The Pentecostal Movement in the Russian Empire: The Beginning of the Journey

December 22, 2010 · Adam Bondaruk, Baptists, Victor Belykh, AUCECB, Persecution, Interview, KGB, Books, Unregistered Pentecostals, Nikolay Kotyakov, On Emigration, United Church of Evangelical Christians, Vestibule, Petr Saenko, Pentecostals, Religious Mafia, Slavik Radchuk, Contemporary Persecution, Security Services

In 1897, the Russian Empire conducted its first general population census, which included a question about the respondents’ faith. Based on the collected data, it was established that out of the total number of Russians (125.7 million people), 87.3 million (69.5%25)’ identified themselves as belonging to the Orthodox Church. The rest of the population (in percentage terms) was distributed by religious affiliation as follows: Catholics — 9.2; Protestants — 3.0; Muslims — 11.1; Buddhists — 0.4; Jews — 4.2.

As we can see, despite extremely strict Russian religious legislation, the number of people who identified as Protestants reached a significant figure. Structuring statistical data on believers’ affiliation to specific religious movements is quite difficult. It is worth noting that the category “Protestants” included followers of the most diverse religious movements—Dukhobors, Molokans, Stundists, Evangelical Christians, Baptists, Mennonites, and others.

At the turn of the 19th–20th centuries, religious awakening and spiritual searching were also evident in Russia. The believing part of the population, classified by the official authorities as “Protestants,” became the receptive audience for the information about a new spiritual movement, Pentecostalism, that was arriving in Russia from America. Changes also appeared within the Orthodox milieu. Even the dry figures in the reports of the Ober-Procurator of the Most Holy Governing Synod testified to this. One of them indicated that in 1907, more than 25,000 people “deviated from Orthodoxy.” And already in the first decade of the 20th century, the first heralds of Pentecostalism set foot on Russian soil. Through their labors, Pentecostalism gradually penetrated the Russian Empire along three main directions: the northwestern—Finland, the Baltic region, Petrograd; the western—Western Ukraine and Western Belarus; and the southern—Odessa, the southern provinces of Ukraine.

During the first quarter of the 20th century, four main stable currents formed within Russian Pentecostalism, whose fates unfolded differently in the 20th century, just as they are differently represented in the contemporary Russian Pentecostal movement:

The Church of God (Information about this movement is extremely scarce. The first associations were organized by the German Wilhelm Ebel, an American missionary of the “Church of God” (with its center in Anderson, Indiana), who moved to Russia from Canada in 1902. The associations operated mainly among the German population living in the Baltic region, southern Ukraine, the Caucasus, and the Volga region. Members of this association recognize the Holy Trinity and attach special importance to the teaching on “being born again.”)
Smorodintsy
Christians of the Evangelical Faith
Christians of the Faith Evangelical

This article traces the history of the emergence and formation of the “Smorodintsy” current, which received its name from the surname of one of its first leaders—Nikolai Petrovich Smorodin. The followers of this religious movement have also been known by other names: Evangelical Christians-Unitarians, the Oneness believers, Jesus-only followers, Evangelical Christians in the spirit of the apostles.

Based on the archival and other documentary data available to us today, we can assert that the real “penetration” of Pentecostalism into the Russian Empire began from the territory of Finland.

When trying to answer the question why it found support among the population there, including the Russian population, and was able to adopt stable organizational forms and spread from there to the rest of the Empire, one must take into account the circumstances of state, social, and religious-church life that had been established and maintained there for many decades.

Although this territory had been annexed to the Russian Empire under the Treaty of Fredrikshamn (September 5, 1809) between Russia and Sweden, it remained a distinct, internally independent Grand Duchy. The supreme legislative body was the Sejm, consisting of four chambers, each formed from representatives of a single estate: the nobility, the burghers, the peasantry, and the clergy. The central executive body was the Senate. It consisted of two departments: one managed administrative affairs, and the other served as the highest judicial instance. The ruler of Finland (the Grand Prince) was the Russian Emperor. His permanent representative in the Grand Duchy was the Governor-General, who chaired both chambers of the Senate. Moreover, Finland’s representative in St. Petersburg was the Minister State Secretary, who reported all Finnish affairs directly to the Tsar, bypassing Russian administrative bodies.

In the 1870s–1880s, during the reign of Alexander II, Finnish society experienced a spiritual upsurge. These decades became a time of national awakening in Finland, the creation and active work of public organizations, the flourishing of literature and art, and the spread of ideas of religious liberalism. Vigorous public debate also swirled around “church issues.” The Law on Non-Orthodox Faiths adopted in 1889 abolished a number of restrictions imposed on the activities of non-state religions and churches, granting them the right to establish parishes, and allowing representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the Lutheran Church as before, to occupy government positions 2.

From the end of the 19th century, Finnish society’s striving for self-development increasingly encountered opposition from the imperial center, which sought to limit the autonomous status of Finland and to forcibly Russify it. The ideologues of this policy, representing the secular power, proceeded from the conviction that a territory conquered by Russian arms could not possess any special rights and privileges. Consequently, the harshest Russification policy towards it was considered both possible and justified.

