Christians as Citizens of a Persecuting State

Christians as Citizens of a Persecuting State:

A Theological and Ethical Reflection from a Historical Perspective
It was the early 1980s in Estonia, then one of the Soviet Republics. At the doorway of a lecture hall in Tartu Universitys main building a man was waiting for me. We need to talk, he said, and insisted that we should meet in a nearby hotel after my lecture. There was no doubt that he was a KGB officer. I was a philology student at the University, and actively involved in a local church: sometimes preaching, regularly taking part in Christian youth group meetings, and very interested in theology. The invitation posed a dilemma for me. To go to the meeting could be interpreted by the authorities as the first step towards co-operation. I did not want to give that message. What if I refused to go? The KGB would find me anyway. Perhaps it would be better to go and see what they wanted and not to postpone the unpleasant interview. I also asked myself: isnt it true that God has somehow allowed even suppressive power structures, and a Christian should at least to a certain extent obey the commands of these structures? I tried to imagine what would happen during the interview. What if they begin to ask questions about other believers, about information relating to local churches, about Christian typewritten publications How could I answer such questions without betraying friends or causes, for even silence becomes information? And after the meeting? What will I say if the KGB demands that I should not tell anybody about the interview? Shall I agree, but tell anyway, at least share something with my friends? That would be lying to the KGB And could it be that my fellow Christians might misinterpret my story? Could it destroy the atmosphere of trust and friendship? But remaining silent how is that compatible with honesty and integrity? I felt trapped, guilty and powerless. I did not think then that similar questions had already been asked and similar feelings already felt by many others through the long tradition of Christian experience of living under an oppressive state. Further, there was little information about the persecution of Christians in other countries. For example, the Christians in Estonia hardly knew about Archbishop Romeros martyrdom in 1980 in El Salvador, as a result of his attempts to be a spokesman for those to whom no one would listen.1 The dilemma of
1

S Bergman, ed., Martyrs (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1996), p. 77.

Journal of European Baptist Studies

the Church in Pinochet Chile, whether publicly to take sides with the oppressed or to use methods of diplomatic manoeuvering,2 these belonged on the other side of the iron curtain. Even Stalins oppression of Christians in the 1930s was not much spoken of. In the Soviet context, both individual Christians, and the Christian church as a community, tended to react spontaneously to the oppressive context, while theological and ethical reflection required some distance from the experience of persecution. In this paper an attempt is made to explore some of the questions posed to Christians living in hostile contexts. The discussion is put into a historical perspective.

Obey God rather than men: Early Church experience

The issue of how Christians should, as citizens, relate to an unfriendly or overtly persecuting state is as old as the story of Christianity itself. The New Testament reflects some of the Early Christian approaches to this theme: Paul suggested that Christians should submit themselves to the governing authorities, not only because of possible punishment but because political authorities were ordained by God (Romans 13:1-7). However, the Early Church soon ran into conflicts with the Roman authorities, as Christians refused to concede the states absolute power if its commands contravened those of God.3 Some passages in the Book of Revelation (e.g., chapter 13) give a much less favourable picture of state powers when compared to that of Paul in Romans 13. Even Paul himself saw suffering and persecution as a sine qua non of being in Christ.4 Later, in the history of the western church, the dualistic relation between Church and State, between Jerusalem and Babylon, was never satisfactorily solved, and continued to create tensions.5 For example, though both Luther and Calvin believed that the temporal government and spiritual authorities functioned in different realms, in practice they had difficulties keeping these two kingdoms separate.6
See William Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1998). Roland Bainton, Christianity (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1987), p. 58. 4 John S Pobee, Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 6 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), p. 107. 5 W Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), pp. 537, 569. 6 David M Whitford, Luthers political encounters, in Donald K McKim, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 189-190; Civil government, in Donald K McKim, ed., The Westminster Handbook to Reformed Theology (Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001). In general, Lutheran church-state theory yielded relatively large powers to the State while Reformed theologies encouraged the faithful to hold civil authorities to constant account.
3 2

Christians as Citizens of a Persecuting State

During the first centuries, Christian loyalty to God was frequently interpreted by the Roman state authorities as disloyalty to their state. The Roman understanding of religion generally focused on civil virtues and outward observance. Even the public sacrifices were simply a routine genuflection to the government, and, as Paul Johnson stated, on the vast majority of Romes citizens and subjects they imposed no burden of conscience.7 However, the Christians view tended to be different for they added theological and ethical evaluation to all civil acts. When Christians opposed an imperial cult they seemed to deny the emperors right to rule.8 This is why Pliny the Younger explained his practice of dealing with Christians: if for three times they did not deny being Christians, he sentenced them to death, because whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished.9 Christians often found guidance in the attitude of the first apostles: We must obey God rather than men (Acts 4:19-20, 5:29), a curiously subversive text when compared with Romans 13. In many cases popular superstitions added to the picture. Tertullian said that Christians were blamed for every public disaster and every misfortune that befell the people. If the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the Nile does not send its waters up over the fields, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, if there is famine or pestilence10 Christians were made the scapegoats. Tension between the divine and earthly authority, accusations of disloyalty or of being disruptive of the states unity, and the exercise of popular superstitions all these themes came to be repeated in the story of persecution. However, Christians met new challenges when they turned from being a persecuted minority into becoming a privileged majority after the Constantinian reform of the fourth century. Social pressure and legal compulsion, and sometimes a hope of improving ones standing in society, emerged at that time as new motives for converting to Christianity. To adopt the emperors religion could promote ones chances in the world.11 Later in history, for example for a period in the early 1990s, after Communism collapsed in the former Soviet Union regions, Christians in Eastern Europe faced similar issues: how to adjust to the rapid change from
Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (Norwich: Pelican Books, 1982) p. 6. Justo L Gonzales, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1 (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1984), p. 41. 9 Pliny the Younger, Epp. X (ad Traj.), XCVI, in Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 3. 10 Tertullian, Apology, XL. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 47. 11 John McManners, ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 63.
8 7

