Baptists in the U.S.S.R. Some Facts and Hopes, J. H. RUSHBROOKE, 1943

could not be accom¬ plished without a serious collision with the State Church. As it turned out, the agent of drastic change was the one party which had revolted not only against the abuses of religion, but against religion itself, and had adopted the dogma that “ religion is the opium of the people.” That fact made the clash doubly certain, and intensified its bitterness. There is no need to enlarge upon the support for the attitude of the Communist Party provided by the conditions of the one Church with which its members and the vast majority of Russians were familiar, or to criticise a dogma which closed the mind against impartial enquiry. History will render its dispassionate verdict on such matters. General What was the general attitude of the Baptists Attitude of the Revolution of 1917? They had no Baptists. such links with the old order as had the Orthodox Church ; indeed, they had suffered heavily under it. Their church organisation rested on a simple democratic basis ; for the principle of autocracy it had no place. They were primarily concerned with the relations of men to Gk)d, and with the winning of their fellows to personal acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the main, they were disposed to hold aloof from political debate, and to stress the supreme importance of the inner life. They knew that the value which the New Testament sets on human personality found no adequate recognition in the Tsarist social system, and they regarded the interference of politicians and police with worship and preaching as an unwarranted infringement of God-given rights. Violent rebellion was far from their ^ The Christian Church and the Soviet State^ by Serge Bolshakoff (S.P.C.K.), p. 312. 7 thought ; but they owed to the established order neither gratitude nor reverence, and had no disposition either to stir a finger in its defence or to regret its overthrow. The few Baptist leaders actively interested in political issues were asso¬ ciated with the advocacy of radical change. Obviously they could not be members of a party which excludes every adherent of any religious body, however fully they might accept a collectivist ideal and appreciate a concern for the secular interests of the common man. Revolutionists distinguished between Orthodox and ** Sectarian.” The revolutionists, despite their avowed con¬ tempt for all religion, were not blind to realities. Knowing that the “ sectarians ” as such stood apart from the old State Church, they regarded them as potential allies in the struggle against a liierarchy and a priestho