This approach to resolving the national question also found supporters within church circles. In this connection, we may mention the article by Professor of Moral Theology at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, A.A. Bronzov, “Is Patriotism Reprehensible?”3. In the author’s view, the Russification line is the kind of patriotic activity that should be characteristic of all Russians. To characterize imperial policy, both external and internal, the theologian introduced concepts such as “defensive,” “retentive,” “restorative,” and “conquering” patriotism.4

By “retentive patriotism” was understood that love of country which consists in the striving to preserve, at all costs, under the authority of one’s fatherland everything that was previously conquered by it and currently constitutes its property. To this reasoning was added the thesis of the “right of a strong people” to keep subjugated nations in obedience, even against their will. In Bronzov’s words, this appears as follows:

“In ordinary life, guardians are often appointed either over minor children left behind by their parents, who without outside help are unable to manage the estate left them by their parents or indeed to lead their lives in a normal manner—or over adults who are feeble-minded or even insane… Analogous relationships are sometimes required also with regard to some peoples on the part of others. It is impossible to grant freedom to certain nations conquered by a given people, either because, if they enjoyed freedom, they would introduce into their internal life only disorder, turmoil, and dissension and would bring themselves to ruin, or because they would not allow their neighbors to live in peace but would constantly trouble them with attacks, commit ‘violence and murder,’ and so forth (such, for example, are the Poles, known for their irresponsible outbursts in the past, and likewise the Finns, who, in the person of their quasi-intellectual segment, display the most impossibly savage mores and instincts proper only to the insane and feeble-minded).”5

In all such instances, the state Russian Orthodox Church saw “absolutely nothing bad” in actions constituting “retentive patriotism.” The subjugated nations were left with only one possibility of existence, namely, to merge with the conqueror, in which case the question of their liberation would no longer arise. In exchange, “humane treatment of the conquered nations on condition of their complete submissiveness” is promised.6

For the Orthodox Church, such ideas and behavior were justified by the fact that they created a favorable situation for expanding missionary activity on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Finland, planting official Orthodoxy, and intensifying the struggle by all available means against “sectarians” and “sectarian societies.” An idea of the content of such measures is given by the resolution of a conference of Orthodox clergy that gathered in Moscow in 1891 under the chairmanship of the Ober-Procurator of the Most Holy Synod, K.P. Pobedonostsev: “The rapid growth of these sects (Stundists, Baptists, Pashkovites — I.S.) constitutes a serious danger to the state. All sectarians must be forbidden to leave their places of residence. All crimes against the Orthodox faith must be tried not in secular, but in ecclesiastical courts. The passports of sectarians must be marked in a special way so that they are nowhere accepted for work or residence, until life in Russia becomes unbearable for them. Their children must be forcibly taken away and brought up in the Orthodox faith.”1

Finnish society reacted negatively to the political pressure from the “imperial center” and to the aggressiveness of the state church, regarding them as a retreat from and violation of the established norms of relations between the Grand Duchy and the Empire, norms that had been consolidated by the promises of Russian emperors. Finland rejected even the very possibility of being transformed into one of the “Orthodox Russian provinces,” and at the same time defended its right to preserve its national identity, including freedoms in the sphere of faith.8

A particularly harsh policy of Russification characterized Adjutant-General N.I. Bobrikov, who was appointed Governor-General of Finland in September 1898. The new Governor-General, professing the idea of “uniting the borderlands with the empire,” prepared a project for reorganizing the administration of Finland. Emperor Nicholas II signed it on February 15, 1899. This act has gone down in history under the name of the “February Manifesto.” In the opinion of the Finns, the manifesto constituted a coup d’état, since it effectively removed the Diet from power. Henceforth, all vital questions of Finland’s internal life that were of an all-imperial character were to be considered exclusively under Russian law. It should be added that the prerogative of classifying any given issue as a matter of “all-imperial interests” remained solely with the monarch. In practice, this meant that any matter concerning Finland’s internal life could be declared as “affecting Russia’s interests” and on that basis transferred for consideration by the Russian state authorities.

The manifesto split the Diet into opposing factions, divided the parties, sharpened inter-party struggle, and introduced confrontation into Finnish society. From that moment, Finland was gripped by ferment and turmoil.

On August 17, 1899, State Secretary V.K. von Plehve was appointed Minister–State Secretary for the Grand Duchy of Finland. The appointment was made despite the fact that Plehve was not a native of Finland, although this was required by the status of his new office. In 1902, Plehve also assumed the duties of Minister of Internal Affairs in the tsarist government, thereby essentially acquiring dictatorial powers over Finland. At the same time, the Finnish Gendarme Administration was created, its task being to detect all manifestations of separatism as perceived by the Russian authorities, including those in the activity of religious organizations.

Thus, a tandem of two high-ranking Russian officials, Plehve and Bobrikov, emerged, who shared a common ideology of actions regarding Finland and supported each other in every way.

