V. Franchuk Senior Presbyters of the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists

August 22, 2011 · Adam Bondaruk, Baptists, Victor Belykh, AUCECB, Persecution, Interview, KGB, Books, Unregistered Pentecostals, Nikolay Kotyakov, On Emigration, United Church of Evangelical Christians, Vestibule, Petr Saenko, Pentecostals, Religious Mafia, Slavik Radchuk, Contemporary Persecution, Security Services

In the summer of 1946, the senior presbyter of the AUCECB for Ukraine, Andreyev, wrote a draft of his circular letter “To the ECB Communities” and quite “law-abidingly” submitted it for “approval” to the AUCECB in Moscow. This letter was completely innocent, but the “Moscow brothers,” according to the established procedure, took it for “approval” to the Council for Religious Cults. Just a few days later, by secret mail to Kiev, addressed to Vilkhovy, there flew an angry order from the deputy chairman of the Council, Sadovsky, with the following content:

August 13, 1946 Secret
The Council for Religious Cults under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, having familiarized itself with the draft of Andreyev’s letter “To the ECB Communities” dated July 31 of this year, No. 802, considers it necessary:

Completely remove from the “Letter” the entire part relating to the trip of Andreyev and Golyaev to Sweden and Finland. In the next issue of the magazine “Bratsky Vestnik” an appropriate information piece about this trip will be given.
Do not indicate in the “Letter” the number of ECB communities in Ukraine.
Regarding “Harvest Festivals,” certainly indicate that these festivals are held only for members of the community and within the confines of the prayer building, and, of course, not simultaneously throughout all of Ukraine. A mandatory condition is also the absence of any urgent production assignments, disruption of which in connection with the “Harvest Festival” is inadmissible.
Corresponding clarification regarding Andreyev’s “Letter” has been given to the AUCECB, where he sent the draft of his “Letter.”113

Thus, the Council for Religious Affairs sought to “classify” even the number of communities in Ukraine and the nature of the AUCECB’s international ties. Andreyev began to show some independence, and this now seemed dangerous and impermissible.

On December 24, 1946, a meeting of the Council for Religious Cults under the Council of Ministers of the USSR was held in Moscow. The agenda contained only one issue. At this meeting, a report by the Council’s commissioner for the Ukrainian SSR, P. A. Vilkhovy, titled “On the State and Activities of Religious Cults on the Territory of the Ukrainian SSR” was heard. The surviving transcript indicates that Vilkhovy began his speech with a joking statement that “Ukraine is rich in everything, including cults.” There certainly were grounds for such a statement—the bulk of evangelical churches in the former USSR were located on the territory of Ukraine. Naturally, it was expected that the rich experience of the “Ukrainian comrades” would be borrowed for application in other republics.

During the discussion of Vilkhovy’s report, the head of the Council’s department, V. G. Sokolov, stated the following regarding the state of affairs in Ukraine:

It must be said that Andreyev “deteriorated” after the trip to Sweden. He let himself go, became unhinged, having seen the “democratic” ways in Sweden, and overestimates his strength. Perhaps it will be necessary to raise the question of another worker for the AUCECB in Ukraine, if in the near future Andreyev does not change his policy and practice.

Regarding the “Khevs.” According to the latest information, there are still 192 communities of “Khevs” in the Ukrainian SSR that have not merged with the ECB. It seems to me that Comrade Vilkhovy has a correct line: to raise the question of merging with the ECB directly with the communities, bypassing the leaders of the “Khevs,” with whom the Council has been dealing for a long time.114

In his concluding remarks, the deputy chairman of the Council for Religious Cults, Sadovsky, under whose direction the aforementioned meeting was held, spoke, in particular, in well-understood Aesopian language:

We must note a definite line of work. It should consist in this: without using methods that are not natural to us, we should pursue a line of organizational measures that will simultaneously provide material for information. Our work must be constructed so that we do not fear that it will become known, that people will talk about it. Our measures must be thought out and constructed so that we do not fear their declassification.

