Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, Walter Sawatsky, 1981

rence of the Orgkomitet meet- ing three days later in Moscow reached the momentous decision to excom- municate the AUCECB leadership. In the official statement subsequently referred to as Protocol No. 7 they denied the AUCECB and its officials the right to be ministers in the church, the right to represent ECB churches in- side the union, and also the right to represent it abroad. Protocol] No. 7 named twenty-seven persons by name and promised supplementary lists. Local presbyters, however, were to be excommunicated by the local churches, 4 The Orgkomitet claimed the right to take this unusual step on the basis of written declarations from churches throughout the country which 188 Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II gave “unanimous testimony to the fact that members of the AUCECB have long deprived themselves of the right to be members of Christ’s church.’ Those letters from churches had also stated that they recognized the Orgkomitet as the sole leadership for ECB churches. Therefore Protocoll No. 7 also declared that the Orgkomitet would take upon itself the leadership of the ECB churches till a congress was held, that the guiding principle for the churches would be the Word of God. They repeated earlier resolutions that all AUCECB meetings and documents concerning a congress which did not involve the Orgkomitet would be considered in- valid. Finally, they also declared invalid the excommunication of believers for having supported the movement to sanctify the church. This con- troversial document was signed by G. K. Kriuchkoy, A. A. Shalashov, and N. G. Baturin.% mia baa The AUCECB has never considered the excommunication legitimate. In fact, as a result, many churches which had sided with the reformers initially, withdrew their support, becoming neutral or returning to the AUCECB. Baptist teaching on excommunication procedures had always emphasized that this was the prerogative of the local congregation. Levin- danto had repeatedly argued in major articles that in the case of excom- municating a presbyter, this should be done only in the presence of a senior presbyter or neighboring presbyters to avoid using excommunication as a weapon of power.” Numerous local sources indicate that AUCECB leaders had violated this procedure repeatedly since 1959 by sending its appointed agents to secure the excommunication of presbyters and preachers who refused to accept the new statute. But the Orgkomitet action was also an at- tempt to exercise power which superseded the right of a congregation to ex- communicate unfaithful members. Most of the AUCECB members resided in Moscow and the Moscow congregation refused to excommunicate them. This was also true in Kiev, for example. A more logically Baptist approach would have been for those churches rejecting the Moscow leadership to withdraw from the union and form a new union. There are obvious co