V. Franchuk. Soviet authorities drive Protestants into the AUCECB

· Baptists, Belarus, Dnepropetrovsk, Kyiv, Books, Moscow, Pentecostals, Russia, USSR, Ukraine

On January 7, 1930, the All-Ukrainian Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith, after the arrest of its leadership in Odessa headed by I. E. Voronaev, ceased its legal existence. The All-Union Council of Baptists, after the arrest of N. V. Odintsov in 1933 and other leading workers in May 1935, likewise ceased to exist.1 The All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians, led by Ya. M. Zhidkov and A. V. Karev, having moved from Leningrad to Moscow in 1932, had practically no guiding significance and existed nominally. A. V. Karev was sentenced to 5 years in 1935.2 In January 1938, the chairman of the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians, Ya. I. Zhidkov, was sentenced to 8 years in camps and exiled to the Magadan region, after which M. A. Orlov assumed the duties of chairman; however, by that time practically no union existed and no activity was carried on.3

Here, for the sense of the narrative, it is very important to cast a retrospective glance at the history of the evangelical Christian and Baptist movement in the first half of the twentieth century.

In 1905, there were 86,538 Baptists and 20,804 evangelical Christians in the Russian Empire; by the end of the civil war, there were already 100 thousand Baptists and 250 thousand evangelical Christians. However, the peak of the movement came in 1929, when the number of adherents of these two confessions reached half a million.4 And that is counting only church members who had received baptism by immersion!

Yet, after the onset of persecution, in 1930, according to the Baptist Union, its congregations numbered only 50,124 members, and according to data from other sources, the total number of members in all evangelical churches of Soviet Russia had dropped to 250 thousand by the mid-1930s.5 According to available information, by the autumn of 1929 over 100 Baptist church presbyters had been arrested, and all regional Baptist unions closed as a result of the arrests of their leaders and workers. Some of them, including the Central Union in Moscow, later reopened for a time, but in 1935 the All-Russian Baptist Union was closed — officially and finally. The few Baptist presbyters who had not yet been arrested and had not gone underground joined the Union of Evangelical Christians, which with great difficulty tried to maintain at least some activity.6

The 1920s, the period of the first years of Soviet power, for all the tragedy of the cataclysms that occurred, was a time of flourishing for the ministry of evangelical churches; however, after that came a truly bloody decade of horrific persecution. The decade marked by Lenin’s forced tactical flexibility gave way to the time of Stalin. Incidentally, Stalin was born in a small town near Tiflis, where the Russian evangelical movement also originated, but, as the American professor Walter Sawatsky rightly notes, this “strange coincidence could hardly have endeared anyone among the believers.”

To a significant degree, thanks to the influence of Bonch-Bruevich, who was close to Lenin and a former “expert on sectarians,” the Soviet government initially treated evangelical Christians very amicably and even intended to cooperate with them in building socialism. Moreover, the Soviet government was interested in their success as an additional means of combating Orthodoxy, believing that since the growth of evangelical congregations came mainly from former Orthodox believers, this would, on the whole, lead to the weakening of Orthodoxy. It was during this favorable period that the Unions of Baptists and Evangelical Christians regularly held congresses and reported on the great growth of their churches. An attempt was also made in 1920 to unite these two unions, but it ended in failure. It must also be noted that relations between these unions were sometimes rather difficult, as, for that matter, were personal relations between their leaders. Nevertheless, despite some rivalry, both unions took part in the congresses of the Baptist World Alliance.

Within evangelical Christianity in Russia, the ideas of building Christian socialism were popular to a certain extent, and some believers not only approved of the socialist idea but also managed to organize several flourishing communes in various parts of the Soviet Union. Prokhanov even had a dream to build his own “City of the Sun” for Christians, named Evangelsk, which was to become a model city of brotherly love. Moreover, his plans received official approval, and the local Soviet authorities even promised him financial aid and took part in a symbolic groundbreaking ceremony, which amounted to the planting of several trees. However, just a year later, in 1928, the idea of building the city was banned — and “Evangelsk” remained forever an unrealized utopian project.7

Beginning in 1923, signs of divergence between evangelical Christians and the Soviet government became increasingly noticeable. As already mentioned, many evangelical believers, both evangelical Christians and Baptists, were pacifists and usually refused to serve in the army bearing arms, relying on the 1919 decree permitting alternative service. In 1923, the authorities began to pressure both unions to renounce their teaching. In particular, I. S. Prokhanov was arrested in 1923 and kept in prison until he agreed to change his position and wrote a letter to his congregations calling on the brethren to fulfill their military duty. But even after that, the question of military service remained for many years a bone of contention for all evangelical believers, generating much internal dissension and serious problems in relations with the authorities.

I. S. Prokhanov, while on a trip abroad, decided to follow the wise advice of the brethren not to return to Soviet Russia, and died in exile from illness in 1935 in Berlin, while his deputy Ya. I. Zhidkov was elected head of the union.

The chairman of the Baptist Union, N. V. Odintsov, was thrown into prison, exiled to Eastern Siberia, and in 1938 he was arrested again and soon died. The secretary of the Baptist Union, P. V. Ivanov-Klyshnikov, was sentenced to 10 years in 1932—and he died without regaining freedom. Another Council member, P. V. Datsko, briefly returned home in 1938 after exile, was arrested again in 1939, sentenced to 10 years, and died two years later in imprisonment. V. P. Stepanov, another member of the Federal Council of the Baptist Union, after serving his sentence was sent into exile, but the trials he had endured in prison broke him. He was arrested again in 1937—this time he was not destined to return from prison.8 I. A. Grolyaev succeeded Odintsov as chairman of the Union in 1933, but apparently already in 1935 he was forced to leave Moscow and, in the end, died in 1942 in Tashkent.

As for the Evangelical Christians, by the beginning of the war, only Andreev and Orlov, who became chairman of the Union after Zhidkov’s arrest in 1937, remained at large among all the authoritative leaders. Throughout the war, Orlov continued to hold services in the only church that remained in Moscow.

Immediately after the war began, he held a large patriotic meeting in Moscow, after which many participants publicly declared their desire to volunteer for the Red Army. In his report at the 1944 Congress, he openly stated that his union had written letters to church members in the occupied territories, urging them not to cooperate in any way with the enemy and to support their native state in every way in the struggle against the invaders. They also managed to collect 80,000 rubles to purchase a medical aircraft.9

During the war, released early from imprisonment by the Soviet government in 1942, Zhidkov, Karev, and several other ministers immediately formed the Provisional Council of Evangelical Christians and Baptists, which included: Ya. I. Zhidkov, A. V. Karev, M. A. Orlov, A. L. Andreev, M. I. Golyaev, F. G. Patkovsky, P. I. Malin, N. A. Levindanto, V. N. Urshtein.10 At the end of May 1942, they published, on behalf of the Evangelical Christians and Baptists of the Soviet Union, an “Appeal to All Christians of the World,” calling for closer unity in the struggle against fascism.11

To regulate state-church relations, the Soviet government established the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR in 1943 (Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR No. 1392 of December 18, 1943). The following year, the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults under the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR was also created (Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR No. 572 of May 19, 1944). Both Councils (from March 1946 — under the Council of Ministers of the USSR) coexisted in parallel until December 1965, when they were merged into a single body. This body received the name Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR in 1965.

Accordingly, authorized representatives of the Council for Religious Affairs were appointed for the republics of the former Soviet Union under the Councils of Ministers of the republics, who, however, were directly subordinate to Moscow, and in those republics that had oblast divisions, the institute of authorized representatives of the Councils was also introduced for the oblasts. The oblast authorized representatives were subordinate to the Council of the respective republic, but also had direct communication with Moscow and were controlled by both the republican Council and the all-Union Council. Ivan Vasilievich Polyansky was appointed chairman of the all-Union Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults, and Pyotr Akimovich Vilkhovoy was appointed authorized representative of the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults for Ukraine.

In the 1947 edition of the “Soviet Encyclopedia,” a fairly extensive article by A. Kozlov defines the competence of these councils’ activities as follows:

1. Study all questions submitted to the government for consideration by religious organizations, if the decision must be made at the government level;

2. Consider legal issues related to the activities of religious organizations, as well as issue decrees and instructions;

3. Oversee the proper execution of the legislation in force throughout the entire territory of the USSR that separates church from state, and take the necessary measures to ensure the freedom of worship guaranteed to Soviet citizens by the Constitution of the USSR;

4. In cooperation with religious organizations, resolve issues requiring the intervention of the Council of Ministers.12

In the statute published in 1966, all these functions were formulated more clearly. According to official explanations, the functions of the Council for Religious Affairs included:

1. Supervision of the correct and timely implementation of laws, decrees, and orders of the USSR government relating to the church.

2. Exercise of control over the correct application and observance of legislation.

3. Submission of conclusions.

4. Information to the government about the state of the church and its activities.

5. Collection of statistical data.

It was assumed that the Councils work in close cooperation with the authorities and therefore:

• have information about all cases of violation of the law by both officials and citizens;

• travel to localities, get acquainted with the work of the authorized representatives, with the activities of communities, monasteries, and the clergy;

• have information about all decisions made on cases of violations of the law;

• consider applications and complaints within their competence;

• assist public commissions in exercising control over compliance with the law.

At the same time, the authorized representative, as the official explanation stated, had the right:

• to inspect the activities of religious organizations with regard to their observance of Soviet “legislation on cults” and to issue “binding instructions to eliminate violations”;

• to receive from the authorities the necessary information, materials, and references on matters related to religions;

• to give explanations to Soviet bodies on issues of the application of legislation;

• in coordination with the Council, to submit proposals for the repeal of orders, instructions, directives, resolutions, and other acts to the body that issued the corresponding act;

• to raise the question of bringing persons guilty of violating the legislation on cults to disciplinary, administrative, or criminal liability.

In Kyiv, at 24 Solomenska Street, the Central State Archive of the Highest Bodies of State Power and State Administration of Ukraine (TsDAVO) still houses an enormous archive of the Council for Religious Affairs, containing more than 2,500 volumes of files (over a thousand of them classified as “secret”).

The files in this archive are classified as follows:

• instructional letters and directives of the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults under the USSR Council of Ministers;

• reports, memoranda, and briefings from the Council’s commissioner for the Ukrainian SSR, submitted to the highest government and party bodies of the Ukrainian SSR on the situation and activities of religious organizations in the republic;

• information reports of the Council’s commissioner for the Ukrainian SSR;

• information reports of the regional commissioners;

• instructional letters and directives for regional commissioners;

• documents on the activities of monasteries and seminaries;

• reports, briefings, and memoranda received from the Council’s regional commissioners on the religious situation, and on processes and phenomena occurring within religious organizations;

• statistical data on active and inactive prayer buildings, congregations, the composition of clergy and religious activists;

• memoranda on the results of inspections of the work of regional commissioners;

• documents on the stay of foreign religious delegations in Ukraine;

• work plans of Council commissioners and others.

These archival materials resurrect the events of past decades and, to a significant extent, lift the veil on many secrets of this organization, which obediently and conscientiously carried out the orders and implemented the policies of the government and the leadership of the Communist Party. These documents concern not only Ukraine but also allow one to judge what was happening on the scale of the entire former USSR. Any conscientious and objective researcher working in this archive must come to the inevitable conclusion: the true purpose of this organization was to eliminate any religion in the USSR as a phenomenon.

With the permission (and instruction!) of the authorities, despite all the difficulties of wartime, from October 26 to 29, 1944, a conference of Evangelical Christians and Baptists was held in Moscow in the building of the prayer house of the Moscow Evangelical Christian community, attended by forty-five people (seven of them women). For the most part, these were prominent, leading workers from the former All-Russian Union of Evangelical Christians and the Union of Russian Baptists. This conference would later be called the 37th All-Union Congress of Evangelical Christians-Baptists (since the Evangelical Christians had previously held 20 congresses, and the Baptists 16). The Evangelical Christian delegation was led by Ya. I. Zhidkov, and the Baptist delegation by M. I. Golyaev. At this conference, a “Joint Resolution of Evangelical Christians and Baptists on the Question of Uniting Evangelical Christians and Baptists of the USSR into One Union” was adopted, which stated: “Consigning to complete oblivion all past disagreements, from the two unions — the Union of Evangelical Christians and the Union of Baptists — to create one union — the Union of Evangelical Christians and Baptists with an All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians and Baptists as its governing body, residing in the city of Moscow.”¹³

When the voting results were tallied and the presiding officer announced that the unification decision had been adopted unanimously, the representatives of the Baptists and Evangelical Christians rushed to embrace one another. Many, without hiding their emotions, wept for joy, sang loudly, and offered prayers of thanksgiving to God, apparently believing that the Lord had done what the Christians themselves could not — through Stalin himself He had performed the miracle of reunification. Of course, the participants were transported to the capital on transport working for the military victory, the state provided hotel accommodation and food, after which it could, naturally, be entirely confident that the conference would make the “right decision.”

And, naturally, there could be no question of any formal ratification of the newly formed Council of Evangelical Christians and Baptists by local churches, nor was the issue ever raised, until the explosion of the schism in 1961.