Of course, no one is allowed to make mistakes, but in some cases it is better to make a mistake than to do nothing at all and not resolve this or that question. If you make a mistake—we will correct you; if we make a mistake—we will be corrected. The main thing is that the work must be done.115

If one translates this statement into plain language, one can easily understand that it sounds like an indulgence regarding possible excesses, which will be overlooked or to which, in case of need, one will simply “point out,” but the main thing is that “the work must be done.” Is it necessary to explain—what kind of work?!

But as for the institution of senior presbyters—this, it turns out, is a special question. The undesirable ones, of course, need to be removed, but the institution of senior presbyters itself must not only be preserved like the apple of one’s eye but also encouraged in every possible way, including even freeing senior presbyters from the excessive taxes “under Article 19,” with which the ministers of local communities were mercilessly crushed in the general context of the rabid “struggle against religion.” Sadovsky said the following:

We need to touch upon the question of the taxation of senior presbyters. The instruction says: “A senior presbyter receiving a salary as a senior presbyter is taxed under Article 5; if he simultaneously has income from service in religious communities, he is taxed under Article 19.” Here we get double bookkeeping. We have thought very seriously about this matter. The senior presbyters among the Baptists—this is an institution introduced at our active prompting, and we vote for this institution because it is convenient. And if we now put the senior presbyter in such a position, we will undermine our line.116

Overall, the work of the “Ukrainian comrades” was assessed by the Moscow leadership very positively, which was expressed in Sadovsky’s concluding words:

As for the evaluation of Comrade Vilkhovoy’s work, which, of course, must be given, one can only say that he has carried out extensive and good work. It is the kind of work from which one can learn and teach others.117 According to official data, as of January 1, 1947, 441 Pentecostal communities that had fully merged with the ECB communities were registered, with a total of up to 20,419 believers.

In the regions of Ukraine, for example, according to the report of the Commissioner of the Council for Religious Cults for Ukraine, as of July 1, 1947, the picture looked as follows:118


Region	Total communities	merged	did not merge
Volynska	45	34	11
Voroshylovhradska	11	11	0
Vinnytska	73	52	21
Drohobychska	1	1	0
Dnipropetrovska	52	52	0
Zhytomyrska	19	12	7
Zaporizka	8	8	0
Zakarpatska	0	0	0
Izmailska	16	10	6
Kamianets-Podilska	24	19	5
Kyivska	20	19	1
Kirovohradska	33	32	1
Lvivska	35	33	2
Mykolaivska	7	7	0
Odeska	32	26	6
Poltavska	10	10	0
Rivnenska	115	115	0
Stalinska	11	5	6
Stanislavska	8	5	3
Sumska	5	3	2
Ternopilska	82	75	7
Kharkivska	1	1	0
Chernihivska	3	1	2
Chernivetska	15	14	1
Total:	626	545	81

Characterizing the activity of the senior presbyters of the AUCECB, from whom, for quite understandable reasons, not only complete loyalty to all decisions of the party and government was expected, but also the most active assistance in the practical implementation of this policy, Vilkhovoy wrote with some disappointment:

“In the course of the practical implementation of the merger of the KhEV and ECB, a certain fear was observed among the ECB of being ‘swallowed up’ by the KhEV, and hence an unwillingness to develop active work to carry out the Moscow Agreement on unification. Most senior presbyters of the ECB treated this work formally, dealing with merger issues only occasionally, very rarely visited KhEV communities, and did not carry out explanatory work among the mass of KhEV believers. Through our categorical recommendations to the senior presbyter of the ECB for the Ukrainian SSR, Andreev, to step up the merger work on the part of the senior presbyters locally, and by summoning some of them directly to us, the merger work today, as can be seen from the table, is yielding positive results. Of the 626 accounted KhEV communities, only 81 communities remain unmerged.”119

However, of course, they did not intend to rest on this, and they were determined to bring the work they had started to a victorious conclusion. “By what means?” The answer to this question can also be found in the archives of the Council. Here is that plan.

