Details

Volume 19, No. 4

Christianity and Folk Religion in Romania

Florin Paul Botica

Romanian people claim to be Christian, attending church, praying to God, and observing other Christian rites and holy days. However, to deal with daily needs and issues, they also believe in and practice folk beliefs and customs, many of which are unbiblical. This occurs in spite of the fact that in the Bible God promises to save the sinner, heal the sick, lift up the demoralized, guide the lost, give hope to the hopeless, strengthen the weak, take care of widows and orphans, comfort those who mourn, help the poor, and reveal His will and plans for our lives.

This study identifies folk beliefs and practices forbidden in the Bible: casting spells, witchcraft, divination, mediums and spiritists, magic, communing with the dead, and sorcery. The study also examines how folk beliefs and Orthodox theology have become entangled and how local churches can best address this syncretistic Christianity.

Specific folk beliefs and practices were identified through participant observation and interviews with 80 residents of various Romanian regions. Sixty-four of 80 informants were Orthodox, six were Catholic, six Protestant, and four non-religious. Of the 64 Orthodox participants only eight attended church weekly. Of those interviewed 28 were between the ages of 18 and 30, 26 were between 30 and 60, and 26 were between 60 and 90 years old. Also, an equal number of women and men were interviewed. In addition, ten Orthodox priests, eight evangelical pastors, six Catholic priests, and several other church leaders were interviewed about current church ministries designed to address split-level Christianity.

In Romania witches, sorcerers, and fortune-tellers mix their beliefs and rituals with Christian elements. For example, they perform black magic but claim their power comes from God, Jesus, or a church saint. They use several major Christian elements and objects in their rituals and spells such as candles, a picture or statue of a Christian saint or biblical character, as well as recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.

Romanians believe that certain people possess an evil eye whereby they have invisible powers that can harm others through looking at them. Often an illness or a child acting strangely will be blamed on the evil eye. It is very interesting that the recommended antidote is three recitations of the Lord’s Prayer.

Orthodox Efforts to Combat Folk Beliefs

Dr. Nicolaie D. Necula, dean of the Orthodox School of Theology, Bucharest State University, and a distinguished Orthodox leader and scholar who has trained several generations of priests, specifically addresses the issue of superstitions in his article, “Are True Christians Allowed to Believe in Superstitions?” He urges every priest to lead specific Bible studies in his parish related to Bible teachings about folk religions and how to distinguish between Christian faith and folk beliefs (“Priorities of Contemporary Pastoral Activities,” Almanah Bisericesc [2003], 11-14).

Another Orthodox priest, Nicolae State-Burlusi, gave me a small booklet which he makes available at his church: Prayers for Overcoming Black Magic, Spells, Evil Eyes and Enemies (Ramnicu-Valcea, Romania: Editura Buna Vestire, 2004), written by an Orthodox priest in Bucharest. It explains what the Bible says regarding the sin of witchcraft, how those in its bondage will be punished, why people seek the help of witches and sorcerers, and several steps to follow in order to be saved from the power and bondage of magic and spells. One such step is the power of a prayer said in faith. Believers are also encouraged to fast, pray daily, and attend church services and major holy days. In addition, the booklet offers several Psalms that can be used as prayers (37, 50, 53, 139), several relevant prayers by Basil the Great, one by Saint Cyprian, and a short admonition by John Chrysostom, explaining how to overcome temptations related to negative and evil folk beliefs and practices (State-Barlusi 2004:19).

Many Catholics in Romania are nominal Christians who do not attend church regularly. In times of crisis Catholics, especially in rural areas, still show a deep allegiance to local folk beliefs and rituals. Syncretism and split-level allegiance is lower among evangelical believers than among Orthodox or Catholic believers, and in many instances is completely absent.

In my interviews only two evangelical church leaders were aware of the need for church instruction on folk beliefs. One, Rev. Vasile Talos, pastor of Good News Baptist Church of Bucharest, said,

This is a critical issue we need to address nowadays in Romania. We need to learn how to do critical contextualization and do it. We need to address nominal Christianity and Christian syncretism as much as possible. I have been trying to do it in my church through my teaching and small groups in particular, where one is discipled. (Talos, 12 April 2004).

Recommendations for Better Addressing Romanian Split-Level Christianity

I. Biblically Based De-contextualization/Re-contextualization

Critical contextualization represents an appropriate tool for examining split-level Christian beliefs and practices and evaluating them in the light of biblical norms, as well as replacing them with contextualized Christian ministries. During my field research I participated in Pastele Blajinilor, the Easter of Dead Ancestors. It is celebrated on the Sunday of Saint Thomas, one week after Easter Sunday, commemorating Jesus’ appearance to the twelve disciples when Thomas was told to believe that Christ was risen. The Monday after Pastele Blajinilor Orthodox believers visit the cemeteries of their deceased relatives. Priests come to each grave and perform a commemoration liturgy, after which family members of the dead throw offerings of food and wine on the ground and give what remains to those gathered, including many poor people. Orthodox believers keep this custom because they believe their deceased need food in heaven.

