Details

Volume 19, No. 1

American and Romanian Values at Odds

Andrew LaBreche

Editor’s note: The first portion of this article was published in the previous issue of the East-West Church and Ministry Report 18 (Fall 2010): 6-9.

A Nation of Contrasts

Latin is the basis for the language of Romania, but this nation is surrounded by neighbors who speak Slavic tongues. A “Latin island in a sea of Slavs,” Romania is in the East, but looks to the West. Over the centuries it has straddled the crossroads of major powers – Ottoman Turks, Austro-Hungarians, Germans, and Russians – and has suffered greatly for it. Romanians are both a proud and a defeated people at the same time, and especially proud of their humility.

With Americans they have a love-hate relationship. They are a forgiving people, yet still remind Americans of their abandonment at Yalta. They can be painfully direct, but overall are very indirect communicators. They are wonderfully warm, enjoy life to the fullest, and when necessary, stoically endure intense hardship, yet the national pastime seems to be complaining. They are open and yet closed. They are understandable and yet not. Nothing about them can be ruled out entirely.

A High Level of Religious Adherence

Compared to the rest of Europe, Romania is especially religious. It has an unusually large number of Orthodox places of worship and religious vocations: 14,529 parishes, monasteries, and chapels; 12,173 priests and deacons; and 8,029 monks and nuns. Romania also has 11,063 seminarians and 10,235 public school religion teachers.1 All these figures are proportionately high compared to other Orthodox countries. Romania also has the third largest number of evangelical Christians in Europe, more than all Evangelicals in the rest of Eastern Europe combined. The number of evangelical churches more than doubled between 1989 and 2006, from approximately 1,800-2,400 to at least 5,000.2

Time Consciousness

Although the culture is changing rapidly, Romanians in general are much less time-conscious than Americans. Several years ago when I first arrived in Romania, we were invited to a friend’s house for a birthday party. He said 7:00 p.m., so as good Americans, we arrived within five minutes of 7:00 p.m. He answered the door, clearly not dressed yet, still cleaning the house, and with a very surprised look on his face, asked why we had come early. The rest of the guests showed up “on time” around 8:00 or 8:30.

This is not to say that nothing is “on time” from an American perspective. Trains (usually) leave at the time posted. When meeting with someone from a significantly higher class, one must be on time, but between friends or in an informal gathering, “on time” can be within an hour of the announced starting time. As one can imagine, a lack of understanding of this significant cultural difference can create tremendous conflicts, especially for Americans who consider punctuality a moral issue.

Contrasting Perspectives on Planning

Americans often reject old ways in favor of something new. Mottos like “Today is the first day of the rest of your life” and “Plan ahead” are heartfelt and closely tied to faith in progress and action.3 The problem American evangelical missionaries encounter in cultures without a strong future orientation is clear: “Given our penchant for planning, it should not surprise us that we are often frustrated when we go to societies where people do not plan ahead. Even more frustrating is the fact that in many cultures people not only do not plan, they think it is wrong to do so.”4 Romanian culture does not consider it wrong to plan for the future, but in Romania it is very difficult to make plans that will actually come about because so many unanticipated events occur each day. Eventually one gives up on planning because unexpected and uncontrollable events frequently make planning useless.

In general, Romanians are also much more fatalistic than Americans. Describing Romanian culture, former U.S. foreign service officer Yale Richmond states: “Events should be allowed to happen, since people have little ability to change them.”5 One of the best examples of the influence of fatalism, to the point of its almost becoming a positive value, is the Romanian ballad “Mioriţa,” which relates the story of two shepherds who plot to kill their companion, a third shepherd. Mioriţa, a ewe lamb of the third shepherd, warns him of the plot. But instead of defending himself as the ewe advises, he asks her to tell the two murderers to bury him near the sheepfold. What is striking from an American perspective is the passivity of the hero in the face of death. He does nothing to defend himself and only whiles away the time philosophizing about life.