We propose to complete the merger work as follows:

Take more decisive measures against obstinate Pentecostals, ceasing all discussion with them about the necessity of the merger.
Demand that the leaders of Pentecostal communities cease all activity.
Through the financial department, take measures to impose taxes on illegally operating communities.
Accept no petitions from Pentecostals for the opening of prayer houses.
The spiritual leadership of the ECB has been instructed not to abandon efforts to draw KhEV members into their communities.
In connection with the unfolding of collectivization work in the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR and anti-kolkhoz agitation on the part of KhEV “prophets” and “prophetesses,” Andreev has been instructed to send active ECB workers to certain regions to carry out appropriate work in the affected communities to eliminate anti-social attitudes.120

In carrying out this “appropriate work,” all those who seemed undesirable were, first of all, simply expelled from church membership so that they would not “have influence in the community and corrupt others.” Of course, the Soviet authorities could not carry out such a canonical action as the excommunication of anyone from the church—no commissioner could do this, for even they well understood that this could only be the prerogative of the local church. But this was not a problem—there was at hand the obedient institution of the AUCECB senior presbyters, who were assigned this role—to do the “dirty work” when necessary. (Initially they were even called commissioners of the AUCECB—and only from April 1, 1947, as the General Secretary of the AUCECB A. V. Karev announced through the journal “Bratsky Vestnik,” “the title of AUCECB commissioner is abolished and the title of senior presbyter is introduced in its place”).121 Sometimes the senior presbyters simply tried too hard—even in the opinion of the Council’s staff. In 1946, Polyansky disapprovingly commented on a letter from the AUCECB senior presbyter Sukhanov to the communities, in which he called believers to spring sowing work and early fulfillment of the 5-year plan. Polyansky issued his resolution stating that Sukhanov’s letter “is too general in nature and in its style bears little resemblance to a document emanating from the head of a religious organization.”122

It is understandable that personnel for the position of senior presbyter were selected very carefully—and, accordingly, candidacies were coordinated “with all interested services, organizations, and competent organs.” In correspondence, commissioners tried to avoid directly mentioning the state security organs in documents, with which they maintained close and constant contact. Using Aesopian language, they referred to them as “neighbors.”

Here is one secret document of this kind, concerning the “coordination” of the candidacy of an AUCECB senior presbyter.

November 13, 1945

TO THE COMMISSIONER OF THE COUNCIL FOR RELIGIOUS CULTS UNDER THE SOVNARKOM OF THE USSR for the Ukrainian SSR Comrade VILKHOVOY

I am forwarding herewith the applications of the presbyters of the Evangelical Christians-Baptists (ECB) of Ternopil region regarding the appointment of Teslyuk Afanasiy Markiyanovich as senior presbyter. I request assistance through Andreyev for his appointment. Teslyuk’s candidacy is supported by the “neighbors,” as well as by me; regarding the appointment of Teslyuk as the regional authorized representative of the ECB, I ask that it not be delayed and that the document be sent.

Authorized representative of the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults under the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR for Ternopil region, Chirva 123

Is it any wonder that Teslyuk would not defend the interests of believers, and that “a crow will not peck out a crow’s eye”? In the summer of 1949, the authorities took away the church building from the Pentecostal church in the village of Temnogaytsy (which had joined the AUCECB!)—a building that the congregation had built with their own hands even before the war—and suggested they hold meetings in the home of their presbyter, Kaplun. The believers, in their simplicity, turned for help to the senior presbyter for Ternopil region, who, of course, knew well both that building and the history of its construction (the church in Temnogaytsy had a house of prayer that was known to the entire All-Poland Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith). In the heat of the moment, Teslyuk confirmed that the building belonged to the believers. However, “after consultations,” his opinion changed to the exact opposite. On December 15, 1949, in his explanatory note to the authorized representative of the Council for Religious Cults under the Council of Ministers of the USSR for Ternopil region, he wrote literally the following:

