Copyrighted material. For private use only.
Passions surrounding the churches in Kiev have a frankly political character.
by Tatiana Ivzhenko
NG-religii, 28 Sept. 2000
The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAPTs) elected an American citizen as its "spiritual pastor," the primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox church (UPTs) in the United States, Metropolitan Konstantin. This decision was made by a local council of UAPTs that was held at the end of last week. Several participants of the council called for Metropolitan Konstantin even to become head of UAPTs. However it is expected that a patriarch of UAPTs will be elected later, at an extraordinary council which has not yet been scheduled. The head of the church is the acting patriarch, Metropolitan Mefody of Ternopol and Podolia. Metropolitan Konstantin noted that the role of spiritual pastor was entrusted to him by the ecumenical patriarch himself, Bartholomew I. "In independent Ukraine there should be a united local Orthodox church," the new spiritual pastor said upon departure from the council.
The decisions of the local council of UAPTs evoked diverse reactions in Ukraine. In the opinion of analysts, they have exacerbated the already complex relations among the three Ukrainian Orthodox churches, the autocephalous as well as the Muscovite and Kievan patriarchates. Even the very mention of the name of the ecumenical patriarch in this context can worsen interchurch relations.
The jubilee bishops' council of the Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate, held in July in Kiev, appealed to Patriarch Bartholomew I requesting that he not assume the mission of mediator in the Ukrainian church problems. Specifically UPTs-MP considers that after the excommunication in 1997 of Filaret there is no sense in conducting negotiations with "schismatics." The authors of the appeal to the ecumenical patriarch spoke of an "unhealthy atmosphere of intrigue, adventure, and provocations on the part of the initiators, implementers, and leaders of the schism and their associates" (this refers to UAPTs and UPTs-KP--N.G.) and they stressed that "involvement of the ecumenical patriarch in the conflict will produce nothing good but will only deepen the schism and even lead to new schisms."
The primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and all-Ukraine, declared with regard to this: "Suggestions by various politicians of meeting in some room, shaking each other's hands, removing the white cowl from the three and electing a fourth on whom to place a new white cowl sound at least naive. . . . Unfortunately, circumstances have become so complicated that it is even impossible to shake hands. . . ."
For a long time already the state has been trying to reconcile the churches. For several years there has existed an All-Ukrainian Council of Churches, created on the initiative of state agencies, although it still has been unable to cope with the tasks of reconciliation. Chairman of the state committee of Ukraine on religious matters, Viktor Bondarenko, considers that on the whole the situation has worsened recently. Mr. Bondarenko says that the problem is that "the church should renounce the role 'of revolutionary ferment of public life' and fulfill the original function that is proper to it--to be the religious and spiritual healer of society." On the other hand, according to analysts, the state has been helping to make the situation worse. For example, the humanitarian block of the new government clearly sympathizes with the Kievan patriarchate and UAPTs. Quite recently the vice premier on humanitarian matters, Nikolai Zhulinsky, declared to reporters: "I think that the line taken, in particular, by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church accords with the interests of Ukraine." The right-centrist parties, which back in 1995 created the "For a united local Orthodox Church" association in the Supreme Soviet, have also taken the same position. They are convinced that the complete independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox church from the Moscow patriarchate will strengthen Ukrainian statehood. Moreover, the right-centrist parties have regularly organized events under the general slogan: "Moscow church out of Ukraine!" Representatives of the Moscow patriarchate consider that behind the pseudopatriotism of the parties and of several leaders of the government is concealed the desire to politicize the church and then "to sell it at high price to overseas philanthropists." It is from this point of view that several representatives of UPTs-MP understand the news about an American "spiritual pastor" of UAPTs.
