Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, Walter Sawatsky, 1981

nt of settlement, added a brief statement that ‘Mihai Wurmbrand broke the agreement by making oral statements to a religious publication.” UE therefore felt free to publish the signed “Acknowledg- ment” and added a lengthy commentary. In this they claimed that Wurm- brand had acknowledged each of a detailed list of twelve charges “‘to be un- true,” whereas UE had only acknowledged as untrue four items, explaining that since the Wurmbrands had dropped their charges against the “Conspiracy” report and “The Record of Richard Wurmbrand” earlier, the content of these documents had not been disavowed by UE. In response, the International Committee of Jesus to the Communist World issued its own disclaimer on August 22, 1979. Richard Wurmbrand, they said, acted independently without the approval of the board who opposed the terms of settlement. The letter argued that “the question of guilt would have been settled by the voluminous evidence presented to the court by witnesses,” An attached personal statement from Richard Wurmbrand explained why the settlement became possible but failed to put the questions to. rest. Wurmbrand stated: [had declared before the judge that as Christ has taken upon Himself all my sins and declared me just, so I am ready to take upon myself the responsibility of all real or alleged sins which form the contents of this lawsuit, so that peace shall be restored... . Let everyone be deemed in- nocent and every accusatory statement from either side be deemed un- true, and let all the guilt be mine.57 The letter went on to indicate that UE had not kept the agreement (hence this letter), noted various communist slanders against his own person, and concluded: “We have Christ on our side and we invite all Christian brethren of like convictions to join us.” Looking at the record, such an invitation remains virtually impossible to accept for Christians who take ethics seriously. The court settlement may help to restore the flow of donations from well-meaning Christians, but it is difficult to see why the damaging “evidence” against both sides which neither side has really withdrawn in the end should now be dismissed as ir- relevant. If both sides now acknowledge they were liars before, how can one 410 Soviet Evangelicals Since World War Il decide that the joint “Acknowledgement” belongs to the category of truth or must that word also be enclosed in quotation marks? Or are the post-set- tlement statements from each side the truth? Aside from dismissing the expensive lawsuit, what has changed? Have their mission policies changed? Are not the same discredited leaders still in office? Does not the advice from a growing number of church leaders at the height of the scandal to place a moratorium on giving to either mission still apply? Human Rights and the Right to Believe Although the Reform Baptist movement began earlier than the human