In de-contextualizing Easter of Dead Ancestors, believers should keep the form and some of the meaning. The liturgy of commemoration should be performed because it is proper to remember family members and commemorate them for their faith and devotion to God. Food offerings should still be offered to participants and thrown on the ground, but the meaning at this point should be reinterpreted in light of scriptural teachings.

In re-contextualizing Easter of Dead Ancestors, Orthodox believers should be reminded that those who died in Christ do not need food in heaven. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) Jesus explained that the departed cannot influence the living. The same principle may be applied in reverse: we can do nothing for those who have died. Thus, after we commemorate the departed and learn from their life of faith, we partake of the food brought, knowing that they died in Christ, and that they are much better off now. Some of the food can still be thrown on the ground to feed the birds which are part of God’s creation. The goal, in summary, is to keep the main parts of the ritual but change the meaning according to scriptural teachings and doctrines. The same principle of contextualization/decontextualization can be applied to other split-level or syncretistic church customs and beliefs.

II. Sodzo Evangelism

In evangelization, churches in Romania tend to focus on the spiritual aspect of salvation (forgiveness of sin and eternal life), while neglecting the physical and emotional well-being that is part of God’s shalom. Many Romanians accept Jesus as savior, but apparently do not trust Him when they need physical or emotional healing. In times of crisis, they often rely upon folk beliefs and practices, many of which are forbidden in the Bible. Local church leaders should therefore engage their churches in what I call sodzo evangelism.

The Greek word sodzo, which occurs 102 times in the New Testament, describes salvation in spiritual terms such as forgiveness of sins, but also in physical terms such as healing, deliverance from evil and harm, recovery, remedy, rescue, and welfare (Matthew 1:21; Mark 6:56; Luke 8:36, 48, 50; John 3:17; Acts 4:9, 12, 27:34; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 2:5, 8: and Hebrews 5:7). Sodzo in Hebrew translates as shalom, which means wholeness, that is, spiritual, physical, emotional, and social well-being ( NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon at http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/sozo.html).

Romania’s present context is similar to that of 18th century England in which John Wesley successfully evangelized split-level and nominal Christians. Asbury Theological Seminary Professor George Hunter attributes the success of early Methodism to its preaching and its systematic pastoral care. Regarding the latter, Wesley designed ministries to fit human needs after careful study of the ills of the day. As Hunter writes, “Wesley visited, observed, interviewed, and corresponded….He visited persons who were possessed, obsessed, and oppressed. He visited persons in prison, persons who had seizures, prisoners on death row, sick persons, anxious persons, guilt-stricken persons, grieving persons, persons on their death beds…. In each situation, he was there to minister, but also gather data” (To Spread the Power: Church Growth in the Wesleyan Spirit [Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1987], 131-32). Based on his findings, Wesley sought to address all manner of problems.

In the same vein, Asbury Seminary theologian Howard Snyder explains, “Wesley set up loan funds for the poor….He opened a dispensary and gave medicines to the poor; worked to solve unemployment; sometimes set up small businesses. He personally raised and gave away considerable amounts of money to people in need” (Decoding the Church: Mapping the DNA of Christ’s Body [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002], 95-96). As the Wesleyan movement helped revive the Anglican Church, so the Lord’s Army became a successful renewal movement within the Romanian Orthodox Church. It originated in 1923 when Iosif Trifa, an Orthodox priest from Sibiu, experienced true conversion and began to preach the gospel, challenging people to have a true relationship with the crucified Lord. The Lord’s Army formed small groups for the purpose of worship, spiritual growth, and discipleship, and ministered to the felt needs of its members and those being evangelized (Vasile Talos, “Church in the Apostolic Spirit: A Strategy for Building Indigenous Apostolic Congregations in the Eastern Orthodox and Post-Communist Cultural Context of Romania’’ [Doctor of Missiology dissertation, Asbury Theological Seminary, 2007], 233-38).

In order to successfully evangelize split-level Christians, Romanian churches should take into consideration holistic, sodzo evangelism, as was the case with early Methodism and the Lord’s Army. In keeping with these models, I propose a range of evangelistic methods and outreach ministries.

Improvements for Worship Services

Through word and song, worship should stress both spiritual and physical aspects of salvation. In addition to preaching and performing the sacraments, Romanian church leaders should, like Wesley, focus more on discipling and “building up” believers in the faith.

Prayer Services for Healing and Deliverance

Many Assemblies of God churches in Romania practice a healing ministry. (I myself was healed of an illness in an Assemblies service.) Other evangelical churches, as well as Orthodox and Catholic, should practice this biblical ministry, as described in James 5:14-16.

Health Clinics

Several Romanian churches provide free medical consultations, usually conducted by doctors who are members of local churches and who donate one day of service a week. Often clinics, such as Koinonia Clinic run by the Baptist Church in Galati, provide free medicines donated by West European and U.S. churches, missions, and NGOs. Short-term medical missions from the West also form a component of sozdo outreach.

