Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, Walter Sawatsky, 1981

primarily in Donetsk, Kharkov, and Lugansk (Voroshilovgrad) oblasts, At first many believers saw nothing wrong or bad in the Initsiativniki movement, but then many began to understand “that this sanctification to which they were appealing, in itself constitutes a division of the church and is therefore a matter not pleasing to the Lord.”2° Andreev repeated this interpretation by describing the Initsiativniki work as “dangerous” because it led to division. If reformers repeatedly charged that unity seemed more important to the Moscow leadership than the purity of the gospel, the oft-repeated official claim that the reformers were simply intent on fostering dissension seems to be an admission that the unity concern was supreme. In any case, the published discussion concluded with a surprising state- ment from an unknown German Mennonite representative from Karaganda (Kazakhstan) who asked the AUCECB to accept the Men- nonites into membership.2! The relatively successful relationship to the Mennonite Brethren and the more problematic ties with the Pentecostals regularly received attention at the congresses and helped to shift some of the focus away from the Initsiativniki issue. There were other speakers listed in the official report and the contents of some of these speeches appear in the reformers’ version of the congress. AUCECB vice-president and senior presbyter for the Baltic, N. A. Levin- danto apparently spoke much more forthrightly than the few lines in Brat- skii Vestnik indicate. After giving a statistical summary for his region, he declared that he did not consider himself as excommunicated by the Orgkomitet because only the local church is entitled to excommunicate. Be- cause the statement which the Orgkomitet had sent to the ‘congress was full of pride and insults, the presidium: had decided not to read the declaration to the congress. Levindanto added that they agreed with some of the ex- cellent suggestions of the Orgkomitet but that these activities had not been permitted earlier. According to Levindanto, the AUCECB operating prin- ciple was quite simple: “If we had no sugar, we would drink tea without sugar. But now sugar has appeared, so we will now drink tea with sugar.” Levindanto rather favored picturesque language and later explained that the school which they had attended had helped them wise up. For example, “If you cannot go forward, then you can go sideways,’’22 . Levindanto, however, was followed by more independent-minded speakers from Latvia and Estonia, who indicated that even AUCECB sup- porters were not prepared to accept the claim that the leaders had done all 208 Soviet Evangelicals Since World War Il that was possible. Latvian presbyter P. K. Egle declared flatly that the situa- tion in Latvia was not satisfactory because they were losing members, and he urged that younger leaders should be brought into the work, They would also lik