoubtedly a magnum opus on the theological and historical identity of Romanian Evangelicals (Dobrincu and Mănăstireanu 2018; Mănăstireanu and Jemna 2025). For Romanian Orthodox theologians, these two volumes should become a necessary reference in both their personal and academic theological formation. For too long, Orthodox individuals have constructed the identity of others without comprehending the phenomenon from within.

According to the specialists who contributed to the publication of these two volumes, by “Romanian Evangelicals” we should presently understand at least the three denominations that are part of the Evangelical Alliance in Romania, namely Baptists, Pentecostals and Brethren. The officially recognized titles assigned to them by the Romanian State are the following: The Union of Christian Baptist Churches in Romania, The Pentecostal Union—The Apostolic Church of God of Romania and The Union of Christian Churches of the Gospel in Romania. In their introduction, Dobrincu and Mănăstireanu suggest a modification in terminology regarding the three denominations, dropping the term “neo-Protestant” and replacing it with “Evangelical” (Dobrincu and Mănăstireanu 2018, pp. 22–25). However, even if their reasoning may be valid to some extent, it is important for the Orthodox reader not to confuse the category of “Romanian Evangelicals” with that attributed to other churches, namely The Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Romania, The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Romania and The Romanian Evangelical Church. There were reactions even from the Evangelical space which suggested that the term “neo-Protestant” should not be abandoned. However, Mănăstireanu and Jemna (2025, p. 17) reiterated the rationale behind their choice, emphasizing that the term “neo-Protestant” was a “solution compromised by abuse and propaganda manipulation”. Ultimately, this option for the term “Evangelical” is in line with the Western framework, i.e., with the Anglo-Saxon area, but also with the American understanding of Evangelicals (Michelson 2017, p. 191; Dobrincu and Mănăstireanu 2018, p. 24; Williams 2020, p. 5; Hancock-Stefan and Stefan 2021, pp. 8–9; Criznic 2024). It may be useful to mention Billy Graham here, perhaps the most famous Evangelical figure, who visited Romania during the communist period between 7 and 17 September 1985 (Croitor 2010; Bodeanu and Vasile 2010; Stanciu 2018; Dobrincu 2018; Buda 2021).

The Romanian Evangelical groups were founded by Western Evangelicals. The Evangelical movement emerged out of the Radical Reformation (Williams 2020, p. 9). For example, in Romania, the first Baptist church was formed in 1856 in Bucharest, through the mission of the German Baptist Church. Therefore, the first Romanian-speaking Evangelical congregations—Baptist, Brethren and Pentecostal—were established at the beginning of the twentieth century (Jemna and Mănăstireanu 2021, p. 4).

Approaching these disputes through the lens of Orthodox tradition, we would opt for a broader terminology already expressed by Sonea and Stanciu (2024, p. 284), namely “Evangelical Protestant Christianity”. Even though the three congregations can be categorized by the term “Evangelicals”, in certain contexts the explicit use of the type of Evangelical is claimed, i.e., the Baptist, Pentecostal or Brethren form (see Bunaciu 2006; Bălăban 2016; Răduț 2016).

From a statistical point of view, we should present the official data from the last census in 2021, regarding the Evangelical communities. We have already mentioned that the majority of the Romanian population was Orthodox, though it is presently in pronounced decline. On the other hand, according to the same census, Evangelical communities, especially the Pentecostal one, are experiencing continual growth. The official situation in numbers is as follows: Pentecostals—404,475; Baptists—103,213; Brethren—36,374. According to these data, this group of Evangelicals in Romania represents 2.86% of the entire population (Recensământ 2021).

After providing the necessary clarifications regarding terminology and statistics, it would be appropriate to make a few remarks concerning the theological identity of Romanian Evangelicals. Without going into details, most Evangelical theologians retain about their theological identity the so-called “quadrilateral of priorities”—conversionism, activism, biblicism, crucicentrism—borrowed in Romanian theology from Bebbington (1989, pp. 2–3). As expected, they are slightly nuanced in the Romanian space; however, they preserve the underlying idea (Michelson 2017, p. 193; Mănăstireanu 2018, pp. 248–70; Williams 2020, p. 9; Stanciu 2024, p. 39; Criznic 2024, p. 24). According to this theology, the expression “Romanian Evangelicals” refers primarily to Christians who belong to Evangelical (Protestant) denominations that emphasize the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and active faith. Certainly, these characteristics should be analyzed from an Orthodox perspective, but this is not an objective of the study. However, it is worth briefly commenting on two points.

First of them is related to so-called conversionism, namely the belief that lives need to be visibly changed. And indeed, this is observed in the behaviour of those who convert and become members of Evangelical communities. In Evangelical practice, conversion frequently occurs after an existential crisis and a sinful life. People, who before conversion spent their lives in bad passions and habits, radically and positively changed their lifestyle and thinking. They felt that they had repented. We may also highlight the importance of the Bible both during the act of conversion and following the conversion (see Baban 2018; Gheorghiță 2018). Many people have converted after reading the Bible, and for them, this has become an integral part of daily life. Unlike the individuals who identify as Orthodox, but do not practice their faith, among Romanian Evangelicals there is a constant presence of “a more rigorous ethics within both personal and communal context” (Mănăstireanu 2018, p. 292).

