Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, Walter Sawatsky, 1981

first priority, even at the expense of fellowship and blessing. Recently some observers, partisan to the AUCECB, have been sug- The Movement Toward Autonomy 277 gesting that the CCECB now has three competing centers. In addition to those supporting Bondarenko and those siding with Kriuchkov, who exerts leadership through the journal Bratskii Listok, they identify a more extreme, confrontationist grouping in the CPR organization centered around Galina Rytikova and the church in Rostov, which has experienced very severe persecution recently.'6 Lidia Vins, an influential figure in the CPR till she left in 1979, felt betrayed by her congregation in Kiev which agreed to register. Actually, disagreements on methods were evident from the start. Aida Skrypnikova, for example, was not always in full agreement with the letters appearing in the Bulletin if their tone was too confronta- tionist, and David D. Klassen, for example, did not consider hunger strikes in prison as appropriate for a Christian. But both of them, like many others, supported the basic goals of the movement, namely a church totally dedi- cated to God and not subordinate to the state. This bickering at the leadership level is only the most prominent manifestation of a problem that has been afflicting all Soviet evangelicals. That is the inability of one Christian to trust another fully. Among the reformers, this became particularly severe because, in spite of their efforts, informers, often within their own congregation, betrayed them to the au- thorities. The psychological impact of prolonged imprisonment contributed to distrustfulness and embitterment. Soviet prison conditions virtually guaranteed that the prisoner would return with major physical ailments. !7 Regularly the CCECB reported how KGB officers had offered an early release in exchange for cooperation. When someone was released early ‘it could mean he had capitulated. Because most of the CCECB leadership was imprisoned or in hiding, it was impossible to maintain an adequate overview of developments and this, too, contributed to distrust of each other. The years of state censorship and distortion of all information has produced a situation where all printed news is viewed with distrust and ru- mors abound. AUCECB and CCECB leaders are less well informed of each other's activities than are observers in the West. Finally, the problem of dis- trust is intensified for the reformers because their rigid concern for doctrinal purity has stifled creativity. In recent decades it has become fashionable to speak with great respect about the third wing of the reformation, the Anabaptists.!8 Their emphasis on a radical separation of church and state, on an active priest- hood of all believers, on church discipline, on a costly discipleship, on church as community, and on religious liberty, are now recognized as progressive emphases which their Lutheran and Catholic opponents have