An interesting exchange was observed some years ago during a lecture on this story given by a Romanian to a group of mostly American evangelical missionaries. After finishing a very emotional recounting of the story and commenting on the beauty and meaning it holds, the Romanian narrator asked the audience for their thoughts. One American missionary said, “Why didn’t he just kill the other two?” The Romanian was noticeably taken back and mumbled how everyone had missed the bravery of the hero in facing death. By way of contrast, Lucian Blaga, a prominent Romanian philosopher and poet, went so far as to describe the shepherd’s death as a “sacramental act.”6

In keeping with their Enlightenment heritage, Americans see the world as consistent and orderly, operating according to natural laws that apply uniformly over time and space. If Americans know how things work, they are confident they can rule nature, engineer societies, make things happen, and be in charge of their lives. Rather than accepting the unexpected as a normal part of life, Americans are upset when things go wrong and are quick to place blame and correct faults. They assume that if they do things right they will succeed, whether in running a company, constructing a building, or planting a church. Dominance of nature—and the world—has been very much a part of the Western ethos.7

This concept of a rational order in the world that explains all events is the basis for the huge emphasis one finds in American culture on problem solving. In fact, from an American perspective, reality is brimming with problems to be solved.8 Romanians are much more willing to tolerate ambiguity (or as Americans would describe it, chaos). Much of this tolerance for ambiguity may simply stem from an inability to plan with any degree of certainty.

Task Versus Relationship Orientation

Americans place high value on planning, efficiency, productivity, and profit. The American emphasis upon tasks to be accomplished inevitably leads to a focus on techniques, on how to do things. However, in Romania, as in many traditional societies, life revolves around relationships, which are often ends in themselves, not means to an end. People do work together to complete common tasks, but friends and relatives often gather informally to simply enjoy one another’s company, not waiting for holidays or a special invitation. In Romania, relationships take precedence over plans and structures. Work must wait when relatives and friends arrive unexpectedly.

Romanians find meaning in life not necessarily in accomplishments (although that is changing in the large cities), but in social connections. Consequently, people generally give priority to cultivating relationships over completing tasks. Hospitality to strangers and generosity are thus highly valued because they directly relate to the emphasis upon relationships.

The church is affected by this significant area of difference between American and Romanian evangelical cultures. Romanian churches, oriented more towards relationships, differ from American churches, which focus on order. Meeting times are governed less by clocks and more by human exigencies. Typically, Romanian services begin when some (to American eyes) undefined number has arrived and generally end not so much at a fixed time but when the service is done. Time at church focuses heavily on personal and social relationships rather than the accomplishment of a task or goal.

Church polity, too, is different in Romania. More emphasis is placed on relationships within the church than on strict adherence to constitutions, voting, and Robert’s Rules of Order. From an American perspective much more is accomplished informally and outside official meetings. Potentially conflicting views are very diplomatically and carefully explored before any public meeting takes place. If the views of potential adversaries are not known beforehand, participants wait to express opinions until the most senior person (generally the pastor) has spoken. At the same time, leaders are careful to respect the opinions of other socially important figures present. On the positive side, the practical outcome of this is decision-making by consensus. On the negative side, it can lead to subtle power struggles, gossip, and backbiting.

Headstrong Americans

Unfortunately, American evangelical missionaries too often attend meetings with “all the answers,” ready to solve everyone’s problems, but with solutions to questions that are not being asked, let alone considered a problem needing fixing. This ethnocentric assumption of Americans that they understand the problem (whatever that may be) better than do nationals and that they also have the solution, only tends to confirm the widespread view among Romanian Evangelicals that Americans are arrogant and condescending. Very clearly, conflicts can result. Often, however, because of subconsciously held ethnocentric values, Americans may be totally unaware of having given offense, instead thinking they are being very helpful—helpfulness being a strong American value in itself.

Differing Views on Social Rank

Americans are often insensitive to social rank and can cause great offense in cultures that place a higher value on formality and social status.9 In the high context culture of Romania, each person, upon meeting another, attempts to establish as accurately as possible the status of the other person. At times this even means not shaking the hand of those significantly below you, an act incredibly offensive to Americans. Even though I was personally aware of this as a cultural norm, it still raised my emotions when a colleague of mine did not shake the hand of another Romanian friend of mine who happened to be of the working class. At other times Romanians are taken aback by American informality with others or a lack of “decorum” in meeting someone significant.