Journal of European Baptist Studies

a persecuted group into a socially respected force. This transition was found to be difficult. After the Constantinian reform, some latent tensions doctrinal, disciplinary and personal came out into the open: The Christians had won, but the attitude of the survivors reflected the bitterness of the struggle.12 The emergence of similar phenomena can be traced in the post-persecution situation in the former Soviet Union, where unity was endangered not only by previous atheistic pressures but also by the unexpectedness of freedom. One of the clearest examples was in the Ukraine, where for almost 60 years there was only one legal Orthodox church; since 1989 the country has been compelled to face a situation where four Orthodox churches are competing for influence.13 Beyond this, the traumatic experience of persecution needs to be evaluated. The past needs to be reconciled with the present. Both martyrs and apostates belong to this picture. In the case of the Early (Medieval) Church, the martyrs shaped the theological and behavioural patterns of Christians, both in the east and in the west. Heated discussions about the rehabilitation of lapsed adherents in the Early Church only emphasised the need for a process of repentance and forgiveness inside the Christian community after a period of outside pressure. Scripture was quoted both in favour of rigor and in favour of mercy.14 In their context, churches in Asia Minor were rather modest in their requirements for penitence: the fallen were readmitted after three to five years of penitence, and even traitors who had denounced their fellow Christians to the authorities might be rehabilitated after ten years probation.15 Though present day Christians may have different opinions about the methods of repentance, the need to become reconciled with the persecution experiences, find forgiveness for compromises, and interpret heroic episodes, is a continuous task for Christians in the post-persecution period.

Waldenses: keeping identity in persecution

Persecution of Christians by state structures took place not only in the nonChristian setting of the first centuries. The rejection of non-conformists and their suppression happened also within Christendom, when state and ecclesiastical patterns were intertwined. In the context of Medieval and Reformation-period Christendom, several dissenting groups experienced
Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, p. 537. S P Ramet, Nihil Obstat: Religion, Politics and Social Change in East-Central Europe and Russia (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1998), p. 246. 14 McManners, The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, p. 45. 15 Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, p. 538.
13 12

Christians as Citizens of a Persecuting State

persecution and had to respond to theological and ethical challenges that emerged from this experience. In the following sections a reference is made to only two of these movements: the Waldenses and the Anabaptists. The Waldensian dissent existed in Europe from the twelfth century until the Reformation when they issued a confession of faith that marked them as a Reformed Protestant group.16 The Waldenses emphasised the lay preachers role in proclaiming the Gospel and a commitment to poverty. They refused to take oaths, and strongly believed that the Word of God had to be applied to the letter.17 In the initial stages, the movement, though unorthodox in many respects, was tolerated by the official church and there were cases when the Waldenses abjured their views.18 Nevertheless, after the 1230s, the Waldenses social and religious behaviour was increasingly changed by the continuous threat of inquisition.19 Persecuted by ecclesiastical and temporal powers, the Waldenses formed underground, secret networks. They faced a painful dilemma: to preach publicly, a conviction which was a part of their identity, or to restrain themselves from public expansion of their ideas in order to survive. By the thirteenth century the majority of Waldensian communities had chosen the latter option. They had become unobtrusive; outwardly the Waldensians looked like lukewarm Catholics.20 Like many other persecuted communities, they had to cope with the question of what the price was for their survival. Gabriel Audisio has suggested that the Waldensians were forcibly obliged not only to hide their convictions but to allay suspicion by paying lip-service to opinions they reproved. However, this was a sign of fear, and so a source of guilt.21 There is no doubt that their experiences also shaped their understanding of what a Christian community should be: according to their view, it was a fellowship of dedicated members who expressed mutual support for each other. However, there was also a sense of exclusiveness belonging to the elect.
Waldenses, in The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, ed. by Jerald C Brauer (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971). 17 Gabriel Audisio, The Waldensian Dissent: Persecution and Survival c. 1170-c.1570 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 11. 18 Euan Cameron, Waldenses: Rejections of Holy Church in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), pp. 11-60. 19 Ibid., pp. 66-68. 20 Bernard Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition (London: Edward Arnold, 1981), p. 91. 21 Audisio, The Waldensian Dissent, p. 88. Cameron has pointed out that the Waldenses partaking of church ministrations may not have been a deliberate pretence, but due to the fact that many medieval anti-clericals were also conventionally devout. Though they may have kept their views secret they often did not hide themselves from the rest of the congregation. Euan Cameron, Waldenses, pp. 109-110. However, Audisio has rightly drawn attention to the psychological and ethical tension created by a hostile context and the fear of persecution.
16