The harshness with which the Russification of Finland was carried out provoked mass opposition from Finnish society. This was also evidenced by the memoranda and reports of the Governor-General to the Tsar, which noted that the region’s courts, local authorities, and even the clergy had sided with the opposition ⁹. It is no coincidence that a special section on the anti-government activities of the clergy was introduced into the annual Memoranda on the most important events in Finland’s political life ¹⁰. Thus, in the memorandum for 1902–1903, Bobrikov wrote: “Hand in hand with the agitators went a part of the clergy and officialdom, as well as many communal administrations of the region. The clergy refused to publish the new military law and thereby turned the church into an arena of political struggle. In the House of God, a political sermon was delivered, and the sounds of military marches and songs of an inflammatory nature poured forth, and an indecent uproar arose, ending in some churches with the drowning out of the words of law-abiding pastors, or the pastors themselves being pushed out into the street” ¹¹.

Similar information was contained in documents prepared by the director of the Governor-General’s office, Colonel of the General Staff F.A. Seyn. Among the anti-government actions in which the Protestant clergy had been observed were mentioned: distribution of illegal literature, “seditious speeches,” calls not to participate in the celebration of high solemn days and to refuse military service, omission during worship of the prayer for the Tsar and his family, inciting parishioners against the Russians, etc. ¹²

Citing the need to intensify the fight against such attitudes and actions, Bobrikov constantly demanded from the “central authorities” an expansion of his powers and a strengthening of the Governor-General’s authority. In the spring of 1903, he received dictatorial powers for three years, in exercise of which he, among other actions, undertook the expulsion of many of his political opponents from the country. According to the testimony of Chairman of the Council of Ministers S.Yu. Witte, all this “extremely aggravated the Finnish question. Finland fell into ferment. Bobrikov and Plehve began to Russify Finland, i.e., to adopt a whole series of measures, from the Finns’ point of view, illegal: to introduce the Russian language, to flood Finland with Russian agents, to dismiss senators and replace them with people having nothing in common with Finland, and also to expel from the borders of Finland persons who, in one way or another, protested against such arbitrariness. Plehve, in order to please the Sovereign, set in motion his police methods in full force” ¹³.

Let us note that Nicholas II highly valued the efforts not only of Plehve but also of Bobrikov in “pacifying” Finland. To confirm this, we refer to V.K. Plehve’s letter of March 1903 to Bobrikov, which contained the following lines: “His Imperial Majesty the Sovereign Emperor … deigned to convey to you the Highest gratitude of His Imperial Majesty for your participation in the legislative labors for the transformation of the Finnish administration” ¹⁴.

The general dissatisfaction of Finnish society, which tried to defend its autonomy through a tactic of passive resistance, eventually degenerated into acts of terror against the Russian administration. A young official of the Finnish Senate, E. Schauman, took a radical step. On June 3, 1904, at the entrance to the Senate, he shot and killed Bobrikov and immediately committed suicide. Shortly afterward, von Plehve was also killed by the Socialist-Revolutionary E.S. Sazonov.

To everyone’s surprise, Prince Ivan Obolensky was appointed in place of the deceased N.I. Bobrikov. In Russia, he had distinguished himself by “the wholesale and triumphant flogging of rebellious and restive peasants in the province entrusted to his care” ¹⁵. Already in his first loyal report after assuming office and taking a tour of the region, Obolensky wrote to Nicholas II:

“The Finns, hating Russia, strive on every convenient occasion to emphasize their loyalty to the Throne of ‘the Grand Duke of Finland’ and the loyal conduct of the Finnish people. However, I consider it my loyal duty to testify before you, Most Gracious Sovereign, that such declarations in reality turn out to be mere words. True fidelity to the Russian State, which our magnanimous monarchs, who have constantly showered the region with their benefactions, would be entitled to expect, does not exist in this people. With protestations of loyal feelings, the Finns have always concealed and still conceal their efforts to obtain various privileges and advantages, even to the detriment of the interests of the entire Empire” ¹⁶.

Similar thoughts Obolensky would set forth in practically all his subsequent memoranda, constantly trying to convince the Tsar that all the “revolutionary evil” in Russia was “the work of rebels in Finland,” who had established criminal links with political parties in Russia that also set themselves the task of overthrowing the autocracy. In a memorandum of April 20, 1905, he wrote to the Tsar: “No even the most liberal forms of Russian administration of the region, however humane they may be, will satisfy the population of the Grand Duchy and will not stop its ferment against that, even if benevolent, influence on the part of the Empire which it is obliged to exert in the general state interests. Such influence will always be taken for hateful Russian tutelage” ¹⁷.

The prince continued General Bobrikov’s line of “pacifying the borderlands,” calling for support of “the authority of Russian power” in Finland by force, through stationing “as many troops as possible” on Finnish territory |8. The events of the October political strike of 1905 in central Russia echoed in Finland with mass protests. The military authority could do nothing; most of the police either sided with the Finns or remained neutral. In this situation, having lost all support in Finnish society, Obolensky was forced to resign. In his place, State Council member N.N. Gerard, a proponent of a softer course toward Finland, was appointed. Major General August Langhof became the minister state secretary.

