2
The Background
By Michael Bourdeaux
The Communist movement today is no longer united everywhere adhering to the same ideological tenets. There have been many splits and ideological quarrels. In practice the divergences are even greater. The situation for Christians varies dramatically from one Communist country to another: life for a Christian in Yugoslavia is very different from that of a Christian in the USSR; it is different again in Czechoslovakia or China.
The brand of Communism which has developed in the USSR is deeply Russian: Lenin, whose ideas have been amalgamated with those of Marx to form the Soviet ideology, known as Marxism-Leninism, belonged to a particular Russian tradition of revolutionary elitist thought and interpreted Marx's ideas for a Russian context. Lenin and his tightly knit, well-organized Bolshevik Party, wished to impose a political system which would control every aspect of a man's life — his emotional, physical, creative, and spiritual life. Had the Bolshevik — later named the Communist — Party merely aimed at creating an economic system where everything was held in common, where each person was provided with his needs and gave to the community as much as he could, where there was no private property, then a Christian could have no
Page 18
grounds for conflicting with such a system. But when a political system demands the total control of a man, that he should render unto Caesar that which is God's, then a Christian finds himself in conflict with it.
Christians in the Soviet Union today consider it quite possible for them to live within Soviet society so long as certain rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, are observed in practice. The present article 124 of the Constitution on freedom of conscience originally under Lenin permitted "religious propaganda" as well as antireligious propaganda. In 1929, however, this phrase was altered to "religious confession," and when a new constitution was drawn up in 1936, it was again changed, this time to "religious worship." Officially this phrase is interpreted to mean that the Christian community may hold services only in a registered building and at a time specified by the State. Were this article to include freedom of religious propaganda, without which, many Christians would argue, there can be no question of true freedom of conscience, then this would grant Christians the freedom they seek. Were the 1918 Decree of the Council of People's Commissars respected in practice, Christians in the USSR would be able to live without conflict within Soviet society. This decree lays down that Church and State be separate: that the Church be allowed to deal with its own internal affairs without interference by the State.
In practice, however, the State in many ways interferes in Church affairs in an attempt to control religious life. For example, a Christian community is required to obtain registration from the local soviet (council) in its area before it can meet legally. Should a community be lucky enough to obtain registration, it is then given a building by the State in which it can hold its services. Unfortunately, it is often the case that a religious community is refused registration, and consequently has nowhere to meet legally. The Orthodox Christians at Naro-Fominsk,
Page 19
near Moscow, have been unsuccessfully applying for registration for over forty years. Such a community is forced to meet in private, in someone's flat, or in the open air, in some forest, but these meetings are considered illegal by the Soviet State and for such action a community can be prosecuted.
The Evangelical Christian and Baptist churches were founded separately in Russia during the last century. In 1944, after fifteen years of severe persecution, the State established the All-Union Council of the Evangelical and Christian and Baptist Church (AUCECB) to unite the two churches under a central organizing body.1 There were tensions in the council from the first, and some churches never joined at all.
In 1961 a schism occurred among the Soviet Baptists, and its effects are still to be seen.
In 1960 the AUCECB issued the so-called New Statutes and the Letter of Instructions. They were directed principally to district superintendents and contained guidance on the practical administration of church life. These new directives, among other things, forbade the attendance of children at divine services, suspended all baptisms of young people under 18 and advised the reduction to a minimum of baptisms of people in the 18-30 age group. "Unhealthy missionary tendencies" were to be restrained.
All these provisions, and indeed the whole tenor of both documents, evoked the opposition of large numbers of Baptists. They called for a congress, to be attended by representatives from all congregations — registered (i.e., legal), unregistered, and those from which the Soviet authorities had recently removed registration illegally (e.g., at Brest). In the early 1960s, it was enough for a congregation to challenge the New Statutes for its registration and that of its pastor to be removed. Internal church regu-
———
1. Full documentation on this can be found in Michael Bourdeaux, Religious Ferment in Russia (Macmillan, London, 1968).
Page 20
lations were being used illegally and without any justification as a test of loyalty to the Soviet regime. Sometimes registration of a congregation was removed without even this excuse — and precisely the same happened to thousands of Russian Orthodox, Adventist, Roman Catholic, and Jewish congregations at the same time.