On June 21, 1949, when I confirmed the statement of the religious community of the ECB in the village of Temnogaytsy, Dederkaly district, about the allegedly illegal seizure of their prayer house, I made a mistake in that, while confirming the statement, I prematurely did not familiarize myself with the materials of the community’s registration file and assumed that the community was registered in that house which you had proposed to vacate. Now, having familiarized myself, I believe that the community should hold prayer meetings in the house it rents from citizen Kaplun.124

The lawlessness of the authorities’ tyranny and the absurdity of Teslyuk’s treacherous “balancing act” are obvious. Nevertheless, when in the summer of 1986, while gathering materials on the history of the Pentecostal movement in Western Ukraine, I visited the church in Temnogaytsy, services were still being held in the home of the church presbyter Gregory Kaplun, and the church building was used as a village club.

A multitude of similar documents exist about the close cooperation between the authorized representatives of the Council and the authorized representatives of the AUCECB (senior presbyters).

Naturally, it is simply impossible to think of the “double bottom” of many of them when reading the brave reports in the “Bratsky Vestnik” about their “blessed” ministry. For example, regarding the same Teslyuk.

Energetic Brother A. M. Teslyuk, senior presbyter for Ternopil region, during the period from July 9 to 25, 1947, arranged our meeting with individual groups of presbyters, with whom we held many conversations. Many various questions were clarified. Here, too, local brothers met with brothers from the center for the first time. Brother Teslyuk is one of the old workers of the Pentecostal movement. He knows well the spiritual condition of the churches in his region. He sincerely and greatly labored in the work of unity among believers, and at present, more than 60 congregations of former Pentecostals, together with Evangelical Christians-Baptists, are laboring in the Lord’s field. Truly the Lord’s prayer is being fulfilled: “That they all may be one.”

In Ternopil region there are 80 congregations. During Brother Andreyev’s stay in the city of Chortkiv, the Lord allowed me (A. Mitskevich — V. F.) together with Brother Teslyuk to go to the village of Bashuki in the Pochayev district, where water baptism took place. On the way there, we walked 20 kilometers, visiting brothers G. A. Goroshko and I. V. Danilyuk — workers in the Tarnopol region. The brothers were very glad to unexpectedly see us in their home. Together with them we went to the destination of our journey. After the baptism in the village of Bashuki, a solemn worship service was held in the prayer house, where I offered a prayer over those baptized.125

Teslyuk, as a “reliable” person, was moved from place to place, being entrusted with various areas of work where, from the authorities’ point of view, a firm hand was required. Thus, he was the senior presbyter of the AUCECB for Ternopil region from 1945 to 1952, from 1952 to 1960 he was senior presbyter for Poltava region, then from 1961 to 1967 for Sumy region. In 1968, a crisis situation arose in Ternopil region — the senior presbyter of the AUCECB for the region, elected from among the old and experienced Pentecostal ministers Daniil Fedorovich Byts, so “did not suit” the local authorities that after 2.5 years of his ministry, the authorities initiated his early removal. To remove him with a single stroke of the pen from the obediently managed leadership of the AUCECB was no longer possible — they had to stage a farce with “early re-elections.”

Preserved in the archives of the Council for Religious Affairs is a reference on Byts, sent by the authorized representative M. Radchenko to his leadership in Kyiv and Moscow. In particular, Radchenko wrote:

Byts D. F., while serving as senior presbyter of the AUCECB for Ternopil region, showed himself to be a fanatic, directing all his activities toward the growth of religious convictions, mainly at the expense of the youth.126