The second one, in connection with conversionism, is about Evangelical activism. For Romanian Evangelicals, activism could be defined as a passion for mission and responsibility of believers for the proclamation of the Gospel. In Mănăstireanu’s (2018, p. 270) analysis, activism should be understood as missionaryism or missionary work. With respect to the Orthodox segment, we could translate this by referring to the ecclesiological–missionary concept of “liturgy after the Liturgy”. This concept, coined by Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos (2010) and promoted by Bria (1978, 1996a, 1996b), fulfils exactly the function of connecting Church life with social life, where we have to evangelize and to proclaim the Gospel of Christ. We acknowledge that this concept is familiar to us, having addressed it in numerous studies and works (Marcu 2016, 2022a). There are also many theologians who have reflected on the theological perspective it provides, including on the public or social dimension of the Gospel (Toroczkai 2013; Sonea 2020; Tsirevelos 2022). In certain contexts, this active faith has materialized through public theology, in the Evangelical space, or through social theology, from an Orthodox standpoint (Stanciu 2024, p. 57). However, we assert that there are positive nuances of the Evangelical theology and practice that could be reinterpreted in relation to the Romanian Orthodox believers (see Vlașin and Achim 2025). Nevertheless, these two themes, namely conversionism and activism, should be included on the shared agenda for future dialogue.

The purpose of these two parts of the study, on evangelization from an Orthodox perspective, but also on the identity of Romanian Evangelicals, was to contextualize the main theme of the study. Subsequently, the study will focus on outlining the state of conflict between the two Christian communities, known as proselytism on both sides, followed by a regularization mediated by the Romanian State. We are referring to the new law on religious groups in Romania. Then, we will exemplify two cases of common witness in Romanian society, with the aim of proposing diverse levels of dialogue, whether ongoing or recommended by theologians devoted to ecumenical dialogue.

4. Proselytism or Evangelization?

Shortly after the end of the communist regime, marked by the death of Nicolae Ceaușescu (1918–1989), the new socio-political reality offered freedom to Protestant and other denominations to carry out evangelistic actions, which were categorized by the majority Orthodox leaders as proselytizing activities. The so called “closed gates” in the sphere of religion became accessible to everyone, especially to the Christian groups that had been forced to function clandestinely or under strict limitations, during the communist regime: “We believe that we are living in a spiritual kairos, a time of unprecedented opportunities in our region for the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (Oradea Declaration 1994).

The Romanian Orthodox Church faced several challenges as well. One of the most important challenges was the consolidation of parishes by building new churches and recovering the institution image, which had been affected by the collaboration with the communist leadership. At the same time, religious freedom provided sufficient space for other churches, especially for the Evangelical ones, to carry out their own pastoral and missionary activity (Kozhuharov 2015b, p. 355). From their perspective, this represented evangelization. And in a certain sense, their interpretation was correct. Even today, Romanian Evangelicals assert that their evangelical message is addressed not to practicing Romanian Orthodox individuals, but to unbelievers or the unchurched, even if previously baptized in the Orthodox Church (Castro 2002, p. 448).

In general, the Orthodox theologians speak about the corruption of the missionary understanding among the Orthodox because of the proselytism practiced both by the Roman Catholic Church (for instance, Uniatism is a counter-mission among Orthodox Christians) and the Protestant or Evangelical Churches. For these reasons, the Orthodox Church understands mission differently, not framing it in terms of geographical expansion, by establishing new communities or local Churches. However, as long as the so-called mission among the Orthodox is naturally proselytizing, for the Orthodox, mission refers to the proclamation of Christianity among non-Christians, rather than in territories or communities that are already Christianized (Dumitrașcu 2015, pp. 191–92).

What are the most important accusations of proselytism brought by the Romanian Orthodox against other churches, especially against the Evangelical one? First, we should mention the attitude towards Orthodox Christianity, which is even considered non-Christian, unreached by the Gospel or pagan (Peterlin 1995; Volf 1996; Kozhuharov 2015b, p. 359; Mănăstireanu 2016, p. 207; Stanciu 2024, p. 50; Sonea and Stanciu 2024, p. 288). On the other hand, the attitude of the Orthodox Church towards the Evangelical community is not entirely appropriate either, since the former has regarded the latter as heretical. As Veronis rightly observes (Veronis 2015, p. 88), “from the Evangelical side, however, they could not comprehend how a priest could claim to be a Christian and resist the distribution of Bibles”. Unfortunately, in some cases, the mutual attitudes have hardly evolved. The second issue for the Orthodox is the establishment of new Evangelical Churches within “canonical” Orthodox territories. A further concern, also related to the second, is that Evangelical Churches have often depended on Western financial aid and missionaries who have come to evangelize the Romanian people (Kool 2008a, p. 148; 2008b, p. 30; 2016, p. 37). There are well-known instances in which pastors received various material assistance from abroad, transported by trucks and distributed to people in disadvantaged rural areas, with the pretence of accepting the new faith, renouncing their membership in the Orthodox Church. A special case to analyze may be the Roma communities, who accepted to become, in general, members of the Pentecostal Church. Of course, this is just one example that bothered the Orthodox. Another example is the free distribution of Bibles with a confessional version which differs from the synodal translation accepted by the Orthodox Church. For all these actions, and many others as well, they were unanimously accused of proselytism, which has led in the present to discussions about “the impossibility of redeeming the term ‘proselytism’” (Mănăstireanu 2015a, p. 140).