The problem for Ukraine really is serious because an enormous number of citizens have been drawn into the conflict among the various Orthodox churches. According to official data, UPTs-MP has in Ukraine around 9,000 parishes, UPTs-KP, around 3,000, and UAPTs, around 1.5 parishes. At the same time, religious questions are sharply dividing the country into the west, which supports UAPTs and the Kievan patriarchate, and the east, which traditionally has been associated with UPTs-MP. The conflict within society has gradually strengthened. The latest uproar, which was evoked by the transfer to the Moscow patriarchate of the recently restored Holy Dormition cathedral of the Kievan caves lavra, developed into a nearly political event because of the participation in it of not only nearly thirty parties but also a multitude of public organizations who demanded the transfer of the cathedral "to Ukrainian and not to the Muscovite church." President Kuchma, who spoke at the ceremony of consecration of the church, described the general situation and the strategy of the state in matters of religion this way: "We will oppose any attempts at speculation around the church and the incitement of hostility on religious bases. . . . There cannot be the least doubt of the sincerity of the intentions and sentiments of all who desire the unification of Orthodoxy in Ukraine and the creation of a united independent local church. But we all must not be indifferent to the way in which the process of unification occurs and which methods are used for achieving it. . . . Church problems should be resolved by the church itself because involvement of the state in this process, politicization, and uncivilized pressure have already cost Ukraine dearly. . . ." However, for now neither the state nor the church is prepared to resolve the problem. (tr. by PDS, posted 6 October 2000)
UKRAINIAN AUTOCEPHALISTS CONDUCTED THEIR OWN COUNCIL
Russkaia mysl, 21 September 2000
On 14-15 September in Kiev a local council of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAPTs) was held. The council occurred against the background of intense public debates about the possibility of unification of Ukrainian Orthodoxy into a united local church.
On 12 September the head of the Ukrainian dioceses of the patriarchate of Constantinople in the diaspora, Metropolitan Konstantin Bagan of Irinupol, arrived in Kiev from USA. The work of the council also included the participation of 680 delegates from Ukrainian Orthodox dioceses of USA and Canada, which are under the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople. Archpriest Vasili Zaev attended the council as an observer from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate as did Bishop Dimitry Rudiuk from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate.
The chief result of the council was the election of a new primate for UAPTs, who is Metropolitan Mefody Kudriakov, a former priest of the Ternopol diocese of UPTs-MP, who was unfrocked by the Moscow patriarchate "for schism". Metropolitan Mefody was installed in the position of acting patriarch of UAPTs, since the council decided not to elect a new patriarch of this church.
On the opening day of the council Metropolitan Konstantin celebrated the divine liturgy in St. Andrew's church in Kiev. The participants of the council, which was held in the former October Palace, were met by pickets from the nationalist organization UNA-UNSO carrying signs calling for the convocation of a unification council of Ukrainian Orthodox believers. The state committee on religious matters of Ukraine assumed a part of the financial organization of the council.
Speaking at the council, Metropolitan Konstantin called participants "to put an end to disputes among Orthodox believers in Ukraine" and he declared the "eternality and imperishability" of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. "Having received the grace of Christian faith, our ancestors became an inseparable part of the ecumenical Christian church," he said. In the opinion of the metropolitan, in independent Ukraine there should be a united local Orthodox church "equal with other Orthodox churches throughout the world." Metropolitan Konstantin called for support of the initiative of the patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, for the creation of a united local Ukrainian church and for active involvement in the realization of this idea.
In response, the acting patriarch of UAPTs, Metropolitan Mefody of Ternopol and Podolia, speaking for all the bishops, priests, and laity of UAPTs, called Patriarch Bartholomew to permit Metropolitan Konstantin to head UAPTs. By decision of the council, Metropolitan Konstantin received the title "spiritual pastor of believers of UAPTs." It is expected that during this year there should be an extraordinary local council at which a new patriarch of UAPTs will be elected.
The local council of UAPTs actually rejected a suggestion from UPTs-KP for unification, after declaring that UAPTs is trying to join the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan patriarchate and the Kievan patriarch considers it an "absolutely illegitimate grouping." Before the start of the council of UAPTs, the chairman of the state committee on religious matters for Ukraine, Viktor Bondarenko, visited Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and requested his blessing for a unification council and the election of a Ukrainian patriarch, but the patriarch limited himself simply to sending his own delegates to the UAPTs council. Commenting on the results of the UAPTs council, a staff member of OVTsS of Moscow patriarchate noted that "the Russian church . . . does not consider Mefody a metropolitan, regardless of what ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew thinks about this. (tr. by PDS, posted 6 October 2000)
Russians do not want to restore the monarchy and monuments to the last tsar.
by Mikhail Tulsky
NG-religii, 27 September 2000
Contrary to the suggestions of active advocates for the political canonization of the "tsar-martyr" Nicholas II, citizens of our country are not ready to display their delight over the glorification of the last emperor in the canon of saints.