It is clear that he needed to be replaced urgently. F. R. Astakhov, the deputy senior presbyter for Ukraine, was dispatched to Ternopil, who, upon arrival, unexpectedly added to the agenda of the planned working presbyters’ meeting an item on the early re-election of the senior presbyter for the region. To this same meeting, Teslyuk, just as familiar to the residents of Ternopil as he was unpopular, from whom Christians had with great difficulty been rid on previous places of his work, was “drawn in.” The authorized representative Radchenko characterizes him in a completely different way. In the authorized representative’s report, it is written that “Teslyuk A. M. has shown himself on the positive side, does not allow violations of the legislation on religious cults.”127

On April 27, the farce of the re-election itself took place, the collisions of which are described in detail and without shame in Astakhov’s report—this report has also been safely preserved in the archive of the Council for Religious Affairs.128 Having succeeded in removing D. F. Byt’s from ministry, Astakhov tried to “push through” the candidacy of Teslyuk. As P. Y. Skakun, a participant in that presbytery meeting—who was also hated for actively assisting Byt’s in his ministry—recalled in a conversation with me in December 2000, despite crude pressure from Astakhov, the evangelical ministers would not agree to the candidacy of Teslyuk, who had stained himself with many unseemly deeds.

Commissioner Radchenko was forced to report the failure. In his dispatch he wrote:

During the election of the senior presbyter of the AUCECB for the Ternopil region, D. F. Byt’s was not recommended by the AUCECB representative for Ukraine; instead, A. M. Teslyuk was recommended, his candidacy having been coordinated with the commissioner of the Council for the Ukrainian SSR. However, as it later turned out, D. F. Byt’s managed to carry out such work among the representatives of the regional conference that Teslyuk was not elected senior presbyter for the Ternopil region, but D. L. Voznyuk—a preacher from the Shumsk ECB community—was elected.129

In retaliation, the new senior presbyter was ordered, in the strictest manner, to “restrict the independent travel of D. F. Byt’s” to other communities in the region.130 Teslyuk was nonetheless “put through” as assistant to Senior Presbyter Voznyuk.

If such things occurred in 1968, one can imagine the degree of arbitrariness in the interference in church affairs during Stalin’s lifetime.

Moreover, even in 1973, the commissioner of the Council for Religious Affairs for the Donetsk region, G. E. Gomlya, wrote to Moscow addressed to the First Deputy Chairman of the USSR Council for Religious Affairs, A. I. Barmenkov, and the Chairman of the Council for Ukraine, K. Z. Litvin, in material entitled “Election of the Senior Presbyter of the AUCECB for the Donetsk Region” as follows:

The candidacy of Karpenko is supported by senior presbyter for Ukraine N. N. Melnikov, the commissioner of the Council for Religious Affairs for the Ukrainian SSR, and the interested agencies.131

Fearing that the matter might “fall through,” Gomlya prudently wrote about the conduct of these “elections” at the presbytery meeting:

Guidance must be entrusted to Senior Presbyter for Ukraine N. N. Melnikov; his deputy I. S. Gnida must not participate in the meeting, since he is linked with extremists and there is a possibility of his attempting to alter the course of the meeting to our disadvantage.132

In the end, everything happened “as needed”: from that time until the present, Stepan Fedorovich Karpenko has been the senior presbyter of the ECB churches in the Donetsk region.

Commissioners (of every sort!) were called to watch keenly and vigilantly over what was going on in the churches, recording every detail that might seem important to them—and, accordingly, to inform “whom it may concern” in a timely fashion. Below is a sample of such a dispatch, with some abridgments.

Secret November 30, 1945

To the Commissioner of the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults under the USSR Council of People’s Commissars for the Ukrainian SSR, Comrade VILKHOVOY

COPY: To the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults under the USSR Council of People’s Commissars, To the Secretary of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Committee of the CP(b)U, Comrade EMELYANENKO

Memorandum on work for the period April–November 1945, according to your instruction of 2/XI-45, No. 242