The Baptists who opposed this nationwide antireligious campaign were the "Action Group" (Initsiativniki) referred to in Chapter 1. We shall call them "reformers." What they were agitating for originally was an all-union congress which would discuss all these problems which had arisen, and which would call together elected representatives from all registered and unregistered congregations. It was hoped that democratic elections to senior posts would follow for the first time (the State, in fact, exercised a veto over these, though there is no provision for this in the law. It does have a legal veto over the people elected by a congregation to represent it at the local level).
Being put under nationwide pressure from Baptists, the State relented, although only to the extent of allowing representatives of registered congregations to meet for a congress in 1963 (and again in 1966 and 1969). The Letter of Instructions was abolished and the New Statutes were modified and eventually replaced.2
Nevertheless, the mistrust of a leadership which could allow such events as those of 1960 to occur was not alleviated. The reformers continued to call for a fully representative congress with free elections to all posts of authority. This has been resolutely refused by the Soviet authorities, even though such a refusal itself constitutes an illegal intrusion into internal church affairs. In 1965 the reformers formally constituted themselves into a "Council
———
2. A full and popular account of their experience is to be found in the paperback Faith on Trial in Russia (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1971).
Page 21
of Churches of the Evangelical Christians and Baptists" and set up their own constitution. The State never recognized this body and has continuously persecuted its leaders, although when two of them, Gennadi Kryuchkov and Georgi Vins, were brought to trial in 1966, the prosecutor admitted that they were de facto the elected leaders of a significant Baptist constituency in the USSR.3
The persecution of these two men in particular has continued. A letter from Uzlovaya church, near Tula, dated 22 August 1971, speaks of the nationwide search now in progress for Kryuchkov. His photograph hangs on police noticeboards beside those of common criminals. Local officials have intimated to his wife that if he is found and should attempt to escape, he will be shot. There is no doubt that such an "escape attempt" could easily be provoked.
The last few years have seen a widening in the scope of the demands for reform. They began with appeals to the official Baptist leadership. Receiving no satisfactory reply, the reformers turned to the Soviet authorities and were imprisoned for their trouble. Others stepped into their shoes and appealed to the Baptist World Alliance, to the United Nations, the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the International Commission of Jurists, to "all Christians of the world."
The results of the reform movement have also multiplied. Their regular information bulletin, the Fraternal Leaflet (Bratsky Listok) for July-August 1971, a jubilee issue marking ten years of the movement, spoke of the large financial sacrifices made by individuals of registered and unregistered congregations, especially for the printing and distribution of literature; of the number of baptisms; of the establishment of an actual printing enterprise called "The Christian," which is said to have produced already
———
3. Since then, both groups have been commonly referred to as "the Baptists."
Page 22
over 40,000 copies of the New Testament, hymnbooks, and other religious literature — all this in secret. Such events have never before occurred in the Soviet Union.
At the same time the main venom of the Soviet antireligious campaign of the 1960's was siphoned off against the reformers, leaving the official body some breathing space, which they exploited and thus — at least to some extent — justified their policy of trying to work within the system. There was a State-approved printing of the Bible and hymnbook, an enlarged edition of the only official periodical, Fraternal Messenger (Bratsky Vestnik), and a new theological correspondence course was established — the first formal religious education for Russian Baptists for 40 years.
This first course has now ended with most of its participants achieving the diploma. The official magazine is beginning to report that individuals from it have become pastors or deacons. The next course has now begun.
At the same time, however, intimidation and arrests of the reformers have continued. Sentences in some cases became even harsher than in 1966, when Vins and Kryuchkov were given three years. Thus it was with Trofim Feidak and Vladimir Vilchinsky, resolute leaders of the Brest Baptists, whose registration had been taken away from them in 1960. On 17 April 1968 each was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Their successor in the leadership of this congregation, Mikhail Bartoshuk, was also arrested on 20 August 1970, and sentenced to five years in a strict-regime labor camp.
