Towards Understanding of the Practice of Proclamation: The Core Element of Russian Baptist Worship, Timofey Cheprasov, 2015

social, political and religious institutions’. (Heier, Religious Schism in the Russian Aristocracy, p 6. See also Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, Russian Identities: A Historical Survey (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005), pp 167-211.) *8Heier, Religious Schism in the Russian Aristocracy, pp 6-7. D. N. Ovsianiko-Kulikovskii, “Kaiushchiesia Dvoriane’ i Raznochintsy 60-kh Godov,” Istoriia Russkoi Intelligentsii (Sobranie Sochinenii) [“’The Repenting Nobles’ and Razhochintsy of the 60-s,” in The History of Russian Intelligentsia (The Collection of Works)], Vol. 8 (St. Petersburg, 1911), pp 83-99. Also Andreas E. Buss, The Russian-Orthodox Tradition and Modernity (Leiden, Boston, Brill, 2003), pp 120-128. 19 Enlightenment,” which significantly changed and influenced the development of the country. However, despite all the newness, freedom and openness, or perhaps because of it, one of the major results of this time was a deeply divided society. The crisis Without any doubt, in the second half of the 19" century, Russian society was in a spiritual crisis. The educated intelligentsia and nobility were seeking answers in science. The uneducated peasants turned to the Orthodox Church, which, itself needed help. The beginning of the crisis that struck the Russian Orthodox Church can be traced to the time of Peter the Great. One of his numerous reforms was the removal of the figure of a Patriarch from the political and social stage of the Russian state. Instead Peter instituted the new governing body of the Orthodox Church, Most Holy Governing Synod, presided over by a civil official, the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod. This marked the change from the Orthodox Church being the heart of the Russian nation into its becoming an institution, a “ministry of spiritual affairs” of a sort, which was gradually drifting away from the needs and struggles of the people, serving only the interests of the state. This ‘dealt a terrible blow to the Russian Church [after which] she was paralysed for two centuries.’”” The state officials understood the value of the church as an influential agent; thus they were always concerned about its “well-being.” As noted by Vera Shevzov, State-initiated regulations during the eighteenth century made themselves felt in internal, even sacred, aspects of ecclesial life. Toward the goal of proper ordering of the state, which included a populace of good Orthodox standing, state officials often took an interest in ensuring that church life was properly observed. In this vein, for instance, a 1774 directive delegated to local civil officials the responsibility of making sure that people attended church on Sundays and major feast days, thereby blurring the boundaries between civil and purely ecclesial life. A similar blurring of boundaries was evident in civil legislation mandating annual confession and Communion.*° 9 Helene Iswolsky, Christ in Russia: The History, Tradition, and Life of