In several villages of Bacau County in southeastern Romania I have observed grateful people starting to attend churches after receiving free medical care. Many were nominal Christians who previously mixed their faith with folk beliefs and practices in order to find help for health problems.

Assistance with Employment

Local churches can be of assistance to many Romanians seeking employment. One Baptist minister in Bucharest learned of several job openings from a member of his church who was a factory worker. The minister shared this information with people he knew who were in need of work. The factory hired four of these workers as a result of the cooperation between the pastor and his church member. This minister is considering a formal employment service as a ministry of his church.

Christian Counseling and Guidance

Many people struggling physically or financially should be assisted by the church as they experience loneliness, stress, and depression. The church also has a role to play in ministering to those experiencing divorce, those mourning the death of loved ones, and those living alone. As Christians meet such needs, fewer Romanians will seek relief and answers from witches and sorcerers.

Professional Christian counselors, as well as pastors and priests, now provide advice and guidance to those in distress. A member of Golgotha Baptist Church of Bucharest (my home church), for example, is a professional counselor who offers her services at no charge at Holy Trinity Baptist Church one day a week.

Other Compassionate Ministries

Christians should be good Samaritans caring for people passing through difficult times. Churches in Romania should expand ministries providing basic food and clothing for those in need, help people struggling with financial crises by giving short-term help with utility bills, help fix a broken car, or start a small business. Other examples of care might include shopping for the elderly or infirm, painting or helping rebuild houses damaged by storm or fire, giving rides to people whose cars are being repaired, helping new mothers with household chores, and comforting those who have lost a family member and are grieving.F

Editor’s note: The second half of this article will be published in the next issue of the East-West Church and Ministry Report 20 (Winter 2012).

Edited excerpts published with permission from Florin Paul Botica, “Toward Addressing Split-Level Christianity: A Study of the Interaction Between Christianity and Folk Religions in Romania,” Ph.D. dissertation, Asbury Theological Seminary, 2010.

Florin Paul Botica is senior pastor of Cedarcrest Community Church, LaGrange, Georgia, and a church ministry consultant for the National Association of Christian Congregational Churches

in America.

Details

Volume 19, No. 4

Russians and Koreans East of the Urals

John McNeill

European Russian Culture East of the Urals

Siberia and the Russian Far East, the largest territories in Russia, are geographically part of Asia, but this label itself is somewhat confusing. Answering the question, “Have you ever been to Asia?,” helped me to see this clearly. My first impulse, when a student asked, was to answer, “No, I have never been in Asia.” But as I thought a moment, I realized that I had, of course, been to Asia, in fact many times. My teaching trips had taken me geographically across the Ural Mountains or the Caspian Sea to Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and various parts of Siberia, even as far as Kamchatka. However, in none of those crossings had I ever encountered physical signs of entrance to a different cultural world. Just how significant this difference is became clear when I first crossed the Siberian-Chinese border on the Trans-Siberian Railroad from Moscow to Beijing. At the Chinese border the traveler is faced immediately with massive evidence of architectural and other reminders that China contrasts sharply with the West. The first border city on this route in China, Manzhouli, is unmistakably different from all the cities and towns in nearby Siberia. All of those Siberian settlements are clearly of a type, resembling one another and similar towns and cities in European Russia. So, it seems, my confusion over the original question reflected a genuine difference that exists between the geographic and physical-cultural borders of Europe and Asia.

Although the borders between Europe and Asia south of the Urals and in the Middle East are the subject of much disagreement, the Urals themselves are practically universally accepted as defining the northern border between Asia and Europe. This less-than-dominant mountain range, however, has been of no consequence in thwarting the eastward spread of European Russian culture. During centuries of tsarist and Soviet imperial expansion, Russia managed to extend its culture all the way across Asia to the Pacific Ocean. Russians succeeded because of the temporary weakness of the Chinese and the relatively sparse population of the various indigenous Asiatic peoples in the region. Some southern cities such as Tashkent, situated on prosperous trade routes and supporting larger population densities, had developed the economic strength that permitted the building of enduring architectural monuments. Imposing mosques and tombs that still stand provide material cultural evidence of the historic Asian roots of present-day Uzbeks.

In Russian Siberia I have not seen such monuments to an Asian past. Instead, the region’s cities are full of typical tsarist and Soviet-style buildings. Although many Asian faces are to be seen there, they are seldom if ever encountered in settings of Asian material culture. The people of Siberia and the Russian Far East live their lives in, and clothe themselves with, the trappings of European Russian culture. While Siberia and the Russian Far East are part of Asia geographically, culturally they are very European. Although it is true that Russia is a Eurasian nation, one in which “multiple layers of identity clash and complement each other” (Sakwa 2006: 215), one which bridges Europe and Asia, it still possesses a largely homogenous culture that does not reflect geographic and ethnic diversity. The imperial capital of St. Petersburg was the entire nation’s cultural center, as was the case with Moscow as capital during the Soviet period. This cultural centralism was very pronounced, and leaves its clear marks to this day.