A feature of some of the new court cases has been the youth of some of the defendants. Raisa Burmai was arrested in the Ukraine in 1968 when she was a mere 17, but she does not seem to have remained in prison for long. Much less fortunate was Yevgeni Rodoslavov, from Odessa. He was only 18 when arrested. It seems that he had done no more than take a leading part in the organi-
Page 23
zation of local Baptist youth work. His trial took place in a typical atmosphere of hysteria. Young sympathizers standing outside the court were beaten up without any intervention from the police. Rodoslavov was given a sentence of incredible severity — five years in a prison camp, followed by five years in exile. Others tried with him received similar or lesser sentences.
Lyubov Lozinskaya (born 1950) was arrested in Tula on 3 February 1971. She was sentenced to one and a half years. Vladimir Bytin, born 1951, of Bryansk Region, was arrested in December 1969 and sentenced to one year.
The news filtering through about prison camp conditions gives no ground for increased optimism. Ivan Afonin died in the Komsomolsky Camp, Tula, on 22 November 1969. He had apparently been forced to work when seriously ill. This had also happened to Georgi Vins, the leader of the reform movement. Afonin had been doing a three-year sentence since March 1967. He was 43.
Alexi Iskovskikh, an old man of 70, sentenced in the Moscow Region in August 1968 to three years, died in a camp in January 1971. Pavel Zakharov died on 1 July 1971, in Pavlodar. His health had been exhausted by more than one imprisonment. His wife had already died in 1969, and today four orphaned children remain. Mrs. Lidia Vins, mother of Georgi, was arrested in December 1970. She was sentenced in March to three years, and her friends doubt whether she will survive. She is so ill that she has to be physically led out to work. During her trial also, she had to be assisted into the dock. Early in 1972 she sent a note from prison to her relatives saying that if they mention "God" in their letters to her, the authorities will withhold the letters. Latest news is that she is now in the prison hospital.
In March 1969 a document was compiled by the so-called "Union of Christian Baptist Mothers," an impres-
Page 24
sive new organization allied to the reformers. This was an appeal to Mr. Brezhnev and other Soviet officials, agencies, and newspapers, backed by forty pages of signatures — 1,453 of them — collected from 42 different towns and villages and from seven republics. The Ukraine is particularly strongly represented. The collection of signatures itself is a miracle of administration, considering the hostile conditions under which it was compiled. It gives strong evidence of resilience in the face of unwavering persecution. The writers give notice of the further deterioration of the situation in 1968. They mention 64 new arrests, affecting about 200 children — some of whom have even been thrown into prison with parents.
There are several individual contributions to the document. One of these comes from Nadezhda Sloboda and her husband Ivan, from the village of Dubravy, Belorussia. In February 1966 their two eldest daughters were taken away from them to a State boarding school because they were being brought up as Christians. Conditions there had seriously affected the children's health, and in January 1968 they ran away to return to their own home. After an unsuccessful attempt by the police to recover them from home, they were abducted from the local school and taken back to the boarding school.
The compilers of the mother's document add a sequel to this. Nadezhda Sloboda was sentenced on 11 December 1968 to four years in prison. The children were granted permission to go home for their Christmas holidays, but when they arrived they found no mother there. The latest news of this family is that the other three small children have also been removed from their father and all five placed in different institutions. The family also had its radio set confiscated, because they had been listening to Christian programs broadcast from outside the USSR.
Mention is made in the document of the new law on marriage and the family which came into operation on 1
Page 25
October 1968, one directive of which is that parents should bring their children up in the spirit of the "Moral Code of a Builder of Communism" — that is, as atheists. This rendered easier the removal of children from religious parents, although, as we have seen, this had already been happening. It is perhaps significant that the atheist monthly Science and Religion (Nauka i Religia) in its issue of July 1971 published an article on orphanages and stated that the great majority of children in such institutions today were not without parents, but had in fact been removed from them for various reasons. Religion is not actually quoted as a major reason, but the writer does go on to speak about a specific case (here concerning the "True Orthodox" sect).
