Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, Walter Sawatsky, 1981

. 76. BV 2/70, p. 48: How to die ... one must also know this... 7 Not as a crushed, pitiful worm, = Not as a slave, not daring to dare— But as a fighter against unbelief! (January 1968) My persecutors, | do not curse you, But | am saddened by your fate. The immortal examples of history Speak of the futility of persecution ... | pray for you and bless you With the simple humanity of Christ. —Georgi Vins (December 1968) Testament from Prison, pp. 77 and 83 8 Reunification Rejected, 1964-1974: The CCECB What was it that made the reformers appealing? Theirs was both a negative and positive appeal. s Negatively, the Initsiativniki were attractive because they had finally verbalized the suspicions of many concerning the AUCECB leaders. Finally someone had come forward who dared to speak out against the state persecution and against state interference in the church. Some were even relieved to face persecution again. Positively, many welcomed the call for spiritual renewal, for sanctifica- tion and dedication. They were attracted to the aggressive missionary spirit which the reformers displayed. And, thankfully, the reformers were going to make children and youth work a high priority. Soon loyal AUCECB parents explained apologetically that their children were bored with wor- ship services in their church but found the youth programs in Initsiationiki congregations exciting. After all, the parents explained, their primary concern was to see their children respond to Christianity positively. Unity Talks Clarify Issues Between 1963 and 1969 the AUCECB had held three All-Union congresses, at which they claimed that the causes for the split had been 228 Soviet Evangelicals Since World War Il removed. Yet reunification with the CCECB did not take place. What was ‘ missing? Congress delegates in 1963 appeared to be geographically representa- tive while at subsequent congresses, each delegate was representing ap- proximately 500 church members. Yet the key problem was that the Orgkomitet was not officially represented at the 1963 congress and was even prevented from reading its statement to the delegates. At the 1966 and 1969 congresses, the CCECB decided to reject an invitation that would grant them only the status of guests without voting rights. The reformers therefore condemned the first congress as a false congress because it had not fully represented the church. In part they also meant by this that the dele- gates represented a church membership that had not been fully purged of apostates. But a greater complaint was that the delegates represented only the registered congregations—that is, only one third of the membership, ac- cording to their estimate.! By 1966, when the AUCECB had approved a statute which included most of the reformers’ demands, events had transpired that prevented the reformers from affirming the changes. Although not reported in print, AU