10

Journal of European Baptist Studies

A kind of superiority complex is frequently the case among persecuted minorities.22 The Waldenses case, though rooted in a concrete historical background, helps to illuminate the dilemma of many Christians during an age of suppression: how far is it possible to go with self-censure and compromise without losing ones theological identity and ethical integrity? There has been a wide range of answers to this question. In the early fourth century a Christian, engaged in a lawsuit over property in Alexandria, was able to give a pagan friend power of attorney to act on his behalf and participate in an act of idolatry which was a condition of litigation. Though feeling uneasy about this solution, he could present his case and at the same time avoid persecution.23 In the Soviet Union, many Christians took part in the strictly voluntary demonstrations to celebrate the October Revolution, a symbolic act that at least indirectly gave honour to the atheistic state. They fulfilled their responsibility as citizens, but in their hearts they did not agree with the values that this public ceremony represented. After World War II the Russian Orthodox Church frequently praised Stalin as the greatest friend of all believers, and denied in public statements any intolerance or persecution in the USSR.24 Other churches also voiced similar statements. And even if public support for the persecuting state could be avoided on the level of individual Christians, choosing a low profile as a Christian would easily result in losing ones identity as a believer. Analysing the story of the Waldenses, Audisio stated that the self-repression, both on individuals and on Christian groups cannot be total and lasting; it will either break down or their identity dissimulated and lost altogether.25

Anabaptist separation theology

The Early Anabaptists, whether broadly or narrowly defined, when compared to the Waldenses, maintained more visibility and audibility in the sixteenth-century scene. They did not actively seek clashes with a secular authority,26 nevertheless, the conflicts with ecclesial and temporal powers came to be the mark of their journey in history. James Stayer has stated that at least 679 Anabaptists were executed in Switzerland and the South
22 23

Audisio, The Waldensian Dissent, p. 37. McManners, ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, p. 45. 24 Tatiana Chumachenko, Church and State in Soviet Russia: Russian Orthodoxy from World War II to the Khrushchev Years (Armonk, New York: M E Sharpe, 2002), p. 53. 25 Audisio, The Waldensian Dissent, p. 89. 26 Hans-Jrgen Goertz, The Anabaptists (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), p. 97.

Christians as Citizens of a Persecuting State

11

German areas between 1527 and 1533.27 Persecuted in one region, they fled to another, thus spreading their convictions. The Count of Altzey is reported to have exclaimed: What shall I do, the more I execute, the more they increase.28 This was neither the first nor the last time in history when persecution, paradoxically, was a ferment for the mission of the church. However, there were also places where the Anabaptist movement was totally wiped out. What was the Anabaptists response to a hostile environment? Though it would be more appropriate to talk about a variety of responses, with the risk of oversimplification it is possible to say that separatism from, and the boycott of, the persecuting structures came to dominate Anabaptist views regarding suppressive powers. Among these religious radicals, the division from life in the world was emphasised by prohibition of oathswearing, which was an essential glue in early modern civic affairs.29 Their view of the believers church and the rejection of infant baptism placed them outside the established ecclesial and social structures, and attacked the foundations of the spiritual and temporal social form of the corpus Christianum.30 A clear boundary was drawn between government and the congregation, a dualism which reflected basic differences between the Kingdom of Darkness and the Kingdom of Light, flesh and spirit, Belial and Christ.31 John H Yoder has pointed out that it was the persecutionexperience that imposed separation on the Anabaptists against their will, and that they continued to affirm the legitimacy of the civil order,32 though within the limits of the temporal sphere. Nevertheless, for these radical believers, the focus was on the spiritual realm. Tendencies towards separation, both theologically and even in practical terms, shaped Anabaptist realities. However, this feature is not only distinctive of Anabaptists, for it can be found among many persecuted Christian communities. In the case of the Anabaptists, persecution and separation came to mould their understanding of being a church. Indeed, brotherhood would be a more appropriate term for the fellowship groups

James Stayer, The Anabaptist Revolt and Political and Religious Power, in Benjamin and Calvin Redekop, eds., Power, Authority and the Anabaptist Tradition (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), p. 57. 28 William Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 75. 29 Stayer, The Anabaptist Revolt, p. 56. 30 Goertz, The Anabaptists, p. 129. 31 Ibid., p. 98. 32 John H Yoder, Anabaptists and the Sword Revisited: Systematic Historiography and Undogmatic Nonresistants, Zeitschrift fr Kirchengeschichte, vol. 85 (1974), p. 139.

