Only by the Grace of God, did the church survive the scourges of the suppression of the Moslem religion (500 years) and Communism (73, 44 years). Both World Wars hurt the church substantially, too. It's still digging itself out from both scourges, rebuilding; the Ancient Patriarchates, the Balkan and the Russian Churches, and, Red China-continuing today). The Holy Orthodox Churches were devastated by these horrors. International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC), while founded in the U.S., was established to serve as the social welfare outreach of the Holy Orthodox Churches which did not have the assets to fulfill these responsibilities.
If one premises Christianity to have started in 100AD (I know it didn't: this is for the sake of argument) - that leaves just over 500 years for Christianity to have grown and spread, and yet for the most part apart from where the Apostles seem to have gone first (Ethopia, India, the Roman Empire, and the surrounding area, it seems to have not grown very much outside that area.
Don't get me wrong: I understand that Communism did a lot of damage to the Church, as has being under Muslim occupation, but that's missing the point I make. Not every place was under Muslim occupation, neither was every place under Communist occupation. There are other churches that have been left relatively untouched, again, Ethiopia being an example, and so there is a position from there where missionary work could have been done instead of leaving it up until now.
Why is Orthodoxy so under-prevalent in the Western US despite it having been a base for the Church and the next logical step for growth?
The same is true for the Roman Catholics as is for the Orthodox (and also for the Lutherans, Anglicans etc.). Other than the ancient homelands, the vast majority of evangelism is in the old colonies. The difference is that, with the exception of Russia spreading across Asia and into North America, there really are no old Orthodox colonies. The reason there are so many Roman Catholics in South America is far more down to colonisation than anything else.
I'm not saying we don't need to do more (we certainly do), but looking at the geographical spread of the churches without considering the history is bound to be misleading. Here, in the UK, I see very little Orthodox missionary work but I do see some. As an example, we have a friend from our old parish who was recently ordained a priest specifically to start an English language mission parish. Never in my life have I seen anything that would fairly be described as Roman Catholic missionary work here. If you live in the west we must look like a tiny minority because we are, but we're a tiny minority that is growing (not fast enough, in my opinion). For a church to be growing here is amazing in itself. Of course we'd grow faster if we dropped the ethnic aspects and simply became Orthodox, worshipped in English, etc. but as most parishes here are reasonably recent and immigrant in nature, this won't happen over night - most do seem to be moving in the right direction, however.
James
On the map, though, you can see what they did. Yes, it spread via colonialization, but it spread nevertheless, instead of being mostly in just the area it was founded. It's the same with Islam - you can see they spread relatively far given where their homeland is.
Only by the Grace of God, did the church survive the scourges of the suppression of the Moslem religion (500 years) and Communism (73, 44 years). Both World Wars hurt the church substantially, too. It's still digging itself out from both scourges, rebuilding; the Ancient Patriarchates, the Balkan and the Russian Churches, and, Red China-continuing today). The Holy Orthodox Churches were devastated by these horrors.
And there you have it. The miracle is that the Orthodox Church survived at all!
Look up the statistics on how many priests, monks and nuns were killed by the Communists in Russia, and how many churches and monasteries were destroyed or desecrated before being critical of a lack of evangelism.
However, probably all older branches of Christianity have been under persecution at some point in time, or been the persecutors, yet the more Western ones have still managed to thrive.
I may be being critical of the lack of evangelism, yes, but it's highlighting a point, and IMHO it's a legitimate point. How can one be expected to convert to a Church that is rather different to the Western ones, if the Church cannot make the information be shown in a manner that is applicable and relevant to the people (inquirers or otherwise) who are coming in? I thought that that was the point of Orthodox missionary work, and one shining example of it: packaging the teachings of the Gospel in the culture of the surrounding area, and what was done in Alaska and the Slavic countries.
I'd also like to point out that you're bringing up Russia, which is a valid example. However, I've never been to Russia. I don't know all that much about Russia. I don't understand very many of their customs, or their language, or alphabet. Yet, I'm attending a Russian-descent parish which seemingly follows some of the traditions of the Russian Church. What is my point? That example works well for those who are Russian, or were in a Communist country, as they know the realities of it. Russia is not going to be quite as relevant to me, though, as an example that is closer to my heart. That's the same thing with Serbia, or Bulgaria, or Romania - they're countries that are not in my experience, and the example loses a lot of its relevance, and perhaps power to me. And before someone accuses me of insulting these countries I've been fortunate to meet several Serbians and enjoy their company, and my best friend is a Bulgarian, so this is nothing against the countries being listed.
How does this feed into evangelism? Converts need to attend Church regularly and be in contact with their priest. For a liturgy they likely need to go to a parish. To have a parish you have to have establishment, and that means evangelism.