While the ministers of the Evangelical Christians and Baptists behave relatively quietly, especially those working on collective farms or in production, the same cannot be said about the ministers of the Pentecostals (Christians of the Evangelical Faith). First, a significant number of them do not work anywhere and consequently have enough time for their “spiritual activity.” They visit members of the community more often, are more tightly connected with one another, especially with their leaders, and maintain ties with other regions. (The Piatykhatky group is connected with communities of the Kirovograd and Zaporizhzhia regions.) They regard the question of merging with the Evangelical Christians and Baptists from the perspective of preserving and securing their own cadres. They more energetically recruit people into their community. In comparison with the Evangelical Christians and Baptists, they have prepared more candidates for baptism, more insistently sought permission to baptize, and drawn more minors into their communities; being directly interested in the numerical growth of their communities, they pursue this by various means. Not working themselves, they try to secure the release from work of as many members as possible, even though this is in no way warranted by any cultic needs.

During the merging process, the ministers of the Pentecostals initially insisted on a gradual abandonment of “other tongues” and foot washing, citing that some believers might go underground, and thereby dragged out the merger. In a number of Pentecostal communities, the question of the merger was raised under pressure from the masses; in such cases the presbyters did not oppose it, pretended to leave the decision entirely to the community, but in reality secretly supported or even organized opponents of the unification. To this end, prophecies, prophetesses, interpreters, etc. are mobilized.

The end of the period of intensive agricultural work and the agreement on the merger of the Evangelical Christians and Baptists with the Pentecostals has already led to a revival of sectarian activity. Just at that time, Bidash received a parcel from Riga—12 copies of the Bible—and distributed them among the communities. He is expecting a second consignment.

The Piatykhatky Pentecostals delivered about 500 kg of potatoes to the family of Ponurko, their former leader, who is currently serving his sentence.

The overall picture in the region appears to me as follows: a) The Evangelical Christians and Baptists apparently now believe in their untroubled existence. They behave calmly; b) The main body of the Pentecostals goes over to the merger reluctantly. All ministers of the cult are against unification. They submit but create their own groups. They are withdrawn, give false information, but have not yet established a general line of conduct.

Commissioner of the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults under the USSR Council of People’s Commissars for the Dnipropetrovsk region Pavlov133

By the way, the commissioner Pavlov was, in his own way, an interesting personality. He managed to notice something that some Christian theologians sometimes do not wish to notice: that the Pentecostal doctrine indeed has a Biblical basis. Here is Pavlov’s original advice, verbatim, on how to fight the Pentecostal movement: “If the Bible ever has to be printed, I think it will need to be abridged, especially the book of the Acts of the Apostles and the apostolic epistles, on which the KhEV mainly rely.”134

Later, Ponomarchuk wrote in the magazine Brotherly Herald:

On August 19, 1945, I was invited by the All‑Union Council of Evangelical Christians‑Baptists to Moscow for a meeting on the unification of our Unions. I gladly accepted the invitation. On August 23, 1945, the hour of our unification arrived. On that day, I voluntarily consented to the Union of Christians of the Evangelical Faith joining the Union of Evangelical Christians‑Baptists. I was sure that this step expressed the will of all sincere children of God belonging to the Union of Christians of the Evangelical Faith. Here I was elected a member of the AUCECB. Moreover, I was appointed by the All‑Union Council as assistant to the AUCECB commissioner for Ukraine. At present, I am carrying out these duties assigned to me. On the day of our Unions’ unification, in 1945, exactly 30 years of my work in God’s field were completed. And I all the more solemnly marked this unification, which coincided with a significant date in my life.135

However, the majority of Pentecostals thought quite differently from Ponomarchuk, and his understanding and actions in no way expressed their will…

An editorial article in the AUCECB magazine entitled “Encouraging Developments in the Life of Our Brotherhood during the First Half of the Current Year” reported:

The August agreement on unification with the Evangelical Christians‑Baptists of the Christians of the Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals) has successfully moved forward and is nearing complete fulfillment. From most places where the unification has taken place, we are receiving good news about friendly, coordinated work and the joy of God’s children over the accomplishment of the great and blessed work of unity. We hope that during the second half of this year the organizational part of the unification will be fully completed, and then all the energy of our churches will be devoted to spiritual building—evangelism and edification.136