Russians and “Asians”

A recent St Petersburg Times article by Boris Kagarlitsky laments “the return of fascism.” He notes that young, prosperous, and well-educated people had formed an “angry, blood-thirsty mob sweeping through metro cars and beating dark-skinned passengers” (2011). While such violence is portrayed as a reaction to the present economic crisis in Russia, it is rather typical of attitudes that are deeply rooted in Russian identity. Just as Africans living in Russia have endured very stiff doses of racist treatment, so too, Asians have often been underappreciated, ignored, and discriminated against by Russians.

Before the arrival of Russians in the Far East, the region was thinly populated. Alexander Petrov notes that scientific expeditions in the Far East in the 1840s and 1850s reported that “the Amur and Ussurijsky regions were deserted [and] sparsely populated” (2008: 161). Some years later, in 1905, during the Russo-Japanese War, Russian ethnic prejudice was evident in “Russian propaganda [that] described the Japanese as knock- kneed weaklings…, a puny kind of monkey” (Merridale 2000: 63). Such attitudes are reminiscent of the attitudes of other Europeans and European Americans toward the indigenous peoples encountered in the Americas. No wonder that indigenous peoples in Asian Russia viewed Russians as colonizers and oppressors.

The Korean Diaspora and Korean Missionaries

Into this region, with its colonial tensions, the first wave of South Korean missionaries arrived at the end of the 1980s. Previously, a population of about one-half million Koreans had arrived or been forcibly removed into Russia and the Soviet Union and then dispersed across its great breadth. (For more details on this process see John McNeill, “Notes on Korean Mission in the Former Soviet Region,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 2011, forthcoming.)

In view of the rapidly growing Korean missionary movement, the Korean diaspora within Russia and former Soviet territory was a logical extension of earlier missionary efforts. Because of race-based tensions in Russian Asia, Russian believers had made little impact in their attempts to spread Christianity in the region. Their faith tended to be associated with their status as the ones in power, the ones oppressing minorities.

Korean Missionary Advantages

Korean missionaries, at least initially, had a different profile in the region. Within the Soviet Union Koreans were a persecuted minority, having themselves suffered in a way similar to what many other Asian people groups had also experienced. Thus, the initial reception of South Korean missionaries among minority groups was as representatives of an oppressed population, not as oppressors. Koreans living in the Soviet Union had experienced the same second-class citizenship as many other non-Russian peoples. They were all fellow sufferers.

When South Korean missionaries arrived, their first point of contact was the Korean diaspora, people who were ethnic Koreans but who were largely russified in language and culture. Still, because of the ethnic tie, the missionaries had found people who were naturally inclined to give them a hearing. In fact, Korean missionaries had found the perfect counterparts in the local culture to help them be effective in their Christian outreach. Korean missionaries were able to reach out to their ethnic cousins who then, in many cases, and with their local language and culture skills, became the main helpers in establishing contact with the indigenous population.

Korean missionaries were quite effective in their first years in the region. In numerous instances they were able to plant large churches with many new converts. In cities like Almaty, Kazakhstan, many converts were also drawn from local people groups, groups that had, in many cases, resisted for centuries the outreach of Russian missionaries, both Orthodox and Protestant. A colleague, an experienced international worker from the region, and I have been able to identify only three Russian Protestant churches that successfully reached out to ethnic minorities. Others undoubtedly exist, but are rare. I suspect that these successful exceptions only improved their outreach in the perestroika period (the Soviet Union’s last years) when not only Russian society but also the church was experiencing restructuring, trying new ideas and approaches. As one African Christian worker in the region told me, Koreans initially were better received than Russians among Kazakhs because of their perceived “Asianness.” Kazakhs could more easily identify with Korean rather than Western missionaries, some of whose fellow Soviet Koreans had, like Kazakhs, been second-class citizens in the Russian and Soviet empires.

Reeducation of the Korean Diaspora versus Cross-Cultural Missions

Unfortunately, by the late 1990s significant growth in Korean missions in the former Soviet Union had come to an end. This change was reflected in both flat numbers for local church growth and a sharp drop in the number of students attending the seminary in Moscow where I taught.

If the initial success of Korean mission work in the former Soviet Union was at least in part due to the cultural and linguistic skills of Soviet citizens of the Korean diaspora, to what can we attribute the fact that the same Korean missionaries are less successful today? A mistaken approach in their overall strategy may have played a significant role. One objective of Korean missionaries was to restore the connection between the Korean diaspora and the culture and language of their ancestral homeland. Much effort, time, and expense went toward reconnecting Russian-Koreans, Kazakh-Koreans, and Uzbek-Koreans with the language and culture of their ancestors. This goal seemed a natural one for South Korean missionaries, but it may be seen as something fundamentally wrong, both sociologically and missiologically.