The unification congress sent a telegram to Stalin expressing gratitude that the government had found it possible to accommodate and meet the religious needs of believers. On the second day of the congress, a five-member delegation was dispatched to the chairman of the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults, Polyansky, to thank him for the assistance the Council had provided in preparing the congress. Dr. Walter Sawatsky, professor of church history at the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary in Elkhart (Indiana, USA), in his book The Evangelical Movement in the USSR after the Second World War, assessing all these events, writes:

All official reports on the work of this forum are couched in an extremely positive tone. Naturally, no one dared to object, even if the official stance absolutely did not coincide with his own opinion. The 1944 Congress remains a mystery to this day and a subject of endless discussions. A review of its work, including a verbatim account of the main resolutions, was published in the first issue of Bratsky Vestnik (The Fraternal Herald), which began publication in 1945. Actually, the congress itself received sufficient coverage and does not represent anything extraordinary, but its preparation and decisions, evidently made in advance in a narrower circle, were never openly discussed. All these arguments were aimed at bolstering the clearly shaky reputation of this forum, especially considering that the delegates were not elected by representatives of communities or religious associations. All this grossly contradicted the fundamental principles of both unions, but fully aligned with the new state policy toward religion, for the implementation of which it was more convenient to deal with centralized leadership.14

Strange as it may sound, the re-establishment of the activity of the Union of Evangelical Churches, strictly speaking, also contradicted the laws of the Soviet Union at that time, for the legislation then in force — the 1918 decree separating church from state and the 1929 law on religious cults — recognized only local congregations as legal. (Of course, this reflected not only the initial autonomy of local councils, but was also aimed at splitting the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church, against which the Bolsheviks waged an irreconcilable struggle from the very start). It was the adoption of that very 1929 law that led to the liquidation of the evangelical unions. However, in the Soviet Union, where the concept of the rule of law was more than relative, no one ever paid attention to this juridical absurdity — neither then nor later.

Studying the list of participants in the 1944 congress, it is interesting to note who was present. As already mentioned, 45 people took part in the work of this conference. Of these, 21 were from Moscow, seven of them women. The next largest delegation was from Ukraine — it numbered 11 persons. There were 3 delegates from Novosibirsk, one from Kuibyshev, one from Leningrad, two representatives from Byelorussia, and seven more delegates from the Russian Federation. The stenographic record testifies that representatives from Arkhangelsk and the Caucasus also took part in the congress, but they do not appear in the list of 45 official delegates. Possibly, these were people released from camps located in those regions, or passing through Moscow on their way home, and included in the official list as representatives of the churches to which they had previously belonged.15

Of the 45 delegates, 28 represented Evangelical Christians and 19 Baptists. The seven women delegates were those who signed the appeal to Christian women, calling on them to help the front with bandaging materials and other necessities. Among other things, their presence at the congress justified the appearance of the wife of the former Baptist leader Mazaev, whose name, as it were, lent greater authority to the gathering. Another delegate, A. I. Mozgova, had at one time been the secretary of the chairman of the Baptist Union, Odintsov.

If one recalls the composition of the pre-war leadership of these two evangelical unions, the list of absent leaders would be very long. Actually, the selection was made by the Soviet system of death camps, which swallowed up the movement’s remaining leaders, but it would be unjust to assert that the composition of the restored Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists (VSEKhB) had no connection or continuity with the previous, lawfully elected leadership at the congresses.

Another thing is not fully clear. And this uncertainty is, perhaps, very precisely and balancedly expressed by the same researcher of the post-war history of the evangelical movement in the USSR, Walter Zawatski, who says, rather piercingly, the following:

“Were the participants of this congress meeting voluntary agents or were they coerced into carrying out a state policy that was advantageous? Was it really the case that all these people, many of whom had proven themselves genuine heroes in the past, were broken by what they had to endure in prison? Could Orlov and Andreev be trusted? The shadow of these doubts has placed a seal on the leaders of the movement, causing doubts about their sincerity to this day.“16

The VSEKhB journal Bratsky Vestnik never dared to mention the persecution that Evangelical Christians suffered from militant state atheism and from the Soviet authorities. However, this journal published articles describing the outrages of the fascists against believers. I. G. Ivanov, who later became chairman of the VSEKhB, stated in the pages of Bratsky Vestnik that the fascists “closed all the churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, killed and tortured presbyters and preachers, and demanded that everyone accept their faith.“17 The brutal massacres and unheard-of, inhuman cruelty of the Hitlerites are universally known; nevertheless, such a statement by Ivanov, that the hated fascists were also persecutors of evangelical believers on purely confessional grounds, can hardly be considered objective.

One way or another, by the beginning of 1947, according to Zhidkov, the VSEKhB already included 3,000 congregations.18 (However, upon being released from imprisonment in the GULAG after Stalin’s death in 1953, a number of former leading workers among Evangelical Christians and Baptists did not recognize the October (1944) agreement, nor did they recognize the VSEKhB itself. For this reason, communities of “pure Evangelical Christians” and “pure Baptists” were formed, the majority of whom subsequently, in the 60s, merged into the association of the Council of Churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, dissolving into this schismatic trend).

The leadership of the Union of Evangelical Christians and Baptists (at M. I. Golyaev’s insistence, the word “and” was replaced by a hyphen from January 1, 1946, and confidence was expressed that “this step would deepen our unity and even further rally our ranks”) included ministers from both sides.19 From the Evangelical Christians — Ya. I. Zhidkov (chairman), A. V. Karev (general secretary), M. A. Orlov (deputy chairman and presbyter of the Moscow congregation), L. A. Andreev, and from the Baptists — M. I. Golyaev (deputy chairman), N. A. Levindanto, P. I. Malin (treasurer) and F. G. Patkovsky.20 In addition, a Statute on the Union of Evangelical Christians and Baptists was drawn up and a system of commissioners (later called senior presbyters) was adopted for the regions. A. L. Andreev was appointed the AUCECB commissioner for Ukraine, V. N. Chechnev for Belorussia, and N. I. Karnaukhov for the North Caucasus.21 The churches of Moldavia were headed by I. G. Ivanov, who had been released after hard labor on the Solovetsky Islands and on the construction of the White Sea Canal.22 After the liberation by the Soviet Army of the temporarily occupied territories, especially those of Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldavia, the Council for Religious Cults faced an urgent, pressing, and unavoidable question in 1944–1945: what to do with the communities of Christians of the Evangelical Faith in the liberated territories? (Incidentally, this Council was well aware of the facts of the destruction of many families of Evangelical believers by Ukrainian nationalists during the war).23

By the summer of 1945, the Council had information that in Ukraine alone there were 1,036 congregations in the fellowship of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, and within them 884 ministers, including: 441 presbyters, 219 deacons, 210 congregation leaders, 13 evangelists.24 In the fellowship of Seventh-day Adventists in Ukraine there were 106 congregations, and in them — 50 ministers, of whom 25 were presbyters, 5 deacons, 15 congregation leaders, 2 Bible workers, 1 evangelist, 2 preachers.25 Of course, this data was far from complete and was subsequently revised upwards many times.

The situation with the statistics of Pentecostal communities was even more difficult. The Council by the summer of 1945 “identified” only 180 communities, which had 178 ministers, including: 4 bishops, 114 presbyters, 37 deacons, 20 community leaders, 1 evangelist, which did not at all reflect the actual number of churches and ministers in Ukraine.26 (Later, in an information report by Vilkhovoy, addressed to Polyansky on August 26, 1947, classified “Top Secret,” it was reported that as of 1947 “as a result of the work done, up to 500 active CEChF congregations with up to 25,000 believers had been identified and registered in Ukraine”).27

An additional difficulty for the Soviet authorities was that within the USSR, within its post-war borders, there were churches belonging to various historically formed Pentecostal movements with their own distinct characteristics. In fairness, it must also be said that the apparatus of commissioners itself was created from scratch and began to function with much “squeaking.” Even much later, on August 26, 1946, Shevchenko, the commissioner of the Council for Religious Cults for the Zhytomyr Region, in his memo to Polyansky titled “On Identified Religious Communities That Have Not Passed Registration,” wrote about his difficulties as follows:

Having taken over the commissioner’s affairs, I found myself in a very difficult position. The files are in a chaotic state, it was extremely difficult to understand or sort anything out, there is no one to inquire from, the senior presbyter has been arrested, all his office papers were seized during the arrest. I had to re-check everything, which took a lot of time and energy. This work is not yet finished.28

Local Soviet and party bodies also looked upon the institution of Council commissioners with great surprise and incomprehension. The commissioner for the Voroshilovgrad Region, Likhovodov, wrote in his report that “leading responsible officials of the region think I am working temporarily, and some openly say: ‘The war is over – it’s time to put an end to religion.’”29

The Council for Religious Cults was also in poor shape with its personnel. Not to mention 1945, in the much more favorable year of 1952, according to the “Information on the Personnel of Regional Commissioners of the Council for Religious Cults,” which was written on June 30, 1952 by P. A. Vilkhovoy, the commissioner of the Council for Religious Cults for the Ukrainian SSR, all Council commissioners were men; all were party members. By education: only 4 had higher education, 2 had incomplete higher education; 10 had secondary education; 5 had incomplete secondary education, and two Council commissioners had primary education: F. T. Prokopenko (Volyn region), who completed three grades of a village school, and K. F. Gushchin (Stalino region), who completed a parish school. (Probably it was thought that he could therefore be an expert in the field of religion).30

Vilkhovoy delicately mentioned that it “would be desirable to send them for training.”31

Nevertheless, the newly formed apparatus energetically set to work.

The Council for Religious Cults on the Pentecostals

In the Central State Archive of the Supreme Bodies of State Power and State Administration of Ukraine, a secret letter was found from Sadovsky, Deputy Chairman of the Council for Religious Cults under the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR, addressed to P. A. Vilkhovoy, the commissioner of the Council for Religious Cults under the CPC of the USSR for the Ukrainian SSR. In response to the latter’s inquiry of February 20, 1945, Sadovsky wrote:

Regarding the issue you raised about the Church of Christians of the Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals), I inform you:

1. The Council for Religious Cults under the CPC of the USSR is currently studying the socio-political character of the said organization.

2. In the course of study, data has been obtained that a significant number of Pentecostal communities during the German occupation revealed their pro-fascist sentiments and were connected to the occupation authorities.

3. Pentecostals provided the highest percentage of those who refused to serve in the Red Army.

4. The episcopate was introduced among them on the instructions of the occupation authorities.

5. The practice of baptism by the Spirit among Pentecostals leads in practice to fanatical, dangerous, and extremely undesirable phenomena close to mass psychosis, reminiscent of Khlyst ‘raptures’.

Pentecostals have no All-Union center.

Henceforth, until the question of this organization as a whole is resolved, you should refrain from registering individual communities. Without dissolving the communities that actually exist, inform their leaders that the question of their registration will be decided later.

At the same time, I ask you to collect all materials available to you on this issue (requesting them also from the commissioners for the regions of the Ukrainian SSR) and report to the Council in a memorandum.

According to information available in the Council, in certain regions of the Ukrainian SSR, Pentecostal communities, abandoning the extremes of their ritual, are merging into communities of Evangelical Christians. The Council considers it possible not to hinder this unification.32

The collection of data in Ukraine was handled promptly. As early as 5 May 1945, by special report No. 103, the commissioner of the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults under the USSR Council of People’s Commissars for the Dnepropetrovsk region, Pavlov, reported the following data to Moscow and Kiev.

In Nizhnedneprovsk there is a community of Christians of the Evangelical Faith. Number of members – 39. It has 4 full-time choristers, whom the executive committee of the district soviet released from labor mobilization. I consider that such a community does not need so many full-time choristers; this is a way of evading labor duty.

The chairman of this community, in a conversation with me, stated that during every prayer meeting (underlined by the commissioner. – V.F.) several people ‘are filled with the Spirit’ and speak in foreign tongues.

I proposed that they submit all materials necessary for registration. They hold prayer meetings in a residential space. This must be prohibited. It is highly doubtful that in this area, heavily devastated by the fascists, they could find suitable premises. I have in mind, after receiving the written materials and the designated deadline, to dissolve this community if there are sufficient grounds.

I ask you to indicate through whom and how to formalize the dissolution of the community.33

Further in the same letter, Pavlov reports that in the city of Dneprodzerzhinsk, a community of Christians of the Evangelical Faith in 1942 occupied a vacant prayer building of a former synagogue. The executive committee of the city council of workers’ deputies then transferred this building to the community under a contract. Subsequently, a group of Jews submitted an application to the city council requesting the transfer of this building to them, since it had been built by the Jewish community. The city executive committee forwarded this application to Pavlov, who hypocritically proposed that the Jews initiate a petition to open a prayer building according to established procedure, not in order to support the demands of believing Jews, but to use it as a pretext to ‘evict’ the Christians of the Evangelical Faith from there.34

On 18 June 1945, the already known Pavlov, in a secret memorandum addressed to the commissioner of the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults under the USSR Council of People’s Commissars for the Ukrainian SSR, Vilkhovoy, reported, citing materials “obtained in personal conversations with Bishop Bidash, Bishop Ponurko, evangelist Taranenko, and certain leaders of communities of Evangelical Christians and Baptists and Christians of the Evangelical Faith.”