In 1909, F.A. Zeyn was appointed governor-general of Finland, earning the nickname “devourer of Finland,” and definitively established Russian rule over the principality, which remained unchanged until 1917. Finland was brutally and harshly subordinated to the all-empire system of governance and legislation. The situation was so oppressive that many prominent Finnish political and public figures no longer believed in the very possibility of a free Finland’s survival. For example, J.K. Paasikivi (the future president of Finland) in his memoirs, referring to this period, characterized it as a time when the country’s fate seemed predetermined and it was doomed to disappear. In his view, only the First World War, which soon broke out, prevented this tragic outcome 19.

Finland’s religious life was significantly influenced by its strategic position. It was «squeezed» between Russia, where there was no freedom of conscience whatsoever and from which the ideology and practice of persecution against heterodoxy and tolerance were brought into Finland, and Europe, where in most countries religious freedoms and religious diversity were established and protected. Oriented on one side toward Europe, Finland could become acquainted with and absorb the new religious currents that were manifesting themselves in those years in Europe from Norway, Sweden, and Germany.

One such movement was Pentecostalism. Its appearance in Finland is connected with the names of Thomas Barratt, pastor of the Pentecostal church in Stockholm, and the preacher Levi Petrus.

T. Barratt was born in England. From the age of 17 he began preaching in a Methodist congregation. In 1906, while in America raising funds for the construction of a prayer house in Oslo, he became acquainted with the Pentecostal movement. During one prayer meeting, he experienced «the filling with the Holy Spirit,» and from then on became a devoted follower of this religious current. Returning to Norway, Barratt founded the first Pentecostal community in Europe in Oslo, serving as its pastor for his entire life. For a time, Oslo became the center of the Pentecostal movement on the European continent. Barratt visited Denmark, Finland. Switzerland, laying the foundation for Pentecostalism in these countries. Present at his services were Levi Petrus, the future leader of the Pentecostal movement in Sweden; Alexander Boddy, the founder of the Pentecostal movement in England; and Jonathan Paul, the leader of the Pentecostals in Germany.

Concerning Barratt’s role in spreading Pentecostalism in Russia, one Orthodox author, K. Zarnitsyn, wrote: “the Methodist preacher T. Barratt brought the sect from America to Norway in 1906, and from there it was soon carried into Finland. The disseminator of it there was the same T. Barratt. In order to spread his creed, he and his assistants repeatedly came to the region and here in various cities, mainly in Helsingfors, held their religious gatherings. The success of their preaching exceeded their expectations. One can boldly say that at the present time there is not a single city in Finland in which there is not a properly organized community of Pentecostals” 20.

Among the communities in Helsingfors (now Helsinki), which T. Barratt visited during his missionary tours, was the Russian Congregation of Evangelical Christians. It was founded in 1908 as a branch of the St. Petersburg Evangelical Christian community, which belonged to the All-Russian Union of Evangelical Christians. The union’s head, I.S. Prokhanov, simultaneously led the congregation in Helsingfors. As a result, it had close and constant relations with the St. Petersburg congregation and the Union’s leadership.

Among the young and energetic members of the St. Petersburg congregation, A.I. Ivanov stood out for his particular religious zeal; not long before, he, together with his family, had converted from Orthodoxy to the Evangelical Christians. He had a serious theological education, having graduated from Charles Spurgeon’s Bible College in Great Britain. Upon returning to Russia, he tried his hand as a preacher and leader of an evangelical community in Vyborg. In 1909, Prokhanov sent Ivanov to Finland as a preacher of the Helsingfors branch of the St. Petersburg congregation. Here his immediate assistant became N.P. Smorodin, a former staff captain in the tsarist army who had recently joined the community and had been dismissed from the army as a result.

In 1911, during another missionary journey to Finland, T. Barratt and L. Petrus visited this community. They preached and introduced the believers to the Pentecostal teaching, which was new to them. As the modern researcher of the history of the Pentecostal movement in Russia, V.I. Franchuk, writes: “The church was shaken, sensing the gracious and powerful influence of the Holy Spirit. A revival began in the church, and many believing men and women experienced the exciting moment of being filled with the Holy Spirit” 2|. After the preachers’ departure, diversity of opinion, discussions, examination of biblical texts, and a search for answers to emerging questions began in the community. Gradually, many members came to the conviction that the teaching preached by Barratt and Petrus was the correct understanding of the doctrine of baptism in the Holy Spirit, a return “to the early Christian apostolic pattern of ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit, accompanied by the preaching of the Gospel with powers, miracles, and signs.”

News of the Russian community in Helsingfors, where new religious ideas were spreading, reached far beyond Finland. Those who shared the Pentecostal views began to come here. In particular, in the summer of 1912, P. Hakkarainen moved here from Narva; he had been preaching Pentecostal teaching in the Baptist community of Narva (Estonia) since 1908.