Another allegation comes from Mrs. N. Rudich from the village of Borovitsa in the Ukraine. She describes how her son was consistently victimized by his teacher, until some of his classmates actually tried, unsuccessfully, to throw him under a moving tractor. The boy was severely shocked, but the doctor diagnosed "a bad cold and catarrh" and consigned him to psychological tests.
At the same time as new arrests were made, some prisoners were released. By the end of 1969, no less than 80 had regained their freedom, including most of the leaders who had been imprisoned in 1966. It was a highly precarious liberty; nevertheless, at least for a short time, the best men in the reform movement were free to negotiate with the leaders of the All-Union Council for a reconciliation. As soon as they were free and fit again, the reform leaders gave this high priority. Activity along these lines had in fact continued in some form from the time of the official Baptist congress in 1966, though it had obviously not been representative on the side of the reformers, since their leaders were in prison.
The All-Union Council did, however, set up a Unity Commission, and there is every evidence that it took its
Page 26
task of finding a solution very seriously. Some even said that it treated the reformers with too much consideration and tried to delve dispassionately into the problem, instead of accepting the official line laid down uncritically. This is revealed in the report by the commission's secretary at the All-Union Council's Congress in December 1969 (published in the Fraternal Messenger No. 2, 1970). The fact that the secretary reproved those who regarded the commission as a "neutral arm" instead of an organ of the AUCECB leads one to question how effective this commission could be.
Meetings between the All-Union Council and the reformers took place on 19 April and 17 May 1969. As it later transpired, Sergei Golev, one of the most revered leaders of the reform movement, was negotiating under severe duress. He had only recently been released from prison (as had two others at the meetings), but on 3 April a new investigation had opened against him. He may well have been under threat to find a solution to the problem.
It seems that relations between the two sides were very friendly at the last session. Each side put forward its case, and it seems that some verbal concessions at least were made from the official side.
Unfortunately, these relations soured in the interval between the two meetings. Mutual recriminations were made about breaking the agreement of silence on what had been discussed at the first meeting. The reformers accused the All-Union Council of withdrawing its previous readiness to repent publicly of its promulgation of the new line in 1960. We can do no more than speculate on whether or not State pressure was brought to bear on the All-Union Council in the intervening month. At any rate, the meeting dissolved without concrete agreement. The All-Union Council appeared to show less pessimism about the situation, and produced a draft text of agreement
Page 27
which they said they would sign. The reformers stated that they would need to consult with their brethren about the agreement.
Two months later Golev was arrested and quickly sentenced to three years in a strict-regime camp — already an old man, he was so weak that he had to be helped into the dock during his trial. Recent documents refer regularly to the fears of his friends that he might not survive this imprisonment.
Despite this, attempts at a reconciliation continued. Further consultations took place on 29 October and 4 December. Representatives of the All-Union Council expressed willingness to repent publicly for having adopted the controversial New Statutes of 1960, but only if the reformers would repent of sins on their side, which the latter refused to do. The All-Union Council put forward another draft agreement, which the reformers found quite unacceptable. Later, in February 1970, the reformers accused the official Baptists of circulating this draft as an agreed "Joint Declaration" and deceiving many churches. Such an action, the reformers said, showed that the official body was still capable of betraying its flock, just as in 1960.
These meetings virtually marked the end of negotiations between the two sides. The official Baptists in their publication continue to express a readiness to accept the "separated brethren" back into fellowship, but the reformers seem to have become steadily harder in their attitude. In December 1970 they wrote a lengthy diatribe on the AUCECB, calling on its leaders to repent and the people to come over to their side.
In November 1969 the Council of Baptist Prisoners' Relatives organized its first All-Union Congress at an unknown location. Various texts were produced at that meeting, including a further prisoner list of 176 names. This list confirmed that several reformers had been re-
Page 28
leased during the year and the total number then in prison had fallen below the 200 mark for the first time in several years. However, as the participants of the congress pointed out, recent trends were not encouraging and a number of new names had been added during the year.