The CEF sect in Dnepropetrovsk region was formed in 1922‑23. Its organizer was Voropaev, who arrived from Odessa, and he had come there from America with documents from the Baptist society, a former tsarist officer. In the Dnepropetrovsk region his active assistant was G. G. Ponurko.

They recruited followers primarily from disgruntled members of the ECB, and later also added newcomers. They accept and baptize young people from the age of 14. Thus, in three communities of the Pyatikhatsky district, there are 7 pupils in grades 5‑7 of secondary schools. The total number of followers of this sect in the Dnepropetrovsk region (according to Ponurko) is about 1,800 persons, the number of communities over 50. In our region there are four bishops of the CEF.

During the German occupation, a regional center was organized and – in Dnepropetrovsk itself – an All‑Ukrainian center headed by Ponurko.

Earlier the center had been located in Odessa. The transfer from Odessa to Dnepropetrovsk is motivated by the fact that in Odessa there were Romanians. Obviously, the Germans were more favorably disposed toward this sect. (At present the centers have been dissolved).

They persistently and jointly carry out work to recruit new members. To this end, they practiced, and perhaps still do in some places, holding services in the apartments of believers. Thus, Bishop Bidash asked permission to organize prayer meetings at the homes of individual believers, at their request, with a choir and orchestra (the community has an orchestra).

Regarding the nature of prayer, there is a tendency to limit the manifestations of the ‘Spirit’s’ actions. Thus, in a number of communities, the ‘Spirit descends’ only twice a week, at members’ prayer meetings, and on other days, even if it ‘descends,’ the believer may restrain himself (which did not happen before) from the outward manifestation of the ‘action of the Spirit’ and not speak ‘in other tongues.’ However, in the Nizhnedneprovsk community, despite its small size (39 persons), according to the statement of its chairman, citizen Gavva, at every prayer meeting from one to five persons ‘are filled with the Spirit.’

In Pyatikhatki, under Bishop A. I. Bidash, there is a preacher Taranenko; he ‘receives grace’ to translate and interpret what is said by a believer during the descent of the ‘Spirit’ upon him, but only then ‘when it is pleasing to God.’ Presbyter Kirichenko stated that at a meeting of believers, Bishop Ponurko asserted that the coming of the Germans had been foretold by the ‘Spirit.’

The Pyatikhatki community under the Germans ‘saved’ one Jew by issuing him a certificate as a member of the community; but beforehand they baptized him. (Here it is necessary to substantially add that during the war years, the community in Pyatikhatki saved not one, but, as living witnesses say, 18 Jews – V. F.).

The protocol of the general meeting of members of the Dnepropetrovsk Central HVE Church, with the participation of the board of the All-Ukrainian Union of HVE Churches in Dnepropetrovsk, dated 22 November 1943, notes that believers were cheered by the slogans of the early years of Soviet power: “Replace the monarchy with a republic,” “Freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda,” “The Soviet republic is a refuge for all who are persecuted for their faith,” and others. It expresses confidence that the Soviet government henceforth “… will neither allow oppression of the people nor persecution of sincere believers…”.

Christians of the evangelical faith sincerely pray to God “that He henceforth grant (underlined by Commissioner Pavlov — V. F.) the Soviet government wisdom for governing the peoples.”

In general, the protocol expresses hope for a better future.

Point 1 of the resolution of the general meeting of 22 September 1943 reads: “To relate sincerely to the existing Soviet government and to support it in every possible way on the basis of the Word of God, not out of fear, but for the sake of a clear conscience.” Point 3: “To recognize military service in the USSR as a duty, i.e., an essential obligation for Christians of the evangelical faith.” Instances of refusal to bear arms did occur.35

Pavlov further writes, without much regard for logic, that “in any case, ministers of religion and a portion of community chairmen harbour a hostile attitude toward the Soviet government,” although he admits that “so far he cannot confirm it with concrete facts,” and also reports that Bishop G. G. Ponurko has been arrested, while Ponomarchuk, “bishop of the city of Dneprodzerzhinsk and certain districts,” has a seal and issues certificates.36

The Struggle for Legal Existence At this time, the senior ministers of the Pentecostal movement were doing everything possible to legalize their churches and their ministry. As it probably seemed to them, circumstances permitted this, since the legal activity of the Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists had, after all, been restored. A document with the telling title “The Sect of Christians of Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals-Shakers)” records the following from the Council for Religious Cults.

In 1930, members of the All-Ukrainian Council of the sect and a number of prominent figures were arrested for active anti-Soviet activity and exiled. From that time, the HVE sect in Ukraine went underground. In the month of April 1945, the sect’s leaders, Bishops Ponomarchuk, Shokalo, and Bidash, addressed the Council for Religious Cults under the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR with a declaration in which, declaring their loyal attitude to the Soviet government and unconditional recognition of the compulsory nature of military service with weapons in hand for members of the sect, they requested that the HVE sect be granted the right to legal existence and to convene an all-Ukrainian congress of the sect for the election of its governing bodies. At the end of April, they addressed the same declaration to the Council of People’s Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR. As a result of conversations with the sect’s leaders, they were told that their petition would be taken into consideration, and a final answer would be given after an examination of the essence and activity of the sect at the present time.

In connection with the petition of the HVE sect’s representatives for legalization, we issued a comprehensive directive to the regional commissioners of the Council to gather materials: on the sect’s line of conduct during the German occupation and at the present time; to identify the number of functioning communities in Ukraine; to register ministers of religion and facts of anti-Soviet manifestations by representatives of the sect.37

P. A. Vilkhovyi, the commissioner for religious cults in Ukraine, reported to Moscow that as a result of the work carried out, up to 500 operating HVE communities with a membership of up to 25,000 believers had been identified and recorded in Ukraine.38 The following is then stated.

In the course of studying the sect, it was established that during the German occupation, the sect’s leading figures, in return for certain concessions, obtained permission from the command of the German occupation forces for the sect’s legal existence. An Administration of the Episcopal Church of Christians of Evangelical Faith was created, comprising four dioceses: Dnepropetrovsk, Dneprodzerzhynsk, Kryvyi Rih, and Piatykhatky. However, since the arrival of Soviet troops in Ukraine, no instances of negative attitudes on the part of the sect’s believers and its leaders were, in the main, noted, with rare exceptions.39

In the same document, Vilkhovyi provides a very interesting detail: ministers of the Pentecostals in the western part of Ukraine also attempted to legalize their activity. He writes:

In early 1945, in the western regions of Ukraine, HVE representatives tried to restore their spiritual centre in the city of Lvov on a de facto basis. The leaders of this initiative were: Adamek, Ilchuk, Nikitchuk, and others. We dissolved the Lvov spiritual centre as having been unlawfully created.40

It is known that P. A. Ilchuk, A. V. Nikitchuk, and D. M. Adamek intended to carry on their activity only within the western regions of Ukraine, while the centre of the entire western Pentecostal brotherhood was located in Belarus, in Baranovichi, headed by I. K. Panko and S. I. Vashkevich. In the first months after the liberation of Belarus from German occupation, this centre was recognized by the Soviet authorities, was legalized, and carried on official activity. Certificates issued by this centre have even been preserved, bearing seals from the Soviet period and the signatures of Panko and Vashkevich.41

From the interrogation protocol of A. V. Nikitchuk in the Kiev prison on July 2, 1948, it is known that I. K. Panko and S. I. Vashkevich traveled to Cholnitsa in Volyn Oblast in the winter of 1945 (Cholnitsa was a fairly well-known place where, before 1939, Evangelical Christians held their congresses and conferences). Nikitchuk was invited to this meeting in Cholnitsa, where Panko and Vashkevich related that after the liberation of Belarus from the Germans they had carried out significant organizational work among Pentecostal communities, and that they had come to Western Ukraine to provide the same kind of assistance to the churches of Christians of the Evangelical Faith (KhVE) in Ukraine. Panko told them that he was officially the bishop of the Pentecostals of Belarus, that they had registered churches with the commissioners for religious cults, had established a governing center — a consistory of Christians of the Evangelical Faith — and had acquired the necessary stamp and seal for the consistory. He also introduced Vashkevich as his assistant and the secretary of the union.42

Panko also showed the necessary forms for registration, explained how they were to be filled out, and, in addition, explained that in order to register a community it was necessary to elect 20 founding members (the so-called “dvadtsatka”), who must sign the application and submit it to the commissioner for cults. Overall, the question was framed so that the communities of Christians of the Evangelical Faith in Western Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania would be officially united into a single Church of Christians of the Evangelical Faith with its center in Baranovichi, where the consistory was located.43

Then, accompanied by Nikitchuk, Panko and Vashkevich traveled to Lviv, where they held a similar meeting with the leaders of the Pentecostal movement in that region. This meeting, which took place in Voitovich’s house, was attended by D. M. Adamek, M. A. Sembay, Pushkar, and other ministers fairly well known among the KhVE. It is also known that all those present at this meeting unanimously approved Panko’s work and gave their full consent to unite into a common union with the KhVE churches of Belarus and Lithuania. A committee was formed to coordinate the work of the churches in Western Ukraine.44 P. A. Ilchuk was elected head of the committee, and D. M. Adamek and A. V. Nikitchuk were elected as his assistants.45 Some ministers in Ukraine, including P. A. Ilchuk and A. V. Nikitchuk, were issued special identity cards in 1945, certified by the signatures of Panko and Vashkevich and the seal of the spiritual consistory.46

The attempts of the Pentecostal movement’s leaders to secure the restoration of legal activity, however, yielded no positive result. Panko’s trips to Moscow were equally fruitless in this regard. The Soviet authorities’ opinion on this matter was unambiguous: the Pentecostals must not be allowed a union, and local Pentecostal churches must not be registered.

Here is what Vilkhovy writes to Moscow in his report.

During the period from April to August 1945, we twice summoned the leaders of the KhVE sect, bishops Ponomarchuk, Bidash, and Shokalo, for talks. In the course of the conversations with the KhVE episcopate it was established that there were no particularly serious dogmatic divergences between the doctrine of the KhVE sect and that of the ECB. On this basis they were asked to consider the possibility of a merger of functioning KhVE communities with ECB communities. The KhVE bishops did not object in principle to the merger, insisting, however, that this merger be only organizational in nature, so as to allow the KhVE communities to observe their rites of “foot washing” and prayers “in other tongues.”47

Vilkhovy could afford not to strain himself particularly, having only two meetings with the Pentecostal leaders — everything else was done by the local commissioners with the active assistance of the NKVD and other repressive organs, the methods of whose activity in that post-war year of 1945 are well enough known. Despite the many applications from the Pentecostals to register churches and to restore the activity of the Pentecostal union, the authorities’ decision was negative, and the only path proposed was complete merger and unification with the Evangelical Christians and Baptists.

The Evangelical Christians–Baptists and their leadership. The viewpoint of the Soviet authorities on Evangelical Christians and Baptists was officially formulated in state documents of the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults. In one of these, dated 1947, the following is stated in particular:

The Evangelical Christians grew out of Russian Dukhoborism and Molokanism. The founders and leaders of the Union of Evangelical Christians, such as Zhidkov and Andreev, are now the leaders of the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians–Baptists (VSEKhB). Andreev now works as a representative of the VSEKhB’s spiritual center in Ukraine.

Both the leadership and the main rank‑and‑file mass of Evangelical Christians–Baptists now stand on the position of defending the Soviet motherland with arms in hand.

According to the registration data of the VSEKhB, before the beginning of collectivization (1929) there were 6,500 communities throughout the USSR, with a total membership of up to 600,000. Approximately three‑quarters of these were in Ukraine. These figures were, perhaps, the highest for the Baptists and Evangelical Christians, since in the subsequent years the number of their communities began to decline sharply.

The Great Patriotic War, which brought a revival and a direct growth of religious sentiment, again greatly increased the number of members of Evangelical Christians–Baptists communities.

As of July 1, 1947, a total of 2,669 communities of Evangelical Christians–Baptists were registered throughout the USSR. Of these, 1,875 communities—that is, up to 70%—were located in the Ukrainian SSR, with a number of believers reaching 95,457. The ECB communities are deployed in the following oblasts:

Rivne Oblast — 203 communities, 13,038 believers
Kyiv Oblast — 193 —»— 8,764 —»— Kamianets Kharkivska — 86 —»— 5,164 —»—
Stalino — 84 —»— 5,654 —»—
Dnipropetrovsk — 79 —»— 5,801 —»—
Volyn — 77 —»— 6,091 —»—
Ternopil — 76 —»— 3,436 —»—
Zakarpattia — 75 —»— 2,122 —»—
Zaporizhzhia — 74 —»— 4,193 —»—
Chernihiv — 71 —»— 2,610 —»—
Kirovohrad — 69 —»— 3,167 —»—
Zhytomyr — 66 —»— 3,754 —»—
Chernivtsi — 56 —»— 2,610 —»—
Poltava — 56 —»— 2,711 —»—
Izmail — 50 —»— 1,751 —»—
Lviv — 48 —»— 2,060 —»—
Odesa — 40 —»— 1,449 —»—
Voroshilovgrad — 37 —»— 1,996 —»—
Kherson — 35 —»— 1,415 —»—
Mykolaiv — 33 —»— 1,791 —»—
Drohobych — 13 —»— 1,005 —»—
Stanislav — 9 —»— 382 —»—

Total: 1,875 communities, 95,457 believers 48

The war, of course, caused—and could not but cause—a rise in religious sentiment among the masses, especially in areas subjected to prolonged enemy occupation. When we compare the position of the religious organization shortly before the war with its position at the present time, a superficial observer would conclude that we are dealing with a rapid new growth and flourishing of religious sentiments. In reality, such a conclusion would be deeply mistaken. There is, in fact, no particular growth or flourishing. There is only a revival of what existed before collectivization, before the start of the first five-year plan.