Later, Barratt also visited the church in Helsingfors. A mention has been preserved of his preaching there on November 3, 1912. On that occasion, he addressed the believers with a warning about the approach of a world war that would bring new hardships, saying: “Do you not see the signs of the times! Do you not see how intensely the nations are preparing! Soon a great, terrible, and destructive war must begin! A time of such distress as has not been since the creation of the world must come! Oh, if only people would listen to this last warning, this last call, this last counsel! The final great clash is approaching! The fierce fire of great tribulation is already ready to ignite and then to turn into a great flame!” 22

In all likelihood, the new ideas of the foreign preachers fell on “well-fertilized” ground. An interest in the Pentecostal movement, theological questions, and debates had already been noted among evangelical believers earlier. To confirm this, here is an excerpt from one of the articles published in the official journal of the Evangelical Christians, The Christian:

“A revival is also taking place in the Chicago church (in America). Toward the end of an ordinary prayer meeting, nine of us decided to give ourselves to prayer to the Lord. We did not have to wait long before one of us, a person worthy of full trust and respect, began to pray with extraordinary earnestness. The Holy Spirit descended upon us. The brother began to pray in an ‘unknown tongue.’ Then each of us involuntarily began to pray in ‘unknown tongues.’ These phenomena made such a strong impression on many that a movement began in the church. The state into which these people enter corresponds fully to what is described in the 10th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. The unknown tongues themselves are not a means of communication between people, as on the day of Pentecost, but correspond more to what is described in 1 Cor. 14:2, and are a means of communion of the soul with God. These people do not deliver speeches in unknown tongues, but their prayers acquire a particularly persistent character, and the expression of praise and gratitude often borders on inexpressible sounds. They feel that their souls fall silent in humility before God in the consciousness of His presence in their midst. They do not doubt in the least that everything they are experiencing is in harmony with the Word of God” 23.

It is evident that the diversity of opinions about the new religious trend can be seen in those polemical articles that began to appear regularly in the journal The Christian. Thus, in the February 1908 issue, the article “On Spiritual Revivals” noted that “some believers are very inclined to dwell only on the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles and think that only there are lessons for spiritual life” 24. The author warned against excessive and superfluous attention, in his opinion, to the question of the descent of the Holy Spirit. Six months later, in another article, “Should We Expect Another Pentecost?”, it was again reported with concern about many Christians who, at prayer meetings and conferences, were speaking of the need “to return to the time of Pentecost,” of “experiencing Pentecost” 25.

In 1913, Ivanov again invited L. Petrus and T. Barratt to the community. During their preaching in the community, according to the information that has come down to us, a mass “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” occurred, and many members of the community experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the sign of speaking in other tongues, including the leadership of the community, A.I. Ivanov and N.P. Smorodin.

The chairman of the All-Russian Union of Evangelical Christians, I.S. Prokhanov, considering Ivanov to have fallen into false teaching and to have led the flock down an incorrect path, summoned him to Petersburg. In the course of the conversation that took place, Ivanov tried to prove that Pentecostalism is a movement based on Holy Scripture and that it is a return to the principles of the apostolic, early Christian church. But Prokhanov did not agree with him and did not accept his assertion about the truth of Pentecostal teaching.

When Ivanov and Prokhanov presented their arguments in defense of their positions, it became clear that the necessity of a natural break was imminent. A.I. Ivanov decided to withdraw from the All-Russian Union of Evangelical Christians. Ivanov, his assistants, and all his followers were excommunicated from the Evangelical Christian church.

After parting ways with the Evangelical Christians, Ivanov rented premises where separate meetings of “free Russian evangelists” were now held. Ivanov’s closest assistants, who together with him broke away from the Evangelical Christians, were F.A. Tuchkov (a retired fleet conductor, born to peasants of the Rostov-on-Don district), A.K. Chernukhin (a civilian telegraphist, born to peasants of the Voronezh Governorate), and K.I. Vetsgaver (a Latvian, townsman from Libau). In a very short time, a congregation was formed in Helsingfors – the first Pentecostal congregation on Russian soil. Yet the favourable period for its growth was literally a matter of months, and therefore it did not become known within Russia’s Pentecostal movement.

Only scattered information about the life of the congregation has been preserved, above all in the documents of the Police Department, which kept watch over all “sectarian” associations. In one of these documents, the meetings led by Ivanov are described thus: “during the general meetings some of the participants, under the influence of Ivanov’s sermons, which were notable for their eloquence and produced a strong impression on the hearers, fell into hysterics, trembled, uttered cries, and began to speak as if prophesying in an unknown tongue. All persons who experienced such states explained these phenomena as the undoubted result of the effect upon them of the gift of the Holy Spirit” 26

A considerable portion of Ivanov’s followers consisted of sailors from warships, lower ranks of the garrison, and Russian workers of Helsingfors. For this category of people, the pacifist anti‑war motifs that distinguished Ivanov’s sermons were of serious significance. Pamphlets with corresponding content were also published. In one of them, found by the police in the possession of F.A. Tuchkov, ideas about the cessation of “feuds or wars” between nations were developed on the basis of Gospel material. Other police documents also testify to the influence of these ideas. One of them reported: “On 19 June 1915, on the ship ‘Slava’, several sailors – followers of Ivanov, for whom he arranged private talks – refused to go to their stations during a combat alarm, for which they were handed over to a military court. By the court they were deprived of all rights of status and sentenced to hard labour for various terms” 11. Ivanov’s supporters were also on other ships, as may be inferred from a letter that A.K. Chernukhin addressed to the sailors of the ship ‘Sevastopol’, asking them to pray for the brethren who had suffered.