27

12

Journal of European Baptist Studies

they formed in the early stages.33 Perhaps the only exception was in Moravia, where the Early Anabaptist groups became better organised, due to a higher degree of religious toleration in the area.34 In general, the Anabaptist ideal of church life was restricted by civil authorities, but it only deepened their understanding that the true church manifests itself in fellowship, unity of the spirit, and in the celebration of the Lords Supper35 even if they had to meet secretly. This is certainly not to say that the outside pressure was the only phenomenon moulding their ecclesiological views, but it is possible to argue that suffering can offer a key for understanding not only a church-state or church-society relationship but also the dynamics within the persecuted Christian communities. Balthasar Hubmaier, explaining the meaning of the Lords Supper, said that it is a public testimony of love, in which one brother pledges himself to another before the church. Just as they are now breaking bread and eating with one another, and sharing the cup, so each will offer up body and blood for the other, relying on the power of our Lord Jesus Christ.36 Suffering required interpretation. The majority of Anabaptists interpreted their experience of being persecuted within a Christological perspective. Menno Simons believed that Christ left an example that his disciples should follow. Jesus words, interpreted literally, and his life, became the central ethical measures for Menno, as they had become also for the Swiss [Brethren] and the Hutterites.37 Christ suffered, and thus his followers also have to suffer. Walter Klaassen has stated that for Anabaptists, the physical and spiritual suffering served as a theological integrator, prompting the rediscovery of the early churchs view of Christs suffering continuing in his members.38 As early as 1524 Conrad Grebel wrote: And if thou must suffer for it [for faithfulness to the Scriptures], thou knowest well that it cannot be otherwise. Christ must suffer still more in his members.39 The outside pressure moved Anabaptists towards a deeper identification with the suffering Christ not merely following his

Robert Friedmann, The Theology of Anabaptism, An Interpretation (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 1998), pp. 115-116. 34 George H Williams, The Radical Reformation (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 1992), p. 315. 35 Friedmann, The Theology of Anabaptism, p. 118. 36 Walter Klaassen, ed., Anabaptism in Outline. Selected Primary Sources (Waterloo, Ontario: Herald Press, 1981), p. 194. 37 Arnold C Snyder, Anabaptist History and Theology: An Introduction (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora Press, 1995), p. 213. 38 Klaassen, ed., Anabaptism in Outline, p. 85. 39 Conrad Grebel, Postscript or Second Letter to Thomas Mntzer, September 5, 1524, in G H Williams and A M Mergal, eds., Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), p. 84.

33

Christians as Citizens of a Persecuting State

13

example or suffering on his behalf.40 In addition, the Anabaptists were forced to interpret martyrdom, which was for them not only theoretical but an actual option. The Martyrs Mirror and the Hutterite Geschicht Buch became a sort of martyrs theologies, where martyrdom was defined as imitatio Christi or rather as participatio Christi, and often seen in an apocalyptic perspective.41 Surprisingly, some parrallel features between sixteenth-century European dissent and the twentieth-century Latin American context can be found. William Cavanaugh, analysing the Roman Catholic Christians experience in Pinochet Chile, talks about the Christoform nature of martyrdom and a following in the way of the cross;42 that is, instead of defining martyrdom as dying for the cause of the faith. Referring to ancient martyrdom, which helped the church to gain visibility in society and to claim its identity as a disciplined community, Cavanaugh stated:
The ancient martyrs often asserted the kingship of Christ in refusing to offer worship or service to the emperors and their gods. The church was, by its nature as Christs crucified and resurrected body, a challenge to the violence and idolatry of the secular authorities From a theological point of view the conflict is the same; it is the conflict between Christs body on earth and the powers of the world which refuse to recognise Christs victory over it. Christians see acts of injustice and state violence as the continuing struggle between the people of God and the forces of death.43

Anabaptists, in their own context, in many cases reached different practical conclusions when compared to the suffering Church in Latin America.44 They would, however, have agreed with the basic Christocentric approach and an appeal to the Early Church underlying Cavanaughs words. Though the Anabaptist emphasis on the fellowship of believers and on Christ-like discipleship continues to inspire churches, especially those
Lavrene A Rutschman, Anabaptism and Liberation Theology, in Daniel S Schipani, ed., Freedom and Discipleship: Liberation Theology in an Anabaptist Perspective (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1989), p. 62. 41 For a helpful summary of Anabaptist understanding of martyrdom, see Ethelbert Stauffer, The Anabaptist Theology of Martyrdom, in Wayne Pipkin, ed., Essays in Anabaptist Theology (Elkhart, Indiana: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1994), pp. 211-236. 42 William C Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist (Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), p. 61. 43 Ibid., p. 63. 44 For a short comparison of Anabaptist and Liberation spiritualities, see Jos Miguez Bonino, On Discipleship, Justice and Power, in Schipani, ed., Freedom and Discipleship: Liberation Theology in an Anabaptist Perspective, pp. 131-138.
40

14

Journal of European Baptist Studies

belonging to the Radical Reformation tradition, there was also an inclination to become closed, separated and inward looking communities. The questions are similar to those which many believers face: to withdraw into a spiritual cocoon, to yield to outside pressure, to fight back, or to find some ethical, theological and practical compromise between these options? In addition, context clearly shapes the believers Christology, their understanding of suffering, and other aspects of theology and practice. Constant interpretation is needed, in light of scripture and communal discernment, in order to not only passively accept the external influences, but to keep the inner dynamics of the church, to react creatively to the context, and to maintain healthy resistance to the external pressures.