Ya. I. Zhidkov in his article “Deepening Unity in Our Ranks” stated that “more than four hundred congregations of Christians of the Evangelical Faith poured into the Union of Evangelical Christians‑Baptists, retaining their cadre of workers; these congregations, according to the above‑mentioned decision, now adhere to a single worship practice with the Evangelical Christians‑Baptists.”137

Of course, there is official statistics that subsequently, on the whole, quite a few Pentecostals joined ECB congregations (as of the moment of leaving the AUCECB in 1989, the union included more than 33,000, including more than 20,000 in Ukraine).138 The leaders of the Pentecostal brotherhood sought in this way to provide the churches with conditions for at least the minimally possible legal existence. However, as a movement, the Pentecostals continued to remain themselves.

In the autumn of 1947, a delegation of the AUCECB leadership, consisting of A. V. Karev and M. I. Golyaev, visited Central Asia, a report of which was published in the Brotherly Herald. In particular, it stated:

On Tuesday, October 21, we set out for the city of Frunze—the capital of the Kirghiz SSR. We arrived there the next day. One stop before Frunze, at Pishpek station, brother Georgiy Evgenievich Kukuyuk, an old worker of Christians of the Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals), now a member and preacher of the Frunze congregation of Evangelical Christians‑Baptists, entered our carriage. He accompanied us to Frunze, where a whole group of brothers and sisters, workers of the Frunze church, awaited us at the railway station. We were handed several huge bouquets of fresh flowers with the words: “We welcome you to Frunze – the city of flowers.” The weather was beautiful. The sun was pleasantly warm. We got into a car and drove to the home of one of the brothers of the Frunze church. Here we freshened up after the journey and, after a good rest, went to the evening meeting of the second Frunze congregation. In Frunze, as in Alma‑Ata, there are two prayer houses and two congregations: one with 600 members, the other with 400.

On Sunday, October 26, we celebrated in Frunze Unity Day, the annual festival of our brotherhood. At the morning meeting, which was led by Brother V. I. Andreenko, talks on the theme of the unity of God’s children were given by brothers: G. E. Kukuyuk (from the former Union of Christians of the Evangelical Faith, or Pentecostals), A. V. Karev (from the former Union of Evangelical Christians), and M. I. Golyaev (from the former Union of Baptists). It was pleasant and gratifying to hear these three representatives of three formerly independent evangelical currents in the USSR, now working together in the most sincere brotherly love for one another in the united Union of Evangelical Christians‑Baptists.

In addition to the sermons of the guests from Moscow, a word about unity was spoken at this meeting by Brother F. I. Kononenko, the former presbyter of the Frunze Pentecostal congregation. His speech was very heartfelt and friendly. Both choirs participated in the evening celebration, adorning the service with their solemn singing. The singing of the Frunze choirs made a particularly pleasant impression on us.

While staying among God’s children in Alma‑Ata, Frunze, and Tashkent, we tried to remedy one shortcoming common to all those places, namely: the choral, noisy prayers in meetings, which disrupt reverence and make it impossible to hear the person praying and to participate in his prayer. It was difficult to overcome this shortcoming, deeply embedded in the life of the congregations we visited, but the Lord helped to introduce decorum into the order of conducting meetings.139

From other sources it is known that in 1946 about 40 people from Christians of Evangelical Faith joined the ECB community in Tashkent, while in Alma-Ata no one wanted to join at all.¹⁴⁰ However, even if Pentecostals did join, they continued to remain themselves, significantly increasing the union in numbers — for example, in 1947 in the Lvov region, the AUCECB included 56 communities, of which 32 were communities of “former Pentecostals,” as they were called even on the pages of Bratsky Vestnik, and in the Rovno region, the regional association included 102 communities of “former Christians of Evangelical Faith.”¹⁴¹

Print, save, email .pdf