It should be noted that, according to data from the Department of Spiritual Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, during the period from June 1914 to April 1917, 837 persons of lower military rank in 30 military districts were convicted by military‑area courts for refusing, on grounds of conscience, to take up arms against the enemy and to perform military service duties. Among them were Baptists, Adventists, Dukhobors, Evangelical Christians, Molokans, Jehovists, and Quakers. Of these, 16 persons did not state their religious affiliation 28.

Soon Ivanov left Helsingfors and moved to Vyborg. His friend N.P. Smorodin moved there as well. After a short time, a Pentecostal congregation also arose here, under constant surveillance by the Finland Gendarmerie Administration (See: Document No. 1, p. 99).

After this, the road of the Pentecostal preachers led to St Petersburg, where they launched active work among the members of various Protestant congregations. As a result, a small group of Smorodin’s followers in St Petersburg quickly grew into an Evangelical‑Christian Pentecostal congregation.

In the course of 1913–1914, under the guidance of A.I. Ivanov and N.P. Smorodin, a large group of missionary‑preachers was trained, who began travelling through various governorates of Russia, propagating their teaching. Gradually, groups and congregations appeared and operated in Estonia, Byelorussia, Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus, as well as in Moscow and in the Novgorod and Moscow Governorates. Researchers have been able to identify some of the missionary‑preachers’ names – Maslov, Stepanov, Gerasimov, Prokhorov, Efimov, Kapralova. During the First World War, Smorodin became the acknowledged leader of Russia’s Pentecostal congregations, which came to be called after their organizer’s name – “Smorodintsy”. In his addresses in various religious communities, N.P. Smorodin openly declared that “he belongs neither to the Baptists nor to the Evangelicals, but belongs to the Pentecostals” 29.

The Smorodintsy recruited into their ranks members of such communities as Baptists, Evangelical Christians, Molokans, Khlysts, Malyovantsy, and New Israel. At first, many leaders of Protestant communities, as well as Orthodox missionary priests, did not single out Pentecostalism as an independent current, but took it for a variety of Khlystism or Malyovantism, and gave it the offensive nickname “tryasunstvo” (quaking).

The well‑known ideologue of Baptism, editor of the journal “Baptism”, S.V. Belousov, wrote: “tryasunstvo is alien to evangelical teaching,… it is nothing other than Khlystism and Malyovanshchina, only slightly embellished with evangelical teaching” 30. Only gradually were those peculiarities noticed that made it possible to distinguish Pentecostals from the general “sectarian mass”.

The new movement posed a special “threat” to Baptism and Evangelical Christians. Their leaders warned, in letters sent to local churches and through church publications, of the dangers this movement carried. “We know,” wrote the Council of the Union of Evangelical Christians, “that abroad the quaking movement, like a terrible whirlwind, destroyed many congregations. This movement seems harmless at first, but the results prove to be bitter” 31. Quite a number of similar articles appeared in the journals “Baptist” and “Guest” in 1911–1914. Warnings were published from various Baptist congregations about members who had gone over to Pentecostalism and about the dangers brought by the sermons of representatives of this new current.

For the edification of the members of the Union, the newspaper Morning Star published a “Warning” in 1914 with the following content: “In Helsingfors, Vyborg, and also in Petersburg, a sect of people calling themselves ‘Pentecostals,’ but in reality shakers, has appeared. These people differ little from the Khlysts and Jumpers. They have nothing in common with either Baptists or Evangelical Christians. At present, their ‘prophets’ Maslov and Stepanov have set out for the south. We ask brothers and sisters to beware of them, as they bring a different doctrine. The same applies to other preachers: A.I. Ivanov, S.I. Prokhorov, Hakkaraainen (an Estonian), and others.”32.

In Finland, where Pentecostal communities operated almost openly, the political situation became markedly more complicated with the outbreak of the First World War, and the struggle between supporters of various political parties intensified. Part of Finnish society hoped that by demonstrating loyalty to Russia they could regain their autonomous rights, and therefore supported the Russian administration in Finland. Another part advocated a greater orientation toward England and France, hoping that in the post‑war conditions such a stance would have the most favorable impact on Finland’s relations with Western countries.

At the same time, there was also a group of political figures who believed that the war created the most optimal conditions for Finland’s complete separation from Russia. It must be admitted that such anti‑Russian sentiments were widespread. They could manifest themselves in various ways: in passive disobedience, demonstrative indifference, rejection and non‑participation in any actions or events organized by the Russian administration. An example of such behavior can be seen in the indifference with which the population of Helsingfors greeted the visit of Emperor Nicholas II to their city on February 25, 1915. While the local authorities, led by Governor‑General Zeyn and other officials, displayed their loyal feelings, arranging meetings with a guard of honor, receiving delegations from various strata of society, and holding solemn prayer services, the Finnish population behaved differently. As an eyewitness to this event, V.F. Dzhunkovsky, writes in his memoirs: “The streets were full of people, ‘but what a difference there was in the character and mood of this crowd compared to a Russian one. This crowd, in silent calm and immobility, met the Tsar — their Grand Duke.”33.