Persecution of Protestants in Tsarist Russia: A question of ethnic and religious identity

In the following sections of this paper two periods in the history of Eastern European Christianity will be briefly discussed. Firstly, the conflict of Slavic ethnic values and Evangelical Christianity as seen from the official tsarist (and Orthodox) point of view at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century will be presented. And secondly, some conclusions will be drawn from the situation of Christians under atheistic pressure in the Soviet Union. Walter Sawatsky, a Mennonite scholar, has pointed out that since the nineteenth century, persecutions became hereditary for Protestants, especially for Evangelicals, in the Slavic region of Europe.45 Initially protected by their social status, even some of the Evangelicals aristocratic leaders such as Colonel Pashkov and Count Korff were subsequently exiled from Russia, and both died in exile.46 Exceptionally, Pashkov was allowed to return for three months in the 1890s. His dilemma was whether to visit Russia secretly or to preach publicly. As he believed that only the second option enabled him to be faithful to the New Testament model and to his evangelical identity, he decided to preach. Immediately, he was summoned by the tsar, ordered to leave at once and never to return.47 Religious convictions, for these Evangelicals, weighed more than their national belonging and for Pashkov and Korff this resulted in exile.
45

Walter Sawatsky, Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II (Kitchener, Ontario: Herald Press, 1981), p. 27. 46 Michael Rowe, Russian Resurrection: Strength in Suffering A History of Russias Evangelical Church (London: Marshall Pickering, 1994), pp. 27, 32. 47 Ibid., p. 32.

Christians as Citizens of a Persecuting State

15

Russian speaking Evangelicals in Tsarist Russia, trying to remain faithful to their convictions, often chose a position which was not advantageous for them as citizens or as members of their ethnic group. Being a Russian, for them, did not automatically mean being Orthodox. In the initial stages of the movement, many Evangelicals in Russia were left without legal rights: their marriages if not conducted by an Orthodox priest were invalid, and their children were consequently considered to be illegitimate.48 After the so-called Tolerance Manifesto of 1905 several Evangelicals who had been exiled or imprisoned returned home. For example, Feodor Kostronin had been in exile for sixteen years and in prison for nine, and Vasili Ivanov-Klyshnikov had been twice in exile and thirtyone times in prison.49 Though there were other ethnic groups represented among Evangelicals, such as Germans, it is interesting to see how Slavic national ideals and religious preferences caused tensions and conflict for Russian speaking Evangelicals. The state, wishing to consolidate its unity, did not like the idea that Russians might loosen their links between being Slav and Orthodox. Evangelicals, with their more international views on religion, however, wanted to exercise this freedom, which led to difficulties. From another aspect, close relationships between the Tsarist state and the Orthodox Church made it difficult to differentiate between the two in the persecution of Protestants, especially between 1880 and 1905 when Konstantin Pobedonostsev was the chief-procurator to the Holy Synod (a lay representative of the Tsar to the Orthodox Church administration). He exercised wide powers to persecute non-Orthodox believers, and Russian Evangelicals began to call him The Russian Saul.50 For Pobedonostsev, religious (Orthodox) identity and ethnic (Russian) identity were inseparable, and he believed that it was the duty of a Russian man to impose Orthodoxy on others, by force, if necessary.51 Hans Brandenburg stated: The unity of the people in the Orthodox faith was for him the

Michael Rowe, Russian Resurrection, p. 28. Hans Brandenburg, The Meek and the Mighty: The Emergence of the Evangelical Movement in Russia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 130. 50 Steve Durasoff, The Russian Protestants, Evangelicals in the Soviet Union: 1944-1964 (Rutherford: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1969), p. 47. 51 Constantine Prokhorov, Orthodoxy and Baptists in Russia: The Early Period, in Ian M Randall, ed., Baptists and the Orthodox Church: On the way to understanding (Prague: International Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003), p. 105. For an extensive treatment of the emergence of the Russian Orthodox ethno-centered identity, see Parush R Parushev, Narrative Paradigm of Emergence Contextual Orthodox Theological Identity, Religion in Eastern Europe XXV, 2 (May 2005), pp. 1-39 and his earlier account On Some Developments in Russian Orthodox Theology and Tradition, in Randall, ed., Baptists and the Orthodox Church, pp. 81-97.
49

48

16

Journal of European Baptist Studies

guarantee of the state and its security.52 His violent measures against Protestants were the consequence of political rather than religious convictions. He was profoundly convinced that Russian nationality and Orthodoxy were one, and, consequently, any deviation from Orthodoxy represented betrayal of national identity and of the Russian empire.53 Accusations against Christians or Christian groups breaking the unity of a state or national identity are nothing new: these voices can be heard all through the history of Christianity. However, for Russian Protestants the question was raised: is Protestant Christianity compatible with Slavic ethnic identity? Russian Evangelicals attempts to solve this issue from the perspective of individual faith and religious tolerance led to conflicts with political and religious structures which rather emphasised Slavic ethnicity and Orthodox values. Also, different views on mission caused tension, and continue to do so, in Eastern Europe. An Orthodox view of canonical territory, that is the exclusive right of the Orthodox to represent the Christian faith in a given area without any competition from others, is very different from a Protestant-Evangelical understanding of mission, often focusing on the search for personal conversion.54

