Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, Walter Sawatsky, 1981

not finding the necessary common language. CCECB member Nikolai Baturin concluded the meeting by reading one of their favorite passages from 2 Corinthians 6: “Separate yourselves from them, have nothing to do with what is unclean, and I will accept you” (GNB). As far as the reformers were concerned, they felt that the meeting confirmed the fact “that the AUCECB workers have departed far from God; all of them justify their sins and continue in them.’’!° AUCECRB leaders felt that these talks plus the discussions at the 1966 congress had brought them forward one step toward unity. But these high- level talks were not resumed until 1969, when a series of four meetings were held. At the first two meetings, more moderate spokesmen from both sides tried to establish some points of agreement and each side drafted joint state- ments that the other side was supposed to sign. A Final Round of Talks At the first two meetings, held on April 19 and May 17, the key leaders were missing.!! Gennadi Kriuchkov and Georgi Vins were still in prison, so that the key spokesman was M. T. Shaptala, who had led the CCECB while the other leaders were in prison. The AUCECB spokesman proposed that unity discussions proceed from an acceptance of the revised statute at the last two congresses and a mutual admission of error. The reformers, however, saw the meeting as an exploratory discussion and asked four major questions. First of all they wanted to know whether the AUCECB regarded the offending documents of 1960 as necessary, asa mistake, or as a sin? Several Moscow spokesmen responded, and the reformers reached the conclusion that only a few were prepared to state cautiously that they were a ‘‘sinful mistake,” but all emphasized that the document simply triggered a split that was already in progress. Second, the reformers wanted assurance that the activities of the Orgkomitet were no longer regarded as “‘the fire of the devil.” The Moscow leaders affirmed that they regarded them as brothers whom they loved and tried to have fellowship with. But in their report the reformers appeared to be asking for more, for they complained that it was unfortunate that the leaders did not recognize the action of the Initsiationiki as an expression of the will of God for the good of the brotherhood. The third question sought to elucidate the AUCECB attitude toward those in prison. The AUCECB was prepared to acknowledge that the ma- jority of prisoners were suffering because of their religious convictions, but they also argued that some were suffering because they were being un- reasonable. These persons showed obvious zeal for God’s work, but it was not a considered zeal. ‘The reformers rejected ‘that even one-person was im- prisoned because of conflict with the authorities, all were there simply for their faith. : The final question revealed the distrust which had become deeply rooted. The reformers asked for assurances that, whe