As revealed by a survey of the "Public Opinion Fund" (FOM) of 1-3 September 2000 (1,500 respondents questioned from 29 regions of RF), 55% of Russians have not even heard the word "canonization," while another 10% have difficulty responding whether or not they know what the word "canonization" means, and another 25% have heard something about the meaning of this word. At the same time that there is such weak understanding of the meaning of the concept of "canonization" only 30% of Russian have not heard about the canonization (enrolment in the canon of saints) of Nicholas II and his family while another 7% have difficulty answering whether or not that have heard. Those who know about the canonization constitute 23.5% and 39.5% have heard something, that is, 63% have been informed to some degree that Nicholas II has "become a saint."
In the FOM survey, further questions about attitude toward canonization were posed only to this 63% informed about the canonization. Of these, 21.3% of Russians approved the canonization and the same proportion were indifferent to it; 16.5% did not approve the canonization of Nicholas II.
In an express poll by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) from 18-21 August 2000 (1574 respondants in 31 regions of RF) the question was presented (to all, including those not knowing about the canonization) regarding what kinds of feelings were evoked by the news of the canonization: 3% responded, joy, 17%, satisfaction, 13%, confusion, 10%, indignation, while for 46% of those questioned this news did not evoke any feelings and 11% had difficulty answering or knew nothing about it.
For FOM the ratio of positive to negative evaluations was 21% to 17%, and for VTsIOM it was 20% to 23%, but in the FOM survey the question regarding attitude toward the canonization of Nicholas II was not given to those who did not know at the time of the survey what it meant. The VTsIOM survey shows that with the inclusion of those who did not know about the canonization at the time of the survey the proportion of negative assessments grew by 6% and the proportion of positive ones stayed the same. Thus those who did not know about the event of the canonization of the last emperor (or more accurately, did not pay attention to it) are closer to those who have a negative assessment of canonization as regards their frame of mind. Judging by everything, the majority of those who are indifferent also are closer to the group that has negative attitudes toward the canonization, since they do not express indifference with regard to the refusal of RPTs to canonize Nicholas II (as happened at the council of 1997) but with regard to the fact that the canonization happened.
Respondants who knew about the canonization (63% of the FOM sample) were given a question about how the news about Nicholas' canonization affected their attitudes toward him as an historical figure and toward RPTs. Around half of those questioned did not change their attitude toward either Nicholas II or RPTs and 4-5% had difficulty answering. The attitude toward Nicholas II improved for 6.7% and got worse for 1.2%. The attitude toward RPTs improved for 6.7% (these were virtually the same respondants whose attitude toward Nicholas improved) and worsened for 4.8%. We see that for every respondant whose attitude toward Nicholas II worsened after the RPTs decision there are four respondants whose attitude toward RPTs grew worse after the church identified itself with the monarch.
Thus in the ROM survey of 1-3 September the question was posed regarding Russians' attitude toward the restoration of the monarchy in Russia. It is desirable for 15.8% of those questioned and undesirable for 59.4% and possible for 21.7% while impossible for 53.5%. There is a greater difference between the number of people holding to extreme points of view: 43.5% consider restoration impossible and undesirable, while 5.8% consider it possible and desirable (i.e., 7-8 times less).
Russians also do not want the creation of monuments to Nicholas II: according to an express survey of VTsIOM in April 2000, 44.6% of Russians would respond negatively to the creation of monuments to the last emperor while 33.8% would respond to it positively. According to data of the same survey, only 23.6% consider Nicholas II an innocent victim and 26.5% consider that he paid for the mistakes of his own administration by his death; 11.9% consider that he brought the country to catastrophe and was undone by the uprising of the nation and 12.9% think that he cast the fate of the country to chance by his abdication. Incidentally, according to the FOM survey data also of 1-3 September 2000, almost 40% of Russians think that the abdication had a negative impact on the subsequent fate of Russia (while 18% think it had a positive one). (tr. by PDS, posted 5 October 2000)
Fr Georgy Chistiakov, Moscow
Russkaia mysl, 28 September 2000
After the local council of UAPTs
The need for the creation in Ukraine of a united local Orthodox church is recognized by 40% of Ukrainian citizens, while 43% either deny such a need or are indifferent to the very problem of unification of Orthodoxy ( 20 and 23% respectively). Forty-one percent of citizens consider that the schism in Orthodoxy is a strictly intrachurch affair and has no impact either on the establishment of the Ukrainian state or the formation of the Ukrainian nation as an ethnic and political community. Only 33% of those questioned are persuaded that the schism in Orthodoxy hinders the establishment of the state or interferes in the formation of the Ukrainian nation.
