Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, Walter Sawatsky, 1981

d CCECB was not sup- posed to be a conflict over doctrine, rather a struggle for faithfulness. It soon became evident, however, that opposing sides reflected significant dif- ference in viewpoint, including the nature of the unity desired.52 Once unity discussions came to an end, AUCECB spokesmen started to accuse Reform Baptists of fostering false doctrine. Whether they sincerely felt the reformers were in error doctrinally, or whether this was a tactic to discredit them remains ambiguous. In 1970 A. I. Mitskevich challenged the CCECB viewpoint that only the persecuted church is the true church. In December 1970 the CCECB circulated a major declaration on the question of unity in which they warned all church members that “‘your salvation is in danger, if you continue to fellowship with AUCECB workers.” In the following paragraph they stated: “You cannot be in union with the AUCECB and in union with God at the same time.”” As the AUCECB understood this, the reformers had introduced a doctrine of a church that saves and a church that does not save, to which the Moscow leadership replied that no church saves, it is Christ who saves.*4 The harsh judgments by the reformers sound disconcerting, but they appear to be trying to distinguish between a church of committed believers not compromising with sin and the so-called 352 . Soviet Evangelicals Since World War Il nominal church. The former was also the concept of the church supported the AUCECB. 2 The question of a doctrine of a suffering church as the only real church is equally difficult to evaluate. Reform Baptists felt that in the Soviet setting . the faithful church would necessarily be persecuted and could cite scriptural - support which the AUCECB would not challenge. Rather, it became a con- flict over emphasis, with Moscow leaders claiming that at least some of the reformers were deliberately seeking persecution, thereby no longer qualify- ing as “being persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” In the most recent criticism Moscow leaders claimed the Reform Baptists now demanded a confessional ritual from their members similar to that practiced in Catholi- cism. Georgi Vins professed ignorance about such an emphasis, when asked to comment, repeating the claim that there are no doctrinal differences between the two unions. Other supporters felt that this change might be explained by jealousy since AUCECB youth, not finding the senior presbyters ready to counsel them, had gone to CCECB presbyters for coun- seling.5 When the union was formed in 1944, it neglected to approve a confession of faith. The Kargel confession was adopted in 1966 as a tempo- rary one. During the past five years the AUCECB has been studying nu- merous confessions of faith with the purpose of approving a fuller confession of faith at the 1979 congress. T