At the same time, it is reasonable to assert that the Romanian Orthodox refuse to abandon the negative connotation that has been attached to the term “proselytism” and they continue to use it as a tool against other Christians and minority churches. The painful paradox is that, within the Romanian context, the term is employed by the Orthodox against the Evangelicals, whereas in the Orthodox diaspora it is completely rejected. In other words, where we do not agree with the mission of others, we classify it as proselytism. Where we do mission, especially in the diaspora, we reject its classification as proselytism (Hancock-Stefan and Stefan 2021, p. 2). As an example, if an Orthodox Christian becomes a member of the Evangelical Churches, we accuse him/her of having done so as a result of aggressive proselytism. If an Evangelical Christian becomes a member of the Orthodox Church, we consider it to be the fruit of an authentic mission, with no connection to proselytism (Sauca 2012, p. 2). In the Orthodox diaspora, the case of the evangelical Peter Gilliquist, who led the conversion of Evangelicals to the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, is well known. In recent years, including in Romania, this event has become popular, through various translations or moments of remembrance (Gillquist 2016; Criznic 2024, p. 118). It is often seen as a victory for Orthodoxy and a return to the true faith, rather than an instance of proselytism.

Bria speaks about the need to make a distinction between “proselytism, which is a corruption of Christian witness, and evangelistic witness, which seeks to demonstrate the Orthodox faith to the world as an active presence” (Bria 1986, p. 33). The same idea is supported by Mănăstireanu (2018, p. 271), who considers that “proselytism refers to the use of unethical approaches in Christian witness”.

In Romania, at least for the Orthodox, the fear of proselytism is still present. However, as previously noted, this is intentional. Unfortunately, the topic has not been debated enough from a theological and academic point of view. It is an unpleasant topic and it is consequently avoided. When someone attempts to present it, they fail to overcome the preconceptions of the past and merely persist in accusing others of acting for “sectarian regimentation”, without making a difference between classical denominations or new religious groups. Everything is understood in parallel as Orthodoxy or proselytism. In other words, if one is not Orthodox, then regardless of one’s identify or Christian affiliation, one’s actions are automatically categorized as proselytism. Fundamentally, in Romania we as Orthodox fail to give space for others to carry out their mission and we consistently classify all of them in the same category. Specifically, there is no distinction made between a Baptist or an Adventist, between a Catholic and a Jehovah’s Witness, which is totally wrong:

“Missionary work through the proclamation of the Gospel (understood in both its ad intra and ad extra aspects) proceeds from the Church and for the Church, that is, for the edification of the mystical Body of Christ. To speak of a mission carried out through itself or for itself is ambiguous and without ontological finality. Herein lies the hidden danger of the proselytism of neo-Protestant groups that is not undertaken on the basis of a divine mandate but, at most, with the aim of popularizing the Scriptures, followed by sectarian regimentation”.

(Buchiu 2018, p. 90)

The issue of proselytism is one discussed in ecumenical forums, especially in the World Council of Churches. It is known that after the adherence of several Orthodox Churches, including of the Romanian Orthodox Church, at the Third General Assembly in New Delhi in 1961, WCC adopted several documents or resolutions by which it classified proselytism as unworthy or false witness. Moreover, they started to promote the “common witness” concept in reaction to proselytism (see Common Witness 1980; Mission and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation 1982; The Challenge of Proselytism 1995; Towards Common Witness 1997; Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World 2011; Together Towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing Landscapes 2012; Baxter-Brown 2022). Unfortunately, in the Romanian Orthodox Church the response to these documents is quite weak. The same applies to the Evangelicals in Romania, because these Churches do not actively participate in this ecumenical dialogue, even though the World Evangelical Alliance has agreed with the resolutions and even participated in drafting some of these (Mănăstireanu 2018, p. 278; Buda 2021, pp. 8–9; Criznic 2024, p. 217). Therefore, common language also implies the subjective acceptance of proselytism, from the perspective of each party:

“The perversion of witness into proselytism depends on the intention and the means used. Every intention to divide another church or to draw members from it constitutes proselytism as is the offer of material or social advantages […]. Although a wide ecumenical consensus condemns proselytism in principle, the distinction between legitimate Christian witness or evangelism and negative proselytism is not so easily drawn in practice”.

(Paul Löffler 2002, p. 940)

The intention of this part on proselytism is not to offer a solution, because the issue is far more complex. The main issue of the Orthodox Church seems to be that it is overly concerned with what others do rather than with its own duties and possibilities. Instead of accusing others of proselytizing among Orthodox believers, the Orthodox Church should be concerned with being an authentic testimony in Romanian society both through its actions and through its interactions with others. Fortunately, some signs suggest the emergence of a new paradigm for relationships with others, facilitated not only by legal demarcations, but also by the guidance of leaders with broad visions. In the following, we propose such an interpretation of the current situation in Romania, while acknowledging certain obvious limitations. To achieve this, we will analyze legal statements regarding religious freedom in Romania and joint actions between the Orthodox and Evangelicals in recent decades.

5. The Law for Cults in Romania and Religious Freedom

In present, the Romanian religious system includes 19 denominations (“culte” in Romanian language), 50 religious associations and over 800 associations and foundations that carry out religious activities. We should mention that, in post-communist Romania, the State found it necessary to intervene in order to enable the denominations to attain a common level of acceptance of “the other”. If in the first part of the post-communist period there were all kinds of tensions, sometimes aggressive and proselytizing at the same time, after the promulgation of Law no. 489 of 28 December 2006 on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Cults, attitudes changed significantly, at least from a legal point of view. We should note that the law was enacted seventeen years after the revolution. It may be asserted that the Orthodox should understand that we operate from an inter-religious perspective in accordance with the law, also accepted by the official institution of the Romanian Orthodox Church, and this form of education is necessary to address and overcome historical conflicts. According to this new paradigm, the Romanian State is neutral towards any religious persuasion or atheistic ideology, without having a State religion in Romania (see Ploscariu and Cindrea-Nagy 2025, p. 201).

