Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, Walter Sawatsky, 1981

liberty. But during the Soviet era, this principle was maintained with great diffi- culty. In fact, the Reform Baptist movement dramatically illustrated the degree to which the AUCECB had begun to accommodate to the restric- tions on conscience. During the recent period of normalization the AUCECB and the Orthodox Church have been treated equally by the state while Reform Baptists remained prisoners of conscience. True, state opposi- tion to all religion had not changed, but when it was reported that Brezhnev and Kosygin had invited Orthodox and Baptist leaders to the state reception to celebrate the Great October Revolution, it is appropriate to ask whether the AUCECB was gradually changing into a church-type mentality,42 At least the years of uncritical support of Soviet foreign policy is in essence similar to the civil religion practiced by sister free churches in North America. 7. Separation of Church and State: In the 16th century, this principle had seemed to be the most threatening and elicited extensive suffering. In a radical sense, the principle of separation should necessarily result in suffer- ing—that was the argument of the Apostle Peter.*8 For Russian Baptists the threat eventually became less severe due to the ecclesiology that emerged. According to the Dogmatika, churches’ activities are exclusively spiritual while as a citizen of his fatherland the believer has his civil rights and responsibilities to the state and powers.44 The Dogmatika also emphasized that the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom: “The kingly power of Soviet Evangelicals Since World War Il 350 Christ over the souls of men who have willingly subordinated themselves to the laws of the heavenly kingdom. . . .”"*° Partly this emphasis on a spiritual kingdom was due to their dispensational theology; partly it reflected the changed meaning this principle had undergone following the Stalinist persecutions. A religion focusing exclusively on non-earthly matters could be tolerated by the state. But by 1960 it had become clear that even in purely spiritual matters, the state would not remain neutral. The Reform Baptists also emphasized that the church had a purely spiritual task. G. K. Kriuchkov had argued at the 1966 unity talks that the Bible required subordination to the state (“Let every soul be subject’) but nowhere was the church told to be subject to anything but God. The reformers objected to a situation where a presbyter on Sunday morning pronounced a grand judgment on Judas in his sermon “but on Monday with a peaceful conscience will sit in the office of the plenipotentiary for re- ligious affairs and together with him weave a net for weakening and subdu- ing God’s Word.’47 That was a sharply worded statement from the Orgkomitet, but when the unity talks were held, it became apparent that the two groups of Baptists differed in their