Among the political leaders were also those who were not satisfied with passively expressing anti‑Russian sentiments. Then they called for active action against the Russian administration. In numerous student circles, ideas of an armed uprising and a unilateral exit from the Russian Empire were openly discussed. The possibility of an armed uprising was perceived as a reality even by the command of the Northern Front, which directed military operations and forces on the territory of Finland. In its reports for 1915–1916, one could read: “In Finland, under the guise of calm and loyalty, an armed uprising is being prepared with the aim of detaching it from Russia with the help of Germany.”

Given the political instability in Finland and its proximity to the theater of military operations, the laws of wartime and censorship were extended to the territory of the Grand Duchy. At the same time, as in other frontline areas, the activities of Russian special services intensified. Immediately, gendarme departments were literally inundated with denunciations accusing various individuals of espionage, political unreliability, or sympathy for the warring powers. In an atmosphere of general psychosis and suspicion, the Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs turned its attention to all “sectarian” associations operating there.

The anti‑militarist sentiments in the Pentecostal community primarily attracted the attention of the police. In the conditions of the world war that had begun, they were perceived by the official authorities as a betrayal of national interests. In June 1914, A.I. Ivanov was arrested. He was interrogated at length and in detail about the activities of the community, the moods within it, and the preacher’s personal life. Ivanov answered all questions very thoroughly. In particular, he testified that the doctrine professed by the community he led was set forth in the brochure “The Doctrine of Evangelical Christians,” but was also supplemented by the teaching “On Awakening through the Descent of the Holy Spirit and on Baptism with Fire and the Spirit.”

In the protocol of the interrogation conducted in the summer of 1914, Ivanov stated: “I have the honor to inform and answer the questions posed. Question 1: Since when has the sect founded (by me) existed within this region? I answer: The preaching of the Gospel began even before my arrival in Finland, by Methodists in 1909 among the Russians. From 1910, the preaching of the Gospel was conducted by me, and continues to the present time.”34. In all likelihood, Ivanov was referring to T. Barratt, and therefore we can say that his Pentecostal worldview was taking shape precisely in those years. Ivanov pointed out that he did not accept the nickname given to this community by the people — “the sect of Pentecostal Christians” — and that they called themselves “Russian Evangelical Christians.”

The next wave of arrests of Pentecostals came in November 1915. A.I. Ivanov, F.F. Tuchkov, A.K. Chernukhin, K.I. Vetsgaver were arrested and exiled to the Turgay region. Prayer meetings were banned. Later, the community leader A.I. Ivanov was exiled to Udmurtia under police surveillance. But even there he found opportunities to carry out missionary work, quickly gathering around himself supporters of the new teaching.

Despite arrests, detentions, and prohibitions, the Pentecostal community in St. Petersburg continued its activities. In 1915, serious changes occurred in its life, as well as in the nascent Russian Pentecostalism as a whole. They were connected with a meeting with N.P.

Smorodin and Andrei Urshan – a Pentecostal missionary. A. D. Urshan was born in Iran, into the family of a Presbyterian pastor. In 1901, at the age of 17, he emigrated to the USA and settled in Chicago. There he became closely acquainted with Pentecostals and joined this movement. In 1908 he founded a mission that was to work in Persia. He himself established himself in Persia from 1914. However, the outbreak of the First World War forced him to leave the country, and he, together with numerous refugees, ended up in Russia. On the way from the south of Russia to Petersburg, he managed to set up several small Pentecostal churches in Tiflis and Armavir. Arriving in Petersburg, he lived there for some time and preached, waiting for an opportunity to leave for the USA.

One can imagine the joy of N. P. Smorodin when he learned of the arrival of the Pentecostal missionary in Petersburg. He met with him several times and conversed at length. It seemed to him that Urshan preached the Pentecostal doctrine in the spirit of Barratt and Petrus, whom he personally knew and whose ideas and convictions he had previously adopted. The missionary’s training, his erudition, his impressive appearance, his vast experience in conducting conversations—all this influenced Smorodin, who believed that he was encountering a new (higher) phase of the teaching about God in the Pentecostal church.

But A. D. Urshan, although he was a Pentecostal, represented a current that diverged from the majority of Pentecostal churches, above all on the question of the unity of God. He preached and spread the doctrine “of one God,” known since the early Middle Ages as the heresy of Arianism, condemned in 325 by the Nicene Ecumenical Council. This theological teaching had a certain distribution in early Pentecostalism in America, and it is obvious that Urshan shared it. This was also facilitated by the fact that he had to preach in the Islamic world, where followers of Islam accused Christians of “paganism,” of worshiping three gods, as they interpreted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. He became convinced that water baptism by faith, performed according to the formula “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” was invalid, and that in the early apostolic church baptism was performed only “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” By this formula Urshan baptized the believers of Petrograd and Vyborg who had believed and followed him. At the same time, he ordained N. P. Smorodin as a presbyter. The believers of these communities began to call themselves Christians in the spirit of the apostles.

Naturally, not all believers, nor the missionary preachers whom Smorodin and Ivanov had earlier sent to preach the Gospel in many places in Russia, accepted the teaching of “one God.” Therefore, they were forced to leave Smorodin. Nevertheless, the majority of the community members remained with their leader, and illegal meetings in various cities of northwestern Russia, as reported by military and police officials, continued right up until the February Revolution of 1917[35].