From the social point of view, the question could be asked, “To what end would such a project be undertaken? Were these members of the Korean diaspora being prepared to be welcomed back to Korea?” The answer is clearly no. How then could a reconnection to Korean culture and language help them? While an understanding of their cultural and linguistic roots might, at least for some, be broadening and enriching, it would only be helpful if it did not awaken in them desires to leave their present home and return to a probably idealized life in South Korea. Such desires were and are by definition not able to be fulfilled in the present political climate because South Korea is not prepared to welcome them. The few Soviet Koreans who have ventured to South Korea were initially welcomed but were apparently very uncomfortable there.

The motivation for such cultural and linguistic reeducation must be carefully and critically evaluated. It may have been undertaken by many Korean missionaries based on an unspoken belief in the inherent superiority of South Korean culture. This kind of ethnocentricity should be rejected for both sociological and missiological reasons. If the Korean diaspora is not being welcomed back to the Korean homeland, the question must be asked just how much cultural education is enough to satisfy curiosity about Korean roots without being too much and awakening desires that cannot be fulfilled?

From a missiological perspective, focusing the attention of Koreans living in the former Soviet Union on Korean culture can become profoundly counterproductive. Because russified Koreans are proficient in the Russian language and conversant with Russian culture, they initially were the perfect partners and helpers for South Korean missionaries. However, to the extent that they become steeped in Korean culture, they may become alienated from the local culture and less effective as missionary workers (Kim 2003-2004: 27-28). By engaging in cultural and linguistic reprogramming of Soviet Koreans, South Korean missionaries have probably rendered less effective the very people who had helped them to be effective in the first place.

Conclusion

The question must be asked: Are the efforts of Korean missionaries to reintroduce their cultural heritage to russified Koreans of any use at all or should they be abandoned? If good reason exists for them to continue, how can these efforts be adjusted in order to have a constructive impact, rather than culturally alienating the Korean diaspora from the people among whom they live?

The Korean mission effort is blessed with many resources. However, a significant portion of Korean missionary funding is being used for cultural reeducation of the Korean diaspora. Is teaching Korean culture and language given too much emphasis? In much of Central Asia, for a time, Russian may remain the lingua franca. However, the Korean diaspora would be well served to learn or improve their skills in local languages and cultural practices. Although it may be counterintuitive to ask Korean missionaries to help their Korean cousins learn Kazakh or Uzbek instead of Korean, it might be a wiser use of mission resources. If Korean mission strategy in the region can move beyond its bondage to Korean cultural priorities, the impact of Korean missions in the former Soviet Union will be greatly increased. ◆

Sources:

Kagarlitsky, Boris. The St. Petersburg Times, accessed 10 January 2011 at http://www.sptimes.ru/.

Kim, German. “Koryo Saram or Koreans of the Former Soviet Union: In the Past and Present.” The Amerasia Journal 29 (No. 3, 2003-04): 23-29.

McNeill, John. “Notes on Korean Mission in the Former Soviet Region.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, forthcoming in 2011.

Merridale, Catherine. Night of Stone: Death and Memory in Twentieth-Century

Russia. New York: Viking, 2000.

Petrov, Alexander I. “Koreans in Russia in the Context of History of Russian

Immigration Policy.” International Journal of Korean History 12 (August 2008): 157-97.

Sakwa, Richard. “Russia as Eurasia” in Europe and Asia Beyond East and West, ed. by Gerard Delanty (New York: Routledge, 2006). Pp. 215-27.

John McNeill is professor of anthropology and intercultural studies, Providence University College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.

Details

Volume 19, No. 4

An atmosphere of community also has a prominent place among Russian Pentecostals as well as Russian Orthodox. The intense Russian Pentecostal focus on community has, in some ways, marginalized them and resulted in introversion in their fellowship and religious experience. Church growth and evangelism often center around familial ties and conversion of non-believing loved ones and close acquaintances who are invited to attend a church service or Bible study. Finally, like Orthodox, who view the liturgy as the ultimate means and expression of the gospel story, Russian Pentecostals likewise tend to view evangelism as a “calling in,” rather than a “going out.”

Thus, theological motifs in the Orthodox context have influenced Russian Pentecostals. Worldview, theological approaches, the significance of experience, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the nature of evangelism are all inextricably linked. Best viewed as an organic whole, these issues interact with and influence Russian Pentecostals who live out their Christian existence in the Orthodox context. ◆

Notes:

1. Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, Washington Post, 25 October 1997, H12, quoted in John Witte, Jr. and Michael Bourdeaux, Proselytism and Orthodoxy in Russia, The New War for Souls (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999), 20.

2. Donald Fairbairn, Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 6. See also Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, “The Churches of the East,” Appendix A in Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004).

3. Fairbairn, Eastern Orthodoxy, 5-8.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., 7.

6. For example, see Bradley Nassif, James J. Stamoolis et al., Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 15; John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), vii. See also James R. Payton Jr., Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 15; John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian

Orthodox Churches (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), vii. See also James R. Payton Jr., Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2007), 57-58.