In the final count, across the regions of Ukraine, the number of currently registered communities is lower than it was at the beginning of 1944. While according to the archive of the spiritual centre of the AUCECB in Ukraine there were 2,174 functioning ECB communities in 1944, now in 1947 there are 1,875 registered.

It is difficult to give a total number of believers before the revolution or before 1933 or before the start of the war, since almost no records on this question have been preserved in the archives. But some data have been obtained for individual regions. For example:

1. In Kherson Oblast before the revolution there were 20 communities of Evangelical Christians-Baptists.
   Before 1933 — 28 —»—
   During the occupation — 61 —»—
   Currently registered — 35 —»—.

2. In Chernivtsi Oblast: before the war the ECB and ASC communities numbered up to 5,000 believers. While in 1944 the total number of believers in these communities was up to 900, in 1945 it rose to 2,000, and in 1946 it reached 4,004, i.e. a 100% increase over 1945; but relative to the pre-war figure—we have only a revival of what existed before.

3. Chernihiv Oblast before 1933 had 60 ECB communities, and now 69 are registered.

4. In Rivne Oblast before 1933 there were 181 communities, and now 203 are registered.

5. Volyn Oblast before the war had 113 communities, and now 77 are registered.

6. In the former Ekaterinoslav Province before the revolution there were 380 sectarian communities in total, and now separately in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast 79 ECB communities are registered, and in Zaporizhzhia Oblast — 74.

7. Within the boundaries of Kirovohrad Oblast before the revolution there were 54 sectarian communities, and now 69 communities.49

The same document stated that “the organisational structure in the church before 1944 was more ‘democratic,’ and, unlike the former structure, the present structure ‘puts the presbyter body at the forefront, as the main leaders not only of spiritual life but of all other life in the communities, thus approximating in this case the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church.’”50

As of 1 October 1947, throughout the ECB church there were:

Presbyters (governing) — 1,867
Senior regional presbyters — 25
Assistants to senior presbyters — 9
Senior presbyter of the AUCECB for the Ukrainian SSR — 1
His assistants — 3 51

Such an organisational structure of the AUCECB, to which the Council for Religious Cults and the special services had, of course, seriously lent a hand, indeed facilitated the control over the church that was exercised by the state authorities. Therefore the Council for Religious Cults noted with satisfaction:

The present structure completely eliminates the vague “democratism” in the sect regarding questions of leadership, placing in the hands of the senior presbyter of the AUCECB for the Ukrainian SSR, the regional presbyters, and the presbyters of communities the fullness of authority in all questions of the life and witness of the communities, thereby facilitating the selection of appropriate presbyteral cadres and the regulation of their activity by the commissioners of the Council for Religious Cults.52

As for the portrait of church ministers and the mode of church life, it was presented in the following way:

With few exceptions, ECB ministers have no special theological education and in the majority consist of collective-farm peasants (in rural areas) or artisans and office workers (in urban communities), who combine the role of minister with work on the collective farm, at an enterprise or institution—which distinguishes them from professional clergy of other faiths (Orthodox, Catholic, etc.). Out of 1,217 presbyters, only 316 had completed so-called Bible courses. Over 90% of presbyters have only elementary education.53

Many of the presbyters were on territory occupied by the Germans during the Patriotic War, and the question of their conduct and political profile is being studied.

Thus, the presbyter of the ECB community in the village of Bashuki, Vyshnivets district, Ternopil Oblast, Husak, in 1945, under the guise of a religious-patriotic event, collected foodstuffs for parcels to the Red Army. With the help of district and party-Soviet organisations, Husak obtained a railway carriage for these foodstuffs and intended to send it to Sukhobezvodnaya station for… imprisoned sectarians.54

The overwhelming majority of presbyters lead sober, modest lives and, while working on the collective farm, at an enterprise, or institution, constantly associate with the masses and influence them by their personal example. Many of the presbyters are fanatics of sectarian doctrine.55

The Dnipropetrovsk ECB community has a well-equipped prayer-house, and among the furnishings of this community there was for a time a special podium with steps for children 6–7 years of age. From this podium (which we have since removed), little children declaimed passages from the Bible, spiritual poems and songs.56

In the Lanovsky district of the Ternopol region, a presbyter organized a water baptism for those newly joining the sect; 15 presbyters took part and up to two thousand onlookers were present.

In Kyiv in 1945, ECB congregations baptized 40 people, and the Council’s representative recommended conducting the baptism on the other side of the Dnieper, away from populated areas and public roads. However, the leadership of the congregations violated this instruction and held the baptism in the central part of the Dnieper, in a busy place, which attracted up to 2,000 curious onlookers.51

The presbyter of the church in Rava-Russkaya invited not only widows and orphans but also Red Army soldiers and officers of the local garrison to the harvest festival and the “love feast.”

In the village of Salikhi, Tarashcha district, Kyiv region, the ECB religious community placed its activists in key sectors of the collective farm in order to carry out individual work… Out of 703 collective farm members, 125 people have already been recruited into the religious community. Of these, 59 joined during 1946–47. There was a club in this village, but for some reason it was recently closed by the district department of cultural and educational institutions.

The party group of this village has 6 members and the Komsomol organization has 12, but they carry out no mass political work among the population apart from political campaigns. During 1946–47, not a single young person was admitted to the Komsomol, while the sectarians during this same period admitted 18 people into the religious community.

Material assistance to those in need is one of the means of religious propaganda used by the Evangelical Christians–Baptists. Revushchiy, who leads the ECB congregation in the village of Varenki, Letichev district, Kamenets-Podolsk region, collected 8 kilograms of flour from the members and gave it as aid to a disabled veteran of the Patriotic War. In the village of Maidan-Alexandrovsk, in the same region, presbyter Matkovsky periodically collects foodstuffs and money from believers to help the needy, including non-members of the congregation. For example, Yulia Maskalenok, who has 3 children, was given 30 kg of bread and 1 meter of linen; Anna Tzelyuk received 200 roubles, etc.58

It is hard to suspect the Council for Religious Cults of any sympathy for any religious organisations whatsoever, since their complete elimination in the future (depending on circumstances, within the shortest possible time!) was precisely the ultimate goal of the Council’s work in the overall context of building a communist society in the USSR, where no place for religion was intended. Yet even these documents, which present a more or less objective picture of the churches of the Evangelical-Baptist confession, show that even in those horrific conditions the churches lived and survived, laboured and overcame, doing everything possible in those circumstances and preaching the holy Gospel. The churches were not broken; in them, in the local churches, practical spiritual life was concentrated. Such a church was fully capable of withstanding the relentless and powerful pressure of the atheistic state.

A problem, a very serious problem, was artfully created by the widespread network of state organs within the church itself — a gradual removal from leadership of people sincerely devoted to God, to God’s commandments, to the church and the brotherhood, and their replacement by compliant, regime-obedient, spineless, uninitiative,* weak individuals. Most often the authorities speculatively appealed to their civic, patriotic feelings, demagogically confusing the very concepts of love for the Motherland (which, as a citizen, one must love) and loyalty to the totalitarian regime (which, as a citizen, one must oppose!). If that was insufficient, the powerful repressive apparatus of the state was at hand, thanks to which many thousands of church ministers received “additional clarification” on how to “love the Motherland.” For the most steadfast, the “additional clarifications” could be repeated many times: until complete breakdown or death.

Not everyone endured. Many even of those long-standing, recognised and honoured workers among Evangelical Christians and Baptists, whom the whole brotherhood knew, resorted to cunning and manoeuvring. Some simply became apostates and Judases while hypocritically continuing to be leaders. Some obediently carried out the authorities’ demands — and it was precisely through their hands that any spiritual life in the church was to be strangled. Some sat in prisons. Some dried rusks in expectation that they would come for them.

Only God’s judgement will justly put everything in its place. Let us not be judges — the Lord has not given us this right. Today, when archives with secret documents are being opened, when what was hidden becomes revealed, for you cannot hide an awl in a sack, when the terrible truth comes to light — let us not be judges. It is easy today, in conditions of complete freedom and wellbeing, to pass judgement on the actions of people who lived in those cruel circumstances of a totalitarian state. Who knows what our own actions might have been if we had lived in that time?!

By the way, the new time is testing our faithfulness in another way and by other means. May the Lord help us to remain faithful to Him and His commandments in the time of freedom! Who can say which trials are harder — under conditions of persecution or under conditions of freedom? Perhaps one day historians will write about our time — and about us too… It is not given to us to judge. But we need to know how it was.

It was like this: the mighty and ruthless Soviet state machine broke or bribed religious leaders. Documents bearing Vilkhovoy’s signature speak of this as well.

VSEKhB Chairman Zhidkov came from Moscow to Kiev on this issue, visited us at a reception, and promised to send out an “Appeal to All ECB Communities” calling for a decisive restructuring of the communities’ work. “In many communities,” the appeal states, “and among their leaders, an unhealthy tendency is currently observed, namely: a pursuit, if one may put it that way, of breadth of work, a pursuit of numbers of members, which manifested itself, for example, in last summer’s mass baptism campaigns… The spiritual nurture of believers, their deepening in the knowledge of Christ and God’s Word, not a pursuit of large numbers, should take first place in all our spiritual work, and so on.”

In view of the fact that in a number of cases the forms and methods of ECB religious activity went beyond the limits permitted by Soviet legislation on cults, the commissioner of the Council for Religious Cults under the Council of Ministers of the USSR for the Ukrainian SSR, through the VSEKhB senior presbyter in Ukraine and the senior presbyters of regions, has been and is carrying out the following measures to regulate the activity of Evangelical Christians-Baptists:

1 . Measures have been taken to eliminate all social work by ECB communities among women, youth, and children (special meetings, circles, youth festivals, concerts, matinees, Christmas trees, free meals, distribution of gifts, participation of minors in choirs, music circles, and the like are prohibited). In Transcarpathia and the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR, the elimination of these forms of ECB religious propaganda is being carried out with due regard for local conditions, but also sufficiently firmly and consistently.

2 . Water baptism of new converts to the sect is carried out in strictly designated locations, remote from populated areas, at early hours and on days determined by the community in agreement with the commissioner of the Council for Religious Cults. Now VSEKhB Chairman Zhidkov, in his article “Our Water Baptism,” published in the “Bratsky Vestnik” No. 5, 1946, has warned believers: “It must be said that baptism in the open air has many inconveniences, since in that case it becomes a spectacle for the curious… Therefore, VSEKhB has given direct instructions to the leaders of our communities: during baptism, not to arrange large processions to the place of baptism. It is indicated that baptism should be performed early in the morning in the most secluded places… and it is necessary to go there in small groups… the service connected with baptism, i.e., appropriate sermons, singing, and prayers, may be conducted by the church in the prayer house after the baptism…”

3 . Only persons who have reached the age of 18 may be members of the sect (upon receiving water baptism).

4 . Formation of choirs and string orchestras is permitted only within the given prayer building and from members of that community. Trips of choirs and orchestras to other communities are not allowed, nor is the participation of children and underage youth in choirs and orchestras permitted.

5 . Community presbyters serve only the community in which they are registered by the commissioner of the Council for Religious Cults. Travels to preach in other communities are not permitted. The senior presbyters of a region and the republican senior presbyter of VSEKhB are allowed to visit already registered communities along routes agreed upon with the commissioner of the Council for Religious Cults.

6 . Sermons at prayer meetings are delivered only by a registered presbyter and, in especially exceptional cases, by a trained believer at the direction and under the responsibility of the presbyter. On this issue, VSEKhB has already sent out a circular to localities. This circular is of great significance in limiting the number of speakers at prayer meetings.

7 . “Harvest festivals” are permitted to be held only within the community itself (the prayer building) and only for members of that community, without inviting outsiders.

8 . Any material assistance to needy community members from church funds is prohibited.

9 . Regional commissioners of the Council for Religious Cults have been instructed to categorically suppress any missionary work by ordinary community members (door-to-door visiting of those of other faiths, distribution of Bibles, hymn books, etc.).

10 . With the aim of stabilizing and gradually reducing the number of Evangelical Christian-Baptist communities: а) lease agreements for privately owned houses for prayer meetings must be concluded for a term of at least 3–5 years; б) in regions with a large number of communities, small communities are merged into one large community provided they are at a close distance from one another (3–8 kilometers). Thus, a number of regional commissioners of the Council, through regional presbyters, have already closed 326 ECB meeting points; в) when considering the question of opening a new ECB prayer house, the location of the nearest already functioning prayer building, situated within a radius of up to 20 kilometers, is taken into account; г) the sanitary-technical and fire-prevention requirements for buildings in which the opening of ECB prayer houses is proposed have been significantly increased by regional commissioners of the Council for Religious Cults.