Americans are very proud of their democratic system of government, yet problems arise when they assume that democracy is the only Christian way.10 Americans expect to be able to express their opinions and to exert an influence on the final decision taken. Everyone should be given a chance to speak and have an equal voice in the decision.11 When practiced in a context where negotiations and decision-making are much more subtle and less public, as in Romania, insisting that one’s voice be heard and “demanding” to exert an influence on a final decision is considered proud and arrogant.

Collectivism Versus Individualism

Answers to one question from the World Values Survey underscore the observation that Romanian culture has a more collectivist orientation than does American culture. Only 28.4 percent of Romanians considered independence an important quality for children to be taught at home, compared to 62 percent of Americans.12

Related to one’s self-identity is the high value North Americans place on being accepted or liked. This need for acceptance can cause significant interpersonal problems because Romanians, relatively speaking, are not an affirming people. Praise and compliments are considered detrimental to one’s sense of humility, so are seldom given. Thus the typical American craving for a feeling of acceptance is often not met, and strong perceptions of not being appreciated develop, causing great potential for intercultural misunderstanding. On the Romanian side, the American desire for approval is often interpreted as narcissistic selfishness. In contrast, the strong Romanian emphasis upon humility can lead to the paradoxical result of people actually being proud of their presumed humility.

Who Is Being Honest?

In North America it generally is worse to tell a lie than to hurt someone’s feelings. In many other cultures it is the reverse, even if it means bending the truth somewhat.13 In even mundane contacts such as asking directions, this factor comes into play. In order to please, Romanians tend to tell foreigners what they think foreigners want to hear.14 In asking directions one may receive detailed responses, whereas in realty direction-givers simply may not know. Without any idea of the location, Romanians still want to help, or perhaps, not lose face.

Responses to the questionnaire administered to American missionaries and Romanian Evangelicals indicated each group considered the other dishonest. Romanians in general weigh the truth in terms of its potential to damage a relationship. The result is that facts often are left unsaid and problems, from an American perspective, are “swept under the rug” in a “dishonest” fashion. Because Romanians are very adept at indirect communication, they tend to “read into” what is said, thereby deciphering what the speaker is “really saying.” When Romanians speak this way with “straight talking” Americans, they often assume something was said that actually was not intended. From the American perspective indirect allusions and inferences, if caught, are seen as deceptive at best and dishonest at worst. Thus, what may not in fact be dishonesty is assumed to be so by both sides.

Efficiency Versus Bureaucracy

Efficiency is very important to Americans, including American evangelical missionaries. They want to get things done, not waste time, and accomplish their goals, all by the most efficient means possible. It is difficult for Americans to understand how a people could think differently. But under the Communist system, a different thought pattern developed in which productivity statistics mattered more than efficiency or quality of goods. Former U.S. Foreign Service officer Yale Richmond describes the Romanian bureaucratic system as one that is half Ottoman and half Habsburg and “combines the worst features of both.” He exaggerates, but those who have spent hours standing in Romanian lines waiting for a chance to be yelled at would probably agree. In theological terms, Richmond humorously describes Romanian clerks as “omnipotent but not always omnipresent.” 15

The perpetual bureaucratic grind that continues in post-Communist Romania is one aspect of daily life that truly exasperates Americans. Thus, American evangelical missionaries come to Romania with a clearly thought out, detailed ministry strategy, including a specific plan to achieve these goals. Frustration is the result because the missionaries are coming to a culture that does not place a high value on efficiency. In fact, even the simple act of going to town with a list of 10 errands is fanciful because of bureaucracy and a general lack of a customer service mentality—although it is changing rapidly. Given this scenario, a former missionary friend gave this valuable advice: “Consider yourself very successful if three of the 10 errands are accomplished, or even if you went to town, got nothing done, but enjoyed the walk.”