In recent years, there have been several cases of common Christian witness in Romania, which we will mention in the next part of the study. Our theory is that the Romanian Orthodox Church has changed its paradigm of understanding other Evangelical denominations for at least two reasons.

The first of them considers the intervention of the State through the publication of the new law on cults, in which Orthodox Church specialists also participated. The new law created a space for dialogue for religious denominations in Romania. It is now clear that, after 1990, the most important moments of institutional cooperation between recognized cults and the Romanian State were the meetings that led to the formulation of the text of the Declaration of Denominations for Romania’s Integration into the European Union at Snagov of 16 May 2000 (Ghișa 2021–2022, p. 52) and of the current Law for Cults. Those meetings, along with others, created premises for dialogue between cults through the intervention of the State. In reference to the statement issued at Snagov, during the working session of 14 November 2024, the Government of Romania adopted a draft law establishing 16 May as the National Day of Religious Freedom and the Contribution of Cults to the life of Romanian society (Ursulean 2024). As a clear example of State intervention, we bring to attention a situation that remains unresolved to this day, namely the burial of other Christians in Orthodox cemeteries. At least in rural areas, where Orthodox Christians form the majority and where the parish usually holds both canonical and legal authority over the local cemetery, the burial of an Evangelical Christian often generates tension for clergy and believers alike. From their standpoint, that individual should not be buried in the Orthodox cemetery (Ștefănică 2020, p. 92). In some cases, secluded areas within the cemetery have been allocated for such situations, a measure that may represent a feasible solution. In urban contexts, where cemeteries are generally administered by city halls, such disputes do not occur and Christian affiliation is no longer questioned. Today, in both cases, the State regulates the issue of burial only from a legal point of view and does not involve the Church in any way. Moreover, according to the present law on religious cults, there exists a legal possibility of allowing an Evangelical Christian to be buried in an Orthodox cemetery. Interestingly, the State has regulated this, given the history of tense relations. At the same time, an exception to this legal provision is made for cemeteries belonging to Jewish or Muslim communities (Law no. 489 2006, § 28). Furthermore, as a necessity, the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church approved Regulamentul cimitirelor din Biserica Ortodoxă Română (Regulations for the cemeteries owned by the Romanian Orthodox Church) on 9–11 December 2020, which takes into account the Law on Cults and proposes the following regulations:

“Art. 47—(1) non-Orthodox believers may be buried in Orthodox parish cemeteries only if their denomination does not have its own cemetery in the respective locality and if there is no communal or municipal cemetery available. (2) the burial of the deceased persons mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be done in separate plots, established by the Parish Council”.

(Regulamentul Cimitirelor din Biserica Ortodoxă Română 2020)

The second reason concerns the current patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, His Beatitude Daniel. Although numerous ecumenical initiatives have taken place with His blessing and support, in order to argue for this new paradigm, we will only mention the establishment of the Consultative Council of the Cults in Romania (“Consiliul Consultativ al Cultelor”). This forum model is also applicable in other states, such as Albania, though it remains a novelty in Romania. It is interesting that the Churches and other religions have sought to present a singular, consolidated voice in their relationship with the State. There is no coincidence that the first meeting took place on 14 April 2011, in the Conventus hall of the Patriarchal Palace, under the presidency of His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel. Naturally, the dialogue with the State occurs both at the institutional level and through this forum, in which the Evangelical Churches participate either fully or as observers, alongside the Romanian Orthodox Church. Although it does not operate with periodic sessions, this Council assembles whenever the circumstances require it. Unfortunately, current information about this Council is not available, for instance, on any official website, where the entire activity of the forum should be uploaded. However, it is known that the Consultative Council is an ethical, social, autonomous, apolitical, non-governmental organization, without legal personality and non-profit (Secretariatul Consiliului Consultativ al Cultelor 2011). In continuation of efforts to maintain dialogue with the Romanian State, the Commission for Dialogue between the State and Cults was established on 2 October 2023, at the Victoria Palace of the Romanian Government (Apostolescu 2023). It is worth noting that His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel also delivered a speech at the event, highlighting the firm cooperation between the State and the religious denominations in Romania, but also among the cults themselves (Daniel 2023). Likewise, few details are available regarding this Commission, but it represents a new opportunity for Christian Churches to agree on the relationship with the Romanian State (see Apostolescu 2024; Daniel 2024). Although in Romania the relationship with the State is regulated by the Law on Cults and coordinated by the State Secretariat for Cults, these two initiatives—the Consultative Council of the Cults and the Commission for Dialogue between the State and Cults—can be significant in the project of common witness in Romanian society. The most important criticism of these groups is generally related to their effectiveness. Beyond the formal presentations and festivities, we personally expect much more from their joint meetings.

The third objective of the study is to show that, despite the issues of proselytism and state intervention among religious groups in Romania, through the approval of a new law on cults, a transformation has occurred. Both Orthodox and Evangelical communities have entered a new involuntary stage of common testimony, yet one that undeniably exists.