11 . With regard to presbyters, VSEKhB has adopted a policy of gradually converting them into professional ministers of religion, released from work at enterprises, institutions, or collective farms, with the costs of their maintenance assumed by the community.

12 . Regional commissioners of the Council for Religious Cults were recommended to draw up a map of the spread of religious cults across regions. Such a map could give a visual representation of the cults in a region and suggest to regional organizations where and what measures to take in order, in accordance with political expediency and within the framework of the law, to localize the activities of religious organizations as much as possible and limit their influence on the masses.

13. It is desirable that the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the CP(b)U clarify to the heads of party organizations of educational institutions that children of sectarians or other similar persons must not be expelled from educational institutions; on the contrary, persistent, patient propaganda of a scientific materialist worldview should be conducted with them, which under current conditions is the surest means of combating religious prejudices and superstitions.

It should only be noted, however, that despite the instructions of its religious center (the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, AUCECB) on the inadmissibility of any violation of Soviet legislation on religious cults, violations still occur in some ECB communities, primarily due to weak control over the activities of religious societies by certain authorized officials of the Council for Religious Cults.

Some regional authorized officials of the Council for Religious Cults take incorrect steps, seeking to directly influence the rapid reduction of religious activity in the region. For example, the authorized official for Rovno region, Comrade Voloshkevich, writes that he “contacted the secretary of the Rovno regional committee of the Komsomol in order to outline measures for district Komsomol organizations to carry out appropriate work in villages affected by sectarianism, with the aim of drawing young people away from the church and involving them in public life.”

Given such an incorrect line, the authorized official will be deprived of his main capacity — regulating the activities of representatives of religious centers, since the authorized official will be discredited in the eyes of these representatives.

In connection with this situation, we explained to the Council’s authorized officials that their functions must be much more subtle and therefore, in the final analysis, much more incisive. Moreover, by turning into a mere appendage of cultural-enlightenment bodies (and an appendage that will gradually and very quickly lose its significance and value), the Council’s authorized official loses his specific capacities. We explained that various information obtained by the authorized official in the course of his work to regulate the activities of religious organizations can and must be used by leading Soviet and party bodies, but with the utmost caution, so that such use does not disrupt or hinder the main work and does not discredit the authorized official in the eyes of the representatives of religious cults.59

The language spoken by Vilkhovy and the language spoken by the leaders of the AUCECB were, of course, different languages with different vocabulary. It is all the more surprising that they spoke in unison. One can only marvel at how skillfully the AUCECB packaged things, even resorting to the Bible — the very things that Vilkhovy and those like him, with soldierly straightforwardness, frankly and crisply formulated in the crude language of conquerors. Attention should be paid to exactly how the same ideas look in the colorful “packaging” of the AUCECB’s Christian vocabulary in the article by Ya. I. Zhidkov, which the Bratsky Vestnik (Brotherly Herald) published at the beginning of 1948.

The numerical composition of the communities has not remained unchanged. Last year there were additions of new members through baptisms.

Thus there was an increase in communities. But compared with previous years — 1945–1946 — such baptisms were significantly fewer. This is explained not by a decline in zeal in the work of the churches, but by a serious warning that the AUCECB gave to the presbyters of local churches: to treat the reception of new members with extreme caution, admitting to water baptism not only people convinced of their regeneration by the Holy Spirit, but also those tested in their practical Christian life, sufficiently nurtured and prepared for joining the church. Otherwise, a hasty reception might be followed by a hasty expulsion from the community, which would only bring disgrace to the glorious teaching of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Good instructions were given that work in the communities should be carried out not so much in breadth as in depth, as it is said: “He dug and went deep.”

In 1947 there were cases of consolidation of our communities of such a nature that one large community was created from two small, neighboring communities. In such a case it is easier for believers to maintain their prayer room and, when necessary, their ministers — the presbyters.

Brotherly supervision of our communities and their meetings has revealed the great zeal with which believers attended and continue to attend their services. Often in advanced years, in inclement weather, these souls devoted to God travel several kilometres to the place of their beloved gatherings. There they rest their souls and offer thanksgiving to God.

We have tried to link presbyters more closely with their communities, so that they abandon the practice of some — to travel to other communities or to places where there are no communities at all in order to conduct ministry. Their task is not missionary work, but pastoral work. They are obligated to shepherd the local church, to live and to be burdened by its needs. And how many needs there are in the church itself, among all its members! Here is visiting, here is exhortation, admonition, and proper conduct of services. The church must receive correct spiritual upbringing. All presbyters must remember that they are not only instructors but also fathers in Christ, to whom every member of the church can come to unburden his soul; that they have not been given dominion over God’s heritage, but to set an example for the flock. Their holy task is to watch carefully that no bitter root, springing up, causes trouble, that no wolf infiltrate the community, or that foxes and little foxes do not spoil the shoots of God’s vineyard. We have seen many presbyters and desire to see them in the future as those who shepherd God’s flock that is among them, “overseeing it not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly” (1 Peter 5:2).

Some things in this passage may still sound and look quite correct and plausible even today. Pastoral ministry, of course, involves oversight, first and foremost over the flock. It is only necessary to bear in mind that in the language of the Council for Religious Cults, as well as the leadership of the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists (VSEKhB), the word “oversight” had a very specific meaning — to watch, control, and prevent any attempt at reviving that very flock, to prevent the revitalization of the local church, which was being increasingly driven into a corner.

In an informational report on the work of the authorized representative of the Council for Religious Cults under the USSR Council of Ministers for the Ukrainian SSR for October–December 1948, Vilkhovyi reports to Moscow, “top secret”:

This year, in our recommendations to the spiritual center of the VSEKhB in Ukraine, represented by senior presbyter Andreev, we pointed out the categorical necessity for him to take decisive measures aimed at regulating the conduct of the presbytery in the matter of unswerving compliance with the law on cults. On our recommendation, senior presbyter of the VSEKhB for the Ukrainian SSR Andreev sent out a special letter to the localities forbidding and withdrawing from circulation all poems that lacked the corresponding permission of the spiritual center.61

And so that the voiceless “flock of God” could not even raise its voice in defense of itself or of the truths of the church’s order, they tried immediately to fit a bridle of “church discipline” over its mouth. This, too, was eloquently spoken of on the pages of Bratsky Vestnik in an article by Ya. I. Zhidkov titled “Church Discipline.”

Some may object to this, saying that those were apostolic instructions, whereas here we have instructions from our brothers, albeit the senior ones among us; therefore, the instructions of our brothers may be criticized, we can take them more lightly, and we do not always have to carry them out. These instructions can be ignored, since it is not the Lord who is speaking, nor His apostles, but our brothers.

All of us believers must firmly remember that the VSEKhB and its workers are the most authoritative and competent in deciding church issues. When giving various instructions to its congregations and workers, as well as to its members, the VSEKhB prayerfully aligns those instructions with the Word of God before the Lord. Therefore, the VSEKhB is confident that all believers will continue to receive its instructions with good disposition and will render the necessary obedience, which will serve for the good of the Lord’s cause.62

The thunder will roll in 1961, when many believers will indeed give their assessment of how, what, and with whom the VSEKhB aligned itself when giving its instructions. But back in that distant, not yet even post-war, but semi-war year of 1945 — such was the brotherhood of evangelical Christian-Baptist churches and such was the leadership of the church union into which Christians of Evangelical Faith would be “driven,” with the same methods of influence and pressure applied to them and to their ministers — the “carrot and stick” methods.

The August Agreement From August 18 to 25, 1945, an important conference was held in Moscow in the prayer house of the Moscow Evangelical Christian-Baptist congregation, at the address: Maly Vuzovsky Lane, building 3. Besides the leaders of the VSEKhB, it was attended by delegations of Evangelical Christians and Baptists from Estonia and Latvia, as well as representatives of the Pentecostals — namely, I. K. Panko, S. I. Vashkevich, D. I. Ponomarchuk, and A. I. Bidash. Of these, Panko and Vashkevich represented Christians of Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals from the western regions of Ukraine, Lithuania, and Belorussia), while Ponomarchuk and Bidash represented Christians of the Evangelical Faith, as the Pentecostals in Eastern Ukraine customarily called themselves. (Also present, without any official authority or status, was S. I. Marin, a preacher of Christians of Evangelical Faith from Moscow, who was later destined to play a significant role in convening the illegal congress of Christians of Evangelical Faith in Dneprodzerzhinsk in 1948.) Each delegation met separately with representatives of the VSEKhB. For six days debates and theological discussions went on, and on August 25, 1945, the so-called August Agreement on the unification of Christians of Evangelical Faith and Christians of the Evangelical Faith with the VSEKHiB was signed. The August Agreement was signed on behalf of the VSEKHiB by — Zhidkov, Karev, Golyaev, Orlov, Andreev, Levindanto, Ivanov. On behalf of the former All-Ukrainian Union of Christians of the Evangelical Faith (KhEV) it was signed by Bidash and Ponomarchuk; on behalf of the former All-Polish Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith (KhVE) — by Panko and Vashkevich.63 The official report of this meeting especially emphasizes that all decisions were adopted unanimously. As a result of this conference, the Pentecostals of the Soviet Union, as well as the Baptists and Evangelical Christians of the Baltic republics, entered the All-Union Council. At a reception given by I. V. Polyansky, the chairman of the Council for Religious Cults, for the delegations of Latvian and Estonian Baptists, as well as the Pentecostal representatives, the guests thanked Polyansky for helping them solve the transportation problem and reach Moscow, as well as for providing them with housing and food during their stay in the capital.64

Later, according to official estimates, 25,000 Pentecostals, united in more than 400 congregations, joined the VSEKhB. At the end of 1947, A. V. Karev stated that the majority of Pentecostals in Ukraine and practically all Pentecostals in Belorussia had entered the union.65

The so-called August Agreement — the main document that would (at least theoretically) regulate relations between Evangelical Christians-Baptists and Pentecostals in the united union until the formal departure of the latter from the VSEKhB in 1989 — is given here in full.

Agreement on the Unification of Christians of Evangelical Faith with Evangelical Christians and Baptists into One Union.

1 . Congregations of Christians of Evangelical Faith are united with congregations of Evangelical Christians and Baptists into a single union.

2 . The united union shall have a common leading center in the city of Moscow and also a single treasury.

3 . The leading center shall also include representatives of Christians of Evangelical Faith.

4 . Spiritual workers of Christians of the Evangelical Faith remain in the spiritual offices they held prior to unification with the Evangelical Christians and Baptists, i.e., senior presbyters, presbyters, and deacons.

5 . Both sides recognize that the empowering from on high spoken of in Acts 1:8 can occur either with the sign of other tongues or without the sign of other tongues (Acts 2:4; 8:17, 39; 10:46; 19:6).

6 . Both sides recognize, on the basis of Holy Scripture, that different tongues are one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, bestowed not on all, but on some (1 Cor. 12:4–11). This is also confirmed by verse 30 of the same chapter: “Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?” Both sides recognize that an unknown tongue without interpretation remains unfruitful, as the Apostle Paul clearly states: 1 Cor. 14:6–9; 1 Cor. 14:28 — “If there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church.” Both sides regard this as a rule given by the Lord through the Apostle Paul.

7 . Taking into account the above words of the Apostle Paul about the fruitlessness of an unknown tongue in the absence of an interpreter, both sides have agreed to refrain from unknown tongues in public gatherings.

8 . Recognizing that alongside the working of the Holy Spirit in meetings there may also be manifestations leading to a violation of the propriety and order of worship (1 Cor. 14:40), both sides have agreed to carry out educational work against such phenomena, remembering that God is not a God of disorder but of peace (1 Cor. 14:33).

9 . In view of the fact that Evangelical Christians and Baptists do not practice foot-washing, this agreement recommends that Christians of the Evangelical Faith, for the sake of unity and uniformity of worship order, conduct educational work aimed at reaching a common understanding with Evangelical Christians and Baptists on this matter.

10 . Both sides shall take all measures so that the most sincere brotherly relations may be established between Evangelical Christians and Baptists, on the one hand, and Christians of the Evangelical Faith, on the other, to mutual joy and blessed joint work.

11 . After signing this agreement, both sides shall notify their congregations of the accomplished unification and call for a prayer of thanksgiving for the great and glorious cause of unity of all kindred-in-faith Christians of our country.

66 The August Agreement outwardly appeared sufficiently acceptable, yet the following documents quite eloquently reveal the true intentions of the Soviet authorities and show exactly how they planned to carry out the unification of these evangelical movements. It is appropriate to quote these documents in full.

Secret

September 15, 1945

To the Council for Religious Cults under the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR, Comrade FILCHENKOV

Copy: to the authorized representative of the Council for Religious Cults under the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR for the Ukrainian SSR, Comrade VILKHOVOY

On September 10 of this year I had a conversation with Ponomarchuk and Bidash, who had returned from the conference in Moscow. They are very pleased with the reception in Moscow and feel themselves to be victors.

They informed me about the course of the negotiations, then explained the text of the agreement. They consider the acknowledgment that prayer in the spirit and in other tongues corresponds to Holy Scripture to be their victory. They did not concede; rather, others agreed with them.