Of the advocates of the idea of unification, 22% were unable to answer which of the existing Orthodox churches would be able to become the center of unification. Of those questioned, 14.4% think that unification is the responsibility of the state while 63.1% are convinced that representatives of the state should not interfere in interchurch relations. At the present time of 24,000 religious organizations existing in Ukraine, 12,500 are Orthodox. Of these, the leading ones are the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate (around 9,000 parishes), Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kiev Patriarchate (aroune 3,000 parishes) and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (more than 1,000 parishes).
According to the report of the "Balgovest-info" agency, on 21 August the secretariat of the Holy Synod of the patriarchate of Constantinople distributed an official communication which denied the assertion that the Phanar aspired to canonical administration of the Ukrainian Orthodox church. The document says that "in connection with the recent mistaken report published on the Internet in which it is said that the Holy Synod of the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople allegedly announced on 27 July 2000 that Ukraine is under its canonical jurisdiction, the Holy Synod declares that such a decision never was made and this report is totally mistaken."
Nevertheless the dialogue between the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAPTs) and the patriarchate of Constantinople, seeking recognition of UAPTs by world Orthodoxy, continues. This was reported in an interview with the Kievan weekly "Zerkalo nedeli" by the chief of staff of the Kievan patriarchate of UAPTs, Archbishop Igor Isichenko of Kharkov and Poltava. He recalled that in his will and testament Patriarch Dimitry Yarema, who died on 25 February, called his flock in Ukraine to recognize the jurisdiction of the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox church in USA, Metropolitan Konstantin.
In the opinion of a number of Ukrainian bishops (as well as the government and president of Ukraine) the priority of the Constantinopolitan jurisdiction over the Muscovite consists in the fact "that Constantinople is a unique virtual city, a city of the past which now does not exist. In contrast with it, Moscow is one of the most powerful political centers and the Moscow patriarch is the sixth person in the Kremlin's protocol. The ecumenical patriarch is a representative of a tiny suppressed community in Turkey, with 3-5,000 believers. This church has no ties with political ambitions." In this regard it is impossible not to recall that at the burial of Patriarch Dimitry, an official representative of Patriarch Bartholomew, Bishop Vsevolod, participated and read the concluding prayer over him.
The situation developed further at the local council of UAPTs, which was held 14-15 September in Kiev under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Konstantin Bagan, who is in the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople, and is (along with Metropolitan Theodosius and other bishops) a member of the Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in USA (SCOBA). Bishop Konstantin declared the "eternal and imperishable nature" of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. "Having received the grace of the Christian faith, our ancestors became an inseparable part of the universal Christian church," he said. He said that in independent Ukraine there should exist a united local Orthodox church, equal with other Orthodox churches throughout the world. The metropolitan called for support for the initiative of Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople for the creation of a united local Ukrainian church and active engagement in the realization of this idea.
At the council a new primate of UAPTs was elected, Metropolitan Mefody Kudriakov, a former priest of the Ternopol diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate, who was unfrocked by the Moscow patriarchate "for schism." He was installed as the acting patriarch of UAPTs, while Metropolitan Konstantin received the title of "spiritual pastor of UAPTs believers."
As Archbishop Igor reported, the fundamental principle of UAPTs is that "the Ukrainian Orthodox church is not in canonical dependency upon Russia." In his opinion, the united Ukrainian church should "be built on the Constantinopolitan tradition. . . . We have enormous respect for other churches existing in Ukraine, but we suggest that they adopt this model." He agreed with the necessity to foresee also that "along with the Ukrainian church, which will have autocephalous status, there will also exist churches that are canonically subordinate to the Moscow patriarchate. There will be nothing the Ukrainian government should fear in this."