Soviet persecution leading to a split among Evangelicals

Paul Marshall has said that outside Communist (and radical Islamist) settings it is comparatively rare for someone to be repressed merely for their individual confessional beliefs if these beliefs do not affect some other facet of life. It is usually the very interrelation that leads to persecution. For example, Marshall added, in Chiapas, Mexico, Protestants were persecuted because they refused to pay unreasonably high prices for goods to be used in religious ceremonies that they rejected.55 However, the totalitarian regimes tend to aim at controlling citizens minds and attitudes. This is one reason why, for example, Nazi Germay was hostile towards religion. Nazism was demanding of its adherents total submission of their

Brandenburg, The Meek and the Mighty, p. 119. Ibid., pp. 119-120, 123. 54 For the need to rethink Orthodox and Protestant relationships in the area of mission in Eastern Europe, see Mark Elliott and Anita Deyneka, Protestant Missionaries in the Former Soviet Union, in John Witte and Michael Bourdeaux, eds., Proselytism and Orthodoxy in Russia. The New War for Souls (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999), pp. 205-215. 55 Paul Marshall, ed., Religious Freedom in the World: A Global Report on Freedom and Persecution (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman and Holman, 2000), p. 17.
53

52

Christians as Citizens of a Persecuting State

17

consciences and surrender of their souls. Christianity disputed these total claims.56 The conflict was inevitable. Certainly, the Soviet totalitarian regime, especially in its initial stages, was interested not only in outward submission, but in active commitment to the Communist cause, with a requirement that all become active citizens. Just being a Christian was a suspicious fact in itself. In the 1930s, the Soviet Union introduced severe atheistic repressions. Several laws passed in 1928 and 1929 confirmed a very restricted role for the churches in Soviet society. The believers, and non-working elements such as the clergy, were considered to be second-class citizens.57 At the end of the 1950s, a campaign was launched by Khruschchev to reach a stage where all citizens followed the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism. If they did this society would be liberated from the survival elements of capitalism, such as faith in God. As Christians emphasised a transformational process taking place in the life of a believer, Christianity was seen as a rival to the Communist worldview.58 On the other hand, the Soviet state learned quickly not to accuse anybody for their beliefs officially, as theoretically the government guaranteed religious freedom. As Christianity affected decision-making and behaviour, some of these facets caught the Soviet authorities attention and were used as a pretext for persecution. Christians continued to face the issue of being marginalised. It was very unlikely that a Soviet citizen would encounter any evidence of church activities in his normal daily life.59 Believers had to cope with the many ethical and theological questions that emerged in the context of living in an atheistic society. One of these questions was of compromise. How far should they cooperate with the state, if at all? How much should they let the state shape Christian theology and practice, for example in the field of mission and evangelism or in the field of worship? The feelings that atheistic pressure created are well described by Hans Brandenburg: the Bolshevik GPU [a predecessor of the KGB] continually levelled political accusations, made slanders and denunciations which could not be checked, held secret trials or took open police measures, all of which created a general insecurity and mutual suspicion. People never knew who had been suborned to act as an informer. [F]alse
56 57

Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: A New History (London: Pan Books, 2001), pp. 252, 255-256. Philip Walters, A survey of Soviet religious policy, in Sabrina P Ramet, ed., Religious Policy in the Soviet Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 13. 58 Constantine Prokhorov, The State and the Baptist Churches in the USSR from 1960-1980, Unpublished research paper (Prague: IBTS, 2004), pp. 6-8. 59 Jane Ellis, The Russian Orthodox Church, A Contemporary History (London and Sydney: Croom Helm, 1986), p. 273.