The clause recommending refraining from praying in other tongues in the absence of an interpreter is interpreted by them as a temporary restriction, since, if necessary, God will also grant the gift of interpretation.

Point 8, which recommends refraining from praying in other tongues at public prayer gatherings, is interpreted as follows: public gatherings are “outreach” gatherings, where one should refrain. But at present they largely refrain at these gatherings anyway.

Members’ meetings are not public gatherings, therefore the clause on refraining does not apply to these meetings.

They agree that one should be taught, at such gatherings and in the absence of an interpreter, to pray “for oneself and for God,” i.e., in a low voice (a very indefinite term).

On the question of foot-washing, the agreement states that educational work should be carried out, but it does not indicate its direction. And they are thinking about how to arrange it so that not all members of the united congregation attend this procedure, but only the KhEV, i.e., once again to separate the KhEV.

They tried to avoid the questions of prophecy in the conversation, although they affirmed that it occurs at the present time.

They envision the future of EKhB and KhEV as follows: some members of KhEV will stop praying in the spirit and speaking in other tongues, while some members of EKhB will understand, believe, and receive such grace. Everyone will understand that according to the Gospel “not everyone is given to pray in the spirit and to prophesy” (almost verbatim from Ponomarchuk’s words).

The agreement on organizational matters is explained as follows: all significant KhEV communities remain as they are, with their own ministers of religion, while small groups of KhEV and EKhB unite into a single congregation.

Both Ponomarchuk and Bidash had already explained this question at meetings in their congregations before my conversation with them. In a number of districts alarm is already beginning among the EKhB: the KhEV are advancing.

When registering EKhB congregations, I had in mind (presupposing a merger in one form or another) to pour the members of KhEV into already registered congregations with registered EKhB presbyters. Those that could not be joined physically or which, in case of unification, threatened to absorb EKhB congregations, were to be left independent.

In this I proceeded also from such considerations (apart from prophecies and the like) that, whereas no complaints had been received about the EKhB attitude toward work, in five leading KhEV congregations avoidance of work had been established.

Given such an interpretation of the agreement, I anticipate serious resistance from the EKhB and conflicts in the future.

Ponomarchuk and Bidash came to me regarding the registration of their congregations and permission for water baptism. “The government recognizes us. We were summoned to Moscow. What obstacles can there be here?”

I proposed to them: 1) To submit an application to the executive committees of the district soviets for permission to baptize. 2) To wait for registration until I receive clarification on the results of the conference. 3) Without the representative of the AUCECB and without my knowledge, no work on unification should be carried out. Only prepare their own congregations in the spirit of drawing them and the Evangelical Christians and Baptists (ECB) closer together.

The AUCECB representative Melnikov went to Andreev.

Authorized Representative of the Council for Religious Cults attached to the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR for the Dnepropetrovsk Region, Pavlov 67

To the above letter by Pavlov, a reply soon followed from Moscow with the following content.

Secret

September 24, 1945

To the Authorized Representative of the Council for Religious Cults attached to the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR for the Dnepropetrovsk Region, Comrade PAVLOV

Copy: To the Authorized Representative of the Council for Religious Cults attached to the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR for the Ukrainian SSR, Comrade VILKHOVOI

Re No. s/244 dated September 15, 1945

The Council for Religious Cults attached to the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR responds to your questions:

1. Your stance regarding the upcoming registration of Pentecostals as merging into Evangelical Christian and Baptist congregations is entirely correct. Nevertheless, before registering the religious societies and presbyters of the united societies, you must obtain from the AUCECB representative for your region appropriate confirmation that the members of the given society have indeed been informed of the decisions of the expanded AUCECB conference and have expressed a desire to merge with the Evangelical Christians and Baptists.

Registration of these reorganized societies of Evangelical Christians and Baptists, their executive bodies, and presbyters should be carried out in accordance with the Instructions for authorized representatives of the Council for Religious Cults, under the name “Evangelical Christians and Baptists,” and when registering a congregation’s presbyter, preference should be given to an ECB presbyter.

In cases where a populated area has two or more different congregations, with a sufficient number of members and prayer buildings, one should not strive at all costs to merge them into one, with a single prayer building. One should also take into account the potential capabilities and influence of the congregations; in those cases where there is a clear threat of the Pentecostals absorbing the ECB, it is necessary to refrain from merging such congregations.

2. Regarding those Pentecostal congregations where you have identified cases of failure to appear for work on collective farms and in production, motivated by religious considerations, before registering such congregations, you should speak with the senior presbyter, pointing out the inadmissibility of such phenomena, demanding special explanatory work, and warning him that congregations that do not wish to correct the behavior of their members and disrupt production activities will be dissolved.

3. The stance of the former Pentecostal leaders Ponomarchuk and Bidash on the interpretation of the agreement requires decisive correction. The Council recommends that you directly tell them that they are not only sabotaging and undermining the decision of their center but also directly violating the relevant order, which prohibits any closed meetings, thereby putting their congregations at risk of immediate dissolution.

4. On the question of foot washing, the agreement states quite clearly that since the ECB does not have the custom of foot washing, it (the custom) should also not exist among the Pentecostals. No separate meetings of Pentecostals apart from the ECB should be allowed.

For a more precise orientation on the agreement, a copy of the agreement itself is enclosed.

On the progress of further work on the merger of Pentecostals and any new questions that may arise in this connection, inform the Council.

Deputy Chairman of the Council for Religious Cults attached to the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR, Sadovsky 68

The Soviet state’s position regarding the Pentecostals was increasingly being defined, which found expression in documentary formalization. It seems that the final dots over the “i” were placed by a directive of the Council for Religious Cults of the USSR, which, signed by the Chairman of the Council I. V. Polyansky, was sent under the classification “Top Secret” in September 1945 to all authorized representatives of the Council for Religious Cults attached to the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR for the republics of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

Here is the full text of this directive without abridgement.

The Council for Religious Cults attached to the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR reports that from August 20 to 29 of this year, an extended conference of the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians and Baptists (AUCECB) took place in Moscow, with the participation of representatives of Christians of Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals) and representatives of Evangelical Christians and Baptists from the Estonian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian SSRs and the Latvian SSR.

At the initiative of the AUCECB and on the basis of proposals submitted by it, the Conference considered two organizational issues: 1) the merger of Christians of Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals) with Evangelical Christians and Baptists into one union, and 2) the unification of Evangelical Christians and Baptists of the Estonian, Lithuanian, and Latvian SSRs with all Evangelical Christians and Baptists of the USSR into a single Union, with a governing center in the form of the AUCECB in Moscow.

These questions were resolved positively. The Presidium of the AUCECB has already announced the decision to all societies of Evangelical Christians and Baptists by a special letter, a copy of which is enclosed for your guidance.

This decision lays the foundation for serious and painstaking work, which must be carried out in its implementation in the practical life and interrelations of the societies. The presence of fanatical attitudes and the specific nature of the milieu will undoubtedly cause friction and difficulties, which will have to be overcome by a tactful and flexible, yet at the same time sufficiently firm, approach in the implementation of individual concrete measures.

In practical work, you must take the following into account:

1 . All work on the merger of Christians of the Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals) with Evangelical Christians and Baptists locally is carried out by presbyters of the VSEKhB, who have instructions on this matter from the presidium of the VSEKhB. You should keep in mind that active opposition to the implementation of the decision may come from a number of Pentecostals, which could lead to a split and the formation of groups that could unite on the basis of rejecting the said decision. Such attempts must be tactfully prevented, and assistance should be given to the commissioners and presbyters of the VSEKhB in their work.

2 . Moreover, one should keep in mind that a formal outward agreement with the decision, but refusal to implement it in substance, is not excluded; therefore you must carefully study the sentiments of the Pentecostals who have joined. It is necessary to monitor whether all the joined Pentecostals truly agree with the decision of the enlarged meeting of the VSEKhB, whether they will observe the order existing among Evangelical Christians and Baptists at prayer meetings, and whether they will try to influence Evangelical Christians and Baptists regarding the development of their own rites. In the process of preliminary examination and verification of believers’ petitions, all these questions must be clarified in detail, so as not to register societies that essentially continue to remain former societies of Pentecostals.

3 . Signals received from the commissioners of the Council who have already begun implementing the merger decision record attempts by Pentecostals to circumvent the main provisions of the decision and use it exclusively for their own purposes by maneuvering. Thus, in Dnepropetrovsk region, Ponomarchuk and Bidash, who themselves participated in the enlarged meeting of the VSEKhB, are directing their communities: a) to refrain from praying “in other tongues” only at “public,” i. e. open prayer meetings, but this prohibition does not apply to “members’,” i. e. closed (?!) meetings; b) not to completely abandon the foot‑washing rite, but to hold it at separate Pentecostal meetings; c) many Evangelical Christians and Baptists, under the influence of “more spiritual” Pentecostals, will also soon “pray in the spirit” and speak “in other tongues.”

Such actions and such orientation must be immediately and vigorously suppressed, by directly telling the former Pentecostal leaders that they are not only sabotaging and wrecking the decision of their center, but also directly violating the existing order, under which no closed meetings are permitted, thereby placing their communities under threat of immediate dissolution.

4 . Before registering religious societies and presbyters of united societies, it is necessary to obtain from the VSEKhB commissioner for your republic (region) a corresponding confirmation that the members of the given society have indeed been acquainted with the decisions of the enlarged meeting of the VSEKhB and have expressed a desire to merge with Evangelical Christians and Baptists.

Registration of these transformed societies of Evangelical Christians and Baptists, their executive bodies, and presbyters must be carried out in accordance with the Instruction for commissioners of the Council for Religious Cults Affairs, under the name “Evangelical Christians and Baptists,” bearing in mind when registering Pentecostal communities that they are joining the ECB communities. In the matter of registering the presbyter of the community, preference should be given to the ECB presbyter. In cases where there are two or more different communities in a locality, having a sufficient number of members and prayer buildings, one should not at all costs seek their merger into one, with one prayer building. The potential capabilities and influence of the communities should also be taken into account; in cases where there is a clear threat of the Pentecostals absorbing the ECB, it is necessary to refrain from merging the communities.

5 . Considering that the merger agreement has been concluded only between the leaders of the ECB and Pentecostals, that the attitude towards the merger among the masses of both ECB and Pentecostals is still subject to careful study, and that the prospects for the merger and the percentage ratio between communities that have united and those that have refused to unite may become evident only some time after practical work has been carried out, it is necessary to refrain for the time being from decisive actions involving the dissolution of Pentecostal communities as a whole that have refused to merge with the ECB. It is necessary to exert tactful influence on the leaders of such communities and to leave them temporarily, pending clarification of the issue as a whole, in their previous position, i. e. not to register them, but also not to dissolve them. Such communities should be studied with particular attention, and data about them should be reported to us at the Council for Religious Cults Affairs under the SNK of the USSR after one month, in order to receive further instructions.

6 . There are signals that especially among Pentecostals, cases have been recorded of failure to appear for work on collective farms and in production, motivated by religious considerations. (That is, on Sundays and on days of Christian holidays. — V. F.) Before registering communities infected with such sentiments, it is necessary to speak with the senior presbyter, pointing out to him the inadmissibility of such phenomena, demanding that special explanatory work be carried out, and warning that communities that do not wish to correct the behavior of their members and that disrupt production activities will be dissolved.

7 . It is necessary to assist the senior presbyter of the VSEKhB in traveling throughout the republic and region in order to hold appropriate meetings of religious societies, at which the decisions of the enlarged meeting of the VSEKhB must be explained. Under no circumstances should any conferences of presbyters and representatives of Christians of the Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals) for the republic or region be permitted to discuss the decisions of the enlarged meeting of the VSEKhB.

8 . All seals, stamps, and letterheads that have been used up to now by the leaders of active Pentecostal societies must be confiscated through the senior presbyters. The confiscated seals, stamps, and letterheads must be handed over to the commissioner of the Council according to an inventory.

Regarding the entry of the unions of Evangelical Christians and Baptists of the Estonian, Lithuanian, and Latvian SSRs into the jurisdiction of the AUCECB, the Council for Religious Cult Affairs finds it necessary to note that the unification took place after overcoming some resistance from the leaders of Evangelical Christians and Baptists in the Baltic republics, especially the Baptists of the Latvian SSR (Rise and Laceklis). This resistance may also manifest itself in the practical implementation of the decision at the local level, taking the most diverse forms.

Therefore, you should:

1. monitor on a daily basis the attitudes of members and leaders of Evangelical Christian and Baptist societies throughout the entire republic and in each community individually;

2. continue the registration of religious societies of Evangelical Christians and Baptists on the basis of the Instruction for commissioners of the Council for Religious Cult Affairs, taking into account their attitude toward the decision on unification and the practical implementation of this decision by individual communities;

3. until the arrival of the AUCECB commissioner for the Baltic region, N. A. Levindanto, no official meetings should be permitted regarding the decision of the enlarged AUCECB conference. Levindanto has been appointed AUCECB commissioner for all three Baltic republics: the Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian SSRs, with his place of residence in the city of Riga.