6. Common Witness of the Orthodox and Evangelicals in Romania

In post-communist Romania, especially during the last decade, Christian Churches were required to offer a common witness on several sensitive issues affecting Romanian society as a whole, in particular for the Christian vision and its practical implications. We recall here only two cases of national resonance, namely the desire to maintain religious education in public schools (2014) and to include in the Romanian Constitution a clear definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman (the so called Referendum for the family, 2018). Obviously, these two cases have already been analyzed by Orthodox and Evangelical theologians, whether separately (Chiorean 2019; Ștefănică 2019; Stanciu 2019, 2024; Sonea 2021a, 2021b; Sonea et al. 2022; Buda 2021; Criznic 2024) or together (Sonea and Stanciu 2024). Therefore, we will not address the two cases in detail, but will instead offer several observations intended to clarify that we are now functioning within a different paradigm, “an innovative new paradigm” (Kool 2016, pp. 30–31), one that should be made as fruitful as possible.

Regarding the first example, namely religious education in public schools, religion classes were introduced in schools in January 1990, at the proposal of the Romanian Orthodox Church, and with the contribution of other denominations. And that is considered a great success (Damian 2010, p. 22). In fact, over the following years, each denomination had to participate in drafting the confessional curricula, which led to an unofficial dialogue among them. As noted earlier, accusations of proselytism were also present in the context of religious education in schools, especially since, in the beginning, Orthodox religious instruction was provided with the support of priests (Stanciu 2019). The Orthodox have found it difficult to accept the fact that, when conditions allow, children from other communities should have specialized teachers accredited by their churches.

In post-communist Romania, the presence of religion classes in public schools has always been a debated topic and has undergone many changes from a legislative perspective. The last of them affected the status of the discipline in the common core, in the sense that, in order to participate in religion class, the parents of the children must submit a formal request in this regard. Previously, the obligation to submit a request applied only to those wishing to withdraw their children from religion classes. Moreover, following the decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court of 12 November 2014, in February–March 2015 parents were asked to express their position regarding their children’s attendance in religion classes by completing an application and mentioning their religious affiliation, according to the provisions of the Law on Cults No. 489/2006. In the end, the situation was resolved in favour of maintaining religion classes and the procedure was formalized. However, the fact that the procedure was changed in the middle of the school year—after decades of practice—generated significant tension. We now turn to the common testimony that we have previously mentioned, namely that the issue regarding religion classes activated the Consultative Council of Cults, which met on 28 February 2015 and unanimously decided to support the presence of confessional religion in public schools, adopting the joint appeal entitled, in translation, Light for Life. The importance of religion classes in the education of children and young people. This document once again emphasizes the importance of a good collaboration with the State, for overcoming religious ignorance and also for a better society (Lumină pentru Viață 2015, § 10).

Another observation refers to the involvement of “civil” society, which coagulated in the Parents for Religious Education Association (in Romanian—Asociația Părinţi pentru Ora de Religie), whose members belong to different denominations in Romania. It was impressive to note that numerous public figures or artists have been positively involved in one way or another in this public debate. In fact, this association worked in collaboration with the Churches and the Consultative Council of Cults. Therefore, as the majority church, the Romanian Orthodox Church considered it necessary to host the National Assembly of this association, on 28 March 2015 (see Daniel 2015; Adunarea Naţională a Asociaţiei 2015). According to official data at the time, around 2.1 million applications for religion class enrollment have been registered at educational institutions across the country, representing the choices of more than 91% of parents. It is also noteworthy that the meeting report highlights a vote to initiate procedures for amending the Constitution. The amendments were intended to explicitly guarantee a confessional religion class within the common core, with withdrawal allowed upon request, and to constitutionally define marriage as an union between a man and a woman. However, an important role in the referendum issue has been played by another civil association, namely the Coalition for the Family. This second situation will be examined in greater detail, given the fact that it has represented a new step in the dialogue between cults in general and between Christian ones in particular, including between the Orthodox and Evangelicals.

The Family Referendum, which aimed at amending the Constitution’s definition of marriage, was an older concern of the Consultative Council of Cults, at least since 2013 (Secretariatul Consiliului Consultativ al Cultelor 2013). However, it reached official debate and vote on 6–7 October 2018. Legally, the procedure was started in 2015 by the Coalition for the Family, which includes numerous organizations and associations of religious denominations in Romania. The involvement of the Evangelical Alliance of Romania should also be mentioned here.

Although less was stated, the Family Referendum represented a considerably more common project than the effort to maintain religion classes in public schools. The causes are probably diverse, but it is clear that the cults have collaborated more extensively in testifying to the shared values regarding the sacramentality of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The fact that the referendum failed due to a lack of quorum is not the focus of this analysis, even though it might be classified as a partial—if not greater—failure (Curte 2019). What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that, in the run-up to the referendum, the religious leaders of the Orthodox and Evangelicals supported a common cause. Moreover, the Consultative Council of Cults found it necessary to meet in order to clarify their position on that initiative. Since as early as 2013, this position has been supported by all member denominations, with the exception of the Unitarian Church of Transylvania.

In the first phase, the cults needed to encourage believers to provide their signatures in favour of the Coalition for the Family initiative regarding the revision of the Romanian Constitution in order to define marriage as a freely consented union “between a man and a woman”, replacing the current term “spouses”, which was subject to interpretation. The initiative was successful and approximately 3 million signatures were collected for the revision of the Constitution, being delivered at the Romanian Senate on 23 May 2016. At that time, it was regarded as a victory that members of all religions and ethnicities in Romania gave their signatures in favour of the family (Bușagă 2016).

