Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, Walter Sawatsky, 1981

e ranks of the union. At the 1966 congress several staff persons, including Orlov, were elected as candidate members of the AUCECB with great difficulty. Orlov was ap- pointed to full council membership in March 1969 but delegates refused to elect him to the council in December 1969, in spite of tremendous pressure.*! This contrasts rather sharply with the role of the international department of the Russian Orthodox Church. The head of that department was usually a leading churchman and both Metropolitan Nikolai and Metropolitan Nikodim have been appreciated by believers for their pastoral role.22 Which model, whether Orthodox or Baptist, is more advantageous is a debatable point, but the lower prestige of the Baptists’ international de- partment illustrates how much more difficult it is for a believers’ church to incorporate a state function within a church function than is true of a historic state church. Criticism became quite pronounced and explicit at the 1979 Congress, delegates challenging the Christian character and behavior of The Foreign Connection 367 members of this department. Regardless of the criticism from the ranks, the international department remains a necessary institution. Officially, the international department is simply a subdivision in the AUCECB executive office, and does not have decision-making powers. Yet it is quite apparent to careful observers that the international department maintains de facto control of the AUCECB. This is its most disconcerting quality. It means that the actions of the elected AUCECB leadership must always be evaluated on the basis of what they were able to achieve in spite of restrictions, in terms of their ability to establish sufficient room to ma- neuver. For example, Soviet evangelical involvement in peace work is a pre- requisite for continued existence. The fact that a separate department assumes responsibility for some of the less attractive aspects of fostering So- viet policy both inside the union and abroad eases the lot and the conscience of the other leaders. AUCECB leaders cannot acknowledge the powers of the international department in public but for foreign churchmen to maintain ongoing relations with the AUCECB it helps to assess the situa- tion realistically. It may even be argued that such a clear identification of the governmental relationship is preferable to the casual, cozy relationship of North American churches to government leaders at prayer breakfasts. Ecumenical Relations The AUCECB was not related to, or involved with, preparations for the formation of the World Council of Churches in 1948, in spite of early relations they had had with such ecumenists as John Mott. On their first visit in England in 1955 the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke to them about joining the WCC and they promised to discuss the matter.°3 Alexander Karev wrote a major article on the ecumenical movement in 1959 which revealed good knowledge