Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, Walter Sawatsky, 1981

frustrated reconciliation attempts highlights the practical problems of Christian reconciliation. Reformers began with a strong objec- tion to AUCECB policies which they felt violated the gospel. Their own positive program was a call for sanctification. When the AUCECB made concessions, acknowledged mistakes, and proposed a statement of mutual confession, the Reformers always demanded more. Both sides talked about reconciliation and reunification as a goal, but were they really serious about it? Frustrated reconciliation attempts could not be easily glossed over, for this struggle occurred in the context of a critically watchful state. . At least, the reunification attempts clarified the issues. Both sides had to spell out what sort of separation of church and state they had in mind or saw as practical. They were forced to ask themselves how much they were prepared to pay for a free church. They had to decide what tactics were jus- tified.. Reformers believed in confrontation and valor; the_ registered Baptists often opted for the way of discretion as better in the long view. Both sides affirmed the importance of unity and of purity or sanctification. The Evangelical in Soviet Society 469 Now they were forced to decide which was more important. Essentially the AUCECB argued that unity must be the primary concern, whereas the Reformers thought unity meaningless without purity. Deciding between unity and purity without becoming extremist seems an impossible decision. Observing the leading Reformers in the unity talks raises another prob- lematic question. At what point does an uncompromising faith become sin- ful pride? Watching the AUCECB leaders in these talks causes one to wonder why staying in office (power retention) should be so important? Would the movement have collapsed had Karev, Zhidkov, and others resigned and permitted new leaders to try to do better? The present new leadership suggests that the state would have had to take seriously the new leaders elected by the will of the membership. The major tragedy in this story is that too often the real attraction of the gospel was missing, Both sides had their legitimate arguments and weaknesses, but the striking thing is that neither side was ready to go the second mile. Is genuine reconcilia- tion really possible without that? The experience of the other evangelical denominations is instructive. Both Pentecostal and Mennonite Brethren had to subordinate themselves to the Baptists for the union to function. To the degree that they were willing to apply Pentecostal spokesman Panko’s advice to follow the humiliating example of Christ (Phil. 2:1-11), they remained happy in the union. Increased restiveness, especially by Pentecostals recently, may mean they have forgotten this advice. But the Baptists claim that they, too, are follow- ing this same Christ. Will they come to recognize that a genuine solution to the denominational problem will come