The second phase occurred with notable intensity in September 2018, shortly after the Romanian Government officially announced the organization of the referendum on 6–7 October 2018. During that period, from July 2016 to October 2018, conferences, meetings, and even pro-referendum marches were organized all over Romania, with the involvement of religious groups, including Evangelical ones. Although the Romanian Orthodox Church did not fully and officially claim the organization of the referendum, it fulfilled that role informally. Accordingly, the National Church Assembly, being composed of all the hierarchs of the Holy Synod, representatives of the clergy and representatives of the lay believers from the dioceses of the Romanian Patriarchate, met in the session of 29 September 2018. Their purpose was to launch an appeal to all Romanian Orthodox citizens to vote in the Referendum of 6–7 October 2018, an appeal entitled “Let’s say YES to the family blessed by God!” (Bușagă 2018). As we have already stated, the referendum did not succeed, yet it remained a moment of common witness to Christian values.

Before the referendum, the Romanian Orthodox Church expressed itself directly to the Romanian Orthodox citizens. In the post-referendum press release, however, it referred to all the citizens who participated in the vote—certainly Orthodox, but also non-Orthodox. It emphasized that referendum revealed, among other things, the degree of secularization of Romanian society. In reality, it referred to the secularization of believers, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox (Biroul de Presă al Patriarhiei Române 2018).

Therefore, that particular moment should serve as a point of reference in reaffirming Christian values among Romanians, regardless of Christian affiliation. And this can only be achieved through dialogue and common witness with other Christian denominations, including Evangelical ones. The very fact that we are writing these things indicates that, unfortunately, not even an invalidated referendum, in a predominantly Christian country, has prompted religious leaders to recognize the principial truth. Romanian society—understood as Christian Romanians regardless of denomination—is not moving toward a committed Christian life, either personally or publicly (Sonea and Stanciu 2024, p. 301). We are inclined to believe that these shared moments help cultivate a reciprocal desire for rediscovery between the two communities. But at the same time, we completely agree with a critical conclusion according to which “this interconfessional collaboration remains circumstantial, depending on social issues, and is not based on an intentional programmatic approach” (Ploscariu and Cindrea-Nagy 2025, p. 203), hence the necessity of an official dialogue, which possess the ability to deliberate on both differences and common concerns of the two communities.

7. Ways of Dialogue Between Orthodox and Evangelicals

Personally, when addressing the subject of dialogue between the Orthodox and Evangelicals, our thoughts naturally go to the LOI, namely Lausanne–Orthodox Initiative, initiated in 2010 by leaders within the Lausanne Movement and the Oriental and Orthodox Churches (see: Lausanne-Orthodox Initiative n.d.). Moreover, since 2013 different consultations have been organized by LOI, bringing together Evangelical and Orthodox theologians and practitioners from across the world with a focus on mission and dialogue (see Mănăstireanu 2016). In the same vein, many articles and studies have been published in order to present not only the differences between the two traditions, but also the common teaching points. These are, needless to say, in addition to other books and articles published globally on Evangelical and Orthodox theology (see Grass 2001, 2010; Stamoolis 2004; Negrut 2004; Grass et al. 2012; Oxbrow and Grass 2015, 2021; Ott 2016; Nassif and Grass 2021; Nassif 2021). It is gratifying that some of the works generated by the dialogue between Evangelicals and Orthodox Christians have also been translated into Romanian, including at least a few reference works (Grass et al. 2012; Nassif et al. 2015).

In post-communist Romanian society, both Christian and secularized, we believe that it is appropriate to speak of the need for a dialogue between the Orthodox and Evangelicals. It seems clear that the unofficial dialogue has already begun and is currently taking place in a separate and sporadic way on three levels: theological–academic dialogue, dialogue of believers and dialogue of leaders. All three of these can become part of a formal ecumenical dialogue. In the following lines we will explain some of the nuances of this triple dialogue, which has the purpose of overcoming historical and theological ignorance. We will obviously prioritize theological dialogue or dialogue among theologians, which nonetheless requires the active support of believers and the blessing of religious leaders.

The dialogue of believers is what occurs at the grassroots level. Though it may not be fully understood or universally accepted, its presence is continuous. I begin by presenting my personal experience, as being born and baptized into a family of non-practicing Orthodox. My aunt, my father’s sister, joined the Pentecostal community around the 1990s with her husband, and that is how the Holy Scripture was brought into our home, during frequent family gatherings. Thus, at the age when we could read, the children’s Bible came into our hands and we began to read and reread entire passages, from both the Old and New Testaments. The reason we did not choose to become Pentecostal is twofold: my father, who preferred that our family remain Orthodox, albeit not strictly practicing, and the new parish priest in my village, who succeeded in encouraging our attendance at Orthodox Church services. Beyond this personal testimony, we want to highlight that, at the inter-family level, the Orthodox and Evangelicals have a natural dialogue. For most people, before belonging to an ecclesial community, one belongs to a family where one may, on various occasions, encounter and even discuss religious tradition and practices. And this situation occurs especially in Romanian villages, where people have a deeper understanding of one another and communicate more effectively.