The Council for Religious Cult Affairs requests that one month after receiving this letter, you inform it by means of a special report on the progress of the merger of Christians of the Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals) with Evangelical Christians and Baptists, and on the unification of the Evangelical Christians and Baptists of the Estonian, Lithuanian, and Latvian SSRs with the Evangelical Christians and Baptists of the USSR. In your letter, provide a detailed and comprehensive account of the attitudes of believers regarding the merger. Pay special attention to specific facts and statements of believers and presbyters—both positive and negative.69

First Results of the Unification In the correspondence of commissioners, one often encounters the statement that “as a result of negotiations at the AUCECB plenum, an agreement was concluded on the merger of KhEV communities with EKhB communities, on the condition that members of the KhEV sect abandon the rites of ‘foot washing’ and ‘praying in other tongues’” and that “on the basis of this decision, from November 1945 the practical merger of KhEV communities with existing EKhB communities began.”70

Soon, reports from the localities began to arrive. Local commissioners for the regions, disciplinedly following the instructions of their superiors, reported that “the materials at their disposal indicate that the decision on unification was met differently by believers of the KhEV sect.”71 The majority of Pentecostal communities located in the Odessa, Vinnytsia, Volyn, Chernigov, and Voroshilovgrad regions “have a negative attitude toward the liquidation of the KhEV sect.”72

Thus, for example, in the Chernigov region, leaders of a number of KhEV communities declared that they “regard the decision on unification with distrust and categorically object to the abolition of praying ‘in other tongues’ and the rite of ‘foot washing.’” In the Voroshilovgrad region—in a number of districts where large KhEV communities functioned (village of Mikhailovka)—church members categorically refused to join the EKhB communities and insisted on preserving their customary forms of worship. The minister of the Mikhailovka community, I. K. Khlipovka, in a conversation with the regional commissioner, stated: “The believers have authorized me to tell you that they do not recognize as KhEV representatives the bishops Ponomarchuk and Bidash, who attended the united meeting, because no one authorized them to agree to the abandonment of prayer in other tongues and foot washing at the breaking of bread.”74

The commissioner for the Vinnytsia region reported that the KhEV church in the city of Vinnytsia, numbering 46 people, “under the influence of its leadership, is extremely reluctant to accept the unification, insisting on the preservation of the rites of ‘foot washing’ and ‘speaking in tongues.’” The leadership of this community sent several telegrams to Ponomarchuk inviting him to come for clarification. Most of the large KhEV communities existing in the region refused to merge with the EKhB.75

The Council for Religious Cult Affairs commissioner for Ukraine, Vilkhovy, wrote irritably to Moscow that “some ministers of the cult and communities of the KhEV sect have taken a wait-and-see position and are in fact not carrying out the unification. They explain this position by the lack of sufficiently complete information about the negotiations that took place in Moscow on unification, and they are awaiting the arrival of participants of the Moscow meeting, bishops Ponomarchuk and Bidash, for personal negotiations.”76

In the Lviv region, out of 33 Pentecostal communities known to the authorities, only 11 accepted the decision on unification; the rest continued to wait for detailed explanations. The commissioner for the Lviv region complained that senior presbyter Adamek was hindering the reunification, declaring: “It is not we who should join the AUCECB, but they—to us. The name of our sect must be written on the common sign, or the word ‘Baptists’ must be crossed out, leaving ‘Evangelicals,’ otherwise the believers will not accept the unification.”77

In the Rivne region, the recognized leader of the churches of Christians of the Evangelical Faith, P. A. Ilchuk, cautiously told the commissioner: “We will see how things turn out; we must talk with the brothers who were present at the meeting in Moscow.”78

In the Izmail region, as the local commissioner wrote, “most leaders of KhEV communities consider the decision on unification a ‘veil’ needed to obtain legal existence, and they view unification negatively. In most communities, the order of ‘prayers’ has remained the same. The KhEV community of the city of Izmail accepted the conditions of unification with the EKhB, but, having been registered, continues the former order of prayer. Similar facts have been recorded in the communities operating in the villages of Dolzhilery, Kora-Makhmet, Shagany.”79

In Dnepropetrovsk region, as Commissioner Pavlov wrote, “certain ministers of the CEF sect, having formally joined ECB communities, secretly continue to support opponents of unification, using ‘prophetesses’, ‘interpreters’ and the like for this purpose. In the Pyatikhatki community, Bishop Bidash gathered his most devoted female supporters and arranged a prayer meeting that included ‘praying in tongues and in the spirit’.”⁸⁰ The overall conclusion characterizing the present moment was drawn by P. A. Vilkhovy: “A part of CEF communities formally agreed with the decision of the AUCECB plenum and is even registering their communities under the name ECB, yet in practice they continue to perform the rites of ‘foot washing’ and ‘speaking in other tongues’ at their religious gatherings.”⁸¹ Early in 1946, Vilkhovy reported to Moscow:

Sectarian children, when attending school, seek on their parents’ instructions to draw their schoolmates to prayer houses, first to choir practice and then to prayer meetings. During singing lessons at school, sectarian children do not join in singing Soviet songs. According to the statement of the school headmistress Beletskaya (village Petropavlovka), she is powerless to involve sectarian children in the school choir circle for performing Soviet songs, since this is categorically forbidden by their believing parents.

Activity by Pentecostals seeking to instil their fanatical doctrine in children has been recorded. In the village of Diviziya, Tuzlov district, Izmail region, members of the local Pentecostal community train children in “conversing in various tongues”. In the village of Tatarbunary, in the same district of Izmail region, Pentecostals hold so‑called “rush hours” – a special striving for the divine – drawing children into this form of work?’ (Presumably, “zealous meetings” are meant – V. F.)

At the same time he considered it a great success of the Soviet authorities’ work that “in a number of regions of Ukraine, believing communities of the CEF sect willingly agreed to the merger and formalized it. By 1 January 1946, 91 communities that had fully merged with ECB communities were registered, with up to 4,500 believers.”⁸³

In the journal Bratsky Vestnik No. 2 for 1946, published by the AUCECB, in the section “On the Fields of Our Brotherhood’s Work”, a report by S. I. Vashkevich was placed, as follows:

On 23 November I had a conversation in Pinsk with the brothers on the matter of our accomplished unification. I am glad that the decision was accepted by the brothers with willingness and a promise to carry it out. During this time I visited Olshany, Khoromsk, Davyd‑Horodok, Lakhva, Luninets, Pinsk and other localities where our communities exist. The registration of our communities is proceeding well. Everywhere I had blessed meetings.⁸⁴

In the same issue of Bratsky Vestnik, in the section “Day of Unity”, cheerful reports of universal rejoicing in the united brotherhood were presented. Here are some of them:

Dneprodzerzhinsk. Senior presbyter and AUCECB member, Brother D. I. Ponomarchuk reports: “Your letter about the unity of God’s children was read by me at our gathering. (Note – In the meeting of the community of Christians of Evangelical Faith). The community members listened to the letter with great joy and unanimously agreed to hold a solemn meeting, which took place on the evening of 27 October. During the meeting, sermons on the unity of God’s children on earth were delivered, the choir performed several hymns. At the close of the meeting, fervent prayers were offered to God, in which believers asked the Lord to strengthen our Union and make it inseparable forever. I very much regret that this feast I passed without the participation of members of the local Evangelical Christian–Baptist community, as the leading brother of that community was absent at the time. Our community sends you warm greetings in Christ’s love.”⁸⁵

Batumi. The presbyter of the community, Brother Shakin, reports: “The Day of Unity passed blessedly among us. Brothers and sisters from the community of Christians of Evangelical Faith were present at the celebration. God’s work is noticeably strengthening. We ask you to remember us in prayers.”⁸⁶

Kokchetav. Brothers from the community report: “We also invited brothers and sisters of Christians of Evangelical Faith to the feast of the unity of God’s children. The meeting was overcrowded. We joined this feast with the Harvest Festival. Sisters prepared a common meal. At the meeting much was said about the unity of believers; we sang and prayed. The Lord wonderfully filled our hearts with grace.”⁸⁷

Apsheronsk. From the community they report: “We were very glad to receive from you the notice in which you inform us of the accession of the churches of God in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as communities of Christians of Evangelical Faith, to our Union. The Day of Unity, 27 October, was a day of triumph and unity of believers. The Lord blessed our meeting, and two souls gave themselves to the Lord.”⁸⁸

Maikop. The presbyter of the community, Brother Beskrovny, reports: “We rejoiced at your message about the accession of believers from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, as well as Christians of Evangelical Faith, to our Union. On 27 and 28 October we held meetings on the theme of the unity of His people.”⁸⁹

In passing I wish to note that the last two churches are well known to me – in the early 1970s our family lived in Apsheronsk, Krasnodar Territory, from which Maikop was a stone’s throw away – 40 kilometres. Sometimes I attended the AUCECB church in Apsheronsk – and to this day I retain the kindest memories of the hospitality and openness of those brothers and sisters. My father was a close friend of that church’s presbyter, Konyukhov; I regularly went to the youth meetings that they wisely held in homes. Once my father took the initiative for our entire unregistered Pentecostal church, which he led, to visit the AUCECB church in Maikop on the feast of Pentecost, where a splendid choir sang. This was, I think, in 1973. The whole church agreed, everyone geared up for the feast. Alas, the feast never happened.

I do not wish to question the sincerity of Presbyter Beskrovny, who in 1946 may indeed have rejoiced at joining the Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith, but the Trinity Sunday of 1973 I remember forever (I was 14 at the time) because from the pulpit, interspersed with truly splendid choir singing, incessant insults were hurled at Pentecostals, whose teachings were simply publicly vilified and ridiculed. One preacher mocked Pentecostals who ask God for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, saying that begging for gifts was simply shameful — after all, young people don’t beg for gifts at a wedding! To me, a 14-year-old boy, it occurred then — had that man ever begged the Lord God for the gift of salvation for himself… We felt simply spat upon; it was pitiful to look at my father. Nevertheless, we courageously sat through to the end.

When the service ended, we couldn’t leave unnoticed — ordinary, rank-and-file church members, learning that we were Pentecostals from Apsheronsk, invited all of us home for dinner, so that we “would not faint on the way.” And they were not at all like their arrogant preachers.

People are very different. Both believers and unbelievers.

Only the Lord knows the measure of truth and sincerity in the following statements from the pages of Bratsky Vestnik:

From June 23 to 26 (1947 — V. F.) conversations were held with small groups of presbyters summoned from various regions; in these conversations many practical and organizational questions were resolved. It was joyful to hear that in the Rivne region 102 Pentecostal communities had joined our Union and now sincerely strive for full unity with the brotherhood of Evangelical Christians-Baptists.90

With gratitude to the Lord we witnessed the joyful report of former Pentecostal leaders — brothers D. M. Adamek, M. A. Sembay, L. F. Romanov, and others — that with a deep awareness of the Lord’s will and His ways they had entered into fellowship with the entire brotherhood of Evangelical Christians-Baptists and have a sincere desire to strive together with it for the evangelical faith. In the Lviv region there are 56 registered communities, among which 32 are communities of former Pentecostals.91

In the village of Bashuky we met with a well-known worker among Pentecostals — brother Porfiry Avtonomovich Ilchuk. Brother Ilchuk enjoys great esteem among Christians of the Evangelical Faith, but until now he has worked independently. He agreed to travel to the town of Chertkov to meet with brother Andreev. In Chertkov his conversation with Andreev took place, during which brother Ilchuk gave his consent to join the Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists.92

Surely it was a good and rare opportunity — for both the Council for Religious Cults and the AUCECB — to use the credit of trust of Pentecostal believers, who might have hoped that Soviet power had become somewhat different after the war, that the cruel persecutions and repressions of the 1930s would never be repeated. But the “ears” of Soviet power were noticeably sticking out, and even Vilkhovy understood that well, complaining about some commissioners for their inability to work with believers. In particular, he mentioned that “Comrade Novikov (Poltava region) belongs to the category of such commissioners, who, apart from everything else, does not even wish to deal with work on cults as the situation demands. He has not yet gotten rid of the habits of working as chairman of the UMA (Union of Militant Atheists — V. F.) and does not want to reconcile himself with existing legislation regarding cults.”93 It is clear how the former chairman of the Union of Militant Atheists carried out his work as commissioner of the Council for Religious Cults in the Poltava region. It is not surprising that instances of wild outrages by local authorities occurred all over the country. Some of them, due to their extreme savagery, became known even to Vilkhovy.

On January 26, 1946, in the village of Mazenintsy, V. Polovetsky District, Kyiv Region, “the chairman of the village council, S. M. Kostenko, entered the prayer meeting of believers of a registered church and, using foul language, took away service books, tore evangelical texts from the wall, overturned a water tank, and with a knife in his hands rushed at the presbyter of the community, but was restrained by community members.”94 In the village of Nechaevka, Cherkassy District, the chairman of the village council, Kryuchkov, entered the home of the believer T. F. Gerashchenko. Seeing evangelical texts on the wall and portraits of Marx, Engels, and Stalin, Kryuchkov shouted: “Why do portraits hang next to evangelical obscurantism?!” and tore them from the wall and threw them on the floor. (The portraits had been purchased by Gerashchenko’s husband, a party candidate, before the war; during the German occupation his wife had hidden them and hung them up again when the Red Army arrived.) After the outrage in the Gerashchenko apartment, Kryuchkov summoned community leader N. F. Filinenko and “ordered him to remove the portraits of leaders from the believers’ apartments.”95

In the Ternopil region, by order of the chairman of the Pochayev district executive committee, “two prayer houses were arbitrarily closed and confiscated from ECB communities.” The MVD inspector Nikitin, who carried out the closure, “in the presence of the presbyter and believers, threw all the cult property out into the street.”96 Similar incidents occurred in the Stalin, Zhytomyr, and Chernihiv regions.97

The head of the agitation and propaganda department, Seleznev (city committee of the CP(b)U of the city of Krasny Luch, Voroshilovgrad region), summoned presbyter Boyko of the ECB church and demanded that written sermons be submitted for verification and approval. In case of refusal he threatened arrest and closure of the church.

