Eastern European Baptist History: New Perspectives, 2007

ember 1959 issued new church statutes and a “Letter of Instruction”® producing a “storm in the congregations’, as AUCECB general secretary Aleksandr Karev put it.” The key role in the further development of Baptist church life passed from the union level to the leaders of local congregations. They had to manage a balance between fellowship-oriented activities (such as attempts to create an underground union of youth)® and government pressure. This conflict showed once again that the main strength of the Baptist movement consisted in local congregations, with their relatively loose structure and patterns of close fellowship, rather than in the central leadership structures of the union. ® Istoriia evangel’skikh khristian-baptistov v SSSR, p. 239. ® See S.N. Savinskii, Istoriia evangel’sskikh khristian-baptistov Ukrainy, Rossii, Belorussii (1917-1967) (St Petersburg: Bibliia dlia vsekh, 2001), pp. 305-306. *! Savinskii, Istoriia evangel’skikh khristian-baptistov Ukrainy, Rossii, Belorussii (1917-1967), pp. 322-327. ° Savinskii, Istoriia evangel’skikh khristian-baptistov Ukrainy, Rossii, Belorussii (1917-1967), p. 201. * Reshetnikov and Sannikov, Obzor istorii, p. 191. 49 The crisis was not resolved completely, and had grave consequences. A split in the Baptist “brotherhood” occurred and a second centre was estab- lished, the Council of Churches of the Evangelical Christians-Baptists, representing the so-called Reform Baptists. Work under conditions of conspiracy and other circumstances led this branch of Baptists in the Soviet Union toward a highly centralised structure with a strong centre. The price of this process was the diminished independence of the local congrega- tion. Nevertheless, the fellowship patterns at local level did not disappear altogether. After oppression declined, the main line of church development, at least in the AUCECB, consisted in a gradual and cautious return to team lead- ership. Structures promoting fellowship increasingly gained ground, until a complete layer of church activity - namely youth ministry of the 1970s and later - was built entirely on the principle of fellowship. The generation in leadership today experienced this period personally and continues to support such fellowship activities to this day. Conclusion Content without form is not concrete, while form without content has no life. Both are interdependent and have a structure. In the best cases, they correspond with each other. The revival among the Russian and Ukrainian peasants in southern Russia produced the Stundist movement, which was closely related to Pietism of their German neighbours. Common to both was the high value of fellowship among converted people, fellowship based on their common relationship with their Lord. This emphasis on fellowship finally provided the unique touch to Baptists in South Russia and deter- mined the way of life of these new communities of faith. With the o