+ + +
Obviously this is a most complex situation which it would be simplest not to notice, which is unfortunately impossible. The official representative of the ecumenical patriarch not only has recognized an unfrocked priest, schismatic, etc. as a canonical bishop but he also has concelebrated the liturgy with him. At the same time the Russian Orthodox press, quite naturally, has attacked Bartholomew with extremely sharp attacks. Meanwhile, there are Russian parishes in western Europe within his jurisdiction that maintain the closest contacts with the Moscow patriarchate. Finally, the eucharistic unity of the Orthodox world, which in January 2000 was demonstrated publicly via television in Bethlehem and is professed every day by each of the Orthodox primates at the time of the liturgy that they celebrate, is a precious achievement of Orthodoxy, which it is impossible to betray. If we break canonical fellowship with Constantinople, which is hard to avoid in this situation when the ecumenical patriarchate ignores the discipline which the Moscow patriarch has imposed upon his priests, every Orthodox Christian inevitably faces the question: just what is Orthodoxy? One and the same answer is always given to this: it is our faith which we inherited from the holy fathers and which we will bequeath to our descendants. The trouble is that this is the answer given by everyone, both representatives of Constantinople and we and Ukrainians (just as is the case with the Old Believers or those Orthodox congregations that have broken with the majority of local churches and exist by themselves, in eucharistic isolation from the entire, for now still united, Orthodox world).
In the conditions of such a schism the criterion of belonging to Orthodoxy becomes exclusively our personal and, more, subjective opinion and nothing else. In place of a single Orthodoxy there grows a multiplicity of different "orthodoxies," or more properly, more and more divided communities, hostile or, in better cases, not paying attention to one another. This is not only a horrible false testimony to the external world but it is often something more dangerous. Because in this situation what turns out to be "genuine Orthodoxy" is the community that is physically stronger and, more importantly, dares to enlist the support of the secular authority.
This threatens to bring about not only the disintegration of the Orthodox world into national churches that are independent from one another but also the loss of the most important virtue that we possess, the loss of the catholicity of our faith. Each of the local churches can easily be transformed into an isolated group such as the Coptic and Armenian churches. However, what in the conditions of the early middle ages, namely of complete informational isolation of one country from another, turned out in a rather harmless manner today will surely produce catastrophic consequences for believers.
The old schisms that arose in the fourth or eleventh centuries have been healed by love and by those personal meetings that were infused with mutual respect, which took place last summer between Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus and the patriarch catholicos of all Armenians, Garegin II. It will be impossible to handle new schisms in this way. Thus they simply cannot be permitted. The dialogue which Constantinople and Moscow still have not begun (despite specific instances of a disinclination to recognize their participation in what is happening in Ukraine) is absolutely necessary, probably with the participation of the primates of other local churches or their representations, to the extent that it deals with matters that affect all Orthodox Christians and not just relations between the two churches.
Otherwise we are condemned to the disintegration of Orthodoxy and the transformation of local churches into "independent communities." For such an enormous country as Russia, this at first will be virtually unnoticed, but in Ukraine this already has upset church life. It is for this reason that ordinary believers from Kiev or Chernigov answer the question of which church they belong to: "Neither the Muscovite, nor the Filaret church, but the Orthodox," having in mind that Orthodox unity to which they wish to maintain their loyalty irrespective of the identity of their ruling bishop.
It is therefore no accident that to the question of whose jurisdiction he is in an old priest in a suburb of Kiev answers: "The jurisdiction of St. Nicholas of Mira." From his point of view, those bishops who gaze on him for the icons in his church are more reliable than those who are sitting in the cathedral and issuing decrees. But this already is a different ecclesiology; it is pure crypto-presbyterianism and on the direct path to the priestlessness of our Old Believers and to the actions of "fugitive" priests and to a situation where a bishop is needed only to ordain new priests and nothing more.
This is why the dialogue between Moscow and Constantinople is absolutely necessary. And this requires that there rule in church consciousness the truth of the catholic unity of the church as existed in the ancient apostolic church, that is, faith in the real presence among us of the risen Savior, which we always do not have enough of.
In am reminded how one Moscow priest, with whom I disagree totally on many matters, met me at the altar and said with a real childlike smile: "Well, here is the place where we are at one." I cannot help but recalling another instance. In Germany a priest of ROCOR thanked me for not going to the church for the liturgy on Sunday. "We are not able to serve together," he said to me with almost physical pain, "but to see you standing in the narthex and not coming to the altar would be unbearable for me."