7. Translations for orthos and doxa are suggested in Stamoolis, Binns, and Payton, Three Views. A variety is included here for completeness.

8. Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church (New York: Penguin, 1993), 266. The quote is attributed to George Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate (London; S.P.C.K., 1947), ix. See also Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, “The Earthly Heaven” in Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader, 2nd ed., ed by Daniel B. Clendenin (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 13.

9. Ware, The Orthodox Church, 266.

10. Edmund J. Rybarczyk, Beyond Salvation: Eastern Orthodoxy and Classical Pentecostalism on Becoming Like Christ (Bletchley, Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2004), 5-6.

11. Ibid., 6.

12. Ibid., 9.

13. Veli-Matti Karkkainen, One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004), 32.

14. Staley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Eastern Christian Traditions (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), 1.

15. Rybarczyk, Beyond Salvation, 17.

16. Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharmalov, eds., Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology (Eugene. OR: Pickwick Publications, 2006), 1. An excellent account of the historical and theological development of theosis can be seen in Michael J. Christensen

and Jeffery A. Wittung, eds., Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007).

17. Rybarczyk, Beyond Salvation, 17.

18. James J. Stamoolis, Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today (MaryKnoll, NY: Orbis, 1986), 21-22.

Edited excerpts published with permission from Jonathan C. Frazier, “Preparing for Service: A Resource for Western Missionaries Working with Russian Pentecostals,” D.Min. dissertation, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2009.

Jonathan C. Frazier has been a missionary serving with Assemblies of God World Missions in the former Soviet Union—Russia, Belarus, and Latvia—since 1995.

Details

Volume 19, No. 4

International Mission Board Church Planting in Central and Eastern Europe

Mark Edworthy

“Why the continual emphasis on planting churches?” Many godly national evangelical leaders in Central and Eastern Europe posed this question to the International Mission Board (IMB) in the early 1990s.1 They quickly pointed out the need for trained pastors, renovated old buildings, erecting of new chapels, publishing of materials, and other pervasive needs. Not only were their churches going through an unprecedented transition, the IMB was also in transition and developing an unapologetic focus on church planting as the key to fulfilling the Great Commission. Clearly, the needs went beyond the establishment of new churches, but was any need truly greater?

Early IMB History in Central and Eastern Europe (1920-1942)

The work of the IMB in Central and Eastern Europe dates back to the historic London Conference held in 1920. This conference, following the end of World War I, was attended by representatives of Northern Baptists, Canadian Baptists, British Baptists, and the International Mission Board to chart out the next chapter of missions engagement in Europe. With personnel already serving in Italy, the IMB agreed to new assignments in Spain, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, and Ukraine “with territories east thereof.”2

The IMB responded immediately with humanitarian aid to Ukraine and Russia, helping with an acute famine during the early 1920s. Personnel could not obtain residential visas, so work was coordinated by sporadic visits and national coordination. Everett Gill led the IMB work in Central and Eastern Europe and reported in 1922: “As elsewhere, our principal work will eventually be that of helping in the work of theological schools, publication work, and church planting. For the present we must help the churches to support their pastors, though this is understood to be a temporary matter.”3

Missionaries arrived in Romania in 1923 and were embraced by Baptist Union leaders. Evangelicals were struggling in the face of intense government persecution, and early IMB workers helped the Romanian Baptist Union establish a theological school and publishing house.4 Funds were also provided for the Hungarian Baptist Union to start a theological school, publishing house, and to provide loans for new church buildings.5 The first IMB appointments arrived in Hungary in 1935.

Yugoslavia was first mentioned in IMB records in 1922, with the work described as “a small Baptist Union of about six hundred, which included Germans, Hungarians, and Croats.”6 Personnel finally arrived from the IMB in 1938 and helped purchase land for a seminary in September 1940.7 Unfortunately, by early 1942, all IMB workers had been evacuated from these countries due to World War II, and nearly 50 years would pass before residential visas could again be secured.

IMB History in Central and Eastern Europe (1988-1993)

During the Cold War, IMB workers lived outside the Soviet Union and its satellites, but often traveled into these countries. Ongoing contact continued with Baptist Union leaders, and some support was provided through intermediaries. Interestingly, Nela Horak was the granddaughter of the founder of the Baptist Union in Yugoslavia, Vincent Vacek, and the daughter of a Baptist pastor and Union leader, Josip Horak. She married an American exchange student, James Williams. They were appointed by the IMB to Yugoslavia in 1976 and were allowed to live behind the “Iron Curtain.”8 Tragically, James was killed in an automobile accident in 1980, after which Nela continued to raise their three children and serve in her assignment. She was the only IMB worker allowed to live in the region for several years. In 1988, Bill and Debbie Steele arrived in Yugoslavia as the first of a new wave of IMB missionaries who would enter former Communist states of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