Document No. 1

Letter from the Chief of the Finland Gendarme Administration
A. M. Eremin to the Special Section of the Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia on the Activities of Religious Associations

No. 3788 October 31, 1913

Secret

According to collected information, within the territory of Finland there are sectarians of various religious doctrines, but in very limited numbers, since among the local population the largest number of adherents belongs to the international sect “Salvation Army,” which, in its direction and doctrine, does not represent anything blameworthy.

Incidents of propaganda by sectarians residing in Finland among the lower ranks have been observed in the city of Vyborg, where a preacher of Evangelical Christians, retired sergeant major Smorodinov, in his speeches in a church hall openly calls on listeners not to take up arms, considering any killing a sin; members of this sect also try to attract acquainted lower ranks of the Vyborg garrison into their midst and, in conversations with them, convince them that soldiers who take up arms commit a sin. This sect is very insignificant, and the number of its members does not exceed 50–60 people.

On the part of the investigating organs, there is scarcely a necessity to organize undercover surveillance of the activities of sectarian communities, since these societies, for the most part, carry on their propaganda openly and the local administration, police, and clergy always have the opportunity to know everything necessary without the mediation of investigating organs. Meanwhile, this activity would distract the investigating organs from their direct and more important duty—to combat the revolutionary movement—and the investigating organs, owing to their incompetence in religious matters, will be inclined, based on certain signs that resemble the teachings of socialism and even anarchism but arise from religious errors and by no means from political convictions, to identify schismatics and sectarians, who until recently, despite their religious errors, were the most conservative element, with revolutionaries, with whom they can have nothing in common, if only because they believe in God, Whom revolutionaries do not acknowledge, and are enemies of all violence, which is the tactic of revolutionary organizations for overthrowing the existing state and social order.

Colonel A. M. Eremin

GA RF. F. 102. DPOO. 1910. Op. 240. D. 135. L. 218.

NOTES

1 See: Distribution of the population of the empire by main religions. Developed by the Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs based on the data of the first general population census of 1897. St. Petersburg, 1901. pp. 2-3.

2 Only in 1922, after Finland gained independence, was full freedom of religion proclaimed.

5 Christian Reading. St. Petersburg, 1900, May, pp. 710-745.

4 See: Odintsov M. I. Orthodox Views on the Fatherland and Patriotism / Religion and Nationalism. Collection of articles. Moscow, 2000, pp. 9-30.

5 Bronzov A. A. Christian Reading. St. Petersburg, 1900, May, pp. 710-745, pp. 732-733.

6 Ibid., pp. 733, 734.

7 Quoted in: Karetnikova M.S. Russkoe bogoiskatelstvo. Natsionalnye korni / Almanakh po istorii russkogo baptizma [Russian God-seeking. National Roots / Almanac on the History of Russian Baptism]. St. Petersburg, 1999, p. 145.

8 See: Rasila V. Istoriya Finlyandii [History of Finland]. Petrozavodsk, 1996, p. 102.

9 State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), f. 601, op. 1, d. 2335, l. 17.

10 Ibid., f. 499, op. 1, d. 18, l. 62 v., 76–102 v. and others. «Ibid., f. 601, op. 1, d. 2335, l. 21.

12 Ibid., f. 601, op. 1, d. 2345, l. 3–4, 12, 18, 19.

13 Witte S.Yu. Vospominaniya [Memoirs]. Moscow, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 345–346.

14 GARF, f. 586, op. 1, d. 445, l. 128.

15 Witte S.Yu., op. cit., p. 348.

16 GARF, f. 601, op. 1, d. 2355, l. 10. Memorandum of December 28, 1904.

17 Ibid., l. 18 v.

18 Ibid., l. 21.

» See: Rasila V., op. cit., p. 128.

20 Quoted in: Klibanov A.I. Istoriya religioznogo sektantstva v Rossii [History of Religious Sectarianism in Russia]. Moscow, 1965, p. 249.

21 Franchuk V.I. Prosila Rossiya dozhdya u Gospoda [Russia Asked the Lord for Rain]. Kiev, 2001, vol. 1, p. 308.

22 Quoted in: A.I. Klibanov, op. cit., p. 252.

23 Khristianin [The Christian]. 1908, January, pp. 28–29.

24 Khristianin. 1908, no. 2, p. 18.

25 Khristianin. 1908, no. 8, p. 1.

26 Quoted in: Klibanov A.I., op. cit., p. 248.

27 Ibid., pp. 249–250.

28 See: Putintsev F. Politicheskaya rol i taktika sekt [The Political Role and Tactics of Sects]. Moscow, 1935, pp. 96–97.

29 Baptist [The Baptist]. 1914, no. 13–14, p. 23.

30 Baptizm [Baptism]. 1925, no. 2, p. 15.

31 Klibanov A.I., op. cit., p. 250.

32 Utrennyaya zvezda [Morning Star]. 1914, no. 15.

33 Dzhunkovsky V.F. Vospominaniya [Memoirs]. Moscow, 1997, vol. 2, p. 527.

34 Klibanov A.I., op. cit., p. 249.

35 Klibanov A.I., op. cit., p. 250.

Print, save, letter .pdf