The dialogue of theologians has already started and is semi-functional. This type of dialogue manifests in various forms, but with a provisional approval of religious leaders. For an Orthodox theologian to participate in any international conference, including those organized by the LOI, he or she must first have the blessing or permission from the local hierarch or even from the Romanian Patriarchate, according to the latest regulations. Interestingly, in some situations theologians consider it important to make a distinction between their positions as specialists and the official point of view of the Church to which they belong. This is why Father Ioan Sauca (Sauca 2016, pp. 7–8) refers to this types of meetings as free academic platforms. Our perception is that when the Romanian Orthodox theologians participate in these kinds of international meetings, they are far more open to such dialogue than they would be at home. Perhaps this is due to religious leaders who are most often against dialogue. The same situation probably applies to Romanian Evangelical theologians, although, in their case, the church restrictions are much simpler. Beyond these realities, another aspect is important for this dialogue, namely that, at the academic level, some Evangelical theologians pursued and completed their doctoral degrees in Orthodox schools (Ștefănică 2019, p. 42). For Orthodox theologians this is applicable outside the Romanian context, at Catholic or Protestant schools, where they pursued their studies. Generally, this was regarded as a significant achievement. In the same logic, we can also remember the doctoral theses written by Romanian Evangelicals in the West, on Orthodox themes (Vlașin 2013; Jemna and Mănăstireanu 2021; Stanciu 2019; Criznic 2024). In Romania, Orthodox theologians have recently been part of various doctoral-level committees within Evangelical accredited schools, which may be identified as an element of theological dialogue. Also, Mănăstireanu (2015b, p. 25) recalls the fact that, in Romania, Orthodox theologians have been invited to teach in some Evangelical schools, albeit for short courses, but he is not aware of any instance in which Evangelicals have been invited to teach at Orthodox schools. Another positive example is “the latest trend in the matter of mass-media” (Criznic 2024, p. 213), where theologians from different confessions and even religious figures are invited to debate certain topics. For example, the channel Speranța TV organizes this kind of programme in which they invite, among others, Romanian Evangelical and Orthodox theologians and priests. Obviously, those who participate on behalf of the Romanian Orthodox Church have the direct consent of the Romanian Patriarchate. At present, there are voices from both the old and new generations of theologians, on each side, that support the ecumenical dialogue, advancing different proposals (Porumb 2019; Stanciu 2019; Coman 2023; Marcu 2023a, 2023b, 2024a, 2024b; Herescu 2024; Druhora 2025). Sonea’s statement is conclusive here, claiming that

“it is desirable that all these forms of dialogue should be accompanied by an official ecumenical dialogue as well. Having an official dialogue would not only allow a representative of the orthodox community to become more involved in the ecumenical encounters, but it would also make the reception of the results of these encounters easier at the community level. Without such a formal decision to start an official dialogue, the encounters remain casual and contextual, and the reception will be limited to the direct participants”.

(Sonea 2021b, pp. 14–15)

The dialogue of leaders is the last step before the officialization of the ecumenical dialogue between the two communities. It has not yet become visible, but there are sufficient grounds for one to emerge in the future. Here we would once again recall the meetings of the Consultative Council of Cults which has taken place in the presence of Orthodox hierarchs and even the patriarch, along with other religious leaders, whether Christian or non-Christian. However, we must acknowledge that, unfortunately, not all denominations classified as Evangelicals are part of this council, but only one of them is, namely The Union of Christian Churches of the Gospel in Romania—the Brethren. In several situations it has been stated that all Evangelical Churches, which form the Evangelical Alliance in Romania, are members of this council, but that was not entirely true (see Buda 2021, p. 9; Sonea 2021a, p. 45; Criznic 2024, p. 207). The situations in which all the leaders of denominations in Romania have met are those in which the meetings were convened by the Romanian State, by the State Secretariat for Cults or by the new Commission for Dialogue between the State and Cults, as we have already mentioned (see Apostolescu 2023, 2024). In this sense, if both parties wish, a dialogue between the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and Evangelical leaders will be possible at the highest level, that is, between the Romanian Patriarchate or the Holy Synod and the Evangelical Alliance of Romania. For the Romanian Orthodox Church, it will be far easier to have a dialogue with a forum that represents Romanian Evangelicals. However, in order to achieve this first step, the Evangelical Alliance in Romania should be functional and well-defined, or each denomination that is part of it should initiate its own dialogue with the majority church (see Răduț 2015; Mănăstireanu 2018, p. 283; Vlașin and Achim 2025, p. 138). In the case of the Romanian Orthodox Church, it is far simpler, because both the Holy Synod and the Romanian Patriarchate are functional and have clearly defined roles. As long as the dialogue of theologians is not supported or blessed by the church hierarchy and the leaders of evangelical communities, it will most likely remain ineffective or, at best, a mere attempt without success, neither in the short nor the long term.

Prior to presenting the conclusions, we will offer suggestions and remarks on two major themes, with which we would commence any official dialogue, namely repentance for the facts of the past and the role of Trinitarian baptism within the two communities.