Boyko replied that “we do not write sermons, we speak from the Bible.” Then Seleznev demanded that Boyko hand over his Bible for checking, which was done.98

At the same time, truly strange incidents also occurred, which Vilkhovy also reported.

During the preparatory work for elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, there were instances where local party and Soviet organizations used ministers of religious cults as agitators to conduct mass work among the population. For example, in the Vishnevetsky, Pochaevsky, and Dedarkalsky districts of Ternopol region, 9 sectarian presbyters worked as agitators. In the village of Belets, Klevan district, Rovno region, the deputy chairman of the Klevan district executive committee for personnel, Davydov, summoned Karsky, the presbyter of the local ECB community, and told him that he had appointed him secretary of the village council. 99

(By the way, about “sectarian agitators”. The journal Bratsky Vestnik in 1946 published an article titled “Trip to the Transcarpathian region of the Ukrainian SSR by General Secretary of the AUCECB A. V. Karev and AUCECB representative for Ukraine A. L. Andreev”, in which these spiritual leaders recount:

On Friday, February 8, early in the morning we set off for Uzhgorod.

Until February 10 there was no point in going anywhere. We decided to fulfill our civic duty—participation in the elections—in Uzhgorod. On Saturday, February 9, we attended a service at the Greek Catholic church. In terms of solemnity, the Uniate service is far inferior to the Orthodox one, and if not for the powerful singing of about 50 young seminarians, it would have been very modest. After the service we went to Brother Khasich. He invited us to take part in the Methodist church service on Sunday morning. We agreed. That evening in our hotel we listened on the radio to the historic pre-election speech of J. V. Stalin.

On Sunday, February 10, in the morning we went to the Methodist church meeting. There we preached with translation into Hungarian.100

Such things were law-abidingly described in his article “My visit to communities in Astrakhan, Saratov, Stalingrad” by yet another AUCECB member—M. I. Golyaev.

At the end of the evening meeting, I reminded all brothers and sisters that tomorrow, that is, February 9, is the election to the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. I advised them, even before the start of the morning meeting, to fulfill their civic duty to the country, i.e., to take part in the voting, so that later they would be free to participate in the worship services. The next day early in the morning we—me and the family of the brother with whom I spent the night—went to the polling station and cast our votes for the candidates of the Soviet people.101 According to the law, voting was possible until 12 o’clock at night, but in the land of the Soviets, everywhere and by all means, a show was created that the Soviet people were so impatiently rushing to the polling stations to vote for the “candidates of the Soviet people” that on the only free day off they were crowding at polling stations long before 6 o’clock in the morning. The AUCECB staff also contributed to this. Are they not agitators, then?)

In his report to Moscow, speaking about how the unification of Pentecostals was proceeding, Vilkhovy frankly wrote verbatim the following:

The participants of the AUCECB plenum, bishops Ponomarchuk and Bidash, who signed the agreement on the merger of the sects, at first in their communications to religious communities tried to present the merger agreement as a forced measure, of a purely organizational nature, thus bypassing the main points of the merger agreement.

With the aim of improving the situation, we summoned Bishop Ponomarchuk to Kiev and in a conversation with him about the reasons for the extremely slow pace of the merger of the sects, we established that: a) Ponomarchuk believes that the practical implementation of the merger agreement should be carried out gradually, provided that extensive educational work is first conducted among the believers. b) The merger should affect only small groups, while large communities should continue their independent existence. c) CEF ministers who headed large communities should remain in their positions, organizationally subordinating to the ECB leadership.

In the conversation, we pointed out to him the incorrectness of his interpretations of the meaning of the merger agreement, the groundlessness of his claims, and advised him to join in active work on the merger of the sects. We warned him that if he continued this line of behavior, we would consider the concluded merger agreement a mere diplomatic move on the part of the CEF, undertaken to obtain legal existence. 102

There is nothing new in the application of the well-known “carrot and stick” policy. It was applied this time as well, which Vilkhovy also unashamedly reported to Moscow as follows:

At the same time, we advised the representative of the ECB sect for Ukraine, senior presbyter Andreev, to invite Ponomarchuk to take up permanent residence in Kiev, offering him the position of his assistant.

Ponomarchuk accepted with great satisfaction Andreev’s proposal to appoint him as assistant to the representative of the ECB sect and began to gradually change his line of behavior, shifting to the position of unconditional fulfillment of all points of the merger agreement. Recently, Ponomarchuk has actively joined in the work of merging ECB communities. With his active help and assistance, the majority of CEF communities functioning in the Dnepropetrovsk region self-liquidated and merged into ECB communities.103

Vilkhovy would later speak very highly of Dmitry Ponomarchuk’s work in the Vinnitsa region, saying that “as a result of his work, 52 communities have already accepted the agreement and merged with ECB communities.104”

In a completely different way, Vilkhovy characterizes Afanasy Bidash, saying of him that “Bishop Bidash, a participant in the meeting on the union of sects, continues to occupy the position of supporting the formal unification of sects. Having been effectively removed from the leadership of the CEF community in the town of Pyatikhatki as a result of its merger with the ECB community, Bidash, with a small group of his personal adherents, continues to hold prayer meetings at his apartment with ‘foot-washing’ and ‘speaking in other tongues.’”¹⁰⁵ Another document reports that “Bishop Bidash, a participant in the AUCECB plenum who signed the union agreement, tried in his reports to religious communities to present the union agreement as a forced measure, purely organizational in nature, thus bypassing the main points of the union agreement. In connection with this, we demanded from the spiritual center (i.e., AUCECB—V.F.) the removal of Bishop Bidash from work, and he was removed.”¹⁰⁶

Along the way, it should be noted that through the hands of the AUCECB leadership, ministers of Evangelical Christian‑Baptist churches were also removed left and right if, from the viewpoint of the authorized representatives, they failed to show “sufficient loyalty” to the state regime. For example, on November 15, 1946, in his informational report to Moscow, Vilkhovy wrote:

Presbyter Dubovik expressed dissatisfaction that believers were allegedly pursuing a wrong line by entering into agreements with the authorities. The church, he says, is separated from the state, so what are the lists and reports for? The AUCECB authorized representative Andreev instructed senior presbyter Dmitriev to remove presbyter Dubovik from ministry.¹⁰⁷

In the same report, Vilkhovy objectively wrote about what the prayer houses of evangelical believers were like and what their daily life consisted of:

The sectarians carefully see to the observance of cleanliness and order in the house of prayer. The prayer building is painted, kept clean; one can see care and concern for the growing trees, the paths are sprinkled with sand, the benches and chairs are repaired and arranged in a certain order. The windows have clean little curtains and flowers. On the wall hang excerpts from Holy Scripture, written in large, clear letters. They are written so that even a barely literate person can easily read and remember them.

There is no cursing here, no smoking; they sing decorously, rest, exchange “greetings,” hold “heartfelt conversations.” Here there is an opportunity to sing a solo, to read aloud a passage from the Gospel or a “composed” verse, to preach and “draw the attention of the brothers and sisters present.” And this is not so difficult, especially since there is no fixed order of service and one can improvise “as God lays it on one’s heart.”¹⁰⁸

The portrait of church ministers also looked quite positive.

In Kiev Oblast, for the most part, authoritative production workers have been appointed to the office of presbyter. Thus, for example, in the village of Krasnaya Zvezda, Buksky District, the presbyter of the ECB community is the collective farmer Fedor Ivanovich Tsvintarny. In 1946 he completed 400 labor‑days. His cow is constantly engaged in collective‑farm work. Following Tsvintarny’s example, the members of this community also turned out for work.

The collective farmers treat Tsvintarny with respect as a model collective farmer.¹⁰⁹

However, on the spiritual path of the “model collective farmer,” the collective‑farm chairman nevertheless stepped in, deciding to fight religion by administrative means. He forbade Tsvintarny from holding prayer meetings and confiscated his documents on the community’s registration. “Having learned of this,” Vilkhovy conscientiously reports “to the top,” “even unbelieving collective farmers began to protest, and the collective‑farm chairman lost his authority.”¹¹⁰

There were worse things in the lives of believing collective farmers.

The Authorized Representative of the Council for Kiev Oblast, Zaretsky, reports the following in his report for the third quarter of 1946:

“In the village of Semenovka, Lisyansky District, the district police officer Nemchenko, entering the premises of the prayer meeting of the local Seventh‑day Adventist community during worship and firing a pistol, dispersed the worshipers, took away the service books, and handed them over to the collective‑farm storehouse for safekeeping. He seated the community presbyter and the woman who owned the house where the prayer meeting was held next to the house and, aiming a revolver at them, threatened to execute them for counter‑revolution….”¹¹¹

And here is, verbatim, the boastful report of the Authorized Representative of the Council for Vinnitsa Oblast, Shumkov, dated December 10, 1946, which, for a modern person who has to some extent tasted freedom and democracy, will probably sound like the incredible ruthless barbarity of the dark Middle Ages.

The following incident occurred in the village of Zhezhelevo, Komsomolsky District. Within a short period, five children of presbyter Gross Trofim died; doctors recognized meningitis. On June 22, the presbyter gathered other people’s children and young people. There were 53 persons from the village of Gurovets, 7 km away, 15 from Kozyatin, 15 km away, 8 from Pyatigorka, 14 km away, 9 from Berdichev, 4 km away, from the villages of Skakovka and Khmelnik, 24 km away—13 persons, and from the Singur community, which includes Zhitomir—6 persons.

The community secretary, Khomyak Ekaterina, was in charge. Some community members read verses of encouragement, sang, and read corresponding passages of Holy Scripture on the theme “Comfort in Sorrows.”

Gross asked permission from the village council.

Senior presbyter Yakovenko knew nothing and only learned about it when Comrade Chepurov informed him.

I disbanded the community; the prayer house is temporarily closed.

I demanded the removal from service of presbyter Gross Trofim.¹¹²

Any commentary on this report by Commissioner Shumkov is difficult to make, and probably unnecessary.

Print, save, PDF letter

Related articles

1. V. Franchuk. The Authorities and the Judases Are Herding Pentecostals into the AUCECB APPEAL TO FORMER CHRISTIANS OF THE EVANGELICAL FAITH Dear brothers and sisters in Christ! God’s peace be with you!…
2. V. Franchuk. Senior Presbyters of the AUCECB In the summer of 1946, Andreev, the senior presbyter of the AUCECB for Ukraine, drafted his circular letter “To…
3. V. Franchuk. The Authorities and Their Dogs—the Judases—after the 1948 Congress in Dneprodzerzhinsk The events surrounding the underground congress in Dneprodzerzhinsk and the condemnation of its participants led some local officials…
4. V. Franchuk. Christians in the Spirit of the Apostles (the “Oneness” Pentecostals) and the AUCECB Christians in the spirit of the apostles By the August Agreement both sides recognized that the baptism in the Holy Spirit…
5. V. Franchuk. The Resistance of the Odessa Church to the AUCECB The Church of Evangelical Faith Christians in Odessa It was precisely at the time when in the USSR, in every possible way and by every means…
6. Throughout all 70 years of its existence, the Soviet authorities persecuted believers, seeking their complete annihilation. Throughout all 70 years of its existence, the Soviet authorities, waging a struggle against religion and carrying out anti-religious propaganda, declared…
7. V. Franchuk. Stalin Died, but His Work Continued Less than a month remained before Stalin’s death. Secret documents attest that on February 10, 1953, the commissioner…
8. V. Franchuk. The Church in Western Ukraine and Belarus in 1944 and until August 1945 upon the Return of Soviet Rule In 1944 the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia was liberated from German-fascist troops. The spiritual…
9. V. Franchuk. The Harlotry with the Authorities of AUCECB Head Yakov Zhidkov In 1947 a round anniversary of the October upheaval was marked. In the “Bratsky Vestnik” there was published…
10. V. Franchuk. The 1948 Congress in Dneprodzerzhinsk: Pentecostals Break with the AUCECB Internal Doctrinal Struggles within the United Congregations In accordance with the directives of the USSR government, the AUCECB leadership’s orientation was aimed…
11. V. Franchuk. The United Church of Evangelical Faith Christians and Other Pentecostals in the 1990s The United Church of Evangelical Faith Christians Until the end of the 1980s, the fellowship of unregistered Evangelical Faith Christians’ churches, despite their illegal…
12. The Work with the AUCECB of Ponomarchuk, Ponurko, and But in Dnepropetrovsk Oblast In 1949 only two issues of the “Bratsky Vestnik” appeared. The last issue was virtually entirely devoted…