18

Journal of European Baptist Studies

denunciations were used to play one group off against another. As in the persecution of Christians under the old Roman emperors, now too were lapsi apostates. 60 Though referring to the pre-war period in Russia, the quotation correctly conveys the inner insecurity created among Christians by outside pressure. Maintaining the atmosphere of trust was one of the important challenges for Russian Christians in the Soviet period. The believers also had to ask the question, what meaning does truthtelling have in an environment where the state authorities manipulate whole populations by the massaging of statistics, coercing them through repressive structures, trying to capture their minds by control of the mass media? The state systematically created a distorted picture of Christians, depicting them at best as primitive and unreasoning people or at worst as dangerous fanatics.61 At the same time, Christians, especially Christian leaders, were expected to be obedient to the states religious policies. Evangelical Christian-Baptist leader Jakov Zhidkov wrote in 1946 that the great October Revolution brought to our country the basic true freedom of conscience; and praised the Stalin Constitution as the most democratic of all constitutions in the world.62 Did Zhidkov, having been in prison and in exile himself, write this with a hope that church members would understand his delicate position and not take his words too seriously? Was he threatened by the state authorities? Steve Durasoff seems to support these possibilities.63 Nevertheless, one may also ask if Zhidkov might have thought that these and other similar eulogies were the price to be paid for permission to preach the gospel in church buildings, and he did not want to undermine this possibility? Closure of churches would have been even worse so he chose the lesser evil. Today, compromises made by Christians in these situations cannot simply be evaluated only on a blackand-white scale. In addition to these ethical complexities, a painful split occurred among Soviet Evangelicals in the 1960s. It was a direct outcome of the persecution of Christians in general, and the new wave of Khrushchevs persecutions in particular. The official body of the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists (AUCECB) chose a moderate, even docile approach in their relationships with the atheistic state; they altered the unions statutes, and suggested to local churches that the focus of Christian
Brandenburg, The Meek and the Mighty, p. 192. Trevor Beeson, Discretion and Valour: Religious Conditions in Russia and Eastern Europe (Glasgow: Collins Fontana Books, 1974), pp. 48-49. 62 Jakov Zhidkov, Our Holidays, Bratskii Vestnik, no. 2 (1946), pp. 14-15. Quoted in Steve Durasoff, The Russian Protestants, pp. 187-188. 63 Durasoff, The Russian Protestants, p. 188.
61 60

Christians as Citizens of a Persecuting State

19

work should be to satisfy the spiritual needs of the believers, and not attracting new members. In effect, the churches were made instruments of their own containment and restriction.64 However, there was an increasing number of those who became dissatisfied with the realities: diminished decision-making possibilities at local church level; severe restrictions on doing mission and evangelism; and the states attempts to prohibit childrens attendance at worship services in churches. The dissatisfied group, called initsiativniky or Reform Baptists,65 chose public protest instead of wise manoeuvring.66 They became involved in underground activities such as the illegal printing of Christian literature. Refusal to register churches became a sign of true faith for them, and faithfulness to God came to be measured by disobedience to state requirements. Illegal believers often considered the registered believers to be traitors, because they were prepared to let their church life be confined by restrictive state regulations.67 Michael Bourdeaux has stated that the reformers opposed the AUCECB for its alleged compromises with the state.68 Even more the Reform Baptists felt that their identity as evangelicals was threatened by state demands. In 1966, the reformers samizdat publication Bratskii Listok (Brotherly Leaflet) accused the AUCECB of trying to bend Gods people to sin (i.e. registration of churches and obedience to the demands of the state), but the faithful will continue to serve God in the same way as Mordecai, Daniel and the apostles.69 The registered believers answered quoting Romans 13:1-2, calling for respect for the government, or 1 Peter 2:13-17, urging Christians to do good and in this way silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. A particular government may be anti-christian, but God sets such governments as a judgement over the nations.70 Emphasis on decent life, total abstinence from alcohol, honesty at the workplace, willingness to serve in the army, and giving to Ceasars that which was Ceasars (Matthew 22:21) all this constituted the AUCECB position regarding
Trevor Beeson, Discretion and Valour: Religious Conditions in Russia and Eastern Europe, pp. 98-99. From September 1965 they used the name Council of Churches of the Evangelical Christians and Baptists. 66 In the 1960s and 1970s a protest movement emerged also in the Russian Orthodox Church. See Jane Ellis, The Russian Orthodox Church, A Contemporary History, pp. 290-447; Michael Bourdeaux, Patriarch and Prophets: Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church (London and Oxford: Mowbrays, 1970). 67 Hans Barndenburg, The Meek and the Mighty, p. 199. 68 Michael Bourdeaux, Religious Ferment in Russia: Protestant Opposition to Soviet Religious Policy (London and New York: Macmillan and St Martins Press, 1968), pp. 22, 26. 69 Bratskii Listok, no. 6 (1966). Estonian translation. Materials of Robert Vsu, Archive of the Union of Evangelical Christian and Baptist Churches of Estonia. 70 Hans Barndenburg, The Meek and the Mighty, p. 200.
65 64