May God grant that a real dialogue between the ecumenical and Moscow patriarchates will become possible now, in the situation where Orthodoxy in the east of Europe, and not just in Russia and Ukraine, is still experiencing the consequences of years-long captivity to anti-Christian forces. (tr. by PDS, posted 4 October 2000)
Jews will begin observing "Rosh Hashanah," the Jewish new year, at sunset. In the synagogue at Marina Roscha more than 5,000 persons will gather. In his new year's letter Berl Lazar has described this holiday. "Rosh Hashanah" means "head of the year." It is considered that on this day people "will be given special strength for the entire year and for each of its days." The Jewish numbering of the year begins from the creation of the world, and thus the coming year will be the 5761st from the time when God created Adam and Eve.
Rosh Hashanah lasts two days. Among Jews it is thought that "on the days of celebration of the new year the fate of each person for the following year is entered into the heavenly book of life which it will be written what awaits him in the coming year," reported Berl Lazar's press secretary Borukh Gorin. Thus, by tradition, Jews say to one another on this day, "may you be recorded and ascribed a good and sweet year."
On the days of the celebration of Rosh Hashanah Jews attend the synagogue and ask the Almighty to send to them and their neighbors prosperty and joy. Among Jews the new years is considered at te same time to be a day of judgment, which the Almighty weighs people's deeds and determine each one's fate for the upcoming year: who will live, who will die, who will be brought down, and who will be raised up.
The first ten days of the Jewish new year are called days of repentance, when Jews try to do as many good deeds as possible and grant forgiveness to their neighbor.
People are assured that God accepts their sincere repentance and will grant them a good and sweek year.
The sounds of the ram's horn, the shofar, summon believers to repentance.
Jews observed the new year, as a rule, at home in the family circle.
It is considered that on the holidays there should be many candies and
sweets on the table. The most popular dessert for these days is honeycake,
which is eaten at the holiday feast with stuffed fish, which symbolizes
prosperity for the coming year. (tr. by PDS, posted 30 September 2000)
"Our doctrinal principles are practically identical with the fundamental beliefs of the Russian Orthodox church," maintains the vice president of the Russian Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, Yury Sipko
by Oleg Nedumov
Nezavisimaia gazeta--religii, 27 September 2000
--Yury Kirillovich, tell us please about the structure of the Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists.
--Today we constitute our own organization which comprises the churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists on the territory of Russia. We are united on the principles of the unity of faith. The structure of our union presupposes churches in districts that create associations within geographical and administrative regions. These associations elect a senior presbyter or, in biblical terms, a bishop. Then these associations form the union. At the head of its administration is the president who has a first vice president as well as regional vice presidents.
Our chief working agency is the council of the union, which comprises the senior presbyters of the regional associations. It meets twice a year to deal with current matters of the union's life. The administration comprises the president, vice president, and the departments (evangelism, education, organization of Sunday schools, publishing--we produce the magazine "Khristianskoe slovo" and other literature--legal administration, and musical and song ministry, which deals with matters of ecclesiastical singing.
--Is there an international association of Evangelical Christians-Baptists?
--Of course. Baptists in Europe are united in the European Baptist Federation. There also is the World Baptist Alliance. Baptists hold to the principle of the independence of the local church and the priesthood of each believer. Thus these international organizations, like our union, do not have a directive function with regard to local churches. We are united on the basis of the unity of faith. The alliance is based on fraternal relations among the national unions. It has its own permanent staff, general secretary, and a number of working committees in various spheres. These committees execute the decisions of the Baptist congresses which are convened every five years.
In dealing with its internal matters our Russian union is completely autonomous from both the European federation and the world alliance. That is, relations among Baptist unions have an exclusively fraternal nature. The distinguishing trait of the Baptist brotherhood is the absence of any kind of subordination of any unions or associations to others. I'll give an example. We had a tense dialogue with the European federation and the World alliance on the issue of homosexuality. We have biblical warrant to say that this is a sinful action which God condemns. Some European Baptist churches view it as an optional matter, in accordance with the principle of freedom and individual rights. We say that this cannot be permitted. The leadership of the European federation and the World alliance understands us. However they respond to our calls for adoption of some kind of directives by saying they have no such leverage.
--What kinds of decisions are adopted at the international congresses of Evangelical Christians-Baptists?