The congress also issued an appeal "To All Christian Churches: To All Christians of the World," which gave some general reflections on the past century of Russian Baptist history. Its calm and reasoned tone, with a factual account of sufferings past and present, makes a strong contrast to an article in Izvestia by Vladimir Kuroyedov, head of the government Council on Religious Affairs, shortly before the congress convened. The 62 signatories of this appeal repudiated his inflammatory accusations of anti-Soviet activity with immense restraint and dignity.
In December 1969 there were two further events of significance: a conference held by the reformers on 6 December at Tula, and a triennial All-Union Congress in Moscow from 9 to 11 December.
The former was a unique occasion. It was the first time ever that the State authorities had given permission for the reformers to meet officially. Even though the permission was given only three days before the conference opened, 120 delegates assembled, representing 47 different areas of the Soviet Union.
Gennadi Kryuchkov was elected chairman of the meeting and reported on the activity of the Council of ECB Churches (as the reformers now call themselves) since 1966. He said that some of the leaders had been invited to attend the imminent All-Union Congress in Moscow, but the meeting decided unanimously that this should be declined, since they were expressly forbidden the right to speak or vote.
Representatives of six registered congregations attended the meeting, which went on at its evening session to dis-
Page 29
cuss the whole issue of registration. It was decided to issue a call to all congregations that they should apply or reapply for registration, using a form of application which was now in operation.
Obviously those present at the Tula meeting must have had high hopes that at last the attitude of the authorities was going to change toward them. If they could now start to register their congregations, which up to now the State had consistently refused, they would feel that the discrimination against them was lessening and they might able to look forward to a more normal religious life in the future. They probably felt, too, that with such a turn of events, it would be easier to negotiate with the All-Union Council over the question of unity.
In a mood of some buoyancy, therefore, they penned a letter to Mr. Kosygin requesting permission for all eight legally elected members of the Council of Churches to be relieved from the obligation to do secular work (to which, of course, registered pastors under the All-Union Council had always been entitled).
This new mood of confidence was to be short-lived. Many congregations under the Council of Churches had long been seeking registration, but nevertheless renewed their efforts as a result of the new directive from the meeting. Believers at Krivoi Rog reported that they had put in an application on 4 January 1970, but the local police reacted by coming and breaking up their meeting by force. Several of them were heavily fined for having met for worship.
Much more serious was a whole new wave of arrests in various parts of the Soviet Union (obviously representing a concerted policy), affecting some of the top leaders of the Council of Churches. Georgi Vins, having been free for only a few months, was arrested yet again. On 21 January 1970, he was sentenced to a year's forced labor for not being gainfully employed — a direct rebuff to his
Page 30
request to serve full time as a pastor. This did not actually entail removal to prison, but he was obliged to remain at a certain place of work in his home town of Kiev. Before the year was up, however, Vins informed the authorities that this state of affairs was impossible and that he should be working entirely for the Church. He was twice summoned to the police in August, although he did not appear. No further details are known at the moment, beyond the fact that he is still severely threatened by the authorities.
Mikhail Khorev, who had taken a prominent part in the Tula consultation in December and who had been at liberty for less than a year after his previous sentence, was arrested at Kishinev less than two weeks after the meeting. He was now partially blind. His wife was taken seriously ill at the same time and had to go to a hospital, leaving three children under eight at home unattended. He was tried in July 1970. His wife was not informed of the place of the trial and was forced to scour the town for hours in the rain before locating it. She was not allowed to speak to her husband, and he was given no rest or food during the whole day of the trial. Khorev was sentenced to three years' strict regime.