In contrast, in most of the non-Western world, including Romania, “being and becoming” take priority over “doing.” This emphasis is also seen in the high respect for intellectuals and thinkers in Romanian culture, in contrast to the suspicion businessmen often face.16 F

Notes

1 Monica Heintz, “Romanian Orthodoxy between the Urban and the Rural,” Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Working Papers, No. 67, 2004, p. 5; http://monica.heintz.free.fr/versions.

2 www.oci.ro.

3 Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1985), 131-32.

4 Ibid., 119.

5 From Da to Yes: Understanding the East Europeans (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1995), 134.

6 Lucian Blaga, Orizont si stil [Horizon and Style] (Bucharest: 1936), 120-21.

7 Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), 139-40.

8 Edward C. Stewart and Milton J. Bennett, American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, rev. ed. (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1991), 68.

9 Ibid., 90; Paul G. Hiebert, “Popular Religions” in Toward the 21st Century in Christian Mission, ed. by James M. Phillips and Robert T. Coote (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 185 and 286; David J. Hesselgrave, ed., Theology and Mission: Papers Given at Trinity Consultation No. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978), 348-64; Marvin K. Mayers, Christianity Confronts Culture: A Strategy for Cross-Cultural Evangelism, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 130; Eugene Nida, Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions (New York: Harper & Row, 1954), 41; Serena Nanda, Cultural Anthropology (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991), 301.

10 S. A. Grunlan and M. K. Mayers, Cultural Anthropology: A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 217.

11 Stewart and Bennett, American Cultural Patterns, 63-64.

12 Paul E. Spector, Cary L. Cooper, Juan I. Sanchez et al., “Do National Levels of Individualism and Internal Locus of Control Relate to Well-Being: An Ecological Level International Study,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 22 (2001), 824.

13 Paul G. Hiebert, R. Daniel Shaw, and Tite Tienou, Understanding Folk Religion: A Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 37.

14 Richmond, From Da to Yes, 148.

15 Ibid., 140-41.

16 Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Insights, 117 and 121.

Edited excerpts published with permission from Andrew LaBreche, “Ethnocentrism. U.S.–American Evangelical Missionaries in Romania: Qualitative Missiological Research into Representative Cross-Cultural Value-Based Conflicts,” Ph.D. dissertation, Evangelical Theological Faculty of Leuven, Belgium, 2007.

Andrew LaBreche is an American missionary who has served with Greater Europe Mission in Romania since 1997.

Editor’s note: Final portions of the present article will be published in the following two issues of the East-West Church and Ministry Report 19 (Spring 2011) and (Summer 2011).

Details

Volume 19, No. 1

European Baptist Federation Presidents from the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, 1966-2009

Michael Zhidkov, Russia, 1966-1968

Alexei Bichkov, Russia, 1976-1978

Stanislaw Sveč, Czechoslovakia, 1981-1983

Vasile Talpos, Romania, 1987-1989

Theodor Angelov, Bulgaria, 1995-1997

Gregory Komendant, Ukraine, 2001-2003

Helari Puu, Estonia, 2005-2007

Toma Magda, Croatia, 2007-2009

Thirty-six percent (8 of 22) of European Baptist Federation presidents were from the former Soviet • Union and Eastern Europe, 1966-2009.

Fifty-seven percent (4 of 7) were from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, 1995-2009.•

Source: Keith G. Jones, The European Baptist Federation; A Case Study in European Baptist Interdependency, 1950-2006 (Milton Keynes, England: Paternoster, 2009).