--In the main they have an organizational character: election of the chairmen of international associations and of the new membership of various committees. The committees work mainly as research organizations. In the main they study the situation within one or another area of religious and public life. They have no directive functions.
--Alongside your union there exists in Russia a Council of Churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists. What is the relationship of the activity of these organizations?
--The Council of Churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists has existed now for almost forty years. The separation between us happened during the time of Khrushchev on the wave of state repressions. Unfortunately, it still has not been overcome. This is a pain for us. But at the same time this does not hinder our work, neither theirs nor ours. Both they and we have the Bible. We both serve God. At the present within Russia in addition to the Council of Churches there also are new associations of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, which arose after perestroika.
--Could you identify the fundamental doctrinal principles and their practical implications on which the life of Evangelical Christians-Baptists are based?
--Our doctrinal principles are practically identical with the fundamental doctrines of the Russian Orthodox church. Like RPTs we confess the triune nature of God, salvation by faith through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the church as God's institution in which the Holy Spirit perfects all believers, and we confess baptism on personal faith and the sacrament of communion in the body and blood of Christ. In distinction from the Orthodox church we recognize baptism of adult persons only on the basis of their personal faith, who consciously embrace God and enter into the church.
Our presbyters do not have any special kind of liturgical vestments inasmuch as there is no such prescription in the New Testament. In our worship services there are practically no physical objects for veneration, that is, icons. In no way do we place between God and the worshipper any kind of visible images. We take the cross only as a symbol of Christianity and we set it up in our prayer buildings. But at the same time it is not for us an object for veneration. Our worship services may be conducted not only in special prayer buildings but simply outdoors, as was the case during the time of persecutions, or in private apartments or a house of culture. We simply call upon God's name and we believe that the Holy Spirit is present among us. In distinction from the Orthodox church we do not consider that the posthumous fate of a person can be affected by praying for him. We believe that the fate of every person is decided during the time of life on earth. In our daily lives we affirm the principles of patriotism and loyalty with respect to the state, to the extent that it permitted by the gospel.
--How would you state the principal differences of the Evangelical Christian-Baptist faith from such traditional protestant denominations as Lutheranism and Calvinism?
--We have borrowed a great deal from the experience of the Lutheran church. Today we have very good relations with representatives of this church both in Russia and abroad. For example, in Germany Baptists and Lutherans are united in a general alliance. The only thing that differentiates us is the matter of the possibility of baptizing children. We do not condemn them, but at the same time we cannot adopt their position. As regards the basic Calvinist denominations, Presbyterianism and Methodism, they are closer to us on a whole series of matters.
--How have your relations with the Russian Orthodox church worked out in practice?
--In various ways. If one speaks of official relations, at least once every year meetings are held between the president of our union, Peter Konovalchik, and Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus in order to examine the status of the relations and to express a desire for their further development. Such meetings at the highest level help at least to some extent to erase the antagonism that exists between Orthodox and Baptists out in the provinces.
Besides this representatives of our union and RPTs participate jointly in interconfessional conferences, the latest of which was held in December of last year under the motto "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever." At the local level relations work out in different ways. In many dioceses the situation is extremely difficult. Baptists do not always display the breadth of heart to understand the Orthodox environment. And among Orthodox priests, unfortunately, there also exists the conviction that only they have the right to exist. All of this affects relations among believers and brings discredit to the Church Universal.
--How have your relations worked out with the authorities at various levels?
--I would not say that we have problems with the authorities. However
if one gets specific, then I should say that the authorities in many regions
do not display their better side. It is a typical situation when in response
to Baptists' requests for permission to conduct a large meeting or to acquire
premises for worship the local authorities say that they must consult with
the Orthodox priest. On one hand, this causes a smile, but on the other
hand, it raises the question of what kind of state this is. Whom does it
serve? The state that is unable to exercise its administrative function,
when it knows that the church is separated from the state and that Baptists
and Orthodox are equal before the law, deserves only pity. Unfortunately,
such an attitude on the part of the authorities facilitates the growth
of interconfessional tension, inasmuch as it creates a division of confessions
and religions on the basis of their greater or lesser value for the government.
Such a situation threatens a return to the totalitarian regime. And the
state should understand this. (tr. by PDS, posted 29 September 2000).
If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication
from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material
is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.