20

Journal of European Baptist Studies

Christian witness in the persecuting state. However, never appearing in print was the alternative choice; the call to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).71 Fragmentation among believers themselves was inevitable. The official line of Soviet Evangelicals seems to have overestimated the positive effect of cognitive dissonance72 whereby it was hoped that an exemplary lifestyle displayed by Christians would raise questions in the mindset of their persecutors. Instead of becoming more favourable towards Christians, some atheistic authors became even more convinced that Christianity was dangerous. One author described evangelical attitudes toward labour as a pious fraud, an about-face tactic calculated to regain the respect of fellow citizens.73 By contrast, the Reform Baptists seemed to have overestimated the effect of radical confrontation. Like some Christians in the Early Church period,74 so also the Reform Baptists sometimes provoked the state authorities as if expecting hard measures to be applied. In some cases they refused to use secular language, thereby emphasising their claim to exist under spiritual not temporal laws. Some Evangelicals forbade their children to join the Soviet Pioneers organisation, or to wear the devils sign, namely the red tie.75 Reform Baptists tended to glorify the suffering and conflict that came their way from the atheistic state. They declared that many of their brothers and sisters were elevated by God to His glory by imprisonment and prison camps.76 As a result of pressure from outside, many Christians in the Soviet Union developed something of an identity of the persecuted. When Communism collapsed, they found difficulty in actively and positively participating in the social and political life of their country. Certainly, there are today new challenges for Christians in the former Soviet Union areas; for example, the emerging Islamic identity in Central Asia has, on several occasions, put severe restrictions on Christians. Nevertheless, the question of how to keep ones identity but still maintain the ability to dialogue with the wider culture is still a challenge and a theological task for the Christian Church, especially in situations of persecution. Also, maintaining the integrity and atmosphere of trust and avoiding hermeneutics of suspicion is an ethical challenge to believers under state pressure.
Durasoff, The Russian Protestants, pp. 217-221. Cognitive Dissonance, in Baker Encyclopaedia of Psychology, ed. by D Benner (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 188. 73 Durasoff, The Russian Protestants, p. 219. 74 Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, p. 505. 75 Durasoff, The Russian Protestants, p. 191. 76 Bratskii Listok, no. 6 (1966). Estonian translation. Materials of Robert Vsu, Archive of the Union of Evangelical Christian and Baptist Churches of Estonia.
72 71

Christians as Citizens of a Persecuting State

21

Conclusion
Christians in persecuting environments have faced not only restrictions but physical and psychological suffering. They have faced the dilemma of belonging to the kingdom of Caesar and to the kingdom of Christ at the same time. Seeking solutions to this dilemma has not taken place in a neutral setting, but it has been influenced by the intensity of the persecution experience. In several cases, in Early Christianity and later in church history, Christians have chosen obedience and respect for the state, even a persecuting state, but refused to admit that the state has the final authority. There have also been attempts to ally the Christian Church to state powers. In the west this arrangement has usually been designated Christendom. However, dissenting groups such as the Waldenses and Anabaptists were severely suppressed over the years. The Waldenses responded to the situation by attempting to keep as low a profile as possible, risking the loss of their identity altogether. Anabaptists ran into confrontation with the Christendom authorities; the persecution experience pushed them towards a conviction that Christians should focus exclusively on the spiritual realm, as the temporal power was, according to them, out of the perfection of Christ. Persecution helped to shape their Christology, ecclesiology and their understanding of suffering. Evangelicals in Tsarist Russia had to consider in what ways their convictions were, or should be, compatible with the wider cultural, ethnic and religious values. Slavic Evangelicals in Tsarist times often chose conflict instead of adjusting itself to Russian ethnic or Orthodox expectations, with its aim of national unity. Christians during the Soviet times had to solve questions about their relationship with a state that was determined to stamp out Christianity altogether. Soviet Evangelicals offered two approaches. The official churches preferred outward conformity and emphasised exemplary lifestyle, believing that in this way they were following the same tradition as St Paul. The underground Evangelicals, like the Reform Baptists, chose not to obey restrictive laws and regulations, or even to register their existence with the state, using their international networks to criticise the restriction of religious freedom in the Soviet Union. Following a pattern established by some early Christians prior to the Constantinian reform, and later the Anabaptists, many Soviet Evangelicals developed a cautious attitude in their relationship with the state and wider society, which has partly continued even after the ending of atheistic state dominance. However, some of the dilemmas which had to be faced within the Soviet Union (such as how far to cooperate with the

22

Journal of European Baptist Studies

persecuting state; how to maintain an atmosphere of trust, personal honesty and integrity; to what extent one should reject or embrace compromise), are also characteristic of persecuted Christians in other historical and geographical settings.

Epilogue
This article began with a personal note. With a personal note it should also end. Did I go to the interview? Yes, I met with two KGB officers, who, drinking wine from their stokans (tea-glasses), interrogated me for an hour or so. I tried to talk as little as possible, or to say things which I thought would be generally known information. As the interrogation proceeded, the officers began to express their dissatisfaction with loud voices and verbal intimidations. They made it clear to me that I would never be allowed to go abroad and that I had better abandon all hopes of studying theology. With this anti-prophecy I was sent away. However, after some years the political and religious situation changed. The predictions of the KGB officers did not come true. I did study theology and, in 1989, made my first trip abroad. KGB structures were dissolved in Estonia. My personal experience, however, though much less dramatic than the experiences of many other Christians in oppressive contexts, serves two ends as a framework for this essay. Firstly, it shows the authors motivation to explore the wider story of the experience of Christian faith, practice and persecution. Secondly, it hopefully serves as a reminder for Christians who come from a persecution experience, that for a better understanding of our identity as a fellowship of believers, the complex story (that includes wise and unwise compromises, heroism and weakness) needs to be analysed and remembered both with thankfulness and repentance. Otherwise we will be trapped in our past.
(A version of this artice has appeared in Theological Reflections: Euro-Asian Theological Journal, No. 6 (2006), pp. 146-61.) The Revd Toivo Pilli is now Rector of Tartu Baptist Seminary after serving as Course Leader of Baptist and Anabaptist Studies at IBTS from 2002-6. He has written extensively on Estonian Baptist history.