Details

Volume 19, No. 1

The Indigenous Missionary Project

While participants discussed several options at the meeting—such as continuing support for relief and development and assistance for theological education—one idea, the creation of an indigenous missionary project, seemed to engender general support. The proposal, as it developed, envisaged various national unions applying to an EBF coordinating group for funding for salaries (at an EBF-set figure) for nationals who would plant new congregations. In turn, the EBF would solicit finances from Baptist unions in Western Europe and from mission partners in the U.S. to fund this work. Regular reports would be furnished to the funding partners with declining salary support over five years as church plants became self-supporting or received increasing assistance from their respective Baptist unions.2

This Indigenous Missionary Project (IMP), as it came to be known, was an EBF initiative involving European and North American partners. Though some, including this writer, doubted that, in practice, either the North American mission partners or the Baptist unions of Europe would willingly cede key responsibilities and oversight to the EBF, subsequent events proved otherwise. Angelov already had a vigorous coordinator in mind, Daniel Trusiewicz, pastor of Wroclaw Baptist Church in Poland. The general secretary drove the scheme forward, demonstrating that EBF’s executive officer could in some circumstances exercise significant leadership.

In April 2002 Pastor Trusiewicz made a modest start with a handful of missionaries in Moldova. By 2006 IMP personnel had launched church plants in Armenia, Belarus, the Caucasus region, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, and five Middle Eastern countries.3 By April 2010 newly planted churches numbered 65 in 25 countries in Europe and the Middle East.4 The work of Trusiewicz and the leadership of Angelov and his successor, Tony Peck, made a remarkable success of the IMP. This achievement demonstrates that both European Baptist unions and various U.S. Baptist mission agencies trusted and used the EBF to facilitate an exciting program of church planting by indigenous missionaries, involving cross-cultural support. Thus, Theo Angelov’s vision of the Indigenous Missionary Project allowed the EBF to take on an important new role.F

Notes:

1Peter F. Penner, ed., Ethnic Churches in Europe: A Baptist Response (Schwarzenfeld, Germany: Neufeld Verlag, 2006).

2 EBF Indigenous Missionary Project Guidelines; www.ebf.org/articles/index; accessed 18 January 2007.

3 EBF Council, Lyon, September 2006, Document C2006/14, EBF Office Archive, Prague.

4 Updated information maintained at www.ebf.org/projects; accessed April 2010. Approximately 11 post-Soviet countries have been added since April 2006: Azerbaijan, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, and Tajikistan.

Edited excerpts reprinted with permission from Keith G. Jones, The European Baptist Federation; A Case Study in European Baptist Interdependency, 1950-2006 (Milton Keynes, England: Paternoster, 2009).

Keith G. Jones is rector of the International Baptist Theological Seminary, Prague, Czech Republic

Details

Volume 19, No. 1

Pentecostal and Charismatic Denominations in Russia

Torsten Lőfstedt

The Pentecostal and Charismatic movement is the third largest religious movement in Russia, after the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and Islam, and it is growing rapidly. Russia is home to three large Pentecostal denominations. The largest is the Russian Church of Christians of the Evangelical Faith (RCCEF), sometimes referred to as the Russian Church of Evangelical Christians, with approximately 300,000 members, if children are counted, and some 1,300 congregations. It is headed by Eduard Grabovenko (www.hve.ru). It is followed by the Russian Association of Christians of the Evangelical Faith (RACEFP), led by Sergei Ryakhovsky (cef.ru). The third largest Pentecostal church is the unregistered United Church of Christians of the Evangelical Faith (UCCEF) led by Ivan Fedotov.

Differences among these three denominations today are rather small. All three are Trinitarian, all practice believers’ baptism, all believe in healing in response to prayer, and all value speaking in tongues. Grabovenko’s RCCEF has its roots in traditional Russian Pentecostalism and has had close ties to the Assemblies of God, but it also includes more Charismatic congregations. Ryakhovsky’s RACEFP is an umbrella organization including groups of churches associated with various Neocharismatic missions, including the Churches of Faith, but it also includes more traditional congregations.

Elusive Numbers

Individual congregations in these denominations have considerable freedom, and some congregations are registered with one denomination, but in practice show their allegiance to another. The most notable example is the New Testament Church in Perm. The congregation is officially part of Ryakhovsky’s union, but its head pastor, Grabovenko, is himself head of the RCCEF. This kind of overlap makes it very difficult to give accurate statistics for Russian Pentecostalism, as Roman Lunkin has pointed out. (“Pentecostal and Charismatic Statistics,” East-West Church and Ministry Report 13 [Winter 2005], 3).