Some theologians have already outlined certain common themes of dialogue and convergence, such as the importance of the Holy Scripture, the role of Tradition, salvation and the nature of the Church, etc. (Sonea 2021b; Drimbe 2023). However, from our personal perspective, after reviewing the Evangelical literature, the first issue to address would be the need to confront our shared historical past, marked by accusations, oppression, persecution, and enmity. From an Orthodox perspective, it was shameful to read the various negative attitudes towards Evangelicals, especially in their early days. We understand that their theological positions or worship practice may sometimes differ greatly from the Orthodox ones, but appealing to authorities or even resorting to violence goes beyond any Christian attitude (see Silveșan 2015, p. 401; Dobrincu 2018, pp. 113–37; Ștefănică 2020, p. 85; Criznic 2024, p. 173). It seems that, at the time, Orthodox Christians had forgotten how the early Church was persecuted until the freedom offered by Emperor Constantine the Great. The official dialogue of the leaders, if it ever begins, will have to call for a moment of repentance regarding the respective attitudes on both sides, especially those of the Orthodox (Jemna 2018, pp. 312–21; Hancock-Stefan and Stefan 2021, p. 14). As the Anglican theologian Oxbrow commented,

“in penitence we have to acknowledge that, even in recent decades, we have persecuted, abused, dishonoured, and neglected each other. We have accused each other of heresy, sought to steal church members, and shown disrespect for the genuine faith of our brothers and sisters in Christ. That this is a consequence of our sinful human condition is no excuse. Above all, our sin is against the mission of God. His glory has been obscured by our pride; his kingdom has been divided by our greed. As we meet and seek to journey together, learning from each other, we begin together in confession, feeling the pain, and looking to God, the only source of true forgiveness, restitution, renewal, and life”.

(Oxbrow 2015, p. 4)

For the second theme, I will recall here my situation as a priest of the Romanian Orthodox Church. According to the actual regulations, we have to baptize a former member of the Evangelical communities, if he or she wants to became an Orthodox Christian. Evangelicals probably do likewise, receiving former Orthodox members in their community through baptism. In 2014, one of the Publishing Houses of the Romanian Orthodox Church published a book of worship with the title Primirea la Ortodoxie a celor de alte credințe. The same volume was re-published with a parallel text in Romanian and English in 2023. According to the translated text, the Christians who do not belong to the Orthodox Church should be called heterodox. In order to become a member of the Orthodox Church, the candidate has to confess his sins and listen to and accept the Renunciations. At this point, one question from the priest is whether the candidate is renouncing all erroneous teachings of the confession he adhered to until that moment. The authors give three examples of confession, namely Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Baptist (The Reception of Converts 2023, p. 23), but without other explanations. We point out that we find the nomination of Baptists in the same category of classical confessions. After completing the entire ritual, the candidate is to be anointed with the Holy Chrism. The interesting part is that reception only through anointing with Holy Chrism is practiced or accepted only for baptism performed through the invocation of the Holy Trinity and through triple immersion. In the words of the authors of this guide,

“If the baptism was not performed using the consecrated Trinitarian formula or it was done through a single immersion (as practiced by Baptist, Pentecostals, Seven Day Adventists, Nazarenes, etc.), that is not valid and the person must be baptized […]. It must also be known that although presently the majority of Neo-Protestant Christian pastors (such as Baptist, Seven Day Adventist and Pentecostal) invoke the name of the Holy Trinity, they baptize through a single immersion or by sprinkling with water”.

(The Reception of Converts 2023, p. 43)

Without going into further comments, it is clear that the ecclesiality of the Evangelicals is being questioned. Therefore, we believe that the primary focus of dialogue between the two communities should be on the attitude towards the acceptance or rejection of Trinitarian baptism (Boldișor 2019). Unfortunately, the topic of baptism touches on the issue of canonical boundaries of the Church, another matter still unresolved in Orthodoxy, as there are different opinions and practices. At the same time, the “fragmentation” suffered by Evangelical communities, in general, and by Romanian ones, in particular (Mănăstireanu 2018, pp. 281–85), makes this dialogue regarding ecclesial identity and common baptism difficult. Hence we reiterate that future dialogue should take place directly with the Evangelical Alliance of Romania, which can officially represent Romanian Evangelicals, rather than with individual communities that could split at any time. Nevertheless, dialogue should clarify these divergences, in order to reach a common vision, sooner or later. In this sense, we consider that an official dialogue cannot be postponed indefinitely. Time and history alone will determine whether this reality will come to fruition.

8. Conclusions

Before outlining the most important conclusions, I should say that I have written this paper with the intention of clarifying my own perspective. It has become evident that Christian communities, regardless of context, are often characterized by gross theological and historical ignorance.

In the introduction, I announced the three main objectives of the study. Their purpose was to demonstrate that, in post-communist Romania, the relationship between Orthodox and Evangelicals went through three stages. The first stage involved proselytism, followed by legal regulations adopted by the Romanian State. In the third phase, certain actions of common witness could take place in Romanian society.

The first conclusion of the study is that the concept of “new evangelization” has several meanings, which are regarded as positive, by some Churches, and negative, by others. Evangelization is a commandment of the Lord, which means that it should be an important activity of the Church. From the perspective of the two communities, evangelization must be authentic and practiced without taking the form of an aggressive or oppressive proselytism. Therefore, honesty and transparency are indicated in any evangelistic activity so as to avoid exposure to accusations of proselytism.

The second conclusion is related to the inter-Christian and inter-religious relations normalized after the enactment of a new law on religious cults, at the end of 2006. Even proselytism is defined and regulated by this law, which has helped the two communities accept each other far more easily than before.

By overcoming the classic proselytism and accepting legal regulations, a new paradigm has been reached, based on principles of shared witness and dialogue. In view of these realities, the Churches could develop an official dialogue on three levels, namely the dialogue of believers, that of theologians, and that of religious leaders. However, the two Christian communities should first desire the redemption of the past and identify points of common doctrine, including the Trinitarian baptism.

As a general conclusion, in post-communist Romania, the “new evangelization” or “re-evangelization” is taking place with tensions between Churches claiming their rights and freedoms, yet also with a hope for a future dialogue, at least between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Evangelicals.