Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, Walter Sawatsky, 1981

fearful Chris- tians or even phony Christians served as stool pigeons to help authorities ferret out any resisters. !? This link with the state was the most damaging feature. Since 1959 there had been a major propaganda attack and administratively churches were closed forcibly with considerable haste. The new statute, even if it may not have differed that significantly from the statute of 1948,'* sug- gested that their own leadership seemed to be cooperating with the state authorities to destroy the church. tain 8 The Initsiatiuniki resistance officially began on August 18, 1961 when the initiative group presented a statement of protest to the Moscow leadership. The original initiators had met in the village of Uzlovaia in Tula Oblast with Prokofiev and Kriuchkov the prime movers. Tula, where Kriuchkov lived, had for many years been neglected by the AUCECB leadership. Prokofiev was living in the village of Volnovakha in Donetsk Oblast where the “pure Baptist” movement had been centered and where B. A. Rusanov had recently been replaced by Senior Presbyter I. Ia. Tatar- chenko.!® oi ; Twelve days after the initiative group presented their appeal to the Moscow leadership only to meet with rebuffs, Prokofiev and Kriuchkov Dissent Begins, 1960-1965 179 es pee eae to all ECB congregations using a very sharp lan - dn our day Satan is dictating through th k i Council of Evangelical Christi serrata tiene sica istians and Baptists,’ they decl 20 condemned the 1960 statute as an “anti eae aera n anti-evangelical document” and ap- eee ef a Sa where a new statute would be approved. Not only did condemn the statute, they demanded th : tem j at the Mos i ee of its au cooperation with the forces of Satan ei rom the first the criti i ) que was not directed at the Moscow le. i adersh nie oe all . churches which had accepted the anliey aieehal ments. 1he appeal to the churches was theref Il for wid renewal in the church, for sanctificati die ten cute ; tion and rededication.. The ; i number of circular letters issued b initiati Full of calls fee n y the initiative group were full of cal] repentance,” “sanctification,” “church ous rere! 5 : reform,” “new leadership,” and rat - : se to convene a “national congress of the nike 2 ll ords refer to internal religious matters b all ut they were ; ae of a fundamental concern that the time had ee for has gelical church to be fully separated from the state. The primary initial ae phasis was an appeal to the church t i Ose return io its historical roots, corner o pee The AUCECB Appr z proach me oe sea Pane admitted that they had been forced to w statute. Did that mean they had merely signed prepared by a state official or had ste iran >par they composed the statute : ee presented by the state? Who drafted. the aan No pi ‘ci is oe answer this last question. In the AUCECB eee. 1S would have been the responsibilit y of the general secretary.