Origins

The first truly Pentecostal congregation on Russian territory was established in 1911 as a result of the preaching of Lewi Pethrus and T.B. Barratt in Helsinki, Finland, which was then part of the Russian Empire. From there Alexander Ivanov and Nikolai Smorodin went to St. Petersburg to preach the Pentecostal message. As early as 1914 a congregation called the Society of Evangelical Christians in the Spirit of the Apostles was established in St. Petersburg. Ivanov and Smorodin eventually became Oneness or Jesus-Only Pentecostals, and their direct theological descendants are the Evangelical Christians in the Spirit of the Apostles, a union of about 70 Jesus-Only Pentecostal congregations.

The larger Pentecostal denominations trace their history primarily to the missionary work of Ivan Voronaev, another returning emigrant, who was sponsored in part by the Assemblies of God, and who in 1926 established the All-Ukrainian Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith in Odessa. The following year the National (or All-Union) Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith was established, showing that Voronaev’s ambition was to spread the Pentecostal movement throughout the Soviet Union. This union planted churches in both Russia and Ukraine, but was forced to close after Stalin’s promulgation of the Law on Religious Associations in 8 April 1929. Voronaev was arrested in 1930 and died in one of Stalin’s labor camps. Many other leading Pentecostals were repeatedly arrested, and some were killed by Soviet authorities. Soviet repression of Pentecostals continued up until the late 1980s, and the Pentecostal movement grew but slowly.

Strength in Ukraine and Western Borderlands

The leadership of Grabovenko’s RCCEF today is largely ethnically Ukrainian, with many Russian Pentecostal congregations having pastors of Ukrainian or Belorussian origin. The Pentecostal movement reached western Ukraine and Belorussia in the 1920s, in part through the ministry of Ukrainian and Belorussian emigrants returning from the United States. In addition, the work in Ukraine and Belorussia grew through the ministry of Gustav Schmidt, a Russian-German missionary with the Assemblies of God. He served in Poland from 1920 to 1925 and founded a Bible Institute in Danzig in 1930 that trained Pentecostal ministers from various parts of Eastern Europe. Many newly established Pentecostal churches primarily in eastern Poland joined together as the Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith of Poland in 1929. In 1939, when the Soviet Union annexed from Poland what are now the western parts of Belorussia, Ukraine, and eastern Lithuania, many Pentecostal congregations that had belonged to the Polish union now found themselves in the Soviet Union. While these congregations also suffered from Soviet repression, the Pentecostal movement was on the whole more firmly established in these western regions than in other parts of the Soviet Union.

During World War II parts of Belorussia and Ukraine were under Nazi control, and some Pentecostal groups were allowed to formally register with the Nazi occupation government. When these areas came under Soviet rule, they kept their legal status, but in August 1945 they were forcibly merged together with other Protestant denominations to form the Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists (UECB), which operated under state control. Many Pentecostal congregations were disbanded while others continued to operate in secret. Many Pentecostals in the UECB soon left, in part because they were not allowed to continue distinctively Pentecostal practices such as speaking in tongues. These Pentecostals preferred to operate without official sanction rather than conform to Baptist practice. In the years that followed, Pentecostals repeatedly sought to register their denomination with the state, but without success.

New Freedoms

Even before the new Soviet law “On Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations” was promulgated in 9 October 1990, Russian Pentecostals that had belonged to the UECB left that union en masse to form a Pentecostal Union, together with autonomous Pentecostal congregations. This first congress of the Union of Christians of the Evangelical Faith of the RSFSR was held 14-16 May 1990. In 2004 this denomination changed its name to Russian Church of Christians of the Evangelical Faith. Much of the initial growth of this denomination came about thanks to the efforts of thousands of missionaries sent by Pentecostal congregations in Ukraine and Belorussia in the late 1980s and the 1990s.