The question arises: What was the purpose of the authorities in allowing the Tula consultation, if it was to be immediately followed by a new wave of repressions? The answer seems to be that the release of most of the leaders in 1969 confronted the authorities with a new problem: the threat of renewed activity among the reformers, which might result in a new wave of uncontrolled evangelism up and down the country. The most likely explanation of what happened is that the authorities wanted to isolate the most active leaders of the continuing movement by allowing them to convene; this would also provide the opportunity of discovering what were their latest attitudes over a number of questions. If they had been hoping that
Page 31
the representatives at the consultation would make a call for the reform of Soviet law and thus lay themselves open to attack, they were disappointed, but the State stepped in nevertheless.
The triennial congress of the All-Union Council from 9 to 11 December 1969 was a different affair altogether. It was a big public — indeed international — occasion, with several foreign guests taking a prominent part. Dr. Ronald Goulding, London representative of the Baptist World Alliance, was one of them, and upon his return he wrote that an overwhelming desire for reunion had been displayed by the delegates and that this had become the dominant theme of the congress. The long summary of the proceedings as printed in the Fraternal Messenger (No. 2, 1970) bears this out.
The late Alexander Karev, secretary of the council, reported at great length and in a tone of optimism about the advances which had been made in a whole range of areas since the last congress three years before: the theological correspondence course, the printing of the Bible and hymnbook, growth in membership (by at least 13,000 in the past three years, excluding the return of 3,000 "schismatics," as he called them, and 2,250 Pentecostals who had joined the union).
Although some criticism of the All-Union Council was expressed (particularly for spending too much time on foreign visits and not enough on domestic ones), the general tone — at least as reported in the council's own organ — was one of satisfaction. Rather bitter criticism of the reformers was expressed by some. S.T. Timchenko, vice-president of the council, gave the main speech on unity. While suggesting that the activities of the "schismatics" were a reproach to the brotherhood, he affirmed that the promulgation of the Letter of Instructions and the New Statutes in 1960 had been a mistake which had since been rectified.
Page 32
Pastor Timchenko sharply repudiated the action of the Council of Prisoners' Relatives after their November congress in spreading what he called "false information" to organizations outside the Soviet Union, containing "rumors about persecution of the church and about the alleged physical liquidation of believers." (It should be noted that even Soviet atheists have tacitly admitted the factual accuracy of such documents in the past.) He ended by paying tribute to the personal conduct of the leaders of the reform movement, including Kryuchkov and Vins, at the unity meetings in October and December.
A NOTE ABOUT STATISTICS
Alexander Karev (Fraternal Messenger, no. 3-4, 1954, p. 91) once said, "We have as many as 5,400 congregations, each of which consists of not less than 20 members, and 512,000 believers who have been baptized for their faith. But if one takes the members of believers' families and other people close to our brotherhood, then the total number of such can be reckoned at three million."
Evidence of successful evangelism since 1954 suggests a rise in membership, yet official statistics subsequently dropped drastically. F. Fedorenko, in Sects, Their Faith and Practice (1965), gave the number of communities as "about 2,000" and membership as "more than 200,000." Karev, at the 1966 congress, gave total strength as no more than 500,000, with baptized members no more than half this number.
This certainly indicates that some congregations have disbanded, but equally certainly some have seceded and now operate unofficially. In Latvia 14 out of 82 congregations were disbanded between 1960 and 1963. Absolute estimates of numbers of reform Baptists have been given officially as five or eight percent, but these are ambiguous: percent of what? An absolute figure has been given of 15,000 but this is certainly an underestimate. One rep-
Page 33
resentative of a Western mission with close connections among the reform Baptists gives the figure of "more than 1,000" for their congregations.
The reform Baptists themselves at one point stated that two thirds of Baptist congregations were unregistered. This does not necessarily mean that they all support the reformers, but undoubtedly many of them do. The fact that this group is attacked in the Soviet press more systematically than any other suggests that their numbers are not insignificant.
An official newspaper cites one of the few cases for which we have actual statistics: that of the Brest congregation, which was joined with another some distance away. Out of 380 believers only about 100 went to the other church. The rest began to organize illegal meetings in Brest. In this specific case almost three quarters of a single congregation supported the reformers.
Chapter Three || Table of Contents