The IMB was undergoing major changes in the late 1980s and 1990s. In 1988 the organization released the “70/30” Plan for all workers. Of the plan, President Keith Parks wrote, “The ten-year plan to have seventy percent of Southern Baptist missionaries giving more than half of their time to evangelistic outreach and church planting is part of the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board’s [IMB] effort to escalate the rate of reaching the world for Christ.”9 Many missionaries embraced church planting but some saw a devaluing of auxiliary ministries like medical and educational initiatives. This emphasis gained strength in the following decade and was replaced by a campaign called “New Directions” in 1997. Avery Willis, IMB senior vice president for overseas operations, commented:

As we began to look again at what God is saying to us, we saw there were some things we needed to come back to. New Directions is a return to a biblical mandate. The Bible is what we want our missionary manual to be. The basic concepts of New Directions are:

1) A strong emphasis on prayer support,

2) Focusing on people groups wherever they are instead of organizing by countries,

3) Missionaries who work in teams to plan comprehensive strategies for sharing the gospel with entire people groups,

4) Lay training programs that enable new believers to move quickly into church leadership roles,

5) Working in cooperation with “Great Commission Christian” mission partners,

6) Working and praying for God-led church planting movements to begin, and

7) A general “whatever-it-takes” approach to sharing the gospel, despite social, political, cultural or other barriers.¹⁰

Many Baptist leaders in Europe did not embrace this new emphasis and preferred the previous relationship and institutional support.

The vast majority of the first IMB missionaries deployed to Central and Eastern Europe were transfers from other countries. The argument was made that transfers would be able to more quickly acclimate to very different cultures and would be able to connect more easily to national leaders. The early workers were called “fraternal representatives” and served largely a liaison function with existing Baptist Unions. Since the priorities of virtually every union were consolidation and structural health, very few of these early workers engaged in the planting of new churches.

New Emphasis on Church Planting Bears Fruit

The noted changes in the IMB became obvious in the former Soviet Union and satellites by the middle of the 1990s. Four varied examples will be given over a 15-year timeline.

Poland

This author and his family arrived in Poland in 1991 and immediately began language study in Krakow. The local Baptist pastor and Union leadership were accepting and encouraging, but church planting was a new discussion point for most of the leaders. The Baptist Union had suffered momentous losses during World War II and struggled to survive during the following four decades. Despite government persecution and the strong influence of the Roman Catholic Church, the Union continued faithfully to encourage churches, conduct camps, and be “salt and light” in the society.

In 1993, Gustaw Cieslar, pastor of the Krakow Baptist Church, was asked to serve as president of the Polish Baptist Theological Seminary scheduled to open the following year in the Warsaw suburb of Radosc. Cieslar agreed and asked Mark Edworthy to move to Warsaw and serve as dean and professor of the new school. Edworthy consulted with the Baptist Union which agreed to change his assignment from church planter in Krakow to church planter in Warsaw. He insisted that he was primarily a church planter who also served as dean and professor of the new seminary. Along with his wife, Susie, and three children, Edworthy moved to Warsaw in June 1993. The Baptist Union was positive about a new church but underscored that no city had two Baptist churches, no church had ever been started in a public building, and no church had ever been started by a foreigner. After several meetings with the elders of the existing church, Edworthy finally received a lukewarm blessing to start a second church. Along with six young Polish believers, the Edworthys began to earnestly pray and plan for the new work.

In October 1993, Edworthy invited a seven-day volunteer team from the U.S. to Warsaw to share the gospel in public parks, teach English in the high school where the new church would meet, and distribute invitations to the church start. The church planting team participated with the volunteers and also mailed 10,000 brochures announcing the new church and giving a coupon for a free New Testament. The team decided to launch with a worship service instead of a home Bible study, which historically took 10-12 years to grow to an official church with 25 members. The argument was given that many Roman Catholics preferred a measure of anonymity and might attend a worship service if they could observe and decide their level of participation. The first worship service had about 35 in attendance, including the 10 from the volunteer team. Many seekers without a church home visited the new fellowship, and attendance averaged over 25 for the first three months.

The worship was marked by its informality, upbeat music, testimonies, brief expositiory messages delivered by Edworthy in Polish, and extended times of prayer. The new congregation also hosted a time of fellowship with coffee, tea, and baked goods each Sunday after the service. Several people repented during that first year, and six were baptized. Several evangelical college students also joined the church during their years of study. Forty baptized believers were present when the congregation was officially constituted as the Second Baptist Church of Warsaw on the first anniversary of its initial meeting. The new church called a Polish bi-vocational pastor, Wlodek Tasak, about six months later. Though the church did not grow significantly numerically over the next decade, it was directly involved in the start of several other churches.

Lithuania

The IMB work in Lithuania began with the arrival of Milton and Lara Magalhaes in Klaipeda in January 1996.11 The first three years were spent in learning the language and visiting the few existing churches in the country. In late 1998, the Magalhaeses relocated to nearby Silute and started a group in their home. The Lord blessed, soon three families were actively sharing the gospel, and several people began attending the new congregation. Milton Magalhaes discovered that a Baptist church had existed many decades before, so the young congregation gave sacrificially and purchased the former Baptist parsonage in which to meet. Within a year, the church was officially registered and had a membership of over 30 baptized believers.