Missionaries from Abroad

After the promulgation of the new law in 1990, thousands of foreign missionaries (European, American, and Korean) also entered Russia and began planting new congregations. Many of these missionaries were associated with the Neo-Pentecostal or Charismatic movement, which now began to compete with traditional Pentecostals. Among these new movements were some that promoted prosperity gospel teachings. Among these were congregations affiliated with the Swedish-based Word of Life, New Generation (Riga), and the Embassy of God (Kyiv). Prosperity preachers teach that it is God’s will that those who believe should be blessed here and now with health and wealth; all that is required is faith. This gospel was attractive to many Russians raised under Communism, who desired the benefits of capitalism but lacked an understanding of the work involved.

New Restrictions and Responses

The 1997 law, “On Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations,” forced many traditional and Neocharismatic churches in Russia to join forces because it stipulated that denominations that had existed in Russia for less than 15 years could not obtain legal status unless they affiliated with an officially recognized denomination. Thus, many congregations founded by European, American, and Asian missionaries chose to affiliate with the RCCEF in order to be legally registered. The result was rapid numerical growth within the RCCEF, but it also put the unity of the denomination at risk. In fact, some considered it more of an umbrella organization for various de facto independent congregations, rather than a true denomination.

In 1999 leaders of the RCCEF took steps to unify the teaching and practice of the congregations constituting the RCCEF. Several borrowings from Western Neo-Pentecostalism were rejected, including the prosperity gospel. RCCEF centralization has since continued. Leaders of some of the largest congregations who in the past tended to operate as leaders of their own denominations have been promoted to bishops of the RCCEF. In May 2000 President Vladimir Putin divided the country into seven (today eight) federal districts and appointed “presidential plenipotentiary envoys” responsible for each district. In similar fashion the leadership of the RCCEF has promoted certain bishops to the status of “bishop in the federal district,” who report to the executive bishop in Moscow about developments within their jurisdiction.

Not all Pentecostals, however, wished to join the RCCEF. Some congregations remain deeply distrustful of all forms of registration with the government. These are gathered into a loose organization called the United Church of Christians of the Evangelical Faith. Others, led by Sergei Ryakhovsky, formed an alternative union. Ryakhovsky, who had a background among unregistered Pentecostals, but developed ties with the Church of God, Cleveland, an American Pentecostal denomination, founded the umbrella organization RACEFP in 1997. Several Charismatic churches, among them Moscow’s Word of Life and its Russian sister churches, chose to affiliate with this group rather than with Grabovenko’s RCCEF, as Ryakhovsky’s RACEFP gave them greater freedom in organization, theology, and practice. Ryakhovsky’s RACEFP today includes a total of 20 smaller denominations and as a consequence is far less centralized than Grabovenko’s RCCEF.

Improving Relations between Pentecostal Unions

Relations between the two leading Pentecostal denominations in Russia were strained for some time, with traditional Pentecostals accusing Neocharismatics of stealing their sheep, but ties between the two have improved of late. I suspect that relations between the leading Pentecostal churches will continue to improve. Eduard Grabovenko was elected executive bishop of RCCEF in 2009; as was mentioned, the megachurch he founded, the New Testament Church in Perm, is officially part of RACEFP. Grabovenko’s own preaching resembles that of RACEFP’s Neocharismatic preachers. His congregation has an impressive record of planting new churches (400 by one count), and in November 2010 he was invited to give a sermon at a conference for the Churches of Faith, a sub-denomination within RACEFP, to which the Word of Life congregations belong. On a more sombre note, on 15 July 2010, Artur Suleimanov, RCCEF’s bishop in Dagestan, was murdered. One of the first to offer condolences was Artur Simonian, head pastor of the Word of Life congregation in Yerevan, Armenia. Sergei Ryakhovsky (RACEFP) attended the funeral together with leaders of RCCEF, again showing solidarity among the leadership of the largest Pentecostal unions.