The primary strategy was intensive gospel sharing in the town and evangelistic visits with the relatives of new believers. The young church also organized camps and special events where the gospel was clearly presented. In a country where the existing Baptist churches usually baptized two to three believers annually, this was an amazing harvest. By the end of the decade, the church helped establish the New Hope Baptist Church in Klaipeda. This church emerged from a Christian-based recovery program where several residents had come to faith. One of the former addicts became the pastor and continues to serve in that role today.

Russia

The IMB deployed its first personnel to Russia in 1990. but several years passed before the first churches were started. By the mid-1990s, churches had been formed by the IMB in Khabarovsk and Moscow. In the ensuing decade, scores of churches were started across this vast country. To date, the best example of reproducing church plants in Russia is in Ufa. The city had one Baptist church when communism fell in 1991 and seven by 2005. Chris and Eileen Carr arrived in 2000 with a vision for reproducing models of church planting.12

Over the next decade, Carr shared various training models related to organic or simple church planting. He slowly began to influence the traditional mind-set and earned the right to influence the regional association of Evangelical Christian-Baptist churches. He expanded and sharpened his training which included: Indigenous Church Planting by Charles Brock, Training 4 Trainers (IMB), Acts 29 by Bruce Carlton, Pioneer Evangelism by Wade Akins, Universal Disciple/ProCare by Thom Wolfe, Alpha by Nicky Gumbel, The OrganicChurch by Neil Cole, and Rethinking the Wineskin and Rethinking Church by Frank Viola.

Carr used these many resources to develop a training course which became the basis for a doctor of ministry project. He shared the vision of replicating new churches at an associational retreat in August 2009. A small group of pastors and leaders agreed to attend the nine training sessions conducted in the fall of 2009. The group quickly embraced this new understanding of biblical principles and started 17 new house or cell groups by the end of the project. Within a year, these had expanded to approximately 30 groups in the city and surrounding areas. The fledgling movement is currently addressing the challenge of developing leaders as rapidly as the new groups are developing.

Roma

The final example relates to the expanding work among Roma (Gypsies) throughout Europe. The IMB’s work with Roma began in 1991 in Romania. It was focused primarily in that country for the first decade where several new churches were started. The work expanded to other countries over the next decade and presently includes groups in Poland, Macedonia, Slovakia, Italy, and the Czech Republic.

Roma believers at the center of the expansion are the most exciting part of the Roma story. Under the leadership of Boyd Hatchel, Roma have been sent as summer missionaries for several years.13 Partial support was provided to assist them during these weeks of ministry in which they were challenged to strengthen an existing Roma church and help start a new one. Many groups resulted over the past five years. The program was enlarged in 2010 with the sending of Roma missionaries on one-year assignments, resulting in the development of new groups in Skopje, Rome, and Prague.

Two Roma families agreed to move from Krakow, Poland, to dedicate a year to starting a church in Prague. They arrived in the summer of 2010 and immediately began sharing the gospel in the Roma communities of Prague. They saw a few people respond to the gospel and others express varying degrees of interest. They launched a new church in a rented room in January 2011. Over 60 attended the initial service and nearly 20 responded to the gospel in the following four months. The church continues to grow and actively share the gospel with Roma who have yet to hear.

Conclusion

The IMB has assigned over a thousand short-term and long-term missionaries to Eastern Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall, with approximately two-thirds of the total serving long-term. These workers served faithfully with varying degrees of effectiveness. New churches have been started in over 20 countries and countless national leaders have been trained through the work of the IMB. At the same time, missionary personnel are still learning how to more effectively plant reproducing churches and to work more closely with national partners and other Great Commission Christians. Thankfully many national and international partners now share the vision of planting churches. The prayer of IMB is that the Lord will continue to multiply His Church among every nation, tribe, people, and tongue throughout Europe. ◆

Notes:

1. IMB was founded in 1845 as the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. The current name, adopted in 1997, will be used throughout.

2. William Estep, Whole Gospel, Whole World: The Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention 1845–1995 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 62.

3. Minutes of the Foreign Mission Board of the SBC, Annual SBC Convention, 17 May 1922, archives.

4. Ibid., 16 May 1923.

5. Ibid., 17 May 1922.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., 12 June 1940.

8. Nela Williams interview with author, 26 June 2008.

9. Don Martin, “Parks Calls 70-30 Ratio Effort to Speed Up World Evangelization,” Baptist Press, 27 July 1988, 1.

10. Mike Creswell, “Europe, Middle East Baptist Leaders Confer with IMB on Unfinished Task,” Baptist Press, 11 April 2000, 1.

11. Milton Magalhaes interview with author, 22 March 2011.

12. Chris Carr, interview with author, 1 April 2011.

13. Boyd Hatchel interview with author, 8 March 2011.

Mark Edworthy, based in Prague, Czech Republic, is a missionary serving with the Southern Baptist International Mission Board.