Latest Developments in Prosperity Gospel Teaching

The two movements have continued to come closer together in both worship and theology. Charismatic forms of worship have become commonplace in many RCCEF churches, and the Word of Life congregation in Moscow, like its mother church in Uppsala, Sweden, has downplayed prosperity teaching, developing a more mature theology. Some congregations strongly associated with the prosperity gospel have been tainted with scandal, most notably Sunday Adelaja’s Embassy of God Church in Kyiv, Ukraine, and Alexei Ledyaev’s New Generation Church in Riga, Latvia. This problem may have led to serious soul searching on the part of some prosperity gospel congregations. But Word of Life still teaches a form of prosperity theology, as is evident from the statement of faith of the Association of Christians of the Evangelical Faith Churches of Faith, the sub-denomination headed by Word of Life Moscow. It still speaks of polnoe protsvetanie, that is, full prosperity or complete well-being:

By his life, death and resurrection Jesus showed that God wants to save the individual in his spirit, soul and body, and that God’s will is this, that every person in his life walk in divine health, divine prosperity, [and] by means of faith be a victor in all areas of life: spiritually, in his soul, physically, economically, socially. (www.wolrus.org)

But Ulf Ekman, founder of the Word of Life movement in Sweden and Russia, now contends that one is not to seek after wealth for its own sake. Rather, wealth that is given in answer to prayer is to be used in the service of the kingdom, to help the poor and spread the Gospel.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that Grabovenko’s RCCEF has lately taken a more positive view of wealth, similar to the position of Word of Life. Pavel Bak, formerly the second-ranking bishop in RCCEF, now head of the denomination’s legal division, gave the following explanation of RCCEF’s view of wealth in an interview on 3 September 2010:

If wealth is the highest form of self-expression for a person, then it witnesses to the presence of sin in that person’s heart. If property is seen as means given by God for the realization of the Divine vision, then it is pleasing to God and will bring great fruit, both for the person himself and for people around him. (www.hve.ru)

Word of Life Moscow’s head pastor, Mats-Ola Ishoel, a Norwegian who has been working in Moscow since 1998, is one of the highest leaders of Ryakhovsky’s RACEFP. At the same time, he is respected by leaders of Grabovenko’s RCCEF, and some pastors in RCCEF have studied in Word of Life’s Bible school in Moscow. In Moscow RCCEF youth are encouraged to participate in Word of Life activities, and one of Grabovenko’s first deputies, Vladimir Murza, recently travelled to Israel with Word of Life.

Pentecostals and Charismatics Drawing Closer

The leaders of RCCEF and RACEFP are both involved in the Consultative Council of Heads of Protestant Churches, together with Adventist and Evangelical Christian-Baptist leaders. This council has produced an approximately forty-page document entitled “Social Position of the Protestant Churches,” detailing these denominations’ stances on a number of controversial issues such as abortion and bio-medical research. Whereas Neocharismatics in the West have been characterized as self-absorbed, in Russia Pentecostal and Charismatic congregations alike are socially active. These congregations are involved in all kinds of social ministries including outreach to prisoners, alcoholics, drug addicts, and street children.

It may be that the two Pentecostal movements are coming closer together because what once seemed new and foreign has become normal. Russian Pentecostals are not always aware that many of their favorite worship songs are translations from English. Further, all evangelical denominations in the former Soviet Union are affected by a continuing emigration to the West, especially to the United States. In part because of this mass emigration, Russian Pentecostal churches are no longer growing as quickly as they did in the 1990s. As leading members of the congregations leave for America, Pentecostal and Charismatic congregations in Russia must work together to survive. The activity of foreign missionaries is also less noticeable today than in the 1990s, and after the financial crisis of 2007, they have less money to spend. This lack of funding may also contribute to the denominations growing closer, as in the past missionaries tended to polarize the various Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, as they often tried to create churches on the pattern of their home congregations, rather than working with existing denominations. F

Editor’s note: The author recommends Vladimir Franchuk, Prosila Rossiya Dozhdya i Gospoda (Kyiv: Izdatelstvo “Svitankova zoriya,” 2003), as the best source for Russian Pentecostal history.

Torsten Lőfstedt is a senior lecturer in religious studies at the University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden