The American YMCA and Russian Culture: The Preservation and Expansion of Orthodox Christianity, 1900-1940 0739177575, 9780739177570

Citation preview

The American YMCA and Russian Culture

The American YMCA and Russian Culture The Preservation and Expansion of Orthodox Christianity, 1900–1940 Matthew Lee Miller

LEXINGTON BOOKS Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK

Published by Lexington Books A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com 10 Thornbury Road, Plymouth PL6 7PP, United Kingdom Copyright © 2013 by Lexington Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available Miller, Matthew Lee, 1968– The American YMCA and Russian culture : the preservation and expansion of Orthodox Christianity, 1900–1940 / Matthew Lee Miller. pages ; cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7391-7756-3 (cloth : alkaline paper)—ISBN 978-0-7391-7757-0 (electronic) 1. Young Men’s Christian associations—Russia—History—20th century. 2. YMCA of the USA—History—20th century. 3. Young men— Services for—Russia—History—20th century. 4. Church work with men—Russia—Orthodox Eastern Church. 5. Protestant churches—Missions—Russia—History—20th century. 6. Russians—Services for—Foreign countries— History—20th century. 7. Russkoe studencheskoe khristianskoe dvizhenie. 8. United States—Relations—Russia— History—20th century. 9. Russia—Relations—United States—History—20th century. 10. Protestant churches— Relations—Orthodox Eastern Church—History—20th century. 11. Orthodox Eastern Church—Relations— Protestant churches—History—20th century. I. Title. BV1060.R8M55 2013 267'.3947—dc23 2012048397 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America

Dedicated with love to my wife, Terri, and my daughters, Claire Elizabeth and Amelia Marie

Acknowledgments I wish to express my deep gratitude to a number of people who have assisted me in the writing of this monograph. My wife, Terri, and my daughters, Claire and Amelia, have shown supernatural patience and support for several years. Thank you. Other family members, especially Clem and Carole Miller, Eric and Bridget Miller, Claire Wrigley, and Tom and Claire Correll, have kindly helped in many ways. Theofanis and Freda Stavrou, Mark Elliott, and Mark Noll have provided wisdom over the years. My research has also benefited from excellent suggestions and assistance provided by Heather Coleman, Robert Davis, Lyubov Ginzburg, Edward Kasinec, Nadieszda Kizenko, Adele Lindenmeyr, Erich Lippman, Randall Poole, Edward Roslof, Norman Saul, Pavel Tribunsky, Paul Valliere, Ben Whisenhunt, and my colleagues at Northwestern College. I have received helpful insights at multiple meetings of the Association for the Study of Eastern Christian History and Culture and the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. Scholars are dependent on the support of librarians and archivists, and I wish to acknowledge the assistance of several. First of all, my thanks go to Dagmar Getz of the Kautz Family YMCA Archives who provided an abundance of direction and advice. Many thanks also go to the staff of Wilson Library at the University of Minnesota, the libraries of Northwestern College, Wheaton College, the University of Illinois archives, the New York Public Library, the Bakhmeteff Archive at Columbia University, the Gennadius Library in Athens, the State Archive of the Russian Federation and the Russian State Library in Moscow, the library and archive of the St. Sergius Theological Academy in Paris, and the Russian Student Christian Movement in Paris. Finally, I wish to thank the administration of Northwestern College (St. Paul, Minnesota) for providing financial support for the publication of this book.

Introduction In 1924 Russian moviegoers enjoyed the popular and critically acclaimed silent film The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks (Neobychainye prikliucheniia mistera Vesta v strane Bol’shevikov), directed by the leading Soviet filmmaker, Lev Kuleshov. This film, a quick-moving satire, portrayed the experiences of a wealthy young American leader as he travels to Russia for the first time. He arrives with anti-Bolshevik prejudices but leaves with a new respect for Russia’s world changers. Mr. West, confident and woefully uninformed, serves as “president of the YMCA,” the Young Men’s Christian Association.[1] Today’s viewers may be surprised that a Y leader would serve as a symbolic representative of the United States; they may also be surprised that this organization played a very prominent role in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. Kuleshov’s film is not based on actual events, but it highlights the cultural significance of the YMCA’s own extraordinary adventures in Russia. The YMCA entered urban Russia in 1900 and developed a variety of educational, religious, and philanthropic programs. YMCA leaders began their work by establishing a public gymnasium, presenting lecture-style messages, organizing Bible studies, and providing direction to a Christian student movement. With each of these programs they encountered values, traditions, and strategies which differed from those experienced in the United States. They soon realized that American-style individualism, entrepreneurship, evangelistic preaching, and student-led Bible studies were foreign to many Russians. During the First World War many Y workers organized assistance for soldiers and prisoners of war. After the emigration of a number of Russians to western Europe they assisted the new Russian Student Christian Movement (RSCM), the YMCA Press, and the St. Sergius Theological Academy in Paris. This study examines the YMCA’s work and evaluates this organization’s influences on Russian culture. Special attention is paid to the Y’s remarkable adaptability. This monograph argues that the YMCA contributed to the preservation, enrichment, and expansion of Eastern Orthodox faith and culture. Especially through its support of the émigré student movement, publishing house, and theological academy, the YMCA played a major role in preserving an important part of prerevolutionary Russian culture in western Europe during the Soviet period until the repatriation of this culture following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The American Protestant YMCA contributed to the enrichment of Russian Orthodox Christianity by making significant financial contributions, advising administrative development, encouraging flexibility on theological and ministry issues, setting an example of practical ministry to contemporary people, and developing a strong network of global relationships. These contributions combined to form a catalyst for the expansion of Eastern Orthodoxy and its influence throughout Europe, the United States, and

beyond. This monograph examines the boundaries between Protestantism and Orthodoxy and shows how an American organization participated in monumental changes within the Russian church during the first forty years of the twentieth century. This relationship provides a rare example of fruitful interconfessional cooperation by Protestant and Orthodox Christians and an extraordinary period of interaction between American and Russian cultures.

HISTORICAL THEMES The years from 1900 to 1940 represent a crucial transitional stage in Russian history, as attested by several stimulating new studies on this period. Studying the crosscultural work of the YMCA provides an opportunity to investigate several interrelated topics which are drawing increasing attention from students of modernity in Russia: the influences of global philanthropy, the volatile interaction of Russian and American cultures, an emerging movement for reform within the Russian Orthodox Church, the interaction of Orthodox and Protestant thought and service, and the development of Russian émigré culture. Adele Lindenmeyr’s innovative monograph Poverty Is Not a Vice: Charity, Society, and the State in Imperial Russia (Princeton, 1996) discusses the political and social roles of benevolence in an autocratic society. Akira Iriye’s Cultural Internationalism and World Order (Johns Hopkins, 1997) provides a broader framework for this examination. Nadieszda Kizenko’s A Prodigal Saint: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian People (Pennsylvania State University, 2000), on the other hand, examines benevolence through the activities of a particular church initiative. This monograph’s focus is an assessment of the methods and accomplishments of the YMCA’s philanthropic activities in the Orthodox world, primarily among Russians. The Big Show in Bololand: The American Relief Expedition to Soviet Russia in the Famine of 1921 (Stanford, 2002) by Bertrand M. Patenaude analyzes one of several American ventures in Russia. The discussion generated by this monograph justifies the effort for the first full-scale investigation of the Russian activity of the YMCA, America’s largest service organization.[2] In Paris the YMCA cooperated with several leading Russian intellectuals, including Nikolai Berdyaev and Sergei Bulgakov. This circle had emerged earlier in the century as a catalyst for change in Russian culture and had called for an end to the extreme nationalism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia championed by many leaders of the Orthodox Church. In Russian Culture at the Crossroads (Westview, 1996) Jerry G. Pankhurst describes the significance of this reform movement. The interaction of Orthodox and Protestant ideas is described in Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy (Cornell, 1997). Among other things, the YMCA served as a key source for the spread of Protestant ideas and methods among Russian Orthodox leaders. Marc Raeff’s Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919–1939 (Oxford, 1990) offers the finest overview of the Russian émigré experience during this period. Raeff, a prominent historian of imperial Russia, repeatedly points out the significance

of the YMCA’s efforts in publishing and education. The best scholarly study of the evolving relationship between the YMCA and Russian Orthodox intellectual leaders is Robert Bird’s “YMCA i sud’by russkoi religioznoi mysli, (1906–1947)” (The YMCA and Russian religious thought). This 2000 article highlights the compromises made by both the YMCA and a number of prominent Orthodox thinkers in developing partnerships; it also describes the roles played by the Y in significant conflicts within Russian Orthodoxy.[3] During the twentieth century there were several large-scale examples of particular cultural groups separated by force or otherwise from their natural homelands: one example was the exodus of thousands of Russians following revolution and civil war. Political divisions may have separated Russians within and without the USSR, but cultural identity, and to some extent unity, survived to a large degree. It was the genius of the Association to recognize this unity and to support links between these groups. When the USSR collapsed, émigré and residential Russian culture was reintegrated in many ways. For example, Soviet officials banned the import of many types of books, but dozens of scholars and other visitors carried in copies of Russian-language YMCA works on religion and literature for grateful acquaintances inside the USSR. In a way, this work is a case study in the sustenance and development of a cultural tradition. In a broader context, it makes a contribution to the theoretical fields of modernity and globalization as exemplified by Mark D. Steinberg’s Proletarian Imagination: Self, Modernity, and the Sacred in Russia, 1910–1925 (Cornell, 2002).

HISTORICAL CONTEXT To understand the context of the YMCA’s work, it is necessary to examine the values, policies, and institutions of urban Russian education, religion, and philanthropy during the reigns of Alexander III and Nicholas II. The YMCA arrived in Russia at a time when the effective power of Russian autocracy was steadily declining and the influence of voluntary civic organizations growing. These two macro-trends may be seen in each of the three areas. The convergence of these two shifts affected both the choice of the YMCA’s approach and the receptivity of Russians to their efforts. In addition, the revolutions and civil war experienced by Russia during this period must be considered as well.

Education in Russia Soon after their arrival in Saint Petersburg, YMCA men[4] began to interact with university students and professors. They soon realized that the environment of higher education in Russia differed from the climate at Yale or Cornell. Russian and American universities both had experienced several changes since 1881: enrollment expansions, the gradual inclusion of female students, and a shift of academic emphasis from the humanities to the physical sciences. The empire’s student

population grew from approximately 30,000 in 1897 to 127,000 in 1914. However, institutions in Russia were also experiencing a time of chaotic conflict among students, professors, and the state. Many in the student community (studenchestvo) protested the autocracy of the state and the regulations of the university. A number of professors also objected to the increase of state control over the universities and attempted to establish alternative educational institutions. These developments are important for understanding the YMCA’s involvement with the two Russian Student Christian Movements, the Berlin correspondence school, the technical school for Russians in Sofia, Bulgaria, and the seminary in Paris.[5] By 1914 St. Petersburg and Moscow’s universities were among the world’s largest. The decrease in restrictions and increase in enrollments led to greater social and intellectual diversity. In his history of Russian higher education Samuel Kassow explains that the new Russian Student Christian Movement was a key example of the variety: “its growth . . . showed that new processes were at work within the studenchestvo.”[6] By supporting this student Christian movement (described in detail in chapters 6 and 7) the YMCA was involved in a key period in Russian higher education.

Religion in Russia Before 1917 only a few Y workers appreciated the history and theology of the Russian Orthodox Church. Coming from a variety of American Protestant denominations they felt closer to the spirit of Russian Evangelical Christian believers and American Methodist missionaries. However, they soon realized that the majority of young Russians held a sense of loyalty to the national church, even if they were not fully satisfied with its traditions and relationship to the state. YMCA workers invited Orthodox priests to speak at meetings and encouraged Orthodox young people to participate in the student movement. Y leaders established relationships with leading clergy and Patriarch Tikhon. In Berlin and Paris the YMCA identified more fully with Orthodox believers and attempted to understand complex church controversies which were rooted in prerevolutionary debates. They cooperated with several Orthodox cultural leaders: Sergei Bulgakov, Nikolai Berdyaev, Georgy Fedotov, Konstantin Mochulsky, Anton Kartashev, and Georges Florovsky. Bulgakov, an influential Russian philosopher, politician, and theologian, played a key role in the relationship between the YMCA and Russian Orthodox believers: in the 1920s he associated with the YMCA as professor for the seminary in Paris.[7] This interaction took place within the context of emerging modernity, a complex phenomenon associated with the rise of urbanization, industrialization, and the breakdown of collective traditions. The Russian Orthodox Church functioned with an impressive organizational infrastructure but knew that institutions did not guarantee influence. Some Orthodox leaders perceived a “spiritual crisis” in postreform Russia related to the spread of Marxism, social Darwinism, and Protestantism. Orthodoxy seemed to have lost its

appeal to Russian intellectuals. Students faced surprising challenges to their previously unexamined religious assumptions, and the university experience eroded the foundational beliefs of many young people. A multitude graduated with secular and Westernized outlooks.[8]

Philanthropy in Russia The YMCA developed several philanthropic programs to assist the bodies, souls, and spirits of Russians. The concerns and efforts of this society paralleled those of several Russian organizations. As the Y attempted to provide assistance they discovered differences in assumptions on the philosophy and methods of philanthropy: both Orthodoxy and Protestantism had developed long traditions in this area. Several historians have begun to pay special attention to prerevolutionary Russian benevolence. The Soviet regime did not allow the Orthodox Church or secular organizations to participate actively in philanthropy. In fact, thirty years ago there were virtually no independent organizations in the USSR, but now there is a full range of NGOs which address a variety of educational, civic, social, religious, and professional concerns. Thousands of benevolent societies reemerged after 1985 and understandably looked to the past for models. Many historians have pointed out that attitudes toward the poor provide significant insight on political orientation and cultural attitudes.[9] In summary, the YMCA participated in key developments within Russian education, religion, and philanthropy during the period before 1917. It assisted the Russian Student Christian Movement which contributed to the diversity of student thought and activity during a tumultuous time in higher education. The Y also sponsored the Mayak club in St. Petersburg which, along with other “people’s houses,” offered workers opportunities to develop their bodies, minds, and spirits. Protestant in origin, this organization entered Russia during a time of tense debates over state toleration of non-Orthodox religious groups. YMCA workers interacted with intellectuals who were investigating the possible contributions of the Western Christian heritage to the Russian Orthodox Church. The Y arrived in Russia as a flood of new philanthropic and other voluntary associations were forming and contributing to the development of civil society. As the power of Romanov autocracy crumbled, the YMCA contributed to the expansion of voluntarism and informal social change. The Russian work of the YMCA was a lightning rod for controversy. Secretaries attempted to serve a wide range of people in a very public way, and their fundraising goals required publicity. As a result, they were openly accused at different times of being reactionary and revolutionary, heartless capitalists and socialist radicals, heretical modernists and obscurantist fundamentalists, tools of the American government and dupes of the Soviet regime.

Revolution in Russia

YMCA secretaries who served in Russia witnessed both the February and October revolutions of 1917. As leaders of a prominent international program of philanthropy, they were not tourists watching from hotel windows; their work and relationships brought them into direct participation with the people and forces that changed the twentieth century. A variety of Y men talked on a regular basis with Emperor Nicholas II, Vladimir Lenin, and Felix Dzerzhinsky. They were reflective writers and vocal communicators in Russia and in the United States about their experiences. Some condemned the changes, a few championed the revolution, but most expressed ambivalence as they watched chaos unfold and stretch into civil war. None were monarchists, and none were communists; but the YMCA staff included secretaries holding political views from right to center to left. The February Revolution and the end of autocracy was welcomed by the majority, but most Y men responded with uncertainty to the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power in October 1917, since they did not understand even the basics of Lenin’s approach. Eventually the majority of secretaries expressed a moderately negative view about the October events. Many tried to understand the roots of revolution rather than quickly demonize the Reds. However, a vocal minority was convinced that socialism was the future for both Russia and the United States. YMCA secretaries developed a range of views on the Bolshevik revolution, and the issues of socialism and communism continued to raise heated discussions within the American YMCA, for its membership included both political radicals and staunch anticommunists. The Y men in Russia walked the tightrope of the relationship between philanthropy and diplomacy. They filled very public roles as Americans during a politically volatile period of world war and revolution. A few were charged with espionage or with meddling in diplomatic affairs, but most steered clear of any political action. However, the variety of political opinions and agendas held by YMCA representatives demonstrates that the Y was not a government tool with a program dictated by Washington.

KEY DEFINITIONS Four significant religious manifestations require more specific definition for the time period covered in this study: Russian Orthodoxy, evangelical Protestantism, liberal Protestantism, and the ecumenical movement. In 1899 Russian Orthodoxy was the predominant religious expression and theological system of the Russian people. Orthodoxy embraced the interpretations of the Scriptures presented by the seven ecumenical councils of the fourth to eighth centuries. Historically, Russian Orthodoxy adopted an episcopal governmental structure which often related closely to the secular government. Orthodox worship centered on an elaborate traditional liturgy.[10] Evangelical Protestantism accepted the Christian Bible as the highest religious authority. It believed that salvation had been accomplished historically by Jesus Christ and that individuals received this salvation through personal faith, which in turn produced a transformed life. This view contributed to an emphasis on evangelism and world outreach.[11] Liberal Protestantism stressed that Christian faith must

accommodate itself to the norms of modern scientific culture. Leaders of this group attempted to follow the essential ethical teachings of Jesus and to strive for the continuing improvement of society. Leading proponents of this theology, also referred to as modernism or the New Theology, also questioned the historical reliability of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, and the necessity of strict doctrinal definitions.[12] Both liberal and evangelical Protestants participated in the ecumenical movement, an organized attempt to encourage cooperation and unity among Christians. Historians point to the 1910 Edinburgh Missionary Conference as the beginning of this movement. After this conference, three organizational bodies continued the work of the movement. The International Missionary Council encouraged interaction among the workers of different denominations. The Life and Work Conference discussed the practical issues of church cooperation, while the Faith and Order Conference focused on theological issues related to church unity.[13]

CHAPTER SURVEY Chapters 1 and 2 of this monograph examine the history of the Association and comment on issues which affected the American-Russian program. The first chapter provides an overview of the Russian work from 1900 to 1940. The following chapter examines the careers of John R. Mott and Paul B. Anderson, two American YMCA secretaries who provided influential leadership. Chapter 3 presents a brief comparison of the Orthodox and Protestant versions of the Christian faith as well as a historical overview of interaction between the two confessions. The focus of the chapter is the shifting outlook of the YMCA on Orthodoxy and of Orthodox leaders on the Y. Chapters 4 through 9 describe in detail the organization’s involvement with Russian working men, soldiers, students, readers, and priests. For purposes of historical comparison, this study then looks at the YMCA’s activities in four traditionally Orthodox countries: Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Yugoslavia. The Y developed general policies for work in historically Orthodox countries, so an examination of these programs is useful.

RESEARCH APPROACH This study, among other things, addresses the motivations of the YMCA for undertaking its monumental task as well as analyzes the methods used. To the extent that it is possible, it examines a variety of Russian responses to the Y work from reformist clergy, conservative priests, Orthodox and Protestant laypeople, Communist leaders and writers, and others. It also deals with the impact of the 1917 Revolution on the work in Russia and the émigré community. Finally, it addresses philosophical differences within the organization and how these differences influenced the overall approach of the program. The narrative concludes with the 1940 German occupation of Paris, which disrupted the work and led to the departure of many Russians from France to the United States and other countries. This study relies on analytical archival research conducted in light of recent historical scholarship. It builds on the work of Donald E. Davis, who during the 1970s and 1980s published significant articles on the YMCA and Russia. There is no shortage of primary sources for study of this topic.[14] Secretaries and directors created reams of detailed reports, public and private letters, and memoirs. Russian participants discussed the organization in personal letters and newspaper articles. This field has expanded since 1991: easier access to many Russian archives is now a reality. Russians and Americans have formed new scholarly relationships, and new theoretical paradigms concerning religious activities as catalysts for either reconciliation or conflict are on the rise. A number of scholars have examined some of these sources on different aspects or time periods of the program.[15] However, no one work has yet addressed the full spectrum of the Y’s efforts, with its geographic, political, and theological diversity, or adequately considered the volatile cultural and

political backgrounds for the numerous challenges and controversies faced by the YMCA in its work with Russians. In the very least, this work illuminates further the impact of the YMCA as a philanthropic institution.

CONTEMPORARY SIGNIFICANCE Philanthropy is a pressing concern for Russia today as it moves away from a virtual state monopoly for social support. Organizations wrestle with fundamental philosophical and practical issues as they address concerns such as chronic alcoholism, tuberculosis in prisons, and underfunded orphanages. The YMCA and the Russian Orthodox Church are two of the numerous civic associations attempting to provide assistance. This monograph, therefore, broadens the historical understanding of philanthropy in today’s Russia.[16]

NOTES 1. Ronald Levaco, ed. and trans, Kuleshov on Film: Writings by Lev Kuleshov (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 11–12. 2. Three comprehensive volumes on Russian-American relations provide an excellent introduction to the period covered in this monograph; these books are written by Norman E. Saul and published by the University Press of Kansas (Lawrence): Concord and Conflict: The United States and Russia, 1867–1914 (1996); War and Revolution: The United States and Russia, 1914–1921 (2001); and Friends or Foes? The United States and Soviet Russia, 1921–1941 (2006). See also David S. Foglesong, The American Mission and the “Evil Empire”: The Crusade for a “Free Russia” since 1881 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Foglesong looks at attempts by many American journalists, missionaries, philanthropists, and political figures to reform Russia according to American values. He comments briefly on the work of the YMCA; however, this book will show that the Russian work of the YMCA was not simply an effort to remake Russia in the image of America. 3. Robert Bird, “YMCA i sud’by russkoi religioznoi mysli, (1906–1947)” [The YMCA and Russian religious thought], in Issledovaniia po istorii russkoi mysli: Ezhegodnik za 2000, ed. M. A. Korelov (Moscow: OGI, 2000), 165–223. This research is based on the John R. Mott Papers (held at Yale Divinity School in New Haven, Connecticut) and the archives of the World Student Christian Federation (located in New Haven, Connecticut, and Geneva, Switzerland). The article is accompanied by key archival documents: a 1923 description of the Religious-Philosophical Academy in Berlin, a 1934 summary of Sergei Bulgakov’s visit to the United States, and letters to Mott by Bulgakov (1935, 1940), Nikolai Berdyaev (1936, 1947), and Vasily Zenkovsky (1940). 4. The use of the word “men” throughout this book is intentional, since the American secretaries of the Russian YMCA work were male, and they worked primarily among men rather than women. For information on the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) in Russia, see Nancy Boyd, Emissaries: The Overseas Work of the

American YWCA, 1895–1970 (New York: Woman’s Press, 1986), 287–320. 5. Samuel D. Kassow, Students, Professors, and the State in Tsarist Russia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 16; see also Susan K. Morrissey, Heralds of Revolution: Russian Students and the Mythologies of Radicalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); Charles E. Timberlake, “Religious Pluralism, the Spread of Revolutionary Ideas, and the Church-State Relationship in Tsarist Russia,” in Religious and Secular Forces in Late Tsarist Russia, ed. Charles E. Timberlake (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1992); and David Wartenweiler, Civil Society and Academic Debate in Russia, 1905–1914 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). For additional discussion on the intellectual culture of 1894–1917, see Theofanis George Stavrou, ed., Russia under the Last Tsar (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969). 6. Kassow, Students, Professors, and the State in Tsarist Russia, 369, 371. 7. See James W. Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope: The Movement for Church Renewal in Russia, 1905–1906 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981) and Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997). 8. Timberlake, “Religious Pluralism,” 19–21. 9. See Adele Lindenmeyr, Poverty Is Not a Vice: Charity, Society and the State in Imperial Russia (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996); Patricia Herlihy, The Alcoholic Empire: Vodka and Politics in Late Imperial Russia (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); and Nadieszda Kizenko, A Prodigal Saint: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian People (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000). 10. For a brief introduction, see Thomas Hopko, “Russian Orthodox Church,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade, vol. 12 (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 488–91. 11. See Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 219–44, 286–310. 12. See Noll, A History of Christianity, 363–89. For a more thorough discussion of theological modernism and reaction within evangelicalism, see George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870–1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). 13. See Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill, eds., A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1517–1948, 2nd ed. (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1967). 14. This study is based on archival documents held in six primary collections: Kautz Family YMCA Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries, Minneapolis (KFYA); Paul B. Anderson Papers, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Archives (PBAP); Bakhmeteff Archive, Columbia University, New York City (BACU); Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (State Archive of the Russian Federation), Moscow (GARF); L’Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe Saint-Serge (St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute) archive, Paris (ITOS); Action Chrétienne des Étudiants Russes

(Russian Student Christian Movement) archive, Paris (ACER). Also, published primary sources were reviewed at these libraries: Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Billy Graham Center Library, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois; New York Public Library, New York City; Gennadeios Vivliotheke (Gennadius Library), Athens; and Rossiskaia Gosudarstvennaia Biblioteka (Russian State Library), Moscow. Footnotes identify KFYA documents with folder and box names as they were organized at the time of research. The archive has conducted minor reorganization of some boxes since that time. However, documents are accessible according to the information provided in the footnotes. The current collection finding aid, “YMCA International Work in Russia and the Soviet Union and with Russians: An Inventory of Its Records” may be accessed at http://special.lib.umn.edu/findaid/html/ymca/yusa0009x2x1.phtml. 15. For example, a recent Russian scholarly work on the topic is E. G. Pashkina, “Amerikanskaia organizatsiia ‘YMCA’ i russkaia emigratsiia pervoi poslerevoliutsionnoi volny,” Amerikanskii ezhegodnik (2010): 332–41. 16. The YMCA reorganized in Russia during the 1990s and currently provides services for children, youth, and families in several cities across the country. Programs include opportunities for sports, art, camping, and many other activities. The central office is located in Yaroslavl; the organization’s website is http://ymca.ru.

Chapter 1

The YMCA and Russia: A Profile of Good Works “We are simply inviting our fellow Christian young men in these distant lands to join us in systematic work for other young men. The workers must be the native young men. From them will soon come the leaders needed.”[1] With these words John Swift challenged the national leaders of the American YMCA in 1889 to expand their ministry overseas, just after his return from Japan where he had served as the first overseas Y secretary. American Protestant missionaries had been organizing new congregations for several years in the Far East, but Swift convinced many leaders that the Association should begin to evangelize and coordinate the young men of Japan—and the world.[2] Ten years later “Y men” were traveling in Russia, meeting students and preparing them for future ministry. The American YMCA expanded into overseas ministry after three decades of vigorous growth. As the Association entered the twentieth century, leaders continued to adapt key programs and reevaluate their underlying theology. These choices deeply affected the purpose and direction of the YMCA’s ministry in Russia. This chapter traces the expansion of the organization from its establishment in 1851 into the twentieth century and describes significant changes in structure, program, and theology. It then overviews the Russian work of the Y. This survey demonstrates that the path of the YMCA’s Russian program took many twists and turns before it began to contribute to the preservation, enrichment, and expansion of Eastern Orthodoxy. However, on each step of its journey secretaries built relationships, gained expertise, and developed values which led them to the organization’s later contributions.

THE AMERICAN YMCA’S GLOBAL OUTREACH This worldwide movement emerged from a gathering which convened in June 1844.[3] George Williams, a London clerk, invited several friends to discuss a society for improving the spiritual state of young men involved in the industrial trades through introducing religious meetings among them. These friends—Anglicans, Congregationalists, Methodists, and Baptists—immediately began to organize evangelistic services in London. Soon seventy working members were conducting services at fourteen locations. The original Association reproduced itself many times, and movement leaders quickly founded groups throughout Great Britain. Although the early leaders of the YMCA expanded their program to include libraries and educational lectures, they focused primarily on evangelism. The young businessmen of London responded to their simple salvation messages, and within four years the Association influenced over six thousand men.[4] The early leaders of the movement actively participated in their own churches but organized these Association activities without the supervision of clergymen. As the movement spread, it continued to attract

men from a variety of denominations. Consequently, members avoided controversial theological discussions and chose to emphasize only the shared beliefs of evangelical Protestant Christianity. In 1851 several young men formed the first Y in the United States. The leader of this group in Boston, Thomas Sullivan, had learned of the London Association through an article in a Baptist weekly newspaper. This group’s constitution expressed a strong desire for the promotion of evangelical Christianity among the city’s young men.[5] Like their British counterparts, the Bostonians soon organized evangelistic lectures, Bible classes, Sunday schools, and prayer meetings. The men also created a wellequipped library and an employment bureau in order to attract young men who had moved to the city to find work. The YMCA gradually spread to most major cities in the United States with secretaries coordinating the work in each city. The well-known speaker Dwight L. Moody served with the Chicago Association for several years; he directed the Sunday school program and spoke at evangelistic meetings.[6] In the years following the American Civil War, the Association’s leaders explored new measures for influencing young men and strengthening their character. They adopted a new statement of fourfold purpose—“the improvement of the spiritual, mental, social, and physical condition of young men.”[7] As a result, the YMCA developed publishing centers, leadership training schools, and physical education programs. During these years leaders began to strengthen their service among college and university students. The first student Ys grew out of previously established Christian groups at the University of Michigan and the University of Virginia in the late 1850s. Luther Wishard, the first full-time student secretary, expanded this ministry after the establishment of the Intercollegiate YMCA in 1877.[8] These students began to assemble for summer conferences in 1886. At the meetings they listened to a variety of speakers who addressed biblical topics and the challenge of world missions. At the first conference, many students made an unusual commitment—100 of the 235 participants pledged their desire to work as foreign missionaries.[9] In 1888 leaders, along with other student groups, organized this enthusiasm as the Student Volunteer Movement (SVM), which recruited students for foreign missionary work and directed them to established Protestant mission boards. John R. Mott, a graduate of Cornell University, began his service as chairman of the movement in 1888. Swift, the first secretary for ministry in Japan, spurred the American YMCA to expand its own work overseas. The British movement had earlier expanded its ministry into Europe and Asia; and the Americans continued this expansion through the establishment or development of Associations in Japan, India, Brazil, China, and Russia. The YMCA played a leading role in the global expansion of Christianity and faithbased philanthropy. By 1900 more than 50 percent of the active American Protestant foreign missionaries were former “student volunteers,” participants in the Student Volunteer Movement, the international outreach of the YMCA and the YWCA.[10] From

1877 to 1900 the American Y sent out over five thousand students as full-time international secretaries; from 1900 to 1914 it sent an additional fifteen thousand.[11] In 1900 the Association had a clear goal—“the evangelization of the world in this generation”: Y men worked with different methods in different countries, but the general goal remained the same. However, this unity broke down gradually around the world as the twentieth century progressed due to the secretaries’ immersions in a wide variety of cultures and a frequent erosion of belief in the uniqueness of the Christian faith. The YMCA also faced a variety of political barriers to developing programs in the manner they had planned. So, Y men around the world began to reshape their goals in response to the local conditions and their own social and theological convictions. Some leaders continued to focus on teaching the need for salvation in Christ alone, while many adopted various versions of liberal Christian theology and developed plans for social change. Some acquired an anti-American tone and promoted a message of socialism, while others grew more patriotic and volunteered to champion US state policies. This diversity increased as the emerging global leadership shaped the program and philosophy of the organization in their own country to match local and personal circumstances. National programs were influenced by Roman Catholic dogma, Confucian tradition, and Korean nationalism. In short, “Y membership had many meanings, depending on time, place, and the highly specific reciprocal relationships between Americans and indigenous members.”[12] An abundance of recent scholarship has examined a number of adaptations of the Y to national contexts. Jon Thares Davidann has written on the “American YMCA’s inability to impose evangelical Christianity on Japanese Christians, who were interested in liberal theology and were fiercely independent of the Americans.”[13] Research on the Y in Korea has shown how sports clubs were used by the Korean national resistance movement against Japanese imperial rule. Political activity had been banned, so young Koreans gathered in clubs as they worked for independence. [14] In China, the Association’s social service program influenced a large number of young Chinese leaders.[15] Piotr T. Zebrowski’s article shows how American secretaries attempted to form a thoroughly Catholic Association in Poland after World War I. The Polish Y received an unusually high level of government funding as well as visible support from Masonic lodges. In spite of efforts to support local Catholic parishes the Y received formal condemnation from the Vatican. In 1920 the pope issued a letter of warning to European bishops against the YMCA which was “menacing the faith of their flocks” by “raising doubt in the unique role of the Catholic Church and creating religious indifference.”[16]

THE YMCA AND MODERN CHRISTIANITY From 1900 to 1940 the service philosophy of the organization was transformed as secretaries attempted to promote modern, muscular Christianity. Traditional Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) relied on certain historical and

theological understandings as a basis for the experiential and practical outworkings of religious life, while the modern Christianity of the nineteenth century paid far less attention to any confessional foundation and focused almost entirely on the experiential and practical sides of faith. Theological modernism represented the most radical form of modern Christianity, while the moderate moderns avoided controversy in order to reach efficiently their practical goals of philanthropy, evangelism, and church leadership. From the end of the nineteenth century many YMCA leaders adopted theological modernism. This change in position was not the result of a clear decision from the organization’s leadership or the arguments of one influential theologian; the change was the result of the Y’s consistent attempt to stand in the center of American Protestantism. As one scholar explained, “When theological currents moved in a liberal direction, the YMCA moved along with them.”[17] During the American Y’s period of expansion, from 1851 through 1920, the group’s leaders adjusted the structure, program, and theology of the movement. The secretaries gradually constructed a more business-like form of organization with professional leadership, centralized authority, and larger budgets. During these years, leaders gradually shifted the focus of their programs from evangelism to evangelistic social service to social service alone. From the founding of the YMCA until the end of the nineteenth century, members focused first on the salvation of individuals, for as an influential secretary explained, “All other services . . . are but collateral and subordinate and should be engaged in only as they tend to secure this primary object.” From the 1890s until the 1920s a majority of members began to involve themselves in various forms of social service while recognizing the priority of evangelism. During this time leaders attempted to achieve a balance between evangelism and the reform of society as they worked for the improvement of the spiritual, mental, social, and physical condition of young men. However, in the decades following World War I leaders and members made few efforts to evangelize. The war accelerated the shift in focus from the salvation of the individual to the redemption of society. Many members who had experienced the hatred and terror of battle chose to address the problems of war, economic problems, and cultural relations. In this manner, from 1850 through the 1920s the leaders and members of the YMCA transformed an evangelical outreach movement into a general welfare agency.[18] The founders of the American YMCA set theological precedents which were long lasting. Generally, this interdenominational organization placed little emphasis on theology and focused on service, cooperation, and unity. Leaders and members accepted the central elements of evangelical Protestant thought and rejected the need for creeds or doctrinal debates. From 1851 until the 1890s the vast majority of Y men agreed with the tenets of mainstream orthodox Protestantism. Very few members belonged to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. However, during the 1890s a number of leaders began to investigate and accept the claims of the “New Theology,” a theological framework which gained wide acceptance during this time. Popular writers and speakers such as Harry Fosdick, Washington Gladden,

Henry Drummond, and Walter Rauschenbusch taught that the Christian faith must accommodate itself to the norms of the modern scientific culture. These men, popular pastors and authors, stressed that Christians must follow the essential ethical teachings of Jesus and strive for the continuing improvement of society. Leading proponents of this theology, also referred to as modernism or liberalism, also questioned the historical nature of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, and the necessity of strict doctrinal definitions. The New Theology paralleled the development of the “Social Gospel,” a movement which rejected an individualistic interpretation of Christianity and applied biblical themes to social reform work. Many Social Gospel leaders adopted the claims of the New Theology, but many retained their traditional Protestant theology. [19] Until 1920 most Y members maintained a moderate position with regard to the New Theology and the Social Gospel—holding onto their conservative theology while applying their faith to the social inequalities of America. However, in the years following World War I the majority of leaders and members accepted the modernist viewpoint. As a result of this progressing attitude of broad tolerance, the leaders also chose a more irenic position with regard to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. They attempted to cooperate more fully with young men of these confessions, especially in overseas activities. Comparing the purpose statements of 1855 and 1931 illustrates an evolution from an evangelical Protestant outreach movement to a liberal Christian social service organization. The Young Men’s Christian Associations seek to unite those young men who, regarding Jesus Christ as their God and Saviour according to the Holy Scriptures, desire to be His disciples in their faith and in their life, and to associate their efforts for the extension of His kingdom amongst young men. (1855) The Young Men’s Christian Association we regard as being, in its essential genius, a world-wide fellowship of men and boys united by a common loyalty to Jesus Christ for the purpose of building Christian personality and a Christian society. (1931)[20] The growing influence of modernism was closely tied to fund-raising: both conservative and liberal donors attempted to influence the doctrinal position of the Y. The significance of the donors grew as the program began to depend increasingly on large, elaborate buildings in cities and on college and university campuses. As theological modernism advanced in influence during the late nineteenth century, the conservative leadership of the American Y moved to ensure the orthodox standards of the organization. However, a consistent policy was to avoid public controversy over theological issues. The YMCA followed the example of Moody, the famous evangelist and former Y staff member, who seemed to tolerate theological liberals if they

demonstrated traditional piety. Of course, within the movement the doctrinal position promoted within any one group depended on the position of the leading secretaries. [21]

The average secretary rarely developed a precisely defined theology: those that did not fully adopt the latest versions of liberal theology lived a Christian faith based on a practical and selective interpretation of the Bible—including the Sermon on the Mount, the example of Jesus’s life, and the epistle of James. “Clearly rooted in mainstream evangelical Protestantism,” the YMCA “appealed to the average person’s impatience with church rivalries and fine theological distinctions.”[22] John R. Mott was the exemplar of “modern Christianity.” He was not an advocate of theological liberalism or the social gospel; instead he “avoided being placed within the framework of the conflict between fundamentalism and modernism.”[23] His goal was to make the church more effective and efficient, and he believed this required churches and leaders to set aside their denominational and doctrinal differences. Mott was a longtime Methodist, but he lived out an interdenominational plan for world missions— more for pragmatic than doctrinal reasons. Mott never received a formal theological education; he read widely but never seemed to comprehend the reasons for confessional distinctives and historical church divisions.[24] Recent research has discussed how this pragmatic philosophy of modern Christianity contributed to the eventual secularization of the YMCA—a gradual process of moving away from its original ties to religious beliefs and behaviors. One study concluded that “the Cleveland YMCA was willing to trade its overt religious identity for a place at the civic table. . . . The YMCA’s eagerness to become a powerful and valued partner in urban reform ultimately led not to the Christianization of society, but to its own secularization.”[25] Another study addressed the secularization of the collegiate YMCA program in the United States and argued that it contributed to this process at many faith-based colleges and universities as well. A large percentage of male students participated in campus Y programs: by 1920 the national membership of student Ys included 39 percent of all male US college students.[26] The promotion of modern Christianity through campus secretaries influenced future faculty members as well as new Y workers around the world. This research also shows how events in Russia influenced work in the United States. During the 1920s a vocal minority of student Y leaders expressed their support for socialism; this motivated anti-Bolshevik groups on college campuses to inaccurately accuse other YMCA leaders of socialist beliefs.[27]

THE YMCA AND MUSCULAR CHRISTIANITY At the close of the nineteenth century and the opening of the twentieth century, many British and American evangelical Protestants debated how best to attract more men to churches where they were far outnumbered by female participants. They believed that the language and atmosphere of evangelical Christianity was more attractive to

women than men, so they promoted a faith which they assumed would appeal to the growing number of practically minded young men. The preachers and teachers of muscular Christianity called on men to turn to Christ and live a life of decision, heroism, and virility. These themes were occasionally visible in the communication of the Russian work leaders. This new emphasis on manliness was an extension of the existing Protestant emphasis on “character formation.” The middle-class churches of the United States emphasized the importance of “good character” especially due to the demands of a producer-oriented culture which usually required performance for success. Many YMCA leaders presented the Christian businessman as the ideal believer: they called on men to be holy, but always practical.[28] They called on men to be spiritual, but with a strong work ethic.[29] Two of the first advocates of muscular Christianity in the 1850s were the British writers Thomas Hughes and Charles Kingsley; their popular books encouraged chivalry, patriotism, heroism, physically demanding sports, and challenging outdoor recreation. Y leaders took these ideas and emphasized the separate roles of women and men: boys and young men were challenged to control their wills in order to live a life of assertiveness and integrity.[30] They placed less emphasis on duty to extended family and one’s home town—a common challenge to American men of the colonial period. Autonomy outweighed community, and the selfmade man replaced the village patriarch as ideals.[31] These ideals form the background to the Association’s huge investment in gymnasiums and athletic equipment around the world as well as the invention of volleyball and basketball as “character-building” sports.[32] Muscular Christianity was also seen as an antidote to political radicalism among workers: “The YMCA hoped that workers would shed their propensity for political radicalism and industrial unrest once they adopted a higher ideal of manhood, rooted in Christian values of brotherhood and service.”[33]

THE YMCA’S OUTREACH WITHIN RUSSIA: A SURVEY From 1900 to 1940 the American YMCA utilized many methods and worked with many groups of Russians from Vladivostok to Paris. One goal remained the same during these years—the establishment of a full-fledged indigenous program in Russia with attention to all aspects of the lives of youth: spiritual, mental, social, and physical. Even in the chaotic days during and after World War I the “object kept firmly and always before the Commission was restoring the Y.M.C.A. in Russia—all other work, regardless of its intrinsic importance was considered in relationship to this essential purpose.”[34] The leadership of the Russian program was never centralized and changed frequently: a full listing of organizational appointments and structure would require several pages. However, such a list would not be that useful, since the Y in Russia seemed to operate more by the leadership of personal influence rather than the leadership of formal position: the bureaucracy of the headquarters in New York

seems to have had less influence than the personalities of a few men. To follow the complex development of the Russian work it is essential to follow the work of three key leaders: John R. Mott (1865–1955), Franklin A. Gaylord (1856–1943), and Paul B. Anderson (1894–1985).[35] Mott never lived in Russia, but he provided philosophical and organizational direction for the work from its beginnings through World War II, regardless of which formal title he carried at any given time. Gaylord led the Mayak program from its beginning to the revolution and served as a guide for the student workers as well. Anderson provided broad leadership for work in Russia immediately after the revolution and throughout the period of service to émigrés. The second tier of influential leaders includes James Stokes (1841–1918), who provided funding and guidance for the Mayak. Sherwood Eddy (1871–1963) visited Russia many times and wrote several books. Ethan T. Colton Sr. (1872–1970) worked in Russia from 1918 to 1925 and provided leadership from New York in the years that followed. Edward T. Heald (1885–1967) served in Russia from 1916 to 1919 and filled leadership roles. George Sidney Phelps (1875–1961) worked from 1918 to 1920 and provided general leadership. Edgar MacNaughten (1882–1933) and Donald A. Lowrie (1889–1974) served both in Russia and Europe. Gustave Gerard Kullmann (1894–1961) was the closest advisor to the Russian Student Christian Movement in Europe. The YMCA first appeared in Russia in 1868 in close connection with German Lutheran churches—it did not spread widely within the country.[36] In 1910 a visitor to St. Petersburg reported on a Y program in St. Petersburg led by a Lutheran, Pastor H. Ferhmann. The majority of members were Lutherans and it was affiliated with the Y.M.C.A. World Alliance in Geneva.[37] YMCA work with Russians in St. Petersburg was preceded by two visits of leaders from the United States: John Swift who visited Russia in 1885;[38] and a few years later, L. D. Wishard, a key leader of the American Association, who visited Russia on a trip from Amsterdam to Persia. His report, published for Y readers in 1892, claimed that “The government is . . . resorting to every possible measure to repress and stamp out every phase of religious belief differing from the Orthodox Greek church.” He described how a Protestant group met in secret to avoid attention from local authorities and concluded, “The fires of the inquisition are smoldering in the heart of the most despotic tyrant of the nineteenth century and the roll of the martyrs is being almost daily increased under the most oppressive government on earth.”[39] Wishard’s report showed no trace of hope for working in Russia or cooperating with the Orthodox Church. The YMCA’s work with Russians from 1900 to 1940 can be examined in the following nine overlapping stages: this brief outline highlights the primary focus, location, and number of participants. (1) Workers. The YMCA served workers with the Mayak in St. Petersburg (1900–1918), the Russian Correspondence School in Berlin and then Paris (1921–1961), and the YMCA Vocational School in Sofia (1922– 1924). In 1914 four American secretaries were working with the Mayak in St.

Petersburg. (2) Students. American secretaries assisted students in Russia from 1909 to 1914, when there were four US secretaries, and later in 1926. (3) Prisoners of War. Approximately twenty secretaries served POWs from 1915 to 1917: ten with Russians in Germany and ten with Austrians in Russia. (4) Soldiers. After the February 1917 revolution the Y began to work with the Russian army. Approximately one hundred men arrived and developed army contacts until the October 1917 revolution and the subsequent Russian peace agreement with the Central Powers ended this phase. (5) Communities. In late 1917 approximately fifty Y men remained “at the request of the President in order to show America’s friendship for the Russian people.” The work consisted of community service and aid for Russian POWs returning from Germany and Austria. US intervention in Archangel and Vladivostok led to a recall of some YMCA men by the US government in 1918. Others continued working in Vladivostok until 1923. (6) Allied Soldiers. Approximately two hundred secretaries served Allied intervention troops—in Siberia and northern European Russia from 1918 to 1919. (7) Professors and Students. From 1921 to 1925 five YMCA men worked under the American Relief Administration to provide famine relief for professors and students. (8) Young Men in Moscow. In 1925 and 1926 H. D. Anderson served in Moscow as a promoter of physical education. (9) Émigrés. From 1919 to 1940 Y secretaries assisted Russian refugees in Europe and the city of Harbin in several programs.[40] This simplified outline shows the geographical and methodological complexity of the program. A total of 343 American men worked with the YMCA in Russia during the period 1900–1940.[41] Paul B. Anderson wrote that in the summer of 1918, “We got information from DeWitt Clinton Poole, U.S. Consul General, who realized the YMCA had the biggest contingent of Americans in the country and was the most exposed to vagaries of the revolution.”[42] In the fall of 1918 Colton clarified that for “nearly a year Association secretaries have constituted much the largest American group in Russian territory, as numerous as the Diplomatic, Consular, Publicity, Red Cross and Military Missions combined.”[43] Until 1914 the program was rather small with only eight American secretaries in the country—the war catalyzed the greatest expansion of the program. After the war (and with the establishment of the Soviet state) the number of secretaries quickly declined—by 1933 Paul B. Anderson was the only field worker for the Russian work. Many of these workers were recruited by Mott himself. Mott was especially active in recruiting college students as volunteers for work with POWs— they were not expected to serve as career Y secretaries but were accepted as short-term workers. The quality of the recruited personnel from 1900 to 1940 was generally very high: one article notes, “Whether permanent YMCA staffers or wartime volunteers, these men were in many ways the ‘best of their generation,’ much like the Peace Corps personnel of a later time.” The staff experienced continual frustration at frequent unexpected barriers to their work, most notably the expulsion from Soviet Russia. In August 1918 the American consul in Moscow, DeWitt Clinton Poole Jr., stated that: “all measures should be taken to evacuate from Central Russia the

American personnel of the Young Men’s Christian Association.” In October 1918 the Soviet government issued a decree that the work of the Y was to be liquidated, since it was “a decidedly harmful organization.” This was a blow to Mott and most secretaries, who believed that they could neutrally serve all Russians, regardless of their political leanings. The Y was able to stay in Soviet Russia a few months longer than other foreign organizations in the country, since the government found some of its services to be useful. However, “The YMCA found its program in Russia at an end. It had been impossible to remain neutral and give aid on a people-to-people basis in a revolutionary situation.” This summary is from Donald E. Davis and Eugene P. Trani, two leading researchers on the work of the YMCA, who conclude that the organization “failed in Russia.” They suggest that the American leaders should have demonstrated more “flexibility” to come to a “meaningful compromise,” but do not describe how such a compromise could possibly have been worked out.[44] This seems to be an odd conclusion when one considers the results of later attempts of philanthropy or religious assistance: a success-failure paradigm seems to be less than useful in this situation. This study discusses the reasons for the expulsion of the organization and suggests other methods for evaluating this unique program of philanthropy. Any method of evaluation must take into account the particular program and personnel—such a complex, multifaceted program resists a categorical “pass” or “fail.” Many letters and documents attempt to color the Y’s Russia ventures with shades of gallantry or insincerity, brilliance or ignorance. Without portraying these men as heroes of humanity, it should be pointed out that their work was no picnic, especially during the fall and winter of 1917–1918. Ethan Colton, a veteran leader, described common hardships faced by secretaries due to difficult transportation, local violence, and chaotic bureaucracy: Unheated freight cars packed with refugees and soldiers were the rule. Men of ours have ridden, standing thirty-six consecutive hours unable to move from the sheer weight of human pressure. Many made journeys a fortnight long, carrying by hand whatever food, bedding and wardrobe served their needs en route. Some were robbed. Nearly all came under fire, generally of the irresponsible and therefore the more dangerous sort. They were blocked in a hundred ways by such of the small officious revolutionaries’ and soldiers’ committees. . . . But they arrived, they ministered, and they stayed.[45] The American YMCA workers were almost entirely white, collegeeducated, middle- and upper-class Protestants, but they interacted with a very wide range of Russians. Before the war the work was primarily with clerical and professional classes (at the Mayak) and with the students and intelligentsia (in the RSCM)—not with industrial workers. During the early work with émigrés, the focus was on the dislocated POWs, who were largely workers (in the correspondence and technical schools). Later the focus was on students and the intelligentsia (with the RSCM, the YMCA Press, and the theological institute).[46] During the summer of 1918

(shortly before the expulsion from Soviet Russia) the Volga Expedition provided an educational program for Russians living in forty-four cities and villages along the Volga River. Led by C. C. Hatfield, this program included lectures and demonstrations on agriculture, hygiene, and home economics. After the expulsion of the YMCA from Soviet Russia, Colton’s first major effort in Russia as lead secretary was to gather as many of the seventy-three Y secretaries together as possible to discuss future plans. The meeting was held at Samara on the Volga River; this was to be the new city for the Y headquarters, in order to be farther from the front. The revolution had radically changed the conditions for work, but fiftysix secretaries decided to stay in Russia to work on a variety of civilian and military service programs. Eleven stated that they needed to leave Russia to volunteer for the US military. Six others decided to leave for home.[47] In 1919 G. S. Phelps began serving as senior national secretary; he proposed programs to the provisional government based in Omsk and requested the privileges provided by the Provisional Government before the revolution. He emphasized that “The YMCA seeks work in closest harmony and fellowship with the Orthodox Russian Church and enjoys the blessing of the Metropolitan at Moscow.” The proposed services included: (1) Community Service Program (playgrounds and summer camps), (2) City Work Program (educational classes and physical education), (3) Rural Service Program (agricultural and health training), (4) Bureau of Visual Education (educational films and slide shows), (5) Service to Returning POWs (meals and support), and (6) Railroad Service Program (films and lectures).[48] By September 1919 this proposed program for Siberia was well on its way with one hundred American secretaries and two hundred Russian employees, organized into five departments: Civilian Work, Railway Employees, Army and Navy, Rural Community Work, and Prisoner of War Aid. These departments were supported by four bureaus: executive, lecture and cinema, supply, and finance. The stated goals in Siberia were: (1) Build up the young men of Russia in mind, spirit, and body—in cooperation with the state, church, and other social organizations, (2) Promote the development of a future independent, permanent Russia YMCA, (3) Serve the American Expeditionary forces in Siberia by maintaining morale, (4) Serve the troops of the Allies in Siberia, and (5) “cooperate with the Red Cross and other philanthropic organizations in demonstrating to the Russian people the friendship of the American people for Russia in her hour of need.” The 102 American secretaries in Siberia were distributed in this way: Russian work (army and civilian) 20, American Expeditionary Forces 17, Czech army 15, lecture and cinema bureau 12, Allied forces 10, finance 8, executive bureau 7, rural 7, supply 4, and railway department 2. The Y worked in adequate buildings in Harbin, Vladivostok, and Khabarovsk. Simpler facilities were found for community service centers in Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, Omsk, Tomsk, and Novo-Nikolaevsk.[49] An October 1919 report noted that the US consulate recommended that the Y withdraw from Omsk, while other conditions led to withdrawal from Krasnoyarsk and Khabarovsk. The community service programs included playgrounds, Boy Scouts, garden clubs, educational classes, lectures, films,

and summer camps.[50] The program in Vladivostok operated from 1918 to 1923, centered on the “Mayak,” which followed in the tradition of the Petrograd Mayak.[51] By 1919 the Association there had a building and over one thousand members.[52] The Vladivostok Y developed a youth program called Pionery (Pioneers).[53] YMCA work with Russian soldiers is included in a later chapter. This chapter discusses only the Y’s work with American and other Allied troops. This work was carried out primarily in Siberia and in “North Russia” near Murmansk. Y secretaries were caught in combat several times in North Russia. As work continued in Russia, YMCA leaders met in New Jersey in 1920 to discuss setting up Y work in Soviet Russia, which would require an invitation from the government. The goal was to establish an interdenominational ministry which would focus more on the Orthodox Church due to its size. The plan called for establishment of city YMCAs in Moscow, Petrograd, Kiev, Odessa, Kharkov, and Kazan. “We need to keep constantly in mind that we are engaged in establishing, not an American, but a Russian Y.M.C.A.” The plan also called for a rural work program and boys work training.[54] The discussions raised the need for more intentional training of secretaries. W. W. Banton of the YMCA Russian Division called for more thorough language and cultural study for future Y workers in Russia. Specifically Banton wanted to see more intense language study before departure for Russia, along with study of Russian history and religion, and study of YMCA philosophy and methods.[55] A number of Y men, such as Gaylord and Harvey Anderson, spoke Russian well, but others had not learned to communicate in Russian. Some previous workers had lacked appropriate knowledge of the culture in which they worked. Paul B. Anderson commented that this was the case with the leader of the POW work: “Archie Harte knew nothing of Russia; he was never interested in Russian history.”[56] The “Overseas Training School” was formed as a nine-month training program for a small group of future Y workers in Russia. The program was worked out by a number of Y men with experience in the areas: Colton, Ryall, Banton, D. Willard Lyon, Paul Super, Robert E. Lewis, and Ralph W. Hollinger. The first meeting of the school was held on September 10, 1920, in a Cleveland YMCA facility. The curriculum was worked out with input from the participants, some of whom had previous experience in Russia. The goals were to develop skills in these areas: Russian language and culture, development of Association principles for the country, physical education, personal and group spiritual formation, social work, and teamwork. Lectures on culture addressed social trends, politics, geography, music, art, religion, and economy. Two of the key lecturers were Gaylord and J. F. Hecker. One to four lectures on each topic were scheduled. Participants also carried out assignments for practical work in the local area and focused on areas of special interest. The program plan included a list of recommended readings on Russia, theology, and other topics.[57] Although the YMCA had been formally expelled from Soviet Russia in 1918, five secretaries were able to return under the direction of the American Relief

Administration (ARA) from 1922 to 1924. These men, Colton, MacNaughten, S. M. Keeny, Oliver J. Fredericksen, and H. Dewey Anderson, were assigned to provide food aid to Russian professors and students—the program was called the “Student Relief Service.”[58] Herbert Hoover wanted to receive the unified support of US relief and welfare agencies, so he invited seven leading organizations to send a representative for an advisory committee to the ARA—the YMCA chose Colton. The Y representatives served as staff members of the ARA, not as Association secretaries.[59] The ARA period produced one of the links between the Y’s work in Russia and with the emigration. The Y secretaries serving with the ARA built relationships with Russian professors who needed food aid. Several of these intellectuals were eventually exiled by Lenin, but secretaries renewed contacts with them after their deportation to Berlin and elsewhere.[60] After his work with the ARA, H. Dewey Anderson received permission to work in Moscow to promote the development of physical education for Russians. He worked with the Moscow Bureau of Physical Culture, a new organization which organized extracurricular sports for students. For May 3, 1925, Anderson worked to coordinate “the first all-Moscow city mass physical demonstration,” which would include demonstrations of calisthenics, track and field, and volleyball. His plan included speeches, including one by Anatoly Lunacharsky, the Soviet commissar of enlightenment. Anderson was also the director of the physical education department for the Higher Art and Technical School, where physical education had recently been adopted as a mandatory subject for all 1,500 students. Finally, he was appointed the director of the physical education department of the medical faculty of Moscow State University. He faced opposition from the rector of the Institute of Physical Culture, who published a booklet by Anderson under his own name.[61] In February 1926 Ethan Colton recommended that Edith Gates of the Cleveland YWCA might be a good candidate to serve as his coworker.[62] Anderson secured government permission for Gates to work in Moscow.[63] He was able to make significant progress in his work, but was discouraged by difficulties and bureaucratic hassles. With this in mind, he wrote to Colton, “If I gave you my selfish opinion I would urge you to withdraw and try to forget Russia until some happier day, for I am tired, very tired.”[64] Anderson was expelled from Moscow just a few days after this note was written; his property was confiscated. The cable from Moscow came on October 21, 1926, to the Association headquarters in New York, so Gates was unsure if she should depart. Home office leaders suggested that the reason was the incompatibility of the Y and communism, but Anderson stated that no reason was given. The organization had been specifically criticized at a recent plenary meeting in Moscow of the executive committee of the Young Communists International, with this comment: “Our comrades in China have a difficult task. . . . We have to [deal] with a very strong Christian propaganda, which is particularly represented by the Y.M.C.A. Our comrades there have carried on a splendid campaign against this organization and Christianity in general.”[65] Soon after Anderson’s return to the United States he told

Colton that he had talked to a number of people about the issue of visas for foreign church workers—no information seemed to be available. He commented that some believed that the revoking of visas was due to a ruling made by the political police’s section on religious activities: “This ruling, which can be attested by actual experience, was to the effect that no religious workers wishing to enter the country for the purpose of religious contact or activities would be allowed to do so.”[66] The American YMCA followed a two-part strategy for the Russian work after the setbacks of 1918, 1923, and 1926. They continued to look for a way to work inside Soviet Russia, but they also attempted to serve Russian émigrés at the first opportunity. Soon after the revolution Gaylord, the former director of the St. Petersburg/Petrograd Mayak, served along with Brackett Lewis and Miller Baker in Constantinople (Istanbul), assisting refugees.

THE YMCA’S OUTREACH TO RUSSIA ABROAD: A SURVEY The beginnings of YMCA ministry to Russian émigrés continued as they spread to every corner of Europe and the world. To discuss and evaluate adequately the Y’s efforts in context it is necessary to provide an adequate picture of “Russia Abroad.” Three of the most useful monographs on this topic are by Marc Raeff, Robert C. Williams, and Robert C. Johnston.[67] These and other works help develop a picture of the location, social makeup, and periodization of the emigration, as well as an understanding of their general attitudes, cultural activities, and the assistance received.[68] These Russians have been called émigrés, exiles, or refugees; these terms have all been used to describe those who left Russia during and soon after the civil war. Each of these words emphasizes a different element of their experience, but they are all accurate due to their overlapping meanings. “Refugee” points to a direct response to war or persecution. “Émigré” highlights that they were in a foreign country, not simply another region of their own nation. “Exile” stresses the involuntary nature of the arrangement and the fact that it was direct political punishment for some among them. The Russians themselves used the word “émigré” most often; for some it brought to mind the French emigration after 1789. For others the word “exile” suggested a comparison to the political exiles of Russia’s previous century. The majority of these émigré-exile-refugees left Russia after the November 1920 defeat of the White general Petr Wrangel (1878–1928), who oversaw the evacuation of 150,000 to Turkey. These Russians chose to leave due to their objections to Bolshevik rule and due to their concerns for safety and freedom.[69] Many of the leaders among this number saw themselves as forming a new “Russia Abroad” (zarubezhnaia Rossiia), a temporary arrangement which would continue only until the Bolsheviks collapsed. Istanbul, Berlin, and Paris followed one another in serving as the capitals of Russia Abroad, but Prague, Athens, Belgrade, Sofia, Riga, and Harbin were also points of settlement for the emigration. The common stereotype is that the refugees were primarily impoverished

aristocrats. “All were deemed wildly impractical, exotic, and frenetic. To this mixture might be added a brace of Cossacks, a mournful choir, two or three onion-domed churches, ex–grand dukes driving taxi-cabs, and more than a touch of the suffering Slav soul.”[70] Of course, the social composition of Russia Abroad was much wider, since virtually all the social, ethnic, and religious groups of pre-1917 Russia were present, although the percentages did not remain the same. Another stereotype is that most were reactionary anti-Bolshevik monarchists. However, the emigration included representatives of the full spectrum of political positions which had developed up to 1917. Most émigrés maintained a preference for a monarchy, but the majority were not actively involved in the monarchist or any other political cause. One distinguishing characteristic of the emigration in the early 1920s was the high percentage of young single men. The emigration also had a higher average educational level than had existed in prerevolutionary Russia. Nearly 15 percent held a diploma from an institution of higher education.[71] Raeff, the leading historian of the emigration, sets the “life span” of Russia Abroad as 1919–1939. The exodus created by the civil war first reached a significant level in 1919, while the 1939 outbreak of the Second World War ended the unique cohesion of this society in exile. During the 1920s many expected the Bolshevik regime to collapse and viewed emigration as a temporary status. They desired to preserve traditional culture and values, since they expected to return in a relatively short time. Their goal was not to build a new life for themselves but to preserve the old way of life for their families and descendants. This motivation undergirded the formation of a full network of Russian cultural and educational institutions.[72] The cultural talent of the emigration was extraordinary: the art of Vasily Kandinsky and Marc Chagall; the music of Igor Stravinsky, Sergei Rakhmaninov, and Fyodor Chaliapin; and the writing of Ivan Bunin, Vladimir Nabokov, Aleksandr Kuprin, Konstantin Balmont, Marina Tsvetaeva, and Dmitry Merezhkovsky.[73] As a result the intellectuals “believed, more strongly than anything else, that in exile it defended the best of Russia’s spiritual, artistic, linguistic, and historical traditions which, woven together, constituted their country’s cultural legacy.”[74] From the early years the exiled scientists and scholars pursued two goals: “to educate the young and continue their own creative work.” One of Raeff’s examples was a program supported by the American YMCA—the Free Spiritual and Philosophical Academy, led by Nikolai Berdyaev. The lectures and discussions organized by the academy attracted great attention within the intellectual world of Russian Berlin. Raeff summarizes his survey: “Given the difficulty and variety of circumstances, and the great number of organizations that were the source of strains and conflicts, it is the more remarkable that Russia Abroad managed not only to preserve, but also to contribute creatively, to Russian culture.”[75] The Orthodox faith played a different role in émigré culture than it had before the revolution. Up to 1917 the Orthodox Church was the established church, and many resented its relationship to the state. For the émigré community, participation in the

church resulted from voluntary cultural preference and/or spiritual conviction, rather than any political requirements. The majority of refugees belonged to the Orthodox Church, and the percentage increased due to “the significant revival of an active religious life that occurred in the diaspora.” This revival seemed to be tied to a number of factors, including an intentional attempt to preserve traditional culture: as Mark Raeff explained, “Praying together was more than an act of devotion, it was also a public commitment to a unique national and cultural tradition that set off the worshippers from the host society.”[76] Another scholar commented, “For the emigrant who has no rights and has lost faith in politicians, in ideas, and in justice, the Russian church frequently remained as a last refuge, where one could find tranquility for a wavering soul.”[77] The leading international agency to provide material support was the Red Cross, while the YMCA provided important educational and moral aid.[78] The YMCA program for émigrés in the 1920s and 1930s supported the Russian Student Christian Movement, the YMCA Press, and the St. Sergius Theological Academy. The emphasis was on backing the goals of young Orthodox believers with programs which were confessional in approach, but linked to the broader Christian world. One of the Russians who pushed for this approach was Nikolai Berdyaev, a prominent philosopher. His editorial in the first issue of the journal Put’ lays out the general approach which was adopted by the Russians and the Americans: “By God’s Providence we are placed in communion with the Western spiritual world: we must try to learn more about it and to enter into fraternal fellowship, to unite with it in the fight against the anti-Christian forces.”[79] This approach guided formal programs and informal contacts. One of the most important informal efforts led by Berdyaev was an ongoing informal gathering of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox scholars and clergy for theological discussions.[80] Several aspects of the YMCA work with émigrés were fairly unusual—for example, the active participation of so many talented intellectuals. The close relationships developed between these professors and priests and the Russian students appear even more remarkable when considering the traditional distance which existed between the learning and the learned in prerevolutionary universities. Men such as Berdyaev, Sergei Bulgakov, Anton Kartashev, and others demonstrated that they genuinely cared for the young people and wanted to be of assistance. Viacheslav Kostikov suggests that the professors and students created a symbiotic relationship: the students provided a receptive audience for the exiled intellectuals, and the professors provided ideological leadership for the younger generation. Many young people gathered frequently for the YMCA-sponsored programs at 10 Boulevard du Montparnasse in Paris. Their interests were no doubt motivated by different combinations of spiritual, cultural, and social interests: “the young people who came to this address were interested not so much in the preaching, but in the possibility to get acquainted.”[81] The American Y provided subsidies for a number of Russian programs but consistently attempted to help these programs become self-sufficient. Of course, this

was quite a challenge due to the economic conditions of emigration. However, most programs did receive a significant amount of their budget from program participants or local sponsors. By 1929, the majority of the annual budget (55 percent) for the Russian Correspondence School was provided by student tuition. The remaining 45 percent was covered by subsidy. For the Russian Student Christian Movement, 28 percent of the budget was provided by a local financial campaign and 23 percent came from fees and non-contribution income. Thirty-two percent was from a Y subsidy. The Religious-Philosophical Academy was almost entirely supported by the Y, which provided 96 percent of the need; only 4 percent was covered by lecture entrance fees. The YMCA Press received funds for 80 percent of the year’s income, while 20 percent was received from sale of publications. The Orthodox theological institute was primarily funded by contributions secured by British Anglicans and YMCA leaders (75 percent). Twenty percent was received through a financial campaign among Russians in Europe.[82] Of course, by the 1930s the American Y faced difficulties in subsidizing the programs due to the impact of the depression. Both Russian and American staff salaries were decreased. The Russian work was able to rely on the fund set up years earlier by James Stokes to balance budgets in the 1930s. However, this fund could not come close to meeting the needs. In 1936 the lease on 10 Boulevard Montparnasse, the main building for work in Paris, was allowed to expire.[83] Paul B. Anderson and others probably remembered with nostalgia the enormous funding available in the years after the First World War. The Russian work of the YMCA was financed by a wide variety of donors, but two individuals stand out for the size and influence of their donations. James Stokes, a New York banker, provided the primary funding for the Mayak program from 1900 until his death in 1918—his approach is discussed in chapter 4. The primary donor during the 1920s was John D. Rockefeller Jr. Albert F. Schenkel has examined the background, motivations, and influences of this century’s foremost religious philanthropist. Rockefeller first met John R. Mott at Brown University in 1895, when Mott was on campus as a promoter of the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions. Mott noted that Rockefeller was “the only son of the great business man who is worth probably two hundred million dollars. He is an industrious, levelheaded fellow—with good habits.” Mott later began to serve as general secretary for the Association’s foreign department and solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars from Rockefeller over the next years. His consistent financial support enabled Mott to boldly lead the YMCA into new ventures without fearing the possibility of a shortage of funds.[84]

THE YMCA AND RUSSIANS IN HARBIN, CHINA The primary non-European venue for the Y’s work with Russian émigrés was in Harbin, China. The first YMCA work in Harbin was with an Allied engineering corps working with the Trans-Siberian Railroad under the leadership of Herbert Gott. He

remained after the departure of the Allied unit and set up a boys club for Russian refugees; this program developed into the broader program known as the “Mayak.” Gott’s leadership was passed on to Howard L. Haag.[85] The YMCA Gymnasia school opened in September 1925; the school eventually offered instruction from the fourth to tenth years of school. By 1927 the school had 272 pupils (152 boys and 120 girls). The program followed the model of the prerevolutionary gimnazia.[86] By 1930 it was clear that the Association had connected with the Russian community in Harbin: “The YMCA day school is recognized as the best Russian high school in the city; the library operated by the YMCA is the most important one in the city; the Association has the support of the Russian Orthodox Church in its efforts at formation of character in Russian youth.”[87] In its first years the Harbin YMCA received opposition from the Orthodox hierarchy, local communists, and a group which called themselves “Russian Fascists.” The church changed its position from opposition to cooperation after Gott met with the leading priest in the area, Father Paetelin. Gott’s wife began to give the priest English lessons as well.[88] In 1925 Haag wrote an article promoting the work of the YMCA for Russkii golos (The Russian Voice), an anti-Bolshevik newspaper. This article prompted a reply published in Ekho (The Echo), a Communist newspaper, entitled “The Christian Boy, Mr. Haag, of the YMCA with [the Musketeers’] Club.” This article suggested that Haag had clear political goals in spite of his denials: “To aim at the youth and to darken its brain and to change its adherents into bourgeois hypocrites and into good employees needed by capitalist dictatorship, to prepare them for the interests of [the] bourgeois, this the YMCA has taught through all its existence.”[89] In the 1930s “Russian Fascists” organized a series of public lectures on Masonry which attracted large audiences. In the lectures the YMCA was attacked as “a kindred organization to masonry” and “an anti-Russian anti-Christian force.” This led to a sharp decline in support from local clergy.[90] The Harbin Y received positive publicity during the 1930s as well: an article published in the local Zaria (Dawn) newspaper was entitled “Two Encounters with the Y.M.C.A.” The author described his experiences in very positive terms. He did not raise questions of Masonry or doctrine; he emphasized that the Y connected faith to real life. He stated that he remained Orthodox but believed that Orthodoxy was removed from real life. He shared his impressions of the RSCM in St. Petersburg, the humanitarian aid provided, and the educational work in Harbin: “John Mott spoke . . . about our responsibility for our destiny and the destiny of others, and how it ought to look towards Christ. And that to accomplish this, one must work, work, work, and work.”[91] The organization opened three additional educational institutions in Harbin: the YMCA English College (with an emphasis on teacher training and commerce), the North Manchurian Polytechnical Institute of the YMCA, and the School of Automechanics (which had over one thousand graduates).[92] Haag left Harbin in 1935 and turned over leadership of the Y program to Russian staff. The Japanese occupied the area from 1935 to 1945 but allowed activities to

continue to function with Russian leadership. The work carried on under the direction of the National Council of the YMCA of Japan. The Soviets took control of the area in 1945 and sent six thousand people (including Alexei Gryzov, the YMCA general secretary) involuntarily to the USSR, but the Y continued to function in a limited manner. When the Chinese Communist forces took over Harbin in 1947 the organization’s building was taken for use as a military barracks. Many of the library books were shipped to the USSR and the furniture was sent to a school. However, a large amount of equipment was publicly burned, surrounded by former Y employees. [93] The work in Harbin developed among more traditional Association program lines than the work with émigrés in Europe; there was more focus on programs for boys and the influence of Orthodoxy was not as strong.[94] However, in St. Petersburg, Paris, and Harbin, the YMCA demonstrated creative initiative and strategic flexibility as it attempted to meet the spiritual, mental, social, and physical needs of young Russian men.

NOTES 1. C. Howard Hopkins, History of the YMCA in North America (New York: Association Press, 1951), 332. 2. Hopkins, History of the YMCA in North America, 318–19. 3. A large body of recent historical literature addresses the work of the YMCA within the United States. Noteworthy recent works include Nina Mjagkij and Margaret Spratt, eds., Men and Women Adrift: The YMCA and the YWCA in the City (New York: New York University Press, 1997); Jessica I. Elfenbein, The Making of a Modern City: Philanthropy, Civic Culture, and the Baltimore YMCA (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2001); Paula Lupkin, “A Temple of Practical Christianity,” Chicago History 24, no. 3 (1995): 22–41; and Paul Allan Hillmer, “‘This Is Practical Religion’: The Cleveland YMCA and the Social Service Movement” (PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2001). 4. Sherwood Eddy, A Century with Youth: A History of the Y.M.C.A. from 1844 to 1944 (New York: Association Press, 1944), 2–5. 5. Hopkins, History of the YMCA in North America, 18. 6. Two recent studies of Moody are Bruce J. Evensen, God’s Man for the Gilded Age: D. L. Moody and the Rise of Modern Mass Evangelism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003); and Lyle W. Dorsett, A Passion for Souls: The Life of D. L. Moody (Chicago: Moody Press, 1997). 7. Hopkins, History of the YMCA in North America, 107. 8. David P. Setran, “Student Religious Life in the ‘Era of Secularization’: The Intercollegiate YMCA, 1877–1940,” History of Higher Education Annual 21 (2001): 8–11. For a localized study of YMCA work with students in the United States, see Daniel Edward Sack, “Disastrous Disturbances: Buchmanism and Student Religious Life at Princeton, 1919–1935” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 1995).

9. Hopkins, History of the YMCA in North America, 298. 10. Dwayne George Ramsey, “College Evangelists and Foreign Missions: The Student Volunteer Movement, 1886–1920” (PhD diss., University of California, Davis, 1988), 1–2. For a detailed survey of the global work of the American YMCA, see Kenneth Scott Latourette, World Service: A History of the Foreign Work and World Service of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of the United States and Canada (New York: Association Press, 1957). 11. Setran, “Student Religious Life in the ‘Era of Secularization,’” 19. 12. Emily S. Rosenberg, “Missions to the World: Philanthropy Abroad,” in Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History, ed. Lawrence J. Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 243–44. For an overview of issues related to the global expansion of the YMCA, see Emily S. Rosenberg, Spreading the American Dream: American Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890–1945 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982), especially 28, 33, 78–79, 81, 109–11, and 202–3. Her comments often do not sufficiently reflect the complexity of developments within the YMCA, but they provide a useful introduction to key issues. See also Ian Tyrrell, Reforming the World: The Creation of America’s Moral Empire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010). 13. Jon Thares Davidann, “The American YMCA in Meiji Japan: God’s Work Gone Awry,” Journal of World History 6, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 109. See also his monograph, A World of Crisis and Progress: The American YMCA in Japan 1890– 1930 (Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 1998), and dissertation, “A World of Crisis and Progress: Christianity, National Identity, and the American YMCA in Japan, 1890–1930” (PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1995). Davidann’s research offers an in-depth examination of the YMCA’s work in Japan. However, the author oversimplifies the attitude of the YMCA as “nationalistic” and the reasons for the decline in the YMCA’s global outreach. The monograph does not acknowledge the wide variety of approaches taken by the Y in other countries. Also, the author does not adequately describe the shifting theological climate of the American organization during this period. 14. Nam-Gil Ha and J. A. Mangan, “A Curious Conjunction—Sport, Religion and Nationalism: Christianity and the Modern History of Korea,” The International Journal of the History of Sport (Great Britain) 11, no. 3 (December 1994): 330, 345. 15. Charles Andrew Keller, “Making Model Citizens: The Chinese YMCA, Social Activism, and Internationalism in Republican China, 1919–1937” (PhD diss., University of Kansas, 1996). 16. Piotr T. Zebrowski, “Symbol of Symmetrical Development: The Reception of the YMCA in Poland,” The International Journal of the History of Sport (Great Britain) 8, no. 1 (1991): 105. Additional studies on YMCA work abroad include Janice A. Beran, “Americans in the Philippines: Imperialism or Progress through Sport?” The International Journal of the History of Sport (Great Britain) 6 (1989): 62–87; Jessie Gregory Lutz, “The Heyday of the China YMCA as Exemplified in the Career of Eugene Barnett, 1910–1936,” Republican China 17, no. 2 (1992): 5–29; Jun Xing,

“Baptized in the Fire of Revolution: The American Social Gospel and the YMCA in China: 1919–1937” (PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1993); Wenjun Xing, “Social Gospel, Social Economics, and the YMCA: Sidney D. Gamble and Princeton-inPeking” (PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, 1992); William R. Hutchison, “Missionaries on the ‘Middle Ground’ in China,” Reviews in American History 25, no. 4 (1997): 631–36; and Nicholas J. Griffin, “Chinese Labor and British Christian Missionaries in France, 1917–1919,” Journal of Church and State 20 (1978): 287– 304. 17. Robert Lee Carter, “The ‘Message of Higher Criticism’: The Bible Renaissance and Popular Education in America, 1880–1925” (PhD diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1995), 377. On modernism and the YMCA, see also Heather Anne Warren, “‘That They All May Be One’: Americans’ Quest for Christian Unity, 1918–1948” (PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1991). 18. Hopkins, History of the YMCA in North America, 180, 516, 502. 19. R. T. Handy, “Social Gospel Movement,” in Dictionary of Christianity in America, ed. Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 1104. 20. Hopkins, History of the YMCA in North America, 78, 521. 21. Carter, “The ‘Message of Higher Criticism,’” 342, 374–75; Dorsett, A Passion for Souls, 365–67. 22. C. V. Anderson, “Young Men’s Christian Association,” in Reid, Dictionary of Christianity in America, 1299. 23. Dale Irvin, “John R. Mott and World-Centered Mission,” Missiology: An International Review 12, no. 2 (April 1984): 156. 24. Ramsey, “College Evangelists and Foreign Missions,” 124–25. 25. Hillmer, “‘This Is Practical Religion,’” abstract. 26. Setran, “Student Religious Life in the ‘Era of Secularization,’” 10–11. On the secularization of American universities, see also George M. Marsden, The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). 27. Setran, “Student Religious Life in the ‘Era of Secularization,’” 33. 28. Michael Parker, “The Kingdom of Character: The Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions (1886–1926)” (PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 1994), 124–25. Another perspective on the YMCA and gender is presented in John Donald Gustav-Wrathall, Take the Young Stranger by the Hand: Same-Sex Relations and the YMCA (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), and John Donald Wrathall, “American Manhood and the YMCA, 1868–1920” (PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1994). 29. Thomas Winter, “‘A Wise Investment in Growing Manhood’: The YMCA and Workingmen, 1872–1929” (PhD diss., University of Cincinnati, 1994), 88. 30. Parker, “The Kingdom of Character,” 133, 146-47. 31. Thomas Winter, Making Men, Making Class: The YMCA and Workingmen, 1877–1920 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 17. For further discussion of the development of ideas of gender in the United States, see Anne S. Lombard,

Making Manhood: Growing Up Male in Colonial New England (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003); and Margaret Lamberts Bendroth, Fundamentalism and Gender: 1875 to the Present (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993). 32. Clifford Putney, Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880–1920 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 3. 33. Winter, “‘A Wise Investment in Growing Manhood’,” iv. 34. Paul B. Anderson, “Memorandum on Policy for the Russian Work of the International Committee,” August 9, 1951, 2–3. Corr. and Reports 1950–1951. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1930–1949, Annual Reports 1930–1949. KFYA. Two essential documents for the study of the YMCA Russian work are [International Survey Committee], “Survey of North American YMCA Service to Russians in Europe” [1930]. Russia. International Survey —1930, Roumania, Russia, South Africa, Box 12. KFYA; and D. E. Davis, “YMCA Russian Work: An Interview with Dr. Paul B. Anderson, September 9, 1971.” Interview with Paul B. Anderson. Russian Work, Restricted, General, Personal Accounts. KFYA. 35. Four unrelated Andersons were involved in the Russian work: Paul B. Anderson (soldiers and émigrés), Harvey W. Anderson (Mayak program, students, soldiers, and émigrés), H. Dewey Anderson (soldiers, the ARA famine relief program, physical education in Moscow, and émigrés), and Edgar W. Anderson (émigrés). 36. “Khristianskii soiuz molodykh liudei: Ego vozniknovenie, printsipy i programma,” booklet prepared by the Russian department of the International Committee of the YMCA, New York, 1922, 3–4. Pamphlets in Russian. Russian Work, Restricted, Pamphlets. KFYA. 37. Robert Sloan Latimer, With Christ in Russia (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), 42-43. 38. Anderson, “Memorandum,” 1. 39. L. D. Wishard, “A Glimpse of Russia,” Young Men’s Era, April 7, 1892, 422. As noted previously, Wishard was the first full-time secretary for the YMCA’s student work in the United States and contributed to the formation of the Student Volunteer movement. He served with the intercollegiate program from 1877 to 1888. From 1888 to 1898 he served as foreign secretary of the North American YMCA—he made a world tour for this work from 1888 to 1892. J. H. Dorn, “Wishard, Luther Deloraine (1854–1925),” in Reid, Dictionary of Christianity in America, 1266. 40. Based on outline in letter from E. T. Colton to F. W. Ramsey, July 16, 1926, 1–2. Russia—Speeches and Reports, Germany—Articles. Russia, Colton E. T., Reports, Addresses, and Papers, 2 vols. KFYA; Anderson, “Memorandum,” 2. 41. Anderson, “Memorandum,” 8. For an alphabetical roster of YMCA personnel in the Russian work, noting their assignments, see Ethan T. Colton, Forty Years with Russians (New York: Association Press, 1940), 188–92. 42. Paul B. Anderson, No East or West, ed. Donald E. Davis (Paris: YMCA Press, 1985), 8.

43. E. T. Colton, “No Slackening in Russia,” Association Men, November 1918, 206. 44. Donald E. Davis and Eugene P. Trani, “The American YMCA and the Russian Revolution,” Slavic Review 33, no. 4 (September 1974): 474, 482, 469–70, 490–91. See this article for information on Washington’s interaction with Y secretaries (based on documents held at the National Archives). Davis and Trani examine the work as historians of American foreign policy, while this study examines the work from the point of view of Russian history. The authors consider that Y’s work in Russia ended in 1923, their date for the end of the work in Vladivostok. They acknowledge the work of Anderson with physical fitness in Moscow, but it is not considered YMCA work, since it was not recognized by the Soviet government. They do not mention Corcoran’s undercover work, but note positively later work with émigrés. They also do not mention the consequences of the work, such as the influence of Mayak or the RSCM. 45. Colton, “No Slackening in Russia,” 206. 46. Paul B. Anderson, “North American Y.M.C.A., Russian Service in Europe, Administrative Report for the Year 1936,” 2. Annual Reports 1933–49. Russian Work —Europe, Restricted, Budgets and Appropriations, Correspondence and Reports, 1950– , Financial Transactions. KFYA. 47. Ethan T. Colton Sr., “With the Y.M.C.A. in Revolutionary Russia,” The Russian Review 14, no. 2 (April 1955): 132–33. A number of personal stories are included in “Statements Made by Men of the Russia Staff Regarding the Past and Future of the Y.M.C.A. and Their Personal Plans in the Present Situation,” Samara, March 21, 1918. Correspondence and Reports, 1918. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 48. Letter from G. S. Phelps to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Russian Provisional Government, Omsk, May 30, 1919, 1–2. Omsk. Russian Work, Restricted, North Russia: Archangel, Murmansk, Siberia. KFYA. 49. Letter from G. S. Phelps to John R. Mott, “Annual Letter from G. S. Phelps, Senior National Secretary for Russia—Covering Period from September 1, 1918, to August 31, 1919,” September 1, 1919, 1–4. Correspondence and Reports, 1919. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 50. J. J. Somerville, “Report of the City Work in Siberia for Sept. 1919,” October 11, 1919, 1. Mayak, 1912–22. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 51. “Provisional Constitution of the Young Men’s Christian Association of Vladivostok, Siberia, 1918.” Vladivostok. Russian Work, Restricted, North Russia: Archangel, Murmansk, Siberia. KFYA. 52. J. J. Somerville, “Annual Report Letter for Civilian Work in Siberia,” September 9, 1919, 2. Mayak, 1912–22. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 53. Vestnik “Maiaka,” Vladivostok, October 1, 1922, first year of publication, Number 11, 2, 4. Vladivostok—Periodicals—Russian. Vladivostok. Russian Work, Restricted, North Russia: Archangel, Murmansk, Siberia. KFYA. 54. “Findings of the Russia Conference, Newark, N. J., February 21–23, 1920,” 1–6. Correspondence and Reports, 1920. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and

Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 55. Letter from Wm. Walter Banton of the YMCA Russian Division, Overseas Department to E. T. Colton, March 1, 1920. Correspondence and Reports, 1920. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 56. Davis, “YMCA Russian Work,” 15–16. 57. International Committee of Young Men’s Christian Association, “Overseas Training School, Program of Work, December 1920.” Correspondence and Reports, 1920. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 58. Anderson, “Memorandum,” 2. The noted author Kornei Chukovskii became friends with Keeny during this period; he described his appreciation of his service and intellectual curiosity in K. Chukovskii, Dnevnik 1901–1929 (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1991), 230, 235–36. 59. Memo from C. V. Hibbard to the members of the YMCA International Committee, no date, 1. Correspondence and Reports, 1918. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 60. Marc Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919– 1939 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 28. Lesley Chamberlain, The Philosophy Steamer: Lenin and the Exile of the Intelligentsia (London: Atlantic Books, 2006) describes the lives of these exiles, the details of the expulsion, and their experiences in the West. See also Catherine Baird, “The ‘Third Way’: Russia’s Religious Philosophers in the West, 1917–1996” (PhD diss., McGill University, Montreal, 1997). 61. Letter from H. D. Anderson to E. T. Colton, March 26, 1925, 1–4. 1924–25. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1922–44. KFYA. 62. Letter from E. T. Colton to H. D. Anderson, February 8, 1926. 1926. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1922–44. KFYA. 63. Letter from E. T. Colton to John R. Mott, May 24, 1926, 1. YMCA Relations (1926– ). Russian Church. KFYA. 64. Letter from H. D. Anderson to E. T. Colton, September 27, 1926, 2. 1926. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1922–44. KFYA. 65. “Soviet Ousts YMCA Worker from Moscow,” New York Herald-Tribune, October 22, 1926. 1926. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1922–44. KFYA. See also announcement in Christian Advocate, November 18, 1926. 1926. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1922–44. KFYA; and “Soviet Russia’s Fear of Christ,” The Missionary Review of the World 49, no. 12 (December 1926): 924–26. 66. Letter from H. D. Anderson to E. T. Colton, February 14, 1927, 1. 1927–31. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1922–44. KFYA. This research on Anderson’s work was limited by the availability of sources, but this aspect of the YMCA’s Russian work certainly deserves further evaluation. 67. Marc Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919– 1939 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), Robert C. Williams, Culture in Exile: Russian Émigrés in Germany, 1881–1941 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press, 1972), and Robert H. Johnston, “New Mecca, New Babylon”: Paris and the Russian Exiles, 1920–1945 (Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988). 68. For an introduction to the Russian émigré community of this period, see also Boris Raymond and David R. Jones, The Russian Diaspora: 1917–1941 (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2000). This reference work contains a concise historical survey and a biographical dictionary, which includes many people discussed in this study. Another helpful introductory work is Iu. A. Poliakov, Istoriia rossiiskogo zarubezh’ia: Problemy adaptatsii migrantov v xix–xx vekakh (Moscow: Institut Rossiiskoi Istorii, Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1996). This collection of articles addresses the situation of this unusual emigration and the specific issues faced in each area of settlement, such as France, Czechoslovakia, and Latin America. A number of contributions deal with specific groups, such as students and scholars. E. I. Pivovar, Rossiia v izgnanii: Sud’by rossiiskikh emigrantov za rubezhom (Moscow: Institut Vseobshchei Istorii, Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1999) relies on sociological research and focuses on the emigration of the Russian military. The economic situation of Russian workers in France is examined in Gary S. Cross, Immigrant Workers in Industrial France: The Making of a New Laboring Class (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983). An outstanding collection of photos of Russian émigré life in presented in Andrei Korliakov’s Russkaia emigratsiia v fotografiakh: 1917–1947 (Paris: YMCA Press, 2005). For a contemporary description, see W. Chapin Huntington, The Homesick Million (Boston: Stratford Company, 1933). An outstanding study of Russian émigré intellectual life is Nicholas Hayes, “The Intelligentsia-in-Exile: Sovremennye Zapiski and the History of Russian Émigré Thought, 1920–1940” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1976). 69. Johnston, “New Mecca, New Babylon,” 7, 4. 70. Johnston, “New Mecca, New Babylon,” 3. 71. Raeff, Russia Abroad, 5, 8, 24, 27. 72. Raeff, Russia Abroad, 27. 73. Williams, Culture in Exile, 4; and Viacheslav Kostikov, Ne budem proklinat’ izgnan’e: Puti i sud’by russkoi emigratsii (Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 1990), 256. 74. Johnston, “New Mecca, New Babylon,” 6. 75. Raeff, Russia Abroad, 60, 46. 76. Raeff, Russia Abroad, 27, 43. 77. Kostikov, Ne budem proklinat’ izgnan’e, 246–47. 78. Raeff, Russia Abroad, 27–31, 42–48, 62. 79. [Nikolai Berdyaev], Ot redaktsii, “Dukhovnyia zadachi russkoi emigratsii,” Put’, no. 1 (September 1925): 3–4, 6. For a translation, see YMCA Relationships (1920–25) 1. Russian Church. KFYA. 80. Edgar MacNaughten, “Russian Service in Europe. Annual Report for the Year 1928,” 5–6. Annual Reports, 1925–29. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–29, Annual Reports, 1920–29. KFYA. 81. Kostikov, Ne budem proklinat’ izgnan’e, 253–55.

82. [International Survey Committee], “Survey of North American YMCA Service to Russians in Europe” [1930], 29. Russia. International Survey—1930, Roumania, Russia, South Africa, Box 12. KFYA. 83. Donald E. Davis, “The American YMCA and the Russian Emigration,” Sobornost 9 (1987): 35. 84. Albert F. Schenkel, The Rich Man and the Kingdom: John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the Protestant Establishment (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995), xi, 9, 23– 28, 45, 4, 52, 208–10. For discussion of Rockefeller’s philanthropy in Europe, see Malcolm Richardson, “Philanthropy and the Internationality of Learning: The Rockefeller Foundation and National Socialist Germany” Minerva (Great Britain) 28 (1990): 21–58. 85. Howard L. Haag, “The Harbin Story,” [June 1953], 1–6. 1937–53. Russian Work, Restricted, Harbin, Shanghai. KFYA. For discussion of religious developments in Harbin, see Elena Chernolutskaya, “Religious Communities in Harbin and Ethnic Identity of Russian Emigrés,” South Atlantic Quarterly 99, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 79– 96. 86. “Y.M.C.A. Gymnasia, Harbin, China” [no author, no date]. 1928–29. Russian Work, Restricted, Harbin, Shanghai. KFYA. 87. [International Survey Committee], “Survey of North American YMCA Service,” 8– 9. 88. Herbert S. Gott, “Report of the City Department of the Y.M.C.A. for the month of August 1918 at Harbin, Manchuria,” 4. 1918–25. Russian Work, Restricted, Harbin, Shanghai. KFYA. 89. “The Christian Boy, Mr. Haag, of the YMCA with [the Musketeers’] Club,” Echo, Harbin, September 3, 1925, translation from archive. 1918–25. Russian Work, Restricted, Harbin, Shanghai. KFYA. 90. Letter from Howard L. Haag to John R. Mott, September 19, 1933, 1. 1932–34. Russian Work, Restricted, Harbin, Shanghai. KFYA. See also Arthur Jorgensen, “Report to Mr. F. S. Harmon Concerning the Harbin Y.M.C.A.,” [September 19, 1935]. 1935–36. Russian Work, Restricted, Harbin, Shanghai. KFYA. 91. “Two Encounters with the Y.M.C.A.” [Zaria, Harbin, November 8, 1934, translation from archives, author’s name unclear on translation], 2. 1932–34. Russian Work, Restricted, Harbin, Shanghai. KFYA. Another Russian endorsement of the YMCA’s work in Harbin is contained in L. Apollonov, “Gimnazia Kharbinskogo Khristianskogo Soiuza Molodykh Liudei,” [no date]. Print on Russia. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B. KFYA. 92. Howard L. Haag, “At the Back Door of Russia: The Y.M.C.A. with the Russian Exiles in Manchuria” [clipping from unknown magazine, April 1934], 99. 1932–34. Russian Work, Restricted, Harbin, Shanghai. KFYA. 93. Letter from Howard L. Haag to Paul B. Anderson, May 4, 1950. 1950–56. France, Russian Work, 1925–1965. KFYA. See also letter from Mrs. M. G. Tourabaroff to Mr. and Mrs. Howard L. Haag, September 4, 1947 [translation in archive]. 1937–53. Russian Work, Restricted, Harbin, Shanghai. KFYA.

94. Letter from Paul B. Anderson to Howard Haag in Harbin, January 6, 1927. 1927– 29. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–29, Annual Reports 1920–29. KFYA.

Chapter 2

The YMCA and Russia: Wrestling with the Issues The Russian work of the YMCA was influenced by trends of the American Y, such as modern and muscular Christianity, but the influence was less intense than in other areas of Association service. Led by Nikolai Berdyaev and other intellectuals the program resisted the larger trend toward modern Christianity and secularization within the global movement. While many other programs pushed religion to the periphery of service, the Russians pushed it to the center. Most American secretaries in Russian service did not develop a precisely defined theology: few letters or reports mention the battles of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy or wrestle with issues such as the authority of Scripture or the virgin birth of Christ. However, two US-based leaders of the Russian work were vocal proponents of opposing theological positions: Sherwood Eddy emerged as a spokesman for Protestant modernism, while James Stokes defended traditional Protestant Christianity. Both views were overshadowed in the long run of the Russian work by Orthodoxy. This chapter then looks closely at the careers of John R. Mott and Paul B. Anderson, the leaders who championed this development and established the program’s philosophical foundations. Finally, this section concludes with an evaluation of the response of Soviet leaders to the YMCA. This chapter illustrates how leaders of the Y’s Russian work reached conclusions which enabled the organization to play a leading role in the strengthening and growth of Orthodoxy. They avoided approaches which required theological modernism or secular materialism. By selecting an open-minded approach which supported Orthodoxy, they built bridges with those linked to the church. Their choices also led to attacks from antireligious Soviet writers and leaders.

SHERWOOD EDDY AND PROTESTANT MODERNISM Sherwood Eddy has been presented as “perhaps the most colourful, most daring, and at the same time most quickly forgotten of the evangelists for world evangelization. He is not remembered as a statesman for unity like Mott . . . but he is remembered above all as a ubiquitous, world-wandering, social gospel evangelist to students.”[1] He began his career as a Y secretary in India from 1896 to 1911. From 1911 to 1931 he was Secretary for Asia and served in Europe and the United States as well. During the 1920s he became a leading promoter of the social gospel within the YMCA; he attempted to apply the gospel to industrial, national, and international questions.[2] Like Mott, Eddy was financially independent due to an inheritance from his father, who had died in 1894: he wrote that this has “given me freedom and independence to carry on my work without obligation to anyone for the views I hold or teach, or the manner of life I live.”[3] His financial status gave him freedom to press for radical and controversial changes within the fairly conservative YMCA. Eddy remained a layman all his life, just like Mott.[4] Mott pushed for a grand expansion of Christianity within the social and theological boundaries which existed in the churches

—Eddy consistently tried to break through boundaries which he believed were useless or harmful to progress. Eddy was educated at Yale University and Princeton Seminary, where he was influenced by two leading academics, William Rainey Harper and B. B. Warfield. At Yale Harper introduced him to theories of the scientific method, biological evolution, and historical criticism.[5] While at Princeton he decided that Warfield’s traditional explanations of Protestant theology, which included a literal interpretation of hell, were cruel and outdated. He “rebelled violently” and escaped “into real life.” His fifteen years in India led to an immersion in new philosophies and religions, a “tutelage under the totally different technique of the Orient. Here was a new world for a practicalminded Westerner whose foot-rule of measurement had been efficiency.” He attempted to serve the people he met in India with humility and practical aid, hoping to improve their living conditions: Eddy’s work was an example of optimistic American philanthropy and modernist Protestant theology. However, his philosophy of service, approach to theology, and political convictions were fundamentally changed by the experience of World War I: “it shattered the easy, optimistic complacency of my previous ideas of a fictitious evolutionary . . . development towards millennial utopias.”[6] Eddy traveled fifteen times to Russia before and after the war (see chapter 6 for details); his messages demonstrated the clear shift in his thinking. In 1910 and 1912 his lectures to students emphasized a traditional view of God and the necessity of personal repentance from sin; he had been influenced by the new emphases of liberal theology, but his approach was very similar to that of other secretaries. Reports of his visits written by Americans and by Russian students pointed out his enthusiastic personality and powerful speaking—not his theology. After his first trip to Russia, Eddy also traveled to Istanbul, Athens, and Sofia and spoke to groups of students.[7] In his postwar trips (1923, 1926, and annually from 1929 through 1939) he emphasized his opposition to atheism and promoted the importance of religion, but with very few doctrinal specifics. He presented a faith which could be defined in an unlimited number of ways as long as it contributed to the spread of justice and morality.

JAMES STOKES AND TRADITIONAL PROTESTANTISM James Stokes’s defense of traditional evangelical Christianity was directed at the Association’s Springfield Training School, which became a key channel for liberal theology into the Y. The school was founded in 1885 to educate physical directors and secretaries for the movement. Teachers such as James A. Naismith, the inventor of basketball, introduced ideas of higher biblical criticism and biological evolution to future leaders. The first major conflict over the “New Theology” in the YMCA emerged with the publication of an article in 1898 by Philip S. Moxom in The Association Outlook. This periodical was produced by the Springfield Training School for Y leaders. Moxom warned that holding onto a traditional theological framework would lead the organization to financial death. He recommended that the Association drop

strict requirements on issues such as the inspiration of Scripture and the doctrine of the atonement—since they held “no practical value” for the organization. Moxom’s article prompted responses from a variety of angry readers. One researcher summarized: “The issue of higher criticism threatened to destroy the cooperative work of the YMCA. Inerrantists, bolstered by the historical statements of belief of the YMCA, refused to budge. Liberals, on the other hand, loudly disclaimed any theological interests while they threatened the Association with financial blackmail.” In the midst of this controversy, a number of moderates proposed that a compromise approach would be for Y men to focus on the issue of “character building” in personal and group Bible study, rather than centering on disputed theological points. This led to a temporary ceasefire in the conflict as the twentieth century opened. However, the first decade of the new century witnessed a new outbreak of controversy over theology. The focus was again the Springfield Training Center. Suspicion grew among conservative donors, while the faculty and administration attempted to assure those concerned that the Bible was still treasured. Traditionalists, including Stokes, worried that the organization would become a secular social service agency.[8] Stokes was a member of the International Committee of the YMCA, a key leadership body. In the fall of 1910 he sent a letter to William G. Ballantine, a Bible instructor at the Springfield school, who was known to promote ideas of higher criticism in his classroom. Stokes explained that many Y secretaries had expressed concern over the opinions presented in his classes. He then asked for a “simple and short answer to these questions”: 1. 2.

Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God, co-equal with the Father? 3. Do you believe that Jesus Christ in His own body on the cross suffered vicariously for our sins, and by His death made atonement for our transgressions? 4. Do you believe that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin by the power of the Holy Ghost without the intervention of a man? 5. Do you believe that Jesus Christ died upon the Cross and was buried and bodily rose again from the dead, so that after His death and burial He spake and ate and moved about among His disciples?[9] Ballantine replied that these questions could only be answered in a personal conversation and added a confession: “I cannot see the advantage of our going into these matters. You know very well that ours is an interdenominational movement and that by common consent theological discussion is avoided. I am not a professor of theology, but of the Bible.”[10] Stokes replied to Ballantine that his letter “distresses and amazes me.” He objected to Ballantine’s unwillingness to discuss his approach to the Bible if he is preparing men for ministry with the YMCA. He concluded, “I shall always be glad to hear from you, even though I have to tell you that your young men

are discredited abroad as well as at home, and that, if this style of teaching is long continued, it sounds the death knell of your institution.”[11] After further correspondence, Ballantine refused to answer the questions. Stokes then asked the school’s vice president to fire Ballantine. He informed the vice president that he would remove the school from his will if it did not change its approach to instruction of the Bible. The discussion over theology at Springfield spread, and two major committees within the YMCA investigated the issues. However, “Multiple investigating committees served in the long run to diffuse the crisis by issuing contradictory reports.”[12] Donor dollars provided a more noticeable effect. Stokes revised his will to delete a fiftythousand-dollar bequest to the Springfield school.[13] However, the school also lost liberal donors who believed that the YMCA leadership was too conservative. The Springfield Training School faced a bleak financial future until it attracted the patronage of the Rockefeller family.[14] The American secretaries in the Russian work followed Mott’s lead and showed little reaction to theological modernism. The majority displayed the tendencies of modern Christianity and paid more attention to ministry “efficiency” than doctrinal definitions. The YMCA carried out their philanthropy pursuing an ideal of businesslike action. One leading secretary for the Russian work viewed his goal as producing “real men” in Siberia: “The Young Men’s Christian Association is a manhood factory and its chief mission is to produce and conserve such manhood as the foundation of a new civilization demands.”[15]

JOHN R. MOTT As stated earlier, the well-known Christian leader John R. Mott was one of the most influential leaders in the Y’s programs for Russia. Mott expressed one of his most basic beliefs at a 1917 meeting with an Orthodox metropolitan and a Roman Catholic bishop in Petrograd: “Here we are, representatives of the three great Christian communions—Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant. We have one Christ and we have common enemies. Surely we must come to understand each other better and learn to work together.”[16] These comments reflected his attitude of cooperation which guided a lifetime of ministry. Mott’s desire for collaborative service also deeply influenced the Russian ministry. Although he participated in this work only intermittently, Mott contributed to the ministry throughout the first half of the twentieth century. His direct involvement began in 1899 when he encouraged the founding of the RSCM.[17] He introduced Paul B. Anderson to Russia in 1917, and in the following years he provided guidance and financial support for the ministry. However, Mott contributed most significantly through his indirect influence, for several of his priorities provided guidelines for the direction of the YMCA’s ministry in Russia. Therefore, this section provides a brief summary of Mott’s life and service and describes five of these priorities—coordinating world evangelization, encouraging ministry cooperation, motivating indigenous leadership, supporting Russian Orthodoxy, and providing

leadership training. Mott was closely associated with a wide variety of influential leaders. He visited more than eighty nations and traveled over two million miles—virtually all before airplanes shortened distance and time.[18] The whirlwind pace of Mott’s adult life followed twenty quiet years in Postville, Iowa. During his youth, he accepted many of the spiritual views of his devout Methodist parents. Mott encountered the YMCA through the meetings of J. W. Dean, an Association evangelist.[19] He also served with the Y student ministry during his years at Cornell University. Mott participated in the 1886 YMCA student conference in Northfield, Massachusetts, and pledged his desire to serve as a foreign missionary. With this decision he joined the “Mt. Hermon Hundred,” the first participants of the Student Volunteer Movement (SVM). After graduating from Cornell in 1888, he embarked on a career with the YMCA and the SVM. Initially he served as a recruiter of students with these ministries, but by 1890 he became the director of the YMCA’s college and university ministry. In 1895 he coordinated the founding of the World’s Student Christian Federation, an organization which attempted to support and unite student Christian movements throughout the world.[20] Through this ministry he traveled to Finland to assist in the organization of a student movement. There he met Baron Pavel Nicolay, who guided him to St. Petersburg and eventually volunteered to organize a Christian movement among Russia’s university men and women.[21] During the summer of 1917 Mott participated in a diplomatic mission to Russia: President Woodrow Wilson chose him because of his expertise in the field of religion. He joined Senator Elihu Root and seven other American leaders in an evaluation of how to assist the new Provisional Government and to encourage continued Russian participation in the war. While in Petrograd he initiated a variety of discussions with many influential Orthodox leaders, including V. N. Lvov, ober-procurator of the Holy Synod; A. V. Kartashev, professor at the Petrograd Theological Academy; and E. N. Trubetskoy, professor at Moscow University.[22] Mott believed that the Y could provide support for the Russian army, so he joined the mission as an opportunity to gain permission for this work from the Provisional Government.[23] He would later be criticized by Christian leaders from many countries for participating in such a clearly political mission.[24] “His acceptance of a place on the Mission was another evidence of the assumption, held with the President, of the parallelism between Protestant and American goals. . . . His offer to Wilson of the services of the YMCA to the American armed forces [was] based on the same premises.” Mott witnessed Archbishop Tikhon’s election to the office of metropolitan on July 4 in the Uspensky Cathedral in the Kremlin. After the election he was summoned behind the altar and presented a fourteenth-century icon from the cathedral’s collection. Mott achieved his personal goals for the mission: “His assignment was accomplished to the extent possible in Russia in the summer of 1917: to meet church officials, to convey the ecumenical regard and support of the Christians in America to them and through them to all Russians, to explore the possibilities of humanitarian YMCA work among soldiers and

sailors, and to lay the legal and administrative foundations for such a program.”[25] Mott secured official permission from the Provisional Government for YMCA service to troops and civilians. This was “perhaps the only concrete achievement of the Root Mission.”[26] Anderson served as Mott’s personal secretary on the mission and took dictation every morning. The mission was housed in the Winter Palace, where each member had a full apartment. Mott was invited to address the Holy Synod in Petrograd and the preparatory meeting of the Sobor (All-Russian Assembly) of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow in July.[27] On June 30 he met with Sophia Panina, the Russian philanthropist who had earned the nickname of the “Jane Addams of Russia.”[28] The missions community recognized Mott’s exceptional organizational skills and religious leadership. As a result, he chaired the World Missionary Conference of 1910 in Edinburgh, Scotland. After this significant conference he emerged as an international Protestant leader and served as the leader of the International Missionary Council and the World’s Alliance of YMCAs.[29] He participated in many facets of the ecumenical movement and contributed to the formation of the World Council of Churches. Mott was “beyond doubt one of the most important figures of the ecumenical movement.”[30] Throughout his lifetime, Mott displayed his commitment to coordinating world evangelization. In his last public address he claimed, “While life lasts I am an evangelist.”[31] He expressed his perspectives most directly in The Evangelization of the World in This Generation, where he stressed the duty of believers to give all people an opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus. Mott motivated many young Americans to work with the YMCA, and this was true for the Russian work as well. Many Y men in Russia mentioned him as a factor in their decision to serve in Russia. Anderson recalled, “I can remember when I was a student, especially at student conferences, there were four or five persons who had very great purpose, Mott, Robert E. Speer, Raymond Robins, . . . Sherwood Eddy and James Stokes.”[32] Mott consistently encouraged cooperation among Christians, for he stressed that interdenominational and international partnership were necessary for success in world evangelization. This conviction is the message of Cooperation and the World Mission. Here he stated that “only as we thus transcend our denominational, party, national, and racial boundaries and barriers can we hope to fulfil the mandate of our Lord.” He felt that groups of varying doctrinal positions should seek to collaborate, for “creedal and ecclesiastical differences often hinder the freest and finest development of fruitful cooperation.”[33] Mott had an unusual ability to work well with a wide variety of people. Stephen Neill observes that Mott was a devoted Methodist but open to fellowship with Orthodox believers and those of many other confessions. He had not studied theology, but he was able to discuss Christian teachings with scholars as well as ordinary Christians.[34] Mott also held that motivating indigenous leadership was essential for developing

Christian groups. He believed that eventually leaders must come from within the particular culture. With the World’s Student Christian Federation, Mott explained that “this principle has enabled each national movement to become truly indigenous, to strike its roots deep in the soil of its own national life.”[35] As one researcher explains, Mott believed that Western forms were not required for the Christianity to expand into other cultures. The church would take on unique forms in each culture.[36] For this reason, Mott continued to assist and support the Russian Orthodox Church as the primary spiritual expression of the Russian people. He had accepted the influential German historian Adolf Harnack’s negative evaluation of the church during his years at Cornell but rejected this evaluation after extensive contact with Eastern Christians. [37] Mott’s first significant relationship with one of these believers was with Bishop Nikolai of Japan, whom he met in 1896.[38] In the following years he established a network of friendships within the worldwide community and frequently expressed his admiration of the church. Mott’s ability to influence and motivate people extended into the Russian Orthodox world, in spite of his limited knowledge of Russia. After Mott’s death Vasily V. Zenkovsky, a key leader for the émigré Russian Student Christian Movement, wrote about his first meeting with Mott at a youth conference. He explained that Mott’s tremendous sincerity, friendliness, and genuine piety overcame his initial mistrust. Zenkovsky concluded, “He was both the strongest and the most outstanding cultivator of love for Orthodoxy in Protestant circles. I think that the indisputable interest toward Orthodoxy in ecumenical circles is the accomplishment of Mott, who seemed to have bequeathed to his many disciples and followers a special attention and love toward Orthodoxy.”[39] One of the reasons why Mott supported the Orthodox Churches was that he believed they could help persuade Muslims to adopt Christianity. He believed that Islam was disintegrating after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Mott assumed that Muslims had been neglected by Protestant Christian missionaries. He did not see outreach within the world of Islam as impossible: “Moslems can be converted, Moslems have been converted, Moslems are being converted.” He desired more cooperation with Orthodox churches to evangelize Muslims: “faithful and persevering efforts should be put forth to enlist their full co-operation. . . . In view of the fact that the Oriental or Eastern Churches are located directly in front of large sections of the Moslem world, why not let them at least divide the responsibility of evangelizing the Moslems?” He spoke to many Orthodox hierarchs about this issue, but learned that none had a missionary program to work with Muslims. However, he hoped that the student movement in the Near East would help change this attitude.[40] Mott spoke of the importance of leadership training throughout his career. He claimed “the history of all professions emphasizes the need of special preparation.”[41] He addressed this issue in The Future Leadership of the Church, where he admitted, “One of the most difficult and essential tasks before the Church is that of enlisting and training . . . workers.”[42] Furthermore, “the failure to raise up a competent ministry

would be a far greater failure than not to win converts to the Christian faith, because the enlarging of the Kingdom ever waits for leaders of power.”[43] Five of the priorities which directed Mott’s life work guided the Russian ministry of the YMCA—coordinating world evangelization, encouraging ministry cooperation, motivating indigenous leadership, supporting Russian Orthodoxy, and providing leadership training. A brief examination of the records of the Russian work reveals Mott’s tangible contributions, but a more careful consideration of the YMCA’s goals and strategies also uncovers the indelible mark of his philosophy of service.

PAUL B. ANDERSON Paul B. Anderson was another influential leader for the Y’s efforts with Russians. In 1917 Anderson settled in Petrograd to begin a time of service; although he left Russia in 1918, he continued to serve the Russian people for decades. Anderson had a longterm in-depth involvement with Slavic life and made a serious attempt to understand language, history, and culture. He provided leadership or support for almost every aspect of the YMCA’s ministry to the Russian people. He did not participate in the opening phases of the work, yet he later emerged as its most significant leader. Therefore, this section provides a brief summary of Anderson’s life and service and examines four of his life goals—preserving Orthodox Christian culture, defending human rights, seeking Christian unity, and building mutual understanding between Americans and Russians. Anderson arrived at the University of Iowa in 1909 after his boyhood years in the Iowa countryside. In the summer following his third year at the university, he attended a series of missionary lectures sponsored by the YMCA at Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, and decided to volunteer for service.[44] After receiving his commission from Mott, he boarded a ship for China planning to serve as a private secretary to a senior Y official who lived in Shanghai.[45] During his four years in China, Anderson taught night classes and fulfilled secretarial duties. He returned to the States in the spring of 1917 and immediately traveled to a YMCA conference in New Jersey. There he was invited to serve as Mott’s personal assistant during his participation in the diplomatic mission to Russia led by Root.[46] Mott deeply influenced Anderson, who later wrote, “I believe that the chief thing determining my major interest from 1917 to the present was the personality and purposes of Mott.”[47] Anderson arrived in Petrograd on June 12, 1917, and remained in the city after the Root Mission returned to the United States. Initially he focused on assisting with the administration of Association service to prisoners of war.[48] On the morning of November 8 Anderson walked to his YMCA office and found the streets strangely quiet. To receive more information, he went to see fellow Americans Jack Reed[49] and Rhys Williams. He explained, “Being socialists, both were welcomed by the Bolsheviks.” Reed and Williams said that the night before they had seen the Bolsheviks take the Winter Palace and arrest the Kerensky cabinet. They invited

Anderson to join them for the Soviet meeting at the Smolny; he replied, “How can I get in? You fellows are red card socialists and journalists while I’m just an ordinary Y man.” Reed said that he could come as an interpreter. Anderson later recalled, “I saw Lenin on the platform only a few feet from the journalists’ table where I sat with my friend Jack Reed, Rhys Williams, and Louise Bryant.” He attempted to observe political developments closely, but he continued with the Y’s work. However, “The number of Americans in Petrograd diminished. . . . On August 3, 1918, the US Consul General in Moscow, DeWitt Clinton Poole, Jr., advised American citizens to leave, but not the Red Cross or the YMCA staff.” On August 26, most YMCA workers left for Helsinki and were able to cross the border. Anderson was authorized by Colton to supervise all Y work in Russia from an office in Moscow; he was the only secretary left in the city.[50] On August 6 Poole officially closed the US Consulate, but he remained in the consular residence. He also insisted that Anderson move into this building for the sake of security. Anderson continued to supervise Russian YMCA staff members who were operating Y huts in hospitals receiving repatriating Russian POWs. One of the main efforts of these staff members was securing flour from the provinces and baking bread for the POWs—since the hospitals provided little food. Anderson managed this work from an office on Smolensky Boulevard. He explained his continuation in this way: “I was determined to remain in Russia as head of all American YMCA operations in Soviet Russia.” He hoped that he could persevere even if the Germany army advanced: “It was my conviction that even if the German army should come to occupy the . . . cities, the military commanders would recognize the YMCA service to POWs and continue its authorization.” However, he did sense changes: “It became evident that the control of foreign agencies had passed from the Foreign Office to the Cheka. In spite of this it came to me as a surprise to me, and I believe to Poole also, when on September 17th agents of the Cheka came to arrest me and close up all YMCA work in Moscow.” Before the closing of the Moscow office Bolshevik commissars in Russian military units had closed forty YMCA centers in these cities: Petrograd, Moscow, Pskov, Minsk, Jassy, Kharkov, Kazan, Kiev, Odessa, and Tiflis. Anderson was arrested by an officer on September 17, 1918, at the YMCA office on Smolensky Boulevard. He protested and showed the officer his identification papers, but to no avail. Anderson was taken in an open truck to the Lubianka, the headquarters of the Cheka. After he surrendered his personal possessions, he was held in a room with no furniture which eventually held forty people. Anderson was detained along with a Reuters correspondent and a representative of the International Harvester Company. He was interrogated at Lubianka and explained the nature of his work with prisoners of war.[51] The level of security for Anderson’s group of prisoners was not high: they were allowed to go outside to buy food.[52] Anderson was moved to another room, where he unexpectedly met two Y colleagues. They had left for Helsinki along with Colton, but had returned to Archangel to serve with the Allied Expeditionary Force—Anderson had previously been unaware of this plan. The men had been captured and taken to Moscow for questioning.

Anderson believed that he had been arrested as an accomplice to these men. The decision of the YMCA to serve troops in the North opposing the Red Army apparently led to the arrest of Anderson. However, soon after he met and talked with his colleagues, Anderson was released. On October 4, 1918, Anderson left Russia without further difficulty. Anderson explained his departure in a specific way: “My departure was a voluntary action only partially motivated by the attitude and actions taken by the Soviet government.” In other words, he was not expelled from the country. He also explained, “my arrest with all the workers in the building represented an intensification of Bolshevik hostility to Americans more than opposition to work the YMCA was doing.” Later in October, Commissar Yakov Kristoforovich Peters of the Cheka issued the document formally closing the work of the YMCA in Russia.[53] On October 25, 1918, Russian staff members received a document stating, “The Christian Society of Young Men is unquestionably a harmful organization at the present moment. Close the Association, confiscate the property.”[54] In February 1919 an Association conference in Newark, New Jersey, gathered workers who had served in Russia to discuss a return of the Y to Soviet Russia. This meeting led to the establishment of a nine-month Training School for Russian Work. In September of 1919 the program began with twenty-five men in attendance. Bryant Ryall served as director, with assistance from three veterans of work with the Mayak in Petrograd: Franklin Gaylord, Ralph Hollinger, and Joseph Somerville. Mott, Ethan Colton, and other Y leaders were eager to reestablish work in Russia. The training school graduates would soon be ready, and funding was available from unspent war work funds. In April 1920 Colton invited Anderson, Donald Lowrie, and Somerville to travel to Russia to seek official permission for Y civilian work. Obtaining a visa into Russia was difficult for an American at this time, since the United States and Russia did not have formal relations. Anderson traveled to Copenhagen, Denmark, due to a rumor that Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet diplomat, was in the city. Anderson managed to meet Litvinov, but the discussion gave no hope to Anderson that YMCA work in Russia would be allowed at this time. Lowrie and Sherwood Eddy later were able to travel separately to Russia but also made no progress in securing permission.[55] Many Russians fled their homeland in the years following the revolution due to economic hardship or political persecution. Thousands settled in the larger European cities, so the YMCA leadership decided to focus its service on the émigré community. From 1920 to 1924 Anderson lived in Berlin and participated in a variety of creative service programs. First he served as director of the Correspondence School, a study program designed to assist uprooted Russian emigrants in their education.[56] Anderson also assisted in the establishment of YMCA Publishers which initially produced textbooks for the correspondence program. He participated in the formation of the “Religious Philosophical Academy,” a lecture program which featured several exiled Russian Orthodox intellectuals, including Simeon Frank and Nikolai Berdyaev. [57] Furthermore, Anderson supported the development of the RSCM, an association of Orthodox fellowship groups which were meeting at universities in different

European cities.[58] As the economy of Germany declined, many Russian émigrés pressed on to France in search of employment. By 1924 sixty thousand refugees had settled in Paris, so Anderson and his YMCA colleagues transported their services to the French capital. Anderson emerged as the Association’s most influential leader during its ministry to Russians in Paris. He continued to administer the growing correspondence school[59] and to assist both the RSCM and the YMCA Press. He also contributed to the new St. Sergius Theological Academy, an Orthodox seminary which prepared priests for service.[60] During these years Anderson’s understanding of Orthodox worship and thought grew, and he emerged as one of the first Western experts on religion in the Soviet Union.[61] For this reason he began to serve as a consultant to church leaders— including the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Council on Foreign Relations.[62] Anderson was born Lutheran but later began to attend Episcopal services. In 1938 he presented a paper on “Church and State in the Soviet Union” to the International Missionary Congress at Tambaram, Madras, India.[63] He also contributed insightful articles on the status of the church under communism to journals such as Foreign Affairs, The Christian Century, Slavonic and East European Review, and the Journal of Church and State. Anderson moved from Paris to the United States in 1941. However, in 1944 he was reassigned by the Y to France to serve as deputy administrator of the YMCA War Prisoners Aid program. In 1956 Anderson returned to Russia as a member of a delegation of the National Council of Churches. He was the only Russian speaker in the group. This was the first delegation of this kind in thirty-five years.[64] The American participants of the Y Russian work left Europe as World War II progressed, but they had already successfully passed on the leadership of their work to the Russians. Anderson’s full-time work with Russians ended with the coming of the war, but his service to the world Orthodox community continued until his death in 1985. He served as an executive officer of the International Committee until 1961, when he began to work with both the National Council of Churches and the Episcopal Church USA as an advisor on Orthodox affairs.[65] Anderson also founded the journal Religion in Communist Dominated Areas with Blahoslav Hruby in 1962.[66] At the conclusion of his memoirs, Anderson explained his four life goals: “(1) preserve and continue Orthodox Christian culture; (2) render humanitarian service and help maintain human rights; (3) seek Christian unity; and (4) work toward East-West mutual understanding and reconciliation.”[67] He displayed these four goals in his writing and service. Anderson’s desire to preserve Orthodox Christian culture formed the foundation of his service to the Russian people. He explained, “The root idea was that the Russians in the homeland or in other countries should be encouraged to preserve and develop their inheritance.”[68] He believed that Orthodoxy was the “mainspring” of

Russian culture.[69] Although he was a Protestant, he focused his support on Orthodox believers rather than Protestants because he held that in Russia “other forms of religious life have resulted largely from schism, from some exaggeration of some particular aspect or doctrine, or from clear-cut antagonism to Orthodoxy.”[70] He worked to develop Orthodox culture through his involvement with the YMCA Press, the St. Sergius Theological Academy, and the RSCM. In 1937 an Orthodox leader expressed what many others felt—“Wherever anything nice happens to the Orthodox . . . that little man is not far to seek.”[71] Anderson’s many Orthodox friends, especially from the Paris community, deeply appreciated his work among them. The RSCM sent this letter to commemorate his forty-year “jubilee.” The address included a “Russification” of his name—an honor bestowed on few foreigners: Dear Pavel Frantsevich! The Russian Student Christian Movement sends you greetings and deep thankfulness for all that you have done for it. From the very first meeting with you (it was in Berlin, during the summer of 1922), we understood that you were our faithful friend and understood that even not knowing all that is characteristic with Russians, you came to meet us with an open spirit. With your truly Christian and truly brotherly relationship to us, you could, like no one else, understand the path of the Russian Student Christian Movement, to understand our Russian tasks. This is your trait—the ability and desire to understand the world, which in many ways then was still closed for you —this was preserved in you to the end of your work with us. We are glad that we found in you both experience and brotherly responsiveness; we are glad that our Movement developed with your constant participation.[72] Anderson’s concern for the human rights of the Russian people grew as his career progressed. He provided many examples of human rights abuses in his book People, Church and State in Modern Russia (PCSMR). He continued to speak out against injustice through his publications and lectures, and he testified to a subcommittee of Congress on Soviet Harassment of the Church.[73] As YMCA leader, Anderson attempted “to be, in planning and in action, a unifying influence among all the Christian forces . . . working in behalf of young men and boys throughout its field.”[74] He displayed his desire for unity among the churches in the PCSMR chapter “The Patriarchal Church and Other Churches.” During the 1930s Anderson served the Orthodox as a guide, counselor, and interpreter at ecumenical meetings.[75] He earned this important position of influence because he had previously built relationships of trust with the Orthodox participants.[76] Later in his career he was able to act as a resource to Protestants due to his experience with Orthodoxy. For these reasons, Anderson’s efforts helped lay a foundation for the ecumenical movement.[77] Anderson held that Americans and Russians must possess more than a

superficial understanding of the other for the peoples to coexist. He explained, “I have long had the feeling that a satisfactory understanding between the peoples of the Soviet Union and the peoples of the West can be better facilitated by clearly discerning differences and difficulties . . . than by glossing over them.”[78] Throughout his unique worldwide career Anderson attempted to understand and creatively challenge difficult issues—the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church, the abuse of human rights, the separation of the Christian Church, and the animosity between Russia and the United States. He addressed these problems with a spirit of diplomacy, firmness, patience,[79] and modesty.[80] Although an evaluation of Anderson’s entire career is beyond the scope of this study, the following chapters examine and evaluate his efforts with the YMCA’s Russian ministry. Michael Bourdeaux summarized it best when he commented that by “inspiring others and creating the opportunity for them to publish, [Anderson] perhaps achieved more for the Russian Church outside its territory than any other non-Orthodox in history.”[81] In a recent reflection on sainthood in the modern world, Orthodox scholar Michael Plekon highlights the contrast between Paul B. Anderson’s many unique accomplishments and his unpretentious spirit. He concludes that his journey was “an extraordinary life, lived in a most ordinary way.”[82]

SOVIET RESPONSES TO THE YMCA The following chapters will discuss the responses of Soviet leaders to particular YMCA projects, but it may be said that a common approach prevailed. The Y was portrayed as a tool of American capitalists such as Rockefeller for pacifying workers and preventing young men from participating in the worldwide socialist cause. By offering athletic and educational programs, Y secretaries were insincerely diverting youth away from necessary activities. Promoting hard work and Christian values was profitable only for capitalists, not for the young men. The Association shared the blame of other religious groups which were distracting people with ridiculous unscientific promises of future rewards in heaven, but this organization was especially dangerous due to its powerful attraction of young people. During the civil war the YMCA supported the Allied intervention troops and White armies. They participated in espionage against the Bolsheviks. Furthermore, they continued to support rabid antiBolsheviks such as Nikolai Berdyaev in his attempts to discredit the revolution. One early example of criticism of the Y is found in a 1926 article “Bog—vernyi sluga kapitala” (“God—a Faithful Servant of Capital”) in Bezbozhnik (The Godless), a state-sponsored magazine for the promotion of “scientific atheism.” The Young Men’s Christian Association in the North American United States counts up to one million members. In Germany, religious youth organizations have 1.4 million members. These figures surpass many times the number of our Komsomol members. Christian youth associations receive funds for their propaganda and organizational work from the largest capitalist organizations.[83]

The motivation for the Soviet opposition was made very clear in a book published by the primary organization for antireligious agitation in the USSR—the League of Militant Godless. Religion in the Service of American Capital included an introduction by A. Lukachevsky which explained the general conclusion to be illustrated: “In the United States there is not a state church, as there was, for example, in tsarist Russia. But American billionaires are not suffering one bit from this. On the contrary. Every one of them is the head of this or that religious organization, and handle their spiritual leaders like marionettes.” The author argued that religion is just one of the tools on the workbench of the capitalists: “In their struggle with the working class of America and in the aspiration to subdue the laborers of the whole world to their domination, American capital utilizes any means, any weapon. However, the favorite weapon is religion.”[84] He clearly laid out his charges against John D. Rockefeller Jr., a key financial supporter of the YMCA: “Rockefeller . . . sacrifices millions of dollars for the work of all sorts of religious organizations. Not restricting himself to America, he spreads the poison gases of religion everywhere.”[85] Later, the author addressed the YMCA itself: Not one of the church organizations is located in such close contact with laborers as the Young Men’s Christian Association and the Young Women’s Christian Association. True, both of these organizations bring in few blue-collar workers with their influence. But on the other hand, they have a strong influence on whitecollar workers. Relying on the support of various Protestant sects, they strive to convince the workers that there is no class struggle and promote theories in their environment which are profitable for capitalists.[86] The Soviet strategy against the YMCA seemed to include two elements, sarcastic condemnation and imitation: in 1925 Paul B. Anderson claimed that “The Soviet Government itself has largely adopted Y.M.C.A. methods in building up the Communist Youth Association (Komsomol) and the Pioneer movement.”[87] He expanded this claim in 1949: The YMCA has thus sponsored creative ideas for social life found in team games like basket and volley ball, in the Pioneer movement and in summer camping for boys, in group-work techniques, in combinations of physical health, intellectual development, spiritual nurture for men and boys and in voluntary finance campaigns. Most of these YMCA creations have been taken over by the Communist Party for use and development in socialist society.[88] Clearly, the YMCA developed substantial relationships and made a significant contribution to the development of Russian Orthodoxy in the twentieth century. Association strategies were critiqued over the years by Soviet writers and apparently copied by Communist leaders seeking to influence the worldview of new generations of young people: even the name Komsomol (Kommunisticheskii soiuz molodezhi)

reflects the Russian name of the YMCA—Khristianskii soiuz molodykh liudei.

NOTES 1. Denton Lotz, “The Watchword for World Evangelization: ‘The Evangelization of the World in this Generation,’” Baptist Quarterly (Great Britain) 34 (1992): 404. 2. Deane W. Ferm, “Sherwood Eddy: Evangelist and YMCA Secretary” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1954), “A Summary” [no page number]. For a more recent biography see Rick L. Nutt, The Whole Gospel for the Whole World: Sherwood Eddy and the American Protestant Mission (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997). 3. Sherwood Eddy, A Pilgrimage of Ideas: or, The Re-education of Sherwood Eddy (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1934), 6. 4. Ferm, “Sherwood Eddy,” 27. 5. Sherwood Eddy, Eighty Adventurous Years: An Autobiography (New York: Harper, 1955), 216. 6. Eddy, A Pilgrimage of Ideas, 38–39, 7, 16. 7. Ferm, “Sherwood Eddy,” 132. 8. Robert Lee Carter, “The ‘Message of Higher Criticism’: The Bible Renaissance and Popular Education in America, 1880–1925” (PhD diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1995), 342–49. 9. Letter from James Stokes to W. G. Ballantine, October 7, 1910. Correspondence August–October 1910. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 10. Letter from W. G. Ballantine to James Stokes, October 10, 1910, 2. Correspondence August–October 1910. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 11. Letter from James Stokes to W. G. Ballantine, October 18, 1910, 2. Correspondence August–October 1910. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 12. Carter, “The ‘Message of Higher Criticism,’” 354–55, 359. 13. Letter draft from James Stokes to [Cleveland H. Dodge], January 16, 1912, 8. Correspondence 1912–1914. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 14. Carter, “The ‘Message of Higher Criticism,’” 359. 15. Letter from G. S. Phelps to John R. Mott, “Annual Letter from G. S. Phelps, Senior National Secretary for Russia—Covering Period from September 1, 1918, to August 31, 1919,” September 1, 1919, 6. Correspondence and Reports, 1919. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 16. C. Howard Hopkins, John R. Mott, 1865–1955: A Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 511. 17. Greta Langenskjold, Baron Paul Nicolay: Christian Statesman and Student Leader in Northern and Slavic Europe, trans. Ruth Evelyn Wilder (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1924), 91–92. 18. Paul B. Anderson, “Strength Courage and Vision,” address at commemoration of

John R. Mott Centennial, World’s Fair, May 22, 1965. Mott Centennial. Biographical Records, Paul B. Anderson. KFYA. See also “Dr. John Mott, 89, Evangelist, Dies,” New York Times, February 1, 1955 [no page number on archive copy]. Mott Centennial. Biographical Records, Paul B. Anderson. KFYA. 19. Hopkins, John R. Mott, 9. 20. John R. Mott, The World’s Student Christian Federation: Origins, Achievements, Forecast (London: World’s Student Christian Federation, 1920), 89. See Johanna M. Selles, The World Student Christian Federation, 1895–1925: Motives, Methods, and Influential Women (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011). 21. Langenskjold, Baron Paul Nicolay, 92. 22. John W. Long and C. Howard Hopkins, “The Church and the Russian Revolution: Conversations of John R. Mott with Orthodox Church Leaders, June–July 1917,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 20, no. 3 (1976): 161–70. 23. Hopkins, John R. Mott, 477–78. 24. For a discussion of German criticisms, see Richard V. Pierard, “John R. Mott and the Rift in the Ecumenical Movement during World War I,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23, no. 4 (Fall 1986): 601–20. For Soviet reactions, see A. E. Ioffe, “Missiia Ruta v Rossii v 1917 godu,” Voprosy istorii 9 (1958): 87–100; and A. Gulyga, “Nachal’nyi period antisovetskoi interventsii SShA (1917–1918 gg.),” Voprosy istorii 3 (March 1950): 3–25. 25. Hopkins, John R. Mott, 478, 509, 515. 26. Long and Hopkins, “The Church and the Russian Revolution,” 179. 27. Paul Anderson, “As I Remember Him,” Old Guard News 36, no. 3 (March 1965): 1. Mott Centennial. Biographical Records, Paul B. Anderson. KFYA. 28. Hopkins, John R. Mott, 506. 29. Kenneth Scott Latourette, “John R. Mott: A Centennial Appraisal,” Religion in Life 34 (Summer 1965): 378. 30. Hanns Lilje, “Some Notes on the History of the Ecumenical Movement,” Lutheran World 8 (1961): 128. 31. Hopkins, John R. Mott, 23. 32. D. E. Davis, “YMCA Russian Work: An Interview with Dr. Paul B. Anderson, September 9, 1971,” 5. Interview with Paul B. Anderson. Russian Work, Restricted, General, Personal Accounts. KFYA. 33. John R. Mott, Cooperation and the World Mission (New York: International Missionary Council, 1935), 9, 46. 34. Stephen Neill, “An Historical Understanding,” Foundations 25 (1982): 10. 35. Mott, The World’s Student, 11. 36. Dale Irvin, “John R. Mott and World-Centered Mission,” Missiology: An International Review 12, no. 2 (April 1984): 157. 37. Hopkins, John R. Mott, 517. 38. Hopkins, John R. Mott, 197–98. 39. V. Zen’kovskii, “Pamiati D-ra Dzhona Motta,” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 36, no. 1 (1955): 31–32.

40. John R. Mott, “The Outlook in the Moslem World,” reprint from The International Review of Missions (n.d.), 4, 7, 9, 14–15. See Robert P. Geraci and Michael Khodarkovsky, eds., Of Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001). 41. Mott, The World’s Student, 20. 42. John R. Mott, The Future Leadership of the Church (New York: YMCA Student Department, 1909), 32. 43. Mott, The Future Leadership of the Church, 4. 44. Paul B. Anderson, “No East or West: The Memoirs of Paul B. Anderson,” ed. Donald E. Davis, unpublished draft, xiii. 45. Anderson, “No East or West” (unpublished draft), xvi. 46. R. H. Edwin Epsy, “In Appreciation of Paul B. Anderson,” in Aspects of Religion in the Soviet Union, 1917–1967, ed. Richard H. Marshall Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 6. 47. Anderson, “No East or West” (unpublished draft), 5. 48. Epsy, “In Appreciation of Paul B. Anderson,” 6. 49. This was John Reed, author of Ten Days That Shook the World (1919). 50. Paul B. Anderson, No East or West, ed. Donald E. Davis (Paris: YMCA Press, 1985), 1-4, 9. 51. Anderson, No West or West, 11–17. See also letter from Paul B. Anderson to John R. Mott, October 17, 1918. PBAP. 52. Anderson, No East or West, 18. 53. Anderson, No East or West, 19–23; here Anderson incorrectly gives Peters’s first name as “Joseph.” A discussion of Anderson’s imprisonment is included in E. V. Ivanova, “Deiatel’nost’ izdatel’stva ‘YMCA-Press’ v Berline,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 188, no. 2 (2004): 334–63. In the article the author provides this interpretation: “His time with the Cheka, apparently, made such a strong impression on Anderson that the next time he dared to cross the borders of the USSR was only in 1956. But, on the other hand, the desire to work with Russia did not fade in him, not to mention that he continued to remain an active figure with the YMCA” (336). This is not exactly correct—Anderson met with Litvinov soon after the Revolution to request permission for the YMCA to continue working in Russia. Also, Anderson’s description of his imprisonment in Lubianka suggests that he remained relatively calm during the affair. This is a rare error in an otherwise fine article. Another minor error on these events is included in Bryn Geffert, “Anglicans & Orthodox between the Wars” (PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2003), 43: “[John R.] Mott won the respect of many Russian Orthodox for his bravery: he was arrested in Moscow in September 1918 on suspicion of counter-revolutionary activity, and imprisoned in the Lubianka for several days.” This is a description of Paul B. Anderson, not Mott. 54. Anderson, “No East or West” (unpublished draft), 65. 55. Anderson, No East or West, 24–26. 56. Epsy, “In Appreciation of Paul B. Anderson,” 6.

57. Paul B. Anderson, “Reflections on Religion in Russia, 1917–1967,” in Aspects of Religion in the Soviet Union, ed. Richard H. Marshall Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 16, 19. 58. Epsy, “In Appreciation of Paul B. Anderson,” 7. 59. Anderson, “No East or West” (unpublished draft), 123. 60. Epsy, “In Appreciation of Paul B. Anderson,” 7. 61. Walter Sawatsky, Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1981), 392–93. Sawatsky incorrectly identifies Paul B. Anderson as a secretary for the Russian Student Christian Movement—this is a minor error in an outstanding book. 62. Anderson, “No East or West” (unpublished draft), 195. 63. Paul Anderson, “Church and State in the Soviet Union,” in The Church and the State, ed. Kenneth G. Grubb (London: Oxford University Press, 1939), 239–64. 64. “Introducing . . . Paul B. Anderson,” YMCA promotional sheet, [1960]. Biographical data. Biographical Records, Paul B. Anderson. KFYA. 65. Donald E. Davis, “Paul B. Anderson (1894–1985),” Sobornost 8, no. 1 (1986): 55. 66. Blahoslav Hruby and Olga S. Hruby, “Dr. Paul B. Anderson Remembered,” Religion in Communist Dominated Areas 24, no. 4 (Autumn 1985): 99. 67. Anderson, “No East or West” (unpublished draft), 417. 68. Anderson, “No East or West” (unpublished draft), xii. 69. Davis, “Paul B. Anderson,” 55. 70. Paul B. Anderson, People, Church and State in Modern Russia (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1944), 8. 71. Clarence Shedd, History of the World’s Alliance of Y.M.C.A.s (London: World’s Committee of Young Men’s Christian Associations, 1955), 701. 72. “Adres P. F. Andersonu ot R.S.Kh.D,” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 64, no. 1 (1962): 2–3. Russians often called Anderson “Pavel Frantsevich” (since his father’s name was Frank) or used the initials P. F. 73. Davis, “Paul B. Anderson,” 57; Congress, House, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe, Recent Developments in the Soviet Bloc: Status of Human Rights in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., 29 January 1964, 94–102; Congress, House, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe, Antireligious Activities in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe, 89th Cong., 1st sess., 12 May 1965, 131–41. 74. Anderson, “No East or West” (unpublished draft), 198. 75. Epsy, “In Appreciation of Paul B. Anderson,” 7. 76. Bruce Rigdon (Anderson’s colleague in the National Council of Churches), telephone interview by author, Wheaton, Illinois, May 23, 1994. 77. Lester L. Bundy, review of No East or West, by Paul B. Anderson, in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 25, no. 4 (Fall 1988): 625. 78. Anderson, People, Church and State, v. 79. Mary Glenn (daughter of Anderson), interview by author, Wheaton, Illinois, April 26, 1994.

80. Hruby and Hruby, “Dr. Paul B. Anderson Remembered,” 98. 81. Michael Bourdeaux, review of No East or West, by Paul Anderson, in Religion in Communist Lands 14, no. 2 (Summer 1986): 230. 82. Michael Plekon, Hidden Holiness (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 95. 83. M. Sheinman, “Bog—vernyi sluga kapitala,” Bezbozhnik, no. 6 (March 1926): 6– 7. On postrevolutionary atheism, see William B. Husband, “Godless Communists”: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917–1932 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2000). 84. Frank Grant, Religiia na sluzhbe amerikanskogo kapitala (Moscow: Bezbozhnik, 1928), 3, 9. See Daniel Peris, Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998). 85. Grant, Religiia na sluzhbe amerikanskogo kapitala, 9, see also 55–57. 86. Grant, Religiia na sluzhbe amerikanskogo kapitala, 72, see also 73–74. 87. Paul B. Anderson, “Russian Service in Europe, Annual Report for the Year 1925,” 4. Annual Reports, 1925–1929. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929, Annual Reports 1920–1929. KFYA. 88. Paul B. Anderson, “The Nature and Objective of the Communist Party as it Affects the Y.M.C.A.” [January 12, 1949], 5–6. Radicalism. Russian Work, Restricted, General, Personal Accounts. KFYA. Anderson’s comments on the influence of the YMCA on the Komsomol raise a significant question which requires further study.

Chapter 3

Confessional Confrontation: Perceptions, Images, and Correctives Contact between evangelical Protestants and Eastern Orthodox gradually increased during the nineteenth century through the westward emigration of Orthodox believers from eastern Europe and the European outreach of American and British missionaries. This chapter examines scholarly views on Orthodoxy and OrthodoxProtestant relations, discusses the varying perceptions of English-speaking evangelicals toward the Eastern churches during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and provides a preliminary survey of secondary and primary sources which shed light on this issue. In addition, the chapter illustrates the connection between these perceptions and the descriptions of Eastern Orthodoxy contained in the historical, political, travel, and theological literature of this period. This background provides context for the focus of this chapter, the shifting outlook of the YMCA on Orthodoxy. Over the years, the Association’s approach shifted from resigned toleration to pragmatic support to limited support to enthusiastic support.

SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVES ON ORTHODOXY In 1985 Gregory Freeze, a leading American scholar on the history of Russian Orthodoxy, commented: “The history of the Russian Orthodox Church, especially in the modern imperial period (1700–1917), has been a woefully neglected field of scholarly research.” Fortunately, twenty-five years later, the situation is improving with regular publication of research on many aspects of Orthodoxy in the empire.[1] In 2003, Valerie A. Kivelson and Robert H. Greene wrote that after “seventy years of neglect, the study of Russian religious life has entered an exciting period of growth in the decade since the fall of the Soviet Union.” They explain, “By fortuitous coincidence, the transformation of the political climate of Russia since 1991 coincided with shifts in the intellectual currents in Western scholarship, where renewed interest in cultural anthropology has driven a rush of work on religious life and culture.”[2] Textbook descriptions usually presented a rigid system of dogma and ritual which has operated as a closed system. However, recent work has looked at the interplay of Orthodoxy with local and national historical trends as well as the individual desires of laity and clergy. Historians are examining the church not simply as an organization, but as participant in the wider culture of Russia. More recently Professor Freeze has observed, “Only in the last decade has Russian Orthodoxy finally become a major focus of research. If nothing else, that research has posed a challenge to antireligious assumptions and encouraged historians to give more attention to the role of the church and religion—in politics, social relations, and culture.”[3] A leading trend among scholars in this field is a focus on popular religion, the lived experience of Orthodox believers, rather than on episcopal politics and church-state relations. As one scholar

summarizes, “we also need more studies of popular religion in the years before the revolution in order to substantiate statements about change in the early Soviet period.”[4] The experiences of Orthodox office workers, students, and émigrés are considered in detail in this study. In spite of this historiographical progress, very little scholarly attention has been paid to one of the church’s leading concerns from the 1870s to 1917—the spread of the Baptist and Evangelical Christian movements in the Russian empire. Two recent exceptions are monographs by Heather Coleman and Sergei Zhuk.[5] One reason for this limitation within American historiography may lie within the tradition of church history developed within the Russian Orthodox Church. As Gregory Freeze has noted, scholars have often shown disregard of non-Orthodox groups and simply labeled them as “heretical” or “schismatic.”[6] Many lay observers before and after 1900 noted the rapid growth of Russian Protestantism and saw it as a reaction to the postreform social changes and the shortcomings of the state church, but the majority of bishops simply assumed that Protestantism was treasonous and a threat to society. At this time, Konstantin Pobedonostsev was Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod, the lay state official who supervised the Russian Orthodox Church. He “was firmly convinced that society could be kept together only by a single authority (the autocracy) and a single faith.” State and church officials developed a two-pronged approach to these heterodox Russians: state repression and church education. The state would attempt to hinder Protestant leaders, and the church would increase popular and clerical religious education.[7] The YMCA entered Russia at a time when the Russian Orthodox Church was engaging more actively with social issues and philanthropy. Since 1860 clergy and lay leaders were moving the church into new programs of charity and popular religious education; the center of this trend was St. Petersburg. Jennifer Hedda summarizes her research on this topic by arguing that by 1900 (the year of the Mayak’s opening) “the local church had become a vigorous institution that played a prominent role in the city’s public life.” St. Petersburg clergy were motivated primarily by their evaluation of growing social problems as an ethical challenge to the church. “They did not see poverty, intemperance and class tension as social problems that could be eliminated by legislating higher wages or providing better municipal services. They saw them as moral ills.” Their approach could not be described as overly optimistic or utopian, since “The church did not teach that poverty could be eliminated or that the material differences between the fortunate and the unfortunate could be erased. Rather, it taught that people should not allow such material distinctions to divide them from each other or to alienate them from God.”[8] St. Petersburg’s largest voluntary association was the Society for the Dissemination of Moral-Religious Enlightenment in the Spirit of the Orthodox Church. The catalyst for the formation of this program had been the popularity of meetings led by the British evangelist Lord Radstock and his Russian friend Colonel Pashkov for the capital’s social elite in the 1870s. These meetings included discussions of the Bible, hymn singing, and informal prayer. They did not promote direct opposition to

the Russian Church, but Radstock’s informal ministry appealed to many from the nobility who were unsatisfied with their worship experiences in the state church.[9] Hedda remarks, “Seeing how effective Radstock’s methods were, this concerned group of clergymen and laymen decided to adopt his methods for their own purposes.” She also notes the significant role played by this society in the development of civil society in St. Petersburg as it encouraged voluntarism and civic responsibility.[10] Simon Dixon’s research on the growing social awareness of clergy comes to similar conclusions and emphasizes the role played by Orthodoxy’s competitors in sparking new forms of activity within the state church.[11] This work will show how a number of clergy studied and utilized the YMCA’s programs and ideas—since the Y and social Orthodoxy shared a number of basic convictions.

PROTESTANT PERCEPTIONS OF ORTHODOXY As the YMCA entered Russia and began its interaction with society and the state church, all was not business as usual. For Y secretaries, gaining even a basic grasp on the spectrum of responses to church concerns was no simple matter. As Vera Shevzov’s groundbreaking monograph points out, the Russian Orthodox Church faced a variety of external and internal challenges to its own self understanding. Marxists and other atheists challenged the church on political and philosophical grounds, while competing factions within the church attempted to shape its values.[12] She compares this period to the Protestant Reformation and the Second Vatican Council: “True, the ‘evolution’ or brewing ‘revolution’ (depending on one’s interpretation of those debates) in Russian Orthodoxy never had the chance to become a comparable definitive ‘event,’ largely on account of the political aftermath of the 1917 revolutions.”[13] During the 1920s E. T. Colton described what he saw as the three major American Protestant responses to the Russian Orthodox Church: proselytization, condemnation, and support. According to Colton, the first group included Baptists and Methodists. The second group was made up of left-wing Protestants such as Anna Louise Strong and Harry Ward, who condoned Soviet measures to demolish an outdated church so that a new one could replace it. The third group, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and YMCA members, was attempting to support the more liberal and progressive wing of the Orthodox Church.[14] An extensive review of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Protestant literature on Eastern Orthodoxy suggests that Protestant views on Eastern Christianity have often been linked to views on Roman Catholicism and Islam. Those Protestants who have been sympathetic to Catholics and desirous of reforms have also been open to the Orthodox churches. Those with a strict anti-Catholic approach usually presented a very negative view of the Eastern bodies. A number of writers were pragmatically guided by their strong desire to see Christianity advance in the Muslim world. Some advocated assisting the Eastern churches in evangelizing

Muslims. Others suggested it would be better to avoid relationships with these clergy in order not to offend adherents to Islam. American Protestants have formed a variety of opinions as they became more aware of Orthodoxy. The speakers at a 1918 conference discussing the evangelization of Russia demonstrated one very negative position. At this Chicago assembly one speaker referred to the Russian Church as a “condemned ecclesiasticism.” Another speaker explained that in this tradition “there is little room for intellectual worship” because of the “gorgeous display, semi-barbaric pomp, and endless changes of sacerdotal dress, crossings, genuflections.” Other American Protestants chose a divergent position—a romanticized admiration with a “veneration bordering upon enthusiasm and exuberance.”[15] These opinions, ranging on a continuum from disdain to veneration, were primarily based on superficial impressions, for Protestants and Orthodox had lived separate lives since the Reformation. Few American and British Protestants had made a serious attempt to understand the heart and mind of Eastern believers. Evangelical and Orthodox Christians shared a number of common foundational elements but lived in different worlds. Their common theological heritage included the authority of the divinely inspired Scriptures and a common understanding of the Trinity and Christ defined by the councils of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451). Protestants and Orthodox have experienced a variety of contacts since the sixteenth-century Reformation. Philip Melancthon, the German reformer, initiated the first formal contact in 1559 when he sent a copy of the Augsburg Confession to Patriarch Joasaph II of Constantinople. More than twenty years later, Joasaph’s successor responded, condemning central aspects of the Confession’s explanation of justification and biblical interpretation.[16] However, seventy years later the new Ecumenical Patriarch, Cyril Lucaris, published a confession which included teachings adapted from the writings of John Calvin. The entire Orthodox Church rejected this confession—several councils of the church hierarchy condemned Lucaris’s views.[17] In the following years, Anglo-Catholic theologians of the Church of England and the Russian Orthodox Church initiated an ongoing dialogue which continued into the twentieth century.[18] After the First World War friendly contacts between Orthodox and Anglicans increased steadily. Both sides expressed a desire for Christian oneness and mutual respect. Of course, the motivations for these meetings were not only religious in nature. Russian church leaders in Europe were experiencing life after disestablishment; the Ecumenical Patriarchate found itself within a newly secular Turkish state, so support from the Church of England became desirable. Orthodox and Anglican history also played a role in forming new ties. A number of AngloCatholic and Orthodox leaders felt an extra measure of Christian brotherhood. Both communities argued that they represented authentic apostolic Christianity. Their common mutual opposition to certain positions of the Roman bishop and their belief that the Roman Catholic Church had created the existing schisms, led some Orthodox and Anglican to see existing differences between their communions as more apparent

than real.[19] The growing strength of Roman Catholicism in Britain, and its attractiveness to younger Anglo-Catholics, was a great concern to the older generation of high church Anglicans. Some of these elders saw the possibility of Orthodox recognition of Anglican clergy as a counterweight to the growing popularity of the Roman Church. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries a variety of Protestant mission organizations conducted ministry with Russians, Greeks, Bulgarians, and other traditionally Orthodox ethnic groups. Missionaries, representing a variety of denominations, expressed a range of views on the nature and condition of the churches. The British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), an interdenominational Christian organization founded in 1804, coordinated the translation and distribution of the Bible throughout the world.[20] The BFBS quickly expanded its work to many regions, including Russia. The Russian Bible Society was organized in 1812 with the support of Alexander I, who maintained friendly contacts with evangelicals. This service led to increasing involvement with the church hierarchy, and soon thereafter several priests served as members of the society’s General Assembly. Initially the Bible society was quite successful in distributing the Scriptures widely. The society’s efforts led to the translation of the Bible into modern Russian as well as other significant minority languages within the empire. The society began its work with the hesitant support of the established church, but many clergy grew to resent its growing influence. Eventually, many began to view the society as a subversive organization, and in 1826 Nicholas I declared that it must cease operation. The service of the BFBS with the Russian Bible Society was significant, since it stands as a unique case in the history of Russian Christianity of sustained cooperation between the Orthodox hierarchy and the clergy of non-Orthodox Christian churches.[21] The establishment of Methodism in Russia began in the late nineteenth century, primarily through the work of the American missionary George Albert Simons.[22] In 1908 Simons began his ministry in St. Petersburg. He ministered through evangelism, publishing, and social service until his departure in 1918. By 1928 the denomination claimed 2,300 adherents. Apparently Methodist missionaries worked in Russia without any significant communication with the Orthodox Church. Simons viewed Orthodoxy negatively, yet he chose to speak carefully about the church in order not to provoke opposition.[23] David Foglesong has described the work and views of a number of Protestant missionaries, especially Methodists and Adventists. He argues that these workers shared a number of views regarding Russian Orthodoxy; for example, they assumed that the Russian people were only “superficially Christianised.” Also, they believed that they were justified in conducting missionary work in a traditionally Orthodox nation due to the limitations of the church’s missionary efforts and the immense size of the country. Foglesong presents additional information on Methodist missionary George Simons: he wrote to his supervisors, “The Russo Greek Church does not preach. Hers is a religion of male singing, ritual and image-worship. Like other

branches of paganized Christianity, she offers a stone to those who are hungering for the Bread of Life.”[24] American Congregational and Episcopal missionaries worked actively among Greeks in independent Greece and the Ottoman Empire and expressed different perceptions of the Orthodox churches. Pliny Fisk was one of the first Congregational workers; he sharply criticized the established Greek Church: “for though nominal Christians, they [the Greeks] pay an idolatrous regard to pictures, holy places and saints. Their clergy are ignorant in the extreme.” The Episcopal missionaries expressed a more positive evaluation. They wrote of how an understanding of Jesus Christ had been passed down from the apostolic Greek churches through years of tradition. The Episcopalians claimed that problems such as “errors of doctrine” and “clerical ignorance” were due to conditions of oppression under the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, they did not attempt to organize their own churches in Greece, but focused on the education of children and publications.[25] Congregationalists attempted to invigorate the Greek churches with a wide variety of methods, including educating children and distributing Bibles. While carrying out these plans, they criticized local traditions such as monasteries and special attention to Mary. They hoped that a focus on individual repentance would be more appealing to Greeks than ceremonies.[26] In Cyprus, the attitudes of Congregationalist missionaries appeared to have been similar to the views held in independent Greece, but these workers were more restrained in their public criticism to avoid conflict. For this reason they attempted to build relationships with local priests. The stated goal was to reform the religious life of the island. The root motivation in their ministry seems to have been to increase the intellectual understanding of the Bible: they believed that biblical knowledge had been obscured on the island by clerical ignorance and superstitious rituals. Missionaries organized schools to raise the level of literacy and attempted to recruit local priests to distribute Bibles in the villages.[27] The interdenominational British and Foreign Bible Society, Methodists, Congregationalists, and Episcopalians all ministered actively within predominantly Orthodox countries. The Bible society chose to serve alongside the Orthodox in a way which assisted a wide variety of Russians, while the Methodists chose to serve through independent outreach. Congregationalists and Episcopalians both attempted to facilitate reform, but the Congregationalists were far more critical of weaknesses and distinctive practices. These encounters serve as points of comparison to the interaction between the YMCA and Orthodox believers. This wide variety of reactions to Eastern churches suggests that denominational membership played a key role in determining a missionary’s perception. Baptists and Methodists usually denounced the Orthodox faith and conducted their ministry independently of the established churches. Congregationalists frequently criticized certain aspects of Eastern Christianity but expressed sympathy for the difficult conditions faced by the churches in Europe. Often missionaries from this denomination described the goal as “reformation” of the established church.

Episcopalians and Anglicans typically expressed admiration more frequently than criticism. These workers often attempted to provide ministry support. In addition, interdenominational alliances also tended to express sympathy and aimed at a ministry of reformation. In general, staff members of denominations which included more traditional forms of ritual in their worship were more accepting of Orthodoxy than those from denominations which rejected traditional forms for a simpler sermoncentered worship. Russian Orthodox leaders also encountered Protestants in the Middle East as both groups worked to set up schools in Palestine and Syria. While Americans Christians worked to expand their service in Russia through the YMCA and other organizations, Russian Christians actively supported educational development abroad through the Orthodox Palestine Society. Cross-cultural philanthropy did not simply operate as a one-way phenomenon.[28] Missionary perceptions of the Eastern churches developed under the influence of American attitudes toward Orthodox immigrants. Negative perceptions in the United States and in Europe seem to have been mutually dependent. Relatively few publications written in English during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries examine Orthodoxy in depth. Several of these books presented a sympathetic description, but the negative evaluation provided by Edward Gibbon’s influential Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire overshadowed the other viewpoints in the minds of nineteenth-century Americans. During this century many Americans feared the immigration of non-Protestants such as Catholics, Jews—and the Orthodox. Different social values, financial practices, religious traditions, and ethnic heritages seemed to threaten accepted understandings of the American “way of life.”[29] A key factor shaping missionaries’ understandings of Eastern Christianity was the information presented in books available in the United States and Great Britain. One could assume that travel and ministry accounts were popular reading choices for missionaries, especially before their departure for service. The Story of Moscow, Wirt Gerrare’s travel account published in 1903, provided a description of the practices, beliefs, and landmarks of Russian Orthodox Christianity. One uncommon feature of the book was the warning that foreigners need to be careful when making observations of the Russian Church. He wrote, “For many, who are quite ignorant of its tenets and practice, the Eastern Church has an irresistible fascination; the danger is that these, on a first acquaintance will over-praise such details as they may appreciate and too hastily condemn others they may not rightly comprehend.”[30] John Bookwalter described his travels in the Russian Empire in Siberia and Central Asia (1899). He paid special attention to the role of icons in pre-Revolutionary Russia and uses this theme to illustrate his claim that “the strongest trait of the Russian’s character is his intense religious sentiment.”[31] A. McCaig published a very different view in his book Grace Astounding in Bolshevik Russia. McCaig served as principal of Spurgeon’s College in London, a study center for conservative European Baptists. During a visit to Riga, he met

Cornelius Martens, who told of his recent ministry in Russia. McCaig then collected and edited these accounts. One chapter, “Victory over Priestly Opposition,” included a dramatic story of how an Orthodox priest came with a group of followers to disturb one of Martens’s preaching services. His friends told him to flee “to save his life as they had intended to kill him.”[32] During this period key Protestant textbooks of systematic theology and church history included little information on Eastern Orthodoxy. This may have contributed to the assumption that distinctive Eastern theological positions and historical realities did not deserve serious consideration. A. H. Strong’s popular three-volume set Systematic Theology (1909) did not comment on any theological positions of Orthodoxy after the Middle Ages. George Fisher’s History of the Christian Church (1897) and Williston Walker’s A History of the Christian Church (1918) also virtually ignored developments in Eastern Christianity after the medieval era. These were, for the most part, well-researched textbooks written by respected professors at Yale University. One exception to this trend was the English translation of the standard German textbook Church History by J. H. Kurtz (1890), which commented extensively on developments in Greece and other countries. Many Protestant Christian leaders of this period adopted a negative view due to the evaluation of Adolf Harnack, the influential German theologian and church historian. Harnack’s writings included an “uncompromising condemnation of the Eastern Churches as relics of the syncretistic cults of late classical antiquity coated by a thin Christian veneer.”[33]

YMCA PERCEPTIONS ON ORTHODOXY The YMCA’s efforts in Russia and Greece were unusual examples of cooperation between American Protestants and Orthodox Christians. In 1875 few Association members would have dreamed that fifty years later their organization would be publishing works of Eastern Orthodox theology. At that time almost all YMCA members belonged to evangelical churches and accepted a traditional form of Protestant theology. Few of these men knew Orthodox believers or studied the history of the Eastern Church. The position of the American YMCA regarding the Eastern faith shifted significantly from 1900 to 1940; the attitudes of its leaders and secretaries ranged widely across a spectrum from dismissal to praise over these years. It is simply not possible to identify one YMCA stance on Orthodoxy at any one time. However, basic steps in the shift in the prevailing position may be identified among this diversity of views—the following section provides a number of illustrations. From 1900 to 1918 the leaders of the Mayak ministry in St. Petersburg and Petrograd expressed and demonstrated resigned toleration of Orthodoxy—its doctrine, practices, and leaders. Mayak leaders functioned with state approval, so they maintained polite relations with the church in order to maintain freedom for their activity. They encouraged and supported young Orthodox believers, but they hoped for a day when they would be able to teach evangelical Protestant belief and behavior without restrictions. They resented the necessity of leaving all Bible teaching to state

church priests and they doubted the salvation of many clergy. However, they were able to operate without serious opposition from the hierarchy. This attitude was similar to that held by the British and Foreign Bible Society. In the early nineteenth century the Bible society chose to cooperate with the Orthodox Church in order to serve larger numbers of Russians. During the same period the Russian Student Christian Movement usually operated without formal state approval, so it was not required to rely on clergy for religious programs. The Americans working with the RSCM welcomed the participation and leadership of Orthodox students, but promoted a interconfessional approach which attempted to emphasize the common beliefs shared by all Christians and avoid religious controversy. In this way the American Protestant leaders offered pragmatic support for Orthodox believers but did not encourage them to share the distinctives of their heritage with those of other backgrounds. For a variety of reasons the leaders of the YMCA became more intentional and enthusiastic in their support of the Orthodox Church during the years of the world war, revolutions, and civil war. These leaders encouraged Y secretaries to back the ministry of clergy. However, the stated position of the YMCA for work in Russia did not exclude support for other non-Orthodox confessions: this period’s philosophy was one of limited support. After the revolution, the YMCA Russian work leaders in Europe eventually adopted a position of enthusiastic support: they even avoided supporting Russian Protestant ventures. This YMCA policy of a confessional approach was unusual and did not develop without challenges from some secretaries. However, by 1940 the Y had moved from resigned toleration to enthusiastic support of Russian Orthodoxy. However, there was always a vocal minority to criticize the church and the YMCA’s support of its leadership. The YMCA’s growing support of Orthodoxy occurred as many secretaries abandoned several Protestant distinctives, such as the primacy of Scripture over reason and tradition and justification by faith alone. Paradoxically, as the general Y organization in the United States moved away from the doctrines of traditional Protestantism the Russian work staff became more supportive of Eastern Orthodox churches which held on to far more traditional doctrines. John R. Mott led the way for the YMCA with his sympathy for the Eastern churches and his desire to support and expand their ministry. Shortly before the opening of YMCA work in Russia, Mott met Archbishop Nikolai, the Russian missionary who had established Japan’s Orthodox Church. Meeting this hierarch challenged his perception of a corrupt and servile church. Mott “saw that one Orthodox missionary had established a large church even in a hostile country.”[34] His enthusiasm grew during his meetings with church leaders during his participation in the Root Mission of 1917. He sensed a mood of renewal and optimism. His public comments and writings frequently emphasized his enthusiastic evaluation. The first YMCA field worker to live and work in Russia was Franklin Gaylord, who was often critical of the traditional faith in his letters and reports. After eight years of work with the Mayak he wrote: “There is great difficulty in securing Christian

men as voluntary workers. Orthodox Russian Christianity is a low grade of Christianity and to find men of real spiritual development is next to impossible.” He reported that the prominent religion was of little consequence in everyday life: “the Russian priests and the Russian people generally, are formally most religious. In fact, there is a shocking lack of Christianity in all of Russian society. The great need of Russia as indeed of every country is men of character and of all round Christian development.” He was especially frustrated by the limitations placed on the religious work of the Mayak by its official charter: “Although its work is largely preventive at the present time there is hope that with increasing religious liberty in Russia, the Society will become more and more similar to the American Young Men’s Christian Association on which as far as possible, it has been modeled.”[35] Gaylord attempted to work with priests who could connect with young people and communicate well, he was frequently disappointed by what he sensed as lack of spiritual fervor and Bible teaching ability: “Among the thousands of priests in this city, some must be true Christians.”[36] Gaylord’s assistant, Erich Moraller, shared his negative views and hoped for wider opportunities in the future: “We hope the time is not far distant when the name of Christian with its full meaning will dawn upon the whole nation. That all men may know Christ, as personal Saviour, and God in life and deed. As yet He is to them a far off inaccessible Being.”[37] The Y men who worked among university students held similar critical attitudes. In his 1914 annual report Philip A. Swartz gave an extended summary of his views: “The Orthodox Church is utterly inadequate for the new conditions to say nothing about its failure in meeting the spiritual demands of former years.” His evaluation was entirely negative and repeated the common criticisms of lack of biblical knowledge, entanglement with the state, popular superstition, clerical greed, and immoral leadership.[38] The attitude of most secretaries became more positive as the Russian work expanded after 1914. Mott’s influence continued, especially after he became acquainted with the future Patriarch Tikhon during the Root Mission thanks to Charles R. Crane, a wealthy American philanthropist who was especially concerned with Russia and had financed Tikhon’s New York cathedral choir. After 1917 the entire Y program had the blessing of Patriarch Tikhon. Ethan T. Colton, senior secretary for the Russian work beginning in 1918, developed relationships of trust with the Orthodox hierarchy. In the years to follow Tikhon passed instructions to Metropolitan Evlogy in Berlin via Colton. However, Colton states that from 1917 to 1921 the YMCA received a mixed reaction from Russian Orthodox clergy: “We found perhaps half friendly, the others aloof.”[39] In 1920 William Banton, a YMCA leader for the Russian program who was based in New York, wrote a letter which expresses the policy of limited support for Orthodoxy which had evolved to that point. Banton describes Orthodoxy as “fundamentally sound” and believes that its weaknesses are rooted in years of state control. He then expresses his opinion that the Association could function in an

Orthodox context: “As far as having to first evangelize the Russian nation before we plant the seed of an indigenous Association movement I do not believe that this is necessary or desirable.” Banton concludes his statement by describing his desire for the YMCA to work with the Orthodox Church—and other Christian churches in Russia: “The official attitude of the Association in connection with the Orthodox Church is one of cooperation, but we do not limit ourselves to supporting this christian body alone but desire to equally serve all christian bodies existing in Russia.”[40] His letter expressed appreciation for the context of the Russian Church, but listed a number of typical Protestant criticisms; the spirit seems to be sincere but not wholehearted. The approach was positive and interconfessional. Rev. Frederic Charles Meredith played a key role in educating YMCA secretaries about the history and beliefs of Orthodoxy and encouraging them to develop positive relations with clergy and lay people alike. He stopped short of full endorsement, however. His booklet The Young Men’s Christian Association and the Russian Orthodox Church[41] was used as a staff training tool. Meredith had served as rector of the American Episcopal Church in Mayebashi, Japan, before his time of Y service in Siberia. He wrote that the senior national secretary of the YMCA in Russia, G. S. Phelps, saw that the youth of Russian could best be served in cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church, since it was “the determining religious influence of the country.” This view was not shared by all the secretaries. In general the Association workers who began to work in Siberia in 1918 were “ignorant” of Orthodoxy—and the church was ignorant of the YMCA. Meredith had been working among American troops at Spasskoe, but Phelps asked him to take up the assignment of studying Orthodoxy and helping the YMCA develop a relationship with the Russian church. Meredith had been studying Orthodoxy for some time and was familiar with developments in the relationship between Anglicans and Orthodox. Meredith set out with a five-step program: (1) Study the Russian church by meeting with clergy and attending worship services. (2) Explain the YMCA to the clergy and lay people of the church. (3) Explain the doctrine and worship of the church to YMCA workers. (4) Survey the religious conditions of cities and the influences of the church. (5) Survey the conditions of student life and the influences of Orthodoxy.[42] He began his study in 1919 with a meeting with Bishop Anatoly in Tomsk, who was familiar with the Y from time spent in the United States. The bishop welcomed Meredith warmly and provided many suggestions for his program of study; this American described the worship services he attended with great enthusiasm. Based on these experiences, he explained an ongoing controversy surrounding the Y’s triangle symbol, which symbolized the connection of body, mind, and spirit: “The apex of the triangle in many Russian Orthodox church decorations, and especially in representations and pictures of God the Father, points upward; therefore to many the red triangle, pointing downward instead of upward, seemed to be a popular ‘devil sign’ or a Jewish emblem.” Bishop Anatoly said that Meredith “should take part in church services as soon as I had acquired certain [Russian language] proficiency.” The services seemed to create the deepest enthusiasm for Meredith, and he was

overwhelmed by “the splendor of Russian worship.”[43] After his survey trip Meredith gave a message to Y secretaries in Vladivostok on the history and doctrine of Orthodoxy. He emphasized that knowledge of the church depended on attending worship services. He “insisted that the duty of every secretary working in Russia is to do so.” The booklet closed with general observations and plans for the YMCA. He presented the doctrinal conservatism of the church in a positive way: “The Russian Orthodox Church has never given one uncertain sound with reference to the center and core of Christianity, the divine Son of God, Jesus Christ, and when the treasures of the Church are really unlocked to Western minds, her progress in the understanding of the Christ will be made manifest.” He noted that the Russian Orthodox Church needs to gain a better understanding of Protestantism and needs to continue with its reforms. The conclusion was not entirely positive, “The Church has alienated thousands and her sins of omission and commission hang around her neck as did the albatross around the neck of the Ancient Mariner. However, as has been said, ‘the Church is indestructible and its influence inextinguishable in Russia. It can be made an agency to reach millions for good, who can in no other way be reached. It needs sympathy and it needs aid.’”[44] He commented that he felt sympathy for Russia’s other Christian confessions, such as the Old Believers and “various sects.” However, he did not believe that they would be able to provide a unifying faith for the Russian people. He suggested that Russian Protestants may use words that are similar to those of American Protestants, but there is only a “superficial resemblance” between these groups. He desired to serve and assist the Russian Orthodox Church and based his views on adopted positions of the YMCA on serving the local church. He agreed with the general orders issued by the leadership of the YMCA in Russia to support the Orthodox Church. He made these recommendations to the YMCA in Russia: (1) Study and attend Orthodox worship services. (2) Compile a handbook on Russian church history. (3) Cooperate with local clergy in planning programs. (4) Place icons in Y buildings and host Orthodox prayer services. (5) Distribute information on the YMCA to clergy and laypeople. “We can be of great help to the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church can be of great help to us. With mutual respect and hearty cooperation, each in its own sphere can do much for ‘Poor Russia.’”[45] Colton continued to work within Soviet Russia from 1922 to 1925 with the American Relief Administration. During this time he was able to observe the work of American Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, and Mennonites in Russia. The Methodist and Baptist workers were supporting the work of starting new churches, while the Lutheran and Mennonite workers were organizing relief efforts.[46] He realized that at this time the Orthodox Church was facing stiffer opposition from the government than the “Sectarians,” which included Baptists and Evangelical Christians. This situation doubtlessly deepened his sympathy for the Orthodox. He believed that the Soviet government was sympathetic to sectarians, since they had been persecuted during the period when revolutionaries had been opposed by the tsarist government. Also,

he believed that the government was favoring the sectarians in order to help weaken the Orthodox Church.[47] In 1922 Colton became involved in the church’s resistance to the Soviet government’s demand to turn over religious valuables as a contribution to famine relief. The patriarch and synod authorized a committee to obtain help from Colton: they requested that he contact the leadership of the American Relief Administration. The church hoped to turn over the valuables as security for a loan from the United States which could then be directed to provide additional state famine relief. In this way the church planned to protect its valuables from destruction. Colton spoke personally with Colonel Haskell, who expressed sympathy for the plight of the church but refused to go through with this plan for three reasons. First, the plan would be seen as a political move in violation of the ARA’s charter for Russia. Second, reliable bankers would not accept the valuables as security. Third, limitations of transportation would mean that the funds could not actually get more food to those in need.[48] In the 1920s Colton also found himself involved in the efforts of the modernizing pro-government “Living Church” wing of Orthodoxy to secure support from American Methodists.[49] Colton was a Methodist and sharply opposed to this movement, which he identified as schismatic; the catalyst for Methodist support of this group was a former YMCA secretary, Julius Hecker, who had an uncanny ability to draw the Y into controversy. Hecker was a prolific and engaging radical writer and an outspoken opponent of traditional Orthodoxy, which he saw as devoid of moral power or creative thinking. In one article he argued that “The Russian, indeed, is pious, although his piety has little to do with his moral standards.”[50] In another work he added that “Religion had little to do with shaping the moral code and practices of the Russian people.”[51] He showed little awareness and even less appreciation for the intellectual ferment of the prerevolutionary period: “There exists some scholarship to perpetuate the traditional theology and guard against heretics who might undermine the Orthodox faith, but for original thinking there is neither need nor place in the Orthodox Church.”[52] In a 1924 article he barely disguised his glee over the Soviet attack on the church; Hecker believed that “the Russian Church hierarchy is reaping its own harvest,” since it had supported the suppression of both non-Orthodox groups and revolutionaries. He hoped that in the future Russia would adopt “a synthesis of the personal element emphasized in the Gospels with the social element emphasized by communism.”[53] Hecker became a counselor and promoter for the Living Church and an advisor for Aleksandr Ivanovich Vvedensky, a prominent leader of the movement. Colton described Hecker’s efforts with a mixture of sympathy and disappointment: “He wants the social program of the Government to succeed, because he believes it has the same goal as Christianity, and therefore that the Church should be in alignment with the Government.”[54] Hecker arranged for the American Methodist bishop John L. Neulsen to meet in Moscow with Living Church leaders, who invited support and assistance from the American Methodists. Neulsen was very critical of the old regime and very enthusiastic about the Living Church and their plans to

modernize the Russian Orthodox Church.[55] When Colton learned of the plans of Hecker and these Methodist leaders, he intervened and provided information against the Living Church to prevent the relationship from developing further. He did not care to see his own denomination “undergird the schismatic ‘Living Church’ and capture it for something like Methodism.”[56] Colton also advised the Federal Council of Churches in forming their policy of nonrecognition toward the Living Church.[57] He steadfastly supported the patriarchal church and refused to back any competing factions. Colton’s 1925 essay “The Russian Orthodox Church—a Spiritual Liability or Asset?” challenged the view held by Hecker that the persecution of the church was a just reward and a welcome development. Colton wrote that many of the common charges of clerical immorality and abuse of power are acknowledged by informed and loyal believers. However, he called on his readers to remember the more worthy leaders who are suffering persecution: “The secular authorities are undertaking on a national scale to teach childhood to deny God. Is it good economy of the Kingdom under these circumstances to defame the lovers of Christ and cheer on the assault?”[58] Colton’s personal views and the ministry experiences already described are clearly embedded in the policy statement “The Position of the Y.M.C.A. in Regard to Church Bodies in Russia.” The paper clarified the stance of the organization on two positions which generated controversy: interconfessional ministry (which was controversial in Russia) and support of the patriarchal church (which was controversial in the United States). He acknowledged that it would be difficult to cooperate with every Christian group which wished to cooperate. Many Russian Orthodox leaders would be troubled by YMCA support of US Protestants who sponsored evangelism in Russia. On the other hand, many conservative Protestants would oppose assisting the Russian Church “which they will regard as having lost its witness and laden with not only formalism but superstition.”[59] Donald A. Lowrie, a YMCA secretary who served among émigrés in the 1920s and 1930s, made serious attempts to understand the worldviews and perspectives of Orthodox believers and attempted to integrate his insights with his work. He summarized some of his ideas in a paper “A Method of Bible Study for Orthodox Groups.” Lowrie wrote on the issue of encouraging group Bible study among these believers, who were often hesitant to discuss a selection unless a priest was leading. He pointed out that the hesitancy was rooted in respect for the Bible and a fear of heresy. Lowrie suggested using the writings of the church fathers, such as John Chrysostom, to guide the selection of discussion questions. Chrysostom was noted for his insights into the problems of everyday life.[60] In 1925 the American YMCA amended its constitution on the issue of membership requirements. Now anyone who believed in the “divinity” (a term used in different ways by different groups) of Jesus Christ could be an active voting member. So, Catholics and Orthodox could become members. However, “90% of the directing

or managing committees and all delegates to Association national or international legislative gatherings must be members of Protestant Evangelical Churches.”[61] During the 1920s, as the YMCA began working among Orthodox émigrés, they found themselves in a new environment. Criticism of the YMCA grew among the most conservative elements of the Orthodox hierarchy. Also, the church became increasingly popular among young people searching for spiritual roots. Y secretaries found themselves moving toward an exclusive support of Orthodoxy with programs built on a confessional, rather than interconfessional, basis. In one document, they defended their work within Russia: “In no case was it the intent of responsible Association leaders to subvert Russian Christian teachings. Simply their agents were too little informed.”[62] The move toward supporting confessional Orthodox programs, such as the émigré RSCM, the YMCA Press, and the St. Sergius Theological Academy raised pointed questions from some leaders and secretaries. One view was expressed in “Survey of North American YMCA Service to Russians in Europe,” a detailed review of over 250 pages which surveyed the work through the 1920s. In the foreword the (unnamed) reviewer questioned the wisdom of exclusively supporting the Orthodox Church. This document expressed doubt that this church would ever “exert a controlling influence.” It went on to suggest that the program may be rooted in “the inevitable result of homesickness.”[63] However, the survey went on to explain the basis of the adopted policy of only supporting Orthodox programs: “Other historical denominations are of a foreign origin and until now were unable to become an integral part of Russian culture.”[64] The experience and study of Paul B. Anderson, a consistent supporter of confessional ministry, were key factors in the development of this position. He outlined past and current issues which had separated the Y and the church in a 1926 three-page outline, “The YMCA and the Russian Orthodox Church.” Anderson addressed some of the conflicts that had developed between the YMCA and the more conservative elements of the church in exile. He grouped the issues under seven headings: (1) Misconceptions regarding the YMCA, (2) Weaknesses in Orthodoxy, (3) Hostile attitude toward YMCA by authoritative bodies, (4) Weaknesses in the YMCA, (5) Fundamental differences, Protestant and Orthodox, (6) Conservatism versus liberalism in both Orthodox and Protestant communities, and (7) Questions related to political and social theory. Each heading contained a variety of fundamental and peripheral matters which had contributed to the conflicts. For example, Anderson included the misconceptions of some Orthodox that the YMCA was a Masonic organization, that it had ulterior motives, and that it “has lost its faith in Christ as Savior and God.” Under Orthodox weaknesses, he listed jealousy of the responses of youth to the Y’s programs because they did not have such activities. He also included “pride of age”—disliking anything that was new. For Association weaknesses: “Insistence on the ‘minimalism’ of ideas on which all members might agree, rather than ‘maximalism’ which would allow each confessional group to bring its religious fullness.” From the beginning of the Russian work the YMCA preferred that

participants downplay confessional and denominational distinctives—this was the position of minimalism. Eventually, Orthodox participants argued that they should be able to express their Orthodox convictions fully within the Y movement—this was the position of maximalism. Also included were “Secretaries’ ignorance of Orthodoxy” and “Use of money creates mushroom growth, not on firm spiritual basis.” Under fundamental differences, Anderson wrote, “Protestantism a developing doctrine. Orthodoxy rests on dogma.” In general, Anderson attempted to consider every possible angle for understanding the clashes, rather than seeing them as simple black and white problems. It is significant that he frequently challenged the YMCA’s previous actions, but never its theological shift.[65] Anderson’s support for the Orthodox Church led him to avoid support of even the largest Russian Protestant church movements, the Baptists and Evangelical Christians, since he believed they were guilty of proselytization, the active recruiting of a person from one religious group to another. He was reluctant to offer support for Ivan Prokhanov, the key leader of the Evangelical Christians.[66] Anderson seemed to equate any Protestant evangelism within Russia with proselytization, which is a problematic conclusion for a nation with a history of an established state church. He did not address in his books and articles how this view coexisted with his frequent calls for full religious freedom. Donald Lowrie’s book The Light of Russia provided readers with an introduction to Orthodox life and faith, and it also gives insight into the evolving position of the YMCA. He positively reviewed the unique role played by the church from the earliest days of Kievan Rus’.[67] In spite of his enthusiastic support for the Russian church, he believed that the YMCA could make a significant contribution. Lowrie, like other Y men, never stated that the church was without weaknesses: they remained Protestants and believed that their heritage had something to offer. He hoped to see a greater emphasis on Scripture: “Perhaps a new emphasis upon the study of the Bible is another step which Russian Christianity could take in its reorganization, using the gospel not simply in a devotional or inspirational sense, but as a source of method for making Christian every phase of daily life, social as well as personal.” Lowrie believed that programs such as the theological institute could inspire change with “a new type of clergy, retaining all the good of the old order and still alive with the broader ideals and a higher cultural standard” so “the Church will again occupy its proper place as guiding the nation’s moral and religious life.” He summarized his conviction in this way: If religion consists solely in beautiful worship, adherence to ancient belief and custom, reverence for holiness in every age, and a sincere desire to spread the name of Jesus Christ, Protestants have nothing to teach Russia: but if it means, beside all this, a growing activity in the service of mankind, a keen appreciation of the needs of modern life, and a desire to educate its youth to minister to the needy of the future, perhaps Protestantism has its message for Russian Christianity.

Lowrie believed that American Protestants must work with the supply lines rather than take a spot on the front lines: “The Orthodox Church wishes every aid other Christian bodies can give it, but its preaching must be done by Russians if it is to appeal to the Russian mind.”[68] This conviction motivated the YMCA staff as they worked behind the scenes to facilitate the work of Russian believers. Ethan Colton summed up the relationship between the two groups after 1917 in this way: The two groups were Eastern and Western, Orthodox and Protestant, sacerdotal and evangelical, trying to find basis and method for a common program. In both groups were men with scant knowledge and appreciation of the spiritual value in the doctrines, worship, and observances of the others. A few stayed so. Such had to be relegated. The uninformed but willing ones learned. The clumsy acquired skill.[69] Many Russian Orthodox believers genuinely appreciated the generous financial support and program assistance provided by the YMCA. Patriarch Tikhon issued this endorsement of the YMCA on May 10, 1918: “we give to those carrying out this good work our prayerful blessing, asking the Lord to help them in the successful fulfillment of this task.”[70] Metropolitan Evlogy explained why the YMCA and the WSCF had his blessing: “no other foreign organizations had helped, more thoughtfully and respectfully, Russian youth on its way back to the Church and the Church itself.”[71] The development of many positive YMCA-Orthodox relationships are presented in the chapters that follow. However, many Orthodox leaders vehemently opposed the Association as a subversive sub-Christian organization aiming for their destruction; others received aid while holding unspoken suspicions of this American venture. The most common accusation was that the YMCA was Masonic, while others feared that it was a Jewish scheme, a demonic movement, or a program of insincere Protestant proselytization. These charges are discussed within the particular context in other chapters—this section presents the general shape and source of the anti-YMCA concerns. Freemasonry appeared in Russia in the eighteenth century as an international organization promoting “brotherhood,” love of one’s neighbor, and the equality of all men. Masons emphasized a general belief in God rather than the specific beliefs of any one religious group, such as the Orthodox Church. James Billington describes Masonry as a “supra-confessional deist church.”[72] The movement did not openly oppose the Orthodox Church and included Russian priests in its activities, but some Masons demonstrated more loyalty to Masonry than Orthodoxy. Catherine II prohibited Masonic activity in 1792; Alexander I reversed this position but banned it again in 1822.[73] In 1900 many elements of Russian church and state continued to oppose the ideas of Masonry. The apparent similarities of belief, rather than documented organizational ties, led to suspicion of the YMCA being Masonic during its first years in Russia. As a result, American Masons were not allowed to serve as

Mayak staff members.[74] From 1900 to 1940 a number of Russians accused the Y of being a Masonic organization; these charges usually came from more conservative Orthodox leaders. As Nikolai Zernov later wrote, many clergymen argued that the YMCA was simply a wing of the Freemason movement. Therefore, the goal of the Y was to undermine the traditional theology of Orthodoxy and destroy the church. According to these critics, any believers who participated in the work of the Association were considered to be “dupes” or agents paid by the YMCA.[75] Charges against the Y were especially intense and public during the mid-1920s, when the YMCA and the émigré church were developing closer ties. As Zernov pointed out, one frequent criticism was directed at the view held by many secretaries of Jesus Christ, that he was only an exemplary human rather than being fully God and fully man. As one critical report charged, the YMCA presents “Jesus Christ not as our God and Saviour, but only as a great teacher.” This report cited a book by Hecker on the YMCA and two other books published in Russian translation by the Y: The Social Principles of Christ by Walter Rauschenbusch, and The Manhood of the Master by Harry Emerson Fosdick. The report compared comments from Masonic handbooks to YMCA principles and concludes: “The similarity between these two ideologies—that of the masons and that of the YMCA is very evident.” He quoted V. V. Zenkovsky, an Orthodox leader associated with the organization, to prove his point; according to this report, Zenkovsky had written, “We must forget the proud thought that God’s Spirit can only be found among us. When I was among Christians of other denominations I still felt myself to be in a Church.”[76] This view would have been scandalous among the most conservative Orthodox. Conservative Russians often used the word “masonic” to describe a person or organization which displayed the essence of Masonry (anti-dogma, rationalist, etc.). They usually were not referring to membership in a Masonic lodge. In a sense, the YMCA work in Russia was not Masonic, in that no evidence has been seen which links the work of the two organizations in Russia. No evidence has been found which identifies which secretaries were Masons: an obituary for Louis P. Penningroth (1888–1973) notes that he was a member of a Masonic lodge, but this membership could have begun after his wartime service. However one could argue that the Y was masonic, since it promoted several of the general principles of Masonry. In the United States these Orthodox conservatives might have called the Y “modernist” or “liberal,” but the fundamentalist-modernist controversy had not developed in Russia, so they used the word “Masons,” the nearest word in their vocabulary. Of course, a lack of documentary evidence does not prove that a connection did not exist. Documents on the YMCA in Poland reveal clear evidence of links between Masonic lodges and YMCA leadership. These ties may have been known to the Y’s opponents in Russia, especially due to the close political and cultural connections between these two cultures. The YMCA was also charged with participation in a “Judeo-Masonic” conspiracy: according to this theory, Jews had taken over the Masons in the past to destroy the Orthodox Church, so now the YMCA had been snared by Jewish leaders. Critics

often pointed to the Jewish interpreters hired by the Y.[77] The conspiracy theory was enforced by the interpretation of symbols: for example, during the early years of the Russian work, YMCA secretary uniforms and other equipment often featured a logo which included an inverted triangle. As noted previously, some Russians believed this to be a sign of the devil, since the point was directed down rather than up.[78] Many clergy were simply convinced that the YMCA was intent on converting Russians to Protestant belief, in spite of assurances to the contrary. As one report suggested, “The tendency of this work is evidently protestant. Cooperation with the Orthodox church is only tolerated.”[79] As Zernov described the process, “The fact that these international bodies [YMCA, YWCA, and WSCF] publicly denied any intention of proselytism, and conducted their work in the spirit of respect for Eastern traditions, only increased the apprehensions of conservative-minded Christians who suspected some particularly sinister and secret designs behind the friendliness displayed by the Western leaders of the movements.”[80] This view of the YMCA was popularized as newspaper and other periodical articles commented on the Y with varying tones of anger and caution. This first example, published in 1925 in Novoe vremia, a paper for monarchist Russian émigrés in Belgrade, confidently demonstrated that the organization was an idealist group of capitalist Americans under the control of Jews and Masons—with proof contained in the (fraudulent) “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” As is known, well-organized Semitism seeks to get into its hands the entire spiritual life of Christian peoples. How this should take place is described in the so-called “Zion Protocols.”. . . Semitism endeavors to gather into its hands organizations which influence the spiritual life of European Christian peoples. Thus Masonry became a simple tool in Jewish hands. It may be that other organizations, having nothing in common with Semitism, will fall into its grasp. Even the Y.M.C.A. has not resisted this fate.[81] A second example, published in a 1927 issue of the organ of the RSCM, provides a more moderate, but no less intense, criticism of the YMCA. The author, Archbishop Mefody, recommended that the Association be cautiously evaluated on a case-bycase basis—with the final decision about any relationship left to church authorities. The editor introduced the archbishop’s statement with this comment: “In the passionate atmosphere of our church disagreement, voices attract to themselves special attention from the general public by accusing their opponents of Masonry and secret heresies. Especially popular among us are references to the allegedly Masonic character of the YMCA.” The archbishop wrote that the Association was obviously sincere in its service to Christ and its support of Orthodox youth. However, he also urged caution in receiving gifts from this organization: “The Association helps the Orthodox with one hand, but with the other helps the enemies of Orthodoxy; that which the right hand does is destroyed by the left hand.”[82]

The fullest and most direct American YMCA response to all these criticisms was contained in Osnovy khristianskago soiuza molodykh liudei (The Fundamentals of the Young Men’s Christian Association), a 107-page booklet which gave a general overview of history and policy and commented on the history of the Russian work up to 1929. It included significant self-criticism, which is rare for most works published by the YMCA on the Russian work. The booklet stated that secretaries made cultural misjudgments during their wartime service: “It is understandable that in these conditions more than a few mistakes were made, particularly in relation to the Orthodox Church. The Association regrets these mistakes and is ready to confess that, for which it is actually responsible.” The book discussed the rumors and misunderstandings which developed after the war. The author acknowledged that the organization did not have enough qualified people to achieve its plans for serving soldiers and prisoners of war. Due to a perceived urgent demand for staff members, the Association accepted people who did not possess the necessary cultural and language skills. The Y also employed workers which had been assigned by Russian military leaders—these workers did not reflect the values of the YMCA. The author emphasized that the Y takes full responsibility for these choices. He addressed the Y’s publication of books written by American liberal Christian authors and stressed that leaders did not and do not agree with all the ideas in these books, which reflected the philosophical debates in America at that time. The booklet stated, “A particular theology of the Young Men’s Christian Association does not exist. There only exist the theologies of the churches and confessions of the Association members —Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox.”[83] Informal discussions between YMCA leaders and Orthodox leaders from several countries led to three formal consultations held between 1928 and 1933. John Mott presided over these sessions, held in Sofia, Bulgaria; Kephissia, Greece; and Bucharest, Romania. At the 1928 consultation participants adopted an “Understanding between Representatives of the Orthodox Churches and the World’s Committee of the Y.M.C.A.” According to this document, in predominantly Orthodox nations the YMCA was to organize its services in consultation with church leaders. This statement discouraged and condemned proselytism. Also, in Orthodox groups, Y leaders were to teach the Bible only in “full harmony with Orthodox doctrine.”[84] After the 1928 consultation, the international YMCA leader W. A. Visser ‘T Hooft compiled his “Remarks on the Present Situation of the Orthodox Churches in the Balkan Area.” This essay summarized the current status of the Eastern churches and then discussed a wide range of issues related to the Y’s work in Greece and other Balkan nations. Sections included: “Background,” “Signs of Vitality,” “Youth,” “The Y.M.C.A. in Orthodox Countries,” “Relations between the Orthodox Churches,” and “Orthodoxy and Western Christianity.” Visser ‘T Hooft demonstrated his knowledge of historical context when summarizing the effects of Ottoman domination and Greek nationalism. In addressing the conservativism of the Eastern churches, he also pointed out areas of relative openness and the significance of the Orthodox “renaissance” of the early twentieth century. He discussed the personalities of the

current Orthodox hierarchs, whom he knew personally. When addressing two acknowledged problems of the era, clergy preparation and preaching, he demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the issues and pointed out progress being made. He showed an understanding of the internal life of the Greek Church by describing two movements, the Zoe Brotherhood and the Orthodox Youth Movement. Visser ‘T Hooft also provided an open description of the struggle faced within the YMCA as it considered how to adjust to working in Orthodox countries. In the closing sections of the document on Orthodox-Protestant relations he displayed his attempt to see controversial issues from the point of view of the Orthodox, the believers he was attempting to serve. Visser ‘T Hooft ended the essay with a summary of the YMCA’s vision for their work in the Balkans: The question now asked of the Protestant world is whether it is willing to enter in a true fellowship with Orthodoxy—based on mutual respect and understanding— and whether it will help the Orthodox world to express its own God-given mission in a fuller way. If such would become the attitude of Protestantism one may not only hope for new fruits in the lives of the Orthodox nations, but also for a great quickening of the Western church by the old, re-born churches of the East.[85] The three consultations led to the publication of the Objectives, Principles, and Programme of Y.M.C.A’s in Orthodox Countries, which summarized and clarified the policies adopted in 1928.[86] This 1933 document reflected the shift of the Association’s approach to Orthodoxy: from resigned toleration to pragmatic support to limited support to enthusiastic support.

NOTES 1. G. L. Freeze, “Handmaiden of the State? The Church in Imperial Russia Reconsidered,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36, no. 1 (January 1985): 82. A few examples of this new research on the recent history of Russian Orthodoxy are Paul W. Werth, At the Margins of Orthodoxy: Mission, Governance, and Confessional Politics in Russia’s Volga-Kama Region, 1827–1905 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Chris J. Chulos, Converging Worlds: Religion and Community in Peasant Russia, 1861–1917 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2003); Jennifer Jean Wynot, Keeping the Faith: Russian Orthodox Monasticism in the Soviet Union, 1917–1939 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004); Jennifer Hedda, His Kingdom Come: Orthodox Pastorship and Social Activism in Revolutionary Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2008); and Laurie Manchester, Holy Fathers, Secular Sons: Clergy, Intelligentsia, and the Modern Self in Revolutionary Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2008). 2. Valerie A. Kivelson and Robert H. Greene, eds., Orthodox Russia: Belief and Practice under the Tsars (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,

2003), 1. 3. Gregory L. Freeze, “Recent Scholarship on Russian Orthodoxy: A Critique,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 2, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 269. 4. Heather J. Coleman, “Atheism versus Secularization? Religion in Soviet Russia, 1917–1961,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 1, no. 3 (Summer 2000): 557–58. 5. Heather J. Coleman, Russian Baptists and Spiritual Revolution: 1905–1929 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), and Sergei I. Zhuk, Russia’s Lost Reformation: Peasants, Millennialism, and Radical Sects in Southern Russia and Ukraine, 1830–1917 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004). Another recent study on Orthodox-Protestant contacts is Arkhimandrit Avgustin (Nikitin), Metodizm i Pravoslavie (Saint Petersburg: Svetoch, 2001). This volume contains an overview of contacts between American Protestants and Russian Orthodox, with a focus on Methodists, and highlights of the YMCA’s work with Russians on pp. 149–51 and 157–66. See also Karina Ann Ham, “Interplay between Orthodoxy and Protestantism in Russia, 1905–1995” (PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1998). 6. Freeze, “Recent Scholarship,” 276. 7. A. Iu. Polunov, “The State and Religious Heterodoxy in Russia (from 1880 to the Beginning of the 1890s),” Russian Studies in History 39, no. 4 (2001): 54–58. 8. Jennifer Elaine Hedda, “Good Shepherds: The St. Petersburg Pastorate and the Emergence of Social Activism in the Russian Orthodox Church, 1855–1917” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1998), iii, 215, 220. For discussion of a number of fundamental issues concerning the Orthodox Church during this period see Robert L. Nichols and Theofanis George Stavrou, eds., Russian Orthodoxy under the Old Regime (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1978). 9. See Mark Myers McCarthy, “Religious Conflict and Social Order in NineteenthCentury Russia: Orthodoxy and the Protestant Challenge, 1812–1905” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2004) and Sharyl Corrado, “The Philosophy of Ministry of Colonel Vasiliy Pashkov” (M.A. thesis, Wheaton College, 2000). 10. Hedda, “Good Shepherds,” 217, 250–53. 11. Simon Dixon, “The Church’s Social Role in St. Petersburg, 1880–1914,” in Church, Nation and State in Russia and Ukraine, ed. Geoffrey A. Hosking (New York: St. Martin’s, 1991), 168, 175. See also Simon Dixon, “The Orthodox Church and the Workers of St Petersburg, 1880–1914,” in European Religion in the Age of Great Cities, 1830–1930, ed. Hugh McLeod (New York: Routledge, 1995), 119–41. For a discussion on the cross-cultural expansion of Orthodoxy, see James J. Stamoolis, Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today (Minneapolis: Light and Life Publishing Company, 1986). 12. Vera Shevzov, Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 258. 13. Vera Shevzov, “Icons, Miracles, and the Ecclesial Identity of Laity in Late Imperial Russian Orthodoxy,” Church History 69, no. 3 (September 2000): 610. 14. Letter from E. T. Colton to F. W. Ramsey, July 16, 1926, 3. Russia, Colton E. T.,

Reports, Addresses, and Papers, vol. 2. KFYA. 15. Jesse W. Brooks, ed., Good News for Russia (Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1918), 75, 156, 211. 16. P. D. Steeves, “The Orthodox Tradition,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 807. 17. Carnegie S. Calian, Icon and Pulpit: The Protestant-Orthodox Encounter (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), 22–23. 18. Josef L. Altholz, “Anglican-Orthodox Relations in the Nineteenth Century,” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 18/19 (2002/2003): 1–14. 19. Bryn Geffert, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans: Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of Interwar Ecumenism (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 3–4. 20. Judith Cohen Zacek, “The Russian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church,” Church History 25 (December 1966): 413. For additional insight on the Bible Society, see James Urry, “John Melville and the Mennonites: A British Evangelist in South Russia, 1837–ca 1875,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 54 (1980): 305–22. For a Soviet perspective on this project, see Andrei Rostovtsev, “‘Britanskoe Bibleiskoe Obshchestvo’ i rasprostranenie Biblii: Torgovlia ‘dukhovnoi sivukhoi’ v Rossii,” Bezbozhnik, no. 24 (December 1927): 5–9. 21. Zacek, “The Russian Bible Society,” 414–16, 436–37. 22. Mark Elliott, “Methodism in Russia and the Soviet Union,” in Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, ed. Joseph L. Wieczynski, vol. 22 (Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press, 1981), 15–18. For an analysis of similarities and differences in Orthodox and Methodist religion, see S. T. Kimbrough Jr., ed., Orthodox and Wesleyan Spirituality (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002). 23. John Dunstan, “George A. Simons and the Khristianski Pobornik: A Neglected Source on St. Petersburg Methodism,” Methodist History 19 (October 1980): 24–25, 40, 38. 24. David S. Foglesong, “Redeeming Russia? American Missionaries and Tsarist Russia, 1886–1917,” Religion, State and Society 25, no. 4 (1997): 355–56. 25. Theodore Saloutos, “American Missionaries in Greece: 1820–1869,” Church History 24 (1955): 155, 164–65. 26. Joseph L. Grabill, Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East: Missionary Influence on American Policy, 1810–1927 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971), 8. See also P. E. Shaw, American Contacts with the Eastern Churches, 1820–1870 (Chicago: American Society of Church History, 1937). 27. Terry Tollefson, “American Missionary Schools for Cyprus (1834–1842): A Case Study in Cultural Differences,” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 10/11 (1994/1995): 37, 50. See also John O. Iatrides, “Missionary Educators and the Asia Minor Disaster: Anatolia College’s Move to Greece,” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 4 (1986): 143–57. 28. Theofanis George Stavrou, Russian Interests in Palestine, 1882–1914: A Study

of Religious and Educational Enterprise (Thessaloniki, Greece: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1963), especially 62–63. 29. Peter Carl Haskell, “American Civil Religion and the Greek Immigration: Religious Confrontation before the First World War,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 18, no. 4 (1974): 167, 173, 180–81. 30. Wirt Gerrare, The Story of Moscow (London: J. M. Dent and Co., 1903), 173. 31. John W. Bookwalter, Siberia and Central Asia (Springfield, OH: n.p., 1899), 242. 32. A. McCaig, Grace Astounding in Bolshevik Russia: A Record of the Lord’s Dealings with Brother Cornelius Martens (London: Russian Missionary Society, 1920), 99. 33. Heinrich A. Stammler, “Russian Orthodoxy in Recent Protestant Church History and Theology,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 23 (1979): 208. 34. Paul B. Anderson, “A Study of Orthodoxy and the YMCA,” booklet printed in Geneva by the World Alliance of Young Men’s Christian Associations, 1963, 15. Pamphlets on Orthodoxy. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B, 1. KFYA. 35. Franklin Gaylord, “Extracts from Report for the Year 1908 of the Society for the Moral, Intellectual and Physical Development of Young Men in St Petersburg Russia,” 10–11. Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1910. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 36. Letter from Franklin Gaylord to John R. Mott, March 11, 1912, 1. Correspondence and Reports, 1911–1912. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 37. Erich Moraller, “Report of the Physical Department and the Department of Bible Study in the Society ‘Miyak’” [1910], 4. Russian Work. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 38. Philip A. Swartz, “Annual Report of Philip A. Swartz” [September 30, 1914], 5–6. Correspondence and Reports, 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 39. E. T. Colton, “The Russian Work Sequences with their Church Relations,” n.d., 2– 3. YMCA Relationships (1920–1925), 2. Russian Church. KFYA. 40. Letter from Wm. Walter Banton to Oliver J. Frederickson, December 3, 1920, 1. Correspondence and Reports, 1920. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 41. Frederic Charles Meredith, The Young Men’s Christian Association and the Russian Orthodox Church (New York: The International Committee of Young Men’s Christian Associations, 1921). Russian Work, Restricted, Pamphlets. KFYA. 42. Meredith, The Young Men’s Christian Association, 3–4. 43. Meredith, The Young Men’s Christian Association, 8, 10, 13, 30. 44. Meredith, The Young Men’s Christian Association, 41–45, 49, 52. 45. Meredith, The Young Men’s Christian Association, 53, 56–60. 46. E. T. Colton, “Contacts with the Russian Church, January to April 1922,” 3–5. Russian Orthodox Church. Russian Work, Restricted, Ethan T. Colton Collection. KFYA.

47. Colton, “Contacts with the Russian Church,” 2. 48. Colton, “Contacts with the Russian Church,” 5–6. See Bertrand M. Patenaude, The Big Show in Bololand: The American Relief Expedition to Soviet Russia in the Famine of 1921 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 654–62. The church’s proposal to Colton is not included in Patenaude’s account. Colton’s report sheds additional light on the rumors surrounding the ARA and the Russian Orthodox Church; many Russians at the time believed that the church’s treasures were being taken to pay for the ARA food aid. 49. For recent research on the Living Church, see Edward E. Roslof, Red Priests: Renovationism, Russian Orthodoxy, and Revolution, 1905–1946 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002); Scott Kenworthy, “Russian Reformation? The Program for Religious Renovation in the Orthodox Church, 1922–1925,” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 16/17 (2000/2001): 89–130; S. T. Kimbrough Jr., “The Living Church Conflict in the Russian Orthodox Church and the Involvement of the Methodist Episcopal Church,” Methodist History 40, no. 2 (January 2002): 105–18. 50. Julius F. Hecker, “The Religious Characteristics of the Russian Soul,” Methodist Review 103, no. 6 (November 1920): 898. 51. Julius F. Hecker, Religion and Communism: A Study of Religion and Atheism in Soviet Russia (London: Chapman and Hall, 1933), 33. 52. Hecker, Religion and Communism, 29. 53. Julius F. Hecker, “The Russian Church under the Soviets,” Methodist Review 107, no. 4 (July 1924): 554–55. 54. E. T. Colton, “The Religious Situation in Russia,” November 1, 1923, 8–9. The Religious Situation in Russia. Russian Work, Restricted, Pamphlets. KFYA. 55. “Soviet Russia: Address of Bishop Neulsen to Annual Meeting, Board of Foreign Missions” [1922], 1–4. YMCA Relationships (1920–1925) 1. Russian Church. KFYA. See also Kimbrough, “The Living Church.” 56. Colton, “Russian Work Sequences,” 6. 57. Ethan T. Colton, Forty Years with Russians (New York: Association Press, 1940), 155-56. 58. E. T. Colton, “The Russian Orthodox Church—a Spiritual Liability or Asset?” January 1, 1925, manuscript, 5. Russia, Colton E. T., Reports, Addresses, and Papers, 2 vols. KFYA. This was later published as “Is the Russian Church Christian?” in The Christian Century, May 7, 1925, 602–4. 59. E. T. Colton, “The Position of the Y.M.C.A. in Regard to Church Bodies in Russia,” n.d. Russian Orthodox Church. Russian Work, Restricted, Ethan T. Colton Collection. KFYA. A similar view is advocated by Y secretary Ralph W. Hollinger in his paper, “What American Protestant Churches Can Do for Russia,” April 15, 1920. Correspondence and Reports, 1920. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 60. “A Method of Bible Study for Orthodox Groups (Prague)” [1925], 1–2. 1925. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929, Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA.

61. Paul B. Anderson, “Fundamentals of the Young Men’s Christian Association,” unpublished draft, 1929, 23. PBAP. 62. Anderson, “Fundamentals of the Young Men’s Christian Association,” 40. 63. International Survey Committee, “Survey of North American YMCA Service to Russians in Europe” [1930], ii. Russia. International Survey—1930, Roumania, Russia, South Africa, Box 12. KFYA. 64. International Survey Committee, “Survey of North American YMCA Service,” 14– 15. There is some irony in the fact that YMCA leaders consistently described Russian Protestantism as “foreign.” The first Baptist and Evangelical Christian churches in the Russian empire were not organized by foreigners. There certainly was influence from Germany and Great Britain, but it was likely not more than the influence of the Byzantine Empire on Kievan Rus’ in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Russian Protestants did translate some of their hymns, just as the Kievan church used liturgical texts translated from Greek. 65. “The YMCA and the Russian Orthodox Church,” November 27, 1926, 1–3. 1925. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929, Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA. A general work by Anderson on Orthodoxy is his article “The Eastern Orthodox Church in a Time of Transition,” published in “Over There with the Churches of Christ,” Bulletin 15, 1936, New York: Central Bureau for Relief of the Evangelical Churches of Europe, 7–13. Pamphlets in English. Russian Work, Restricted, Pamphlets. KFYA. PBAP. 66. Letter from Paul B. Anderson to E. T. Colton, February 14, 1933. ROTA, 1930– 1933. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 67. Donald A. Lowrie, The Light of Russia: An Introduction to the Russian Church (Prague: YMCA Press, 1923), 126, 190–91. 68. Lowrie, The Light of Russia, 196–97, 232. 69. Colton, Forty Years, 151. 70. Viestnik Khristianskago Soiuza Molodykh Liudei, Vladivostok, August 17, 1919, First year of publication, Number 1, 4. Lighthouse Herald. Russian Work, Restricted, Periodicals. KFYA. 71. Letter from G. G. Kullmann to E. T. Colton, July 28, 1926, 1. YMCA Relations (1926– ). Russian Church. KFYA. 72. James H. Billington, The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), 245. See also pp. 242–52 for his description of Masonry in Russia. For two recent studies of freemasonry in Russia and America, see Douglas Smith, Working the Rough Stone: Freemasonry and Society in Eighteenth-Century Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1999), and Lynn Dumenil, “Religion and Freemasonry in Late 19th-Century America,” in Freemasonry on Both Sides of the Atlantic: Essays Concerning the Craft in the British Isles, Europe, the United States, and Mexico, ed. R. William Weisberger, Wallace McLeod, and S. Brent Morris (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 605–20.

73. Zacek, “The Russian Bible Society,” 412. 74. D. E. Davis, “YMCA Russian Work: An Interview with Dr. Paul B. Anderson, September 9, 1971,” 62. Interview with Paul B. Anderson. Russian Work, Restricted, General, Personal Accounts. KFYA. Anderson also comments on this page, “Of course, during the war it didn’t make any difference.” 75. Nicolas Zernov, “The Eastern Churches and the Ecumenical Movement in the Twentieth Century,” in A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1517–1948, 2nd ed., ed. Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1967), 670. Two examples of such accusations, written in the 1930s, were recently reprinted: V. Ivanov, Pravoslavnyi mir i masonstvo, reprint of original 1935 edition (Moscow: Trim, 1993) and V. F. Ivanov, Russkaia intelligentsia i masonstvo: Ot Petra Pervogo do nashikh dnei, reprint (Moscow: Moskva, 1997). 76. Vladimir Vostokoff and N. S. Batiushkin, “Report Handed Over May 18/31, 1925 to the Episcopal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Foreign Countries by the Former Members of the Church Administration Abroad,” 5, 1–2, 7, 9. ROTA 1923– 1929. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 77. Davis, “YMCA Russian Work,” 62. 78. R. J. Reitzel, “Brief Report on YMCA Work for Russians,” Irkutsk, December 18, 1919, [3]. Siberia 2. Russian Work, Restricted, North Russia: Archangel, Murmansk, Siberia. KFYA. 79. Vostokoff and Batiushkin, “Report,” 3. 80. Zernov, “The Eastern Churches and the Ecumenical Movement,” 670. 81. A. Pogodin, “Unexpected Unpleasantness,” Novoe vremia, April 3, 1925, number 1179, translation in archive, 2. Corr. And Reports 1925–1949. Russian Work, Restricted, Publications, YMCA Press in Paris. KFYA. 82. Arkhiepiskop Mefodii, “Soiuz Y.M.C.A.,” Viestnik russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, June 1927, number 6, second year of publication, 11–13. 83. YMCA, Osnovy khristianskago soiuza molodykh liudei (Paris: YMCA Press, 1929), 57–61. 84. D. A. Davis, “Understanding between Representatives of the Orthodox Churches and the World’s Committee of the Y.M.C.A.,” unpublished report, 1928. World’s Committee—World’s Committee and the Orthodox Church. KFYA. 85. W. A. Visser ‘T Hooft, “Remarks on the Present Situation of the Orthodox Churches in the Balkan Area,” 1929, 15. Visser ‘T Hooft Association Papers, May 1929. KFYA. 86. Objectives, Principles, and Programme of Y.M.C.A’s in Orthodox Countries (Geneva: World’s Committee of Y.M.C.A.s, 1933), 16–17. PBAP.

Chapter 4

Work among Working Russians The American YMCA developed three primary programs for working Russians: the Society “Mayak” in St. Petersburg (1900–1918), the Russian Correspondence School in Berlin and Paris (1921–1961), and the YMCA Vocational School in Sofia (1922–1924). This chapter looks at the development of these three distinct programs with special attention paid to the identified purpose, financial resources, church relations, controversies, challenges, and results. Through these ventures the YMCA built relationships with Orthodox laymen and clergy and experienced difficulties in promoting a Protestant version of Christianity. These foundational experiences led later YMCA secretaries to develop a philosophy of service which was closely tied to Orthodox faith. For this reason, these projects may be considered early steps toward the Y’s unique contributions to the development of Russian Christianity.

ST. PETERSBURG MAYAK (1900–1918) The Committee for the Promotion of Moral and Physical Development of Young Men was founded in 1900. Several years later it was renamed as the Society for the Promotion of Moral, Intellectual, and Physical Development of Young Men. These formal titles were not used on a daily basis; most referred to the organization as the Society “Mayak” (Lighthouse) or simply the Mayak.[1] The organization appeared at a time when the “physical culture” movement of the late 1800s was moving from Germany to Russia. One of the key ideas of the movement was that mental and physical health were connected; proponents warned that modern work habits such as repetitive labor in a factory or sitting all day in an unventilated office were harmful to the body. Sports was presented as a key to personal development rather than a way to competitive glory; new attention was focused on the health and form of the human body.[2]

Purpose and Development According to its constitution, “The Society has as its object the aiding in the attainment of moral, intellectual and physical development of young men of Christian faith of seventeen years of age and upward.”[3] Mayak membership was primarily from “white-collar” middle-class workers, not factory workers or students.[4] The founder of the Mayak was New York businessman James Stokes (1841– 1918). He had earned a B.A. and LL.B. from New York University. During his career he contributed more than one million dollars for YMCA-related ministries. His primary representative in Russia was Franklin Augustus Gaylord (1856–1943), a Presbyterian, who held an A.B. from Yale College and a degree from Union Theological Seminary. Before his service in Russia from 1899 to 1918 he led the

Paris YMCA from 1887 to 1893. Another later staff member was Ralph Wall Hollinger (1887–1930). A Baptist, he had received an A.B. from Western Reserve University; he served in Russia from 1914 to 1921. In the hierarchical bureaucratic world of late imperial Russia, both the Mayak and the Russian Student Christian Movement required honorary patrons: the men who filled this role were Prince Aleksandr Petrovich of Oldenburg and Baron Pavel Nicolay. [5] Prince Oldenburg “had married a grand-daughter of the Emperor Nicholas the First and his son had married the sister of the Emperor so that he was closely allied to the Imperial Family.” The leadership structure of the Society under the sponsor included a president and council, who were all men of status in St. Petersburg. These leaders had little direct contact with program participants: in 1908 Gaylord complained that they all had little time to contribute and that “Few of its members have any warm vital Christian experience.”[6] Stokes, a member of the International Committee of the YMCA, founded the St. Petersburg Mayak after a long history of involvement in the Y. He had been a key participant in the establishment of the YMCA in New York City. On his frequent trips to London he became a close friend of George Williams, the founder of the organization. Stokes met Gaylord through A. F. Beard, the pastor of the American Church in Paris, where Gaylord served as deacon. Beard recommended Gaylord to Stokes as a man who could help in the strengthening of the French YMCA in Paris. During the 1880s Gaylord worked with the Paris Y with the financial support of Stokes. Before moving to Paris, he spent time in the United States visiting different Y programs to develop a better understanding of how to develop the program. Stokes also supported the founding of the YMCA in Rome—he was eager to start an Association “right under the Pope’s nose.” From 1882 to 1884 Gaylord studied in France and Germany while recovering from poor health. From 1884 to 1887 he taught at a school in New York. From 1887 to 1893 he worked in Paris with the YMCA and from 1895 to 1899 he was pastor of Trinity Congregational Church in New York City.[7] In 1898 the nephew of a Russian nobleman, Baron Vladimir Fredericks, attended a gymnastic exhibition at the Paris YMCA; he told Stokes that he was interested in seeing such a program in Russia. Stokes developed an interest in helping to establish a YMCA program in Russia, but he soon learned that such a venture would be far from simple. As Gaylord later wrote, “the Empire of the Czar was forbidden ground to any democratic Protestant organization. To gain an entrance into that autocratic, bureaucratic empire seemed as impossible as to storm Gibraltar with a force of fishing boats armed with bean shooters.”[8] However, later in 1898 Stokes visited St. Petersburg and met Baron Fredericks. He also met Pastor Alexander Francis of the British-American Church in St. Petersburg and William Smith, the leading American in the city and a representative of the Westinghouse Company and the Worthington Pump Company; these men became steadfast supporters of Stokes’s work. Baron Fredericks and Francis were friends, and Stokes was able to secure a meeting with

the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna through the baron. At this meeting the empress expressed her sympathy for Stokes’s plan and invited him to send a representative to do a study of Russian charities; Stokes also donated five thousand rubles to the empress’s charities. He returned to the United States and sent a Miss Reynolds as a representative back to St. Petersburg for the charity research. She made a study and soon reported back to Stokes—she also served as a representative of the YWCA.[9] At this time Stokes and John R. Mott were corresponding regarding their common interest in YMCA work in Russia. Mott wrote to Stokes to discuss the funding of future projects and emphasized, “I need and crave your co-operation to as great an extent as you feel able to extend it.”[10] Another key figure in the founding of the Mayak was Prince Mikhail Ivanovich Khilkov, who had lived in the United States for twenty years and worked in the American railroad system—and learned about the Railroad YMCA. He returned to Russia, where he applied much of his experience and eventually became minister of communication. In 1899 Khilkov met Clarence Hicks (railroad secretary of the International Committee of the YMCA) who had come to study the possibility of Y railroad work in Russia—which never materialized.[11] However, Mott traveled with Hicks to Russia on this trip in 1899.[12] Hicks spent over a month in St. Petersburg on negotiations to establish the Mayak and the program for railroad workers. He reported that Khilkov successfully obtained a pass from the emperor for Hicks which provided free state and private rail travel anywhere in the empire for four months.[13] Gaylord arrived in St. Petersburg on May 6, 1899. Meanwhile, Khilkov, Baron Fredericks, Francis, and Smith agreed that Prince Aleksandr Petrovich of Oldenburg would be the best person to serve as honorary patron.[14] Prince Oldenburg was a retired military officer who had become involved in philanthropy. He was especially interested in the temperance movement and the promotion of health. He assisted the development of the Popular Temperance Committee, which developed recreation centers for the poor, where they could enjoy inexpensive food and entertainment without alcohol. The prince also supported laboratories for experimental medicine and sanatoriums. (Gaylord later met Father John of Kronstadt at one of his sanatoriums.) Hicks met with Prince Oldenburg, who was impressed with the idea of a YMCA-like program in Petrograd. The prince asked Hicks to make a speech before the Popular Temperance Committee at the prince’s palace. The audience included two of the future members of the Mayak council. The prince agreed to serve as the protector of the organization which became the future society. He recommended that the society would need the protection of the Holy Synod. However, the ober-procurator, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, refused to approve the project, due to the connection with Protestantism. Then the prince worked to have the society receive the protection of the Minister of the Interior, which placed the society under the control of the Department of Police. Director Zvelyansky of the Department of Police called Gaylord, Francis, and Smith for an interview on March 2, 1900, and the temporary statutes received the approval of the Ministry of the Interior on March 9, 1900.[15] The

Mayak was a society, but the Russian word used was komitet (committee). In 1900 the society received a temporary permit with “provisional rules” for three years. So, in 1903 the society would need to apply for “permanent statutes.” The leaders had considered registering under Prince Oldenburg as President of the Temperance Society. However, it was seen that this would be opposed by the Ministry of Finance, whose approval would have been required. The society was registered under the prince as an individual (in this case the Ministry of Finance would not be involved). Gaylord, Smith, and Francis explained that this registration allowed them “to organize whatever we may deem likely to promote the moral and physical development of young men.”[16] In other words, they were pleased with the flexibility provided by the charter. In April 1900, after the approval of the society’s statutes, Stokes wrote a letter to the empress to inform her of the successful registration and to ask for continued support; he concluded, “May I also respectfully request the continuance of your imperial majesty’s sympathy with, interest in, and protection of this effort to reach and influence for good those of your imperial majesty’s subjects for whom the new Society exists?” Stokes signed the letter as “your imperial majesty’s obedient and faithful Servant.”[17] The first council of the society included a number of prominent men. Prince Oldenburg was the member of a distinguished family; he was Orthodox but had been raised in the Lutheran Church. I. N. Turchaninov, privy counselor and former assistant chief of police for St. Petersburg, was the council chairman as well as a leading member of the Temperance Society. Senator Nikolai Stepanovich Tagantsev was a professor of law and “the greatest criminal lawyer in Russia.” He developed his estate with modern farming methods. Prince Platon Sergeevich Obolensky was a member of an old noble family. Petr Apollonovich Sidarov (the council president) directed a prominent school. Emmanuel Ludvigovich Nobel (the council treasurer) was the nephew of the giver of the Nobel Prize and had acquired his own wealth from the Baku oil fields. Father Nikolai Vasilievich Vasiliev represented the clergy. Also on the council were Francis and Smith.[18] Paul B. Anderson wrote that Russian leaders of the evangelical Pashkov movement were instrumental in gaining permission for the Mayak: “Mott didn’t mention the Pashkov movement, as far as I know, but in other places you see the Pashkov leaders as having direct influence in making possible the Mayak. That isn’t mentioned by anybody, and I guess that is because the Church resisted Pashkov.”[19] The first facility for the society was secured at 30 Liteiny Prospekt—ten rooms on the front half of the second story. A five-year contract was signed, the rent was set at 3,500 rubles per year. The Mayak began operating on September 22, 1900, based on the provisional rules established on March 9, 1900. The official opening of the society took place on October 4, 1900; Stokes was present for the opening ceremony. In his official greeting, Turchaninov spoke of the goal of the program. He saw it to be providing practical assistance to the young working men who arrived in

the capital and needed support in adjusting correctly to their new surroundings. He believed that this could help avoid moral failures and criminal activity among these men. In his address Stokes addressed the religious foundation of the program: “I noticed that any undertaking of philanthropic character in this country begins with prayer. This is a practical acknowledgement of the deep truth that no physical or moral development can be achieved without religious motives.” During the first year (1900–1901) 1,016 men participated on a regular basis. During the second year (1901–1902) there were 1,261 regular participants. In the first year, there were 806 Orthodox, 114 Lutherans, 61 Roman Catholics, 24 Jews, and 5 Old Believers. By age, 262 were from 17 to 20, 345 from 20 to 25, 271 from 25 to 30, 99 from 30 to 35, 28 from 35 to 40, and 15 older than 40. By education, 534 had only lower, 225 middle, 119 home education, 75 specialized, 43 village school, and 20 higher. By work, 235 were in manufacturing or trading establishments, 160 in government institutions, 128 in banks and offices, 100 in their own business, 93 in factories and plants, 92 craftsmen, 82 with the railroad, 44 in private service, 44 in insurance, and 31 still with their parents. There was little change in these breakdowns by percentage to the second year. City priests were invited to teach on religious topics on most Sundays from September to May. Some of these topics included: “Religion and the Modern Person,” “Freedom of Conscience,” “Gogol as a Teacher of Life,” and “Thoughts about Happiness.”[20] The Mayak attracted participation through advertisements and favorable reviews in local periodicals. For example, a full-page article in a 1901 issue of the magazine Niva described the program in detail with enthusiasm; it concluded, “‘Mayaks,’ lit everywhere, could in time keep thousands of young men from many mistakes and sometimes even from death.”[21] Gaylord reported that Novoe vremia (New Time), “the leading St Petersburg paper, gives us a reduction of one third on all advertisements of our work in its columns.”[22] This newspaper consistently provided publicity for the society: “Doubtless the help thus given by the Petrograd press has been the greatest aid to the increase of membership, as at no time has there been an aggressive membership campaign for this purpose.”[23] The society also received favorable publicity in the United States (apparently due to the sending of YMCA press releases). On May 6, 1901, the New York Times published an article, “Society Founded by a New Yorker is Growing in Favor,”[24] which noted that the society will celebrate its sixth month of work and summarized the development of the program. The Mayak also appeared in regular updates in The Missionary Review of the World, a Protestant magazine which described the programs of many churches and organizations around the globe.[25] Association Men, a Y publication, also featured this program on a regular basis.[26] The organization appeared in a popular-level religious book by Robert Sloan Latimer, With Christ in Russia (1910): “There is another and even more interesting Y.M.C.A. development authorized by the Holy Synod, the Miyak (Lighthouse). It cannot be included among evangelical operations, inasmuch as it is actively supported by the Greek clergy, and exists mainly for young

men of the Orthodox faith. The Miyak is a most valuable agency.”[27] The Mayak program attempted to help young men build friendships through the varied activities in the programs. The staff tried to create a sense of community among the members—the maiachniki.[28] As one publication described, “all this is a powerful means for building mutual fellowship among visitors, for developing friendly relationships, and for the building of friendship among those young people who earlier felt alone and forsaken in this huge capital city.” This sense of community included an international aspect as well. The Mayak did not publicly present itself as a branch of the YMCA (apparently to avoid an emphasis on the organization’s Protestant roots), but in its brochure it openly stated that it had brotherly relationships with many associations of young men in the United States. It tried to create a sense of community which encouraged the development of certain values. By their style, approach, and feel, the annual reports suggested that the organizers wanted to communicate that the program was efficient (listing detailed statistics on budget and attendance), respectable (featuring comments from well-known people), and patriotic (noting why the activities are beneficial to the state).[29] On September 19, 1903, the Mayak received full state registration as described in the “Statutes of the St. Petersburg Committee for the Moral and Physical Development of Young Men, under the Honorary Patronage of His Highness Prince Aleksandr Petrovich of Oldenburg.” One key provision noted that if Prince Oldenburg resigned as honorary patron of the committee, these statutes would become void. To continue operation the committee would need to submit a new set of statutes to the Ministry of Internal Affairs within three months of the resignation.[30] In 1905 Gaylord arranged the purchase of a new building for the program at 35 Nadezhdinskaya for 118,500 rubles from C. A. Nikitin, a Russian subject.[31] In 1908 the Mayak opened its own hall for gymnastics; the hall was built for a cost of 37,000 rubles, primarily provided by Stokes. The annual report praised his generosity highly —Stokes was no anonymous giver. Apparently he wanted to motivate Russian donors. For seven years prior to the opening of the gymnastics hall, the Mayak used a hall provided by the School of Saints Anna and Joseph.[32] Secretary Erich Moraller waxed eloquent about the new facility—“For the first time a fully equipped physical department is set before the Russian people. Heretofore, a gymnasium having special ventilation and the advantages of hot and cold shower baths was unheard of.” At the opening ceremony, Father Slobostskoi gave a message which emphasized that “in a sound body a sound spirit prevails.”[33] This emphasis on hygiene was repeated frequently in letters sent to Stokes from his associates in St. Petersburg.[34] The programs and new gymnasium were attractive to many young men, and the Mayak became a popular center for physical fitness in St. Petersburg. One secretary concluded, “We have more men taking active part in our physical department than any club or gymnastic society in St. Petersburg.”[35] The physical department saw a large increase in participation from 1907 to 1910. Only 350 could participate each semester, and many were put on waiting lists. Also, 150 students of the university,

polytechnical institute, and the medical academy were turned down “because students are barred from the membership of the Association, owing to their revolutionary tendencies.”[36] The work in the gymnasium drew attention within the city’s educational community. Gaylord wrote to Mott, “I do not think it possible to exaggerate the largeness of the opportunity we have here in St. Petersburg to powerfully influence through our Mayak the whole future of Russian Education. Educators have for some time been studying our work; and, more and more, we are serving as a model to them, particularly in our physical department. . . .”[37] The addition of the new gymnasium allowed the Mayak to attract more doctors, lawyers, and officers—in comparison to clerks.[38] The YMCA secretaries made use of the program’s popularity to discuss spiritual issues one-on-one with members: “We ask them whether they conscientiously follow the teachings of Christ, and whether they know Him as their personal Saviour.”[39] In 1909 Mott sent Harvey Winfred Anderson to work as Moraller’s assistant. Anderson had received his A.B. from the University of Missouri in 1907, and went on to teach history and athletics; he was a Student Volunteer and member of the Christian Church denomination.[40] In 1910 Gaylord reported that the St. Petersburg council was unanimously in favor of establishing a Mayak in Moscow. This goal consumed a great deal of Stokes’s and Gaylord’s attention for the next eight years. During this period leaders also experienced a variety of challenges related to the political climate of St. Petersburg. In 1910 Gaylord reported that Prince Oldenburg is “well intentioned” but “has rather narrow views and is rather too much under the influence of the reactionary element in Russian politics.” Social traditionalism created problems as well: as Gaylord reflected, “It is very hard for a Russian bureaucrat to treat a man as a man without having in view his social standing. Merchants and tradesmen have been so coldly received [sometimes] by members of our Council that we have lost their subscription in consequence.” As noted in chapter 3, the Y’s triangle symbol often created misunderstandings for Russians. In this case, a scandal developed over the introduction of white YMCA triangles to the Mayak gymnasium shirts—accusations of Masonic influence soon appeared in the newspapers. The government minister who helped the organization receive a subscription from the emperor “made it clear that the wearing of such an emblem would be prejudicial to our interests.” So, the triangles were removed.[41] In 1910 Thomas H. Uzzell, an exuberant young graduate of the University of Minnesota, arrived to join the staff. He came with the endorsement of the Minneapolis YMCA: “On the whole . . . I think Mr. Uzzell was the best all round student that Minnesota has produced in recent years.” Uzzell had been captain of the gymnasium team at the university and a Phi Beta Kappa student.[42] His unusually open and frank letters provide more than routine observations of St. Petersburg, the work of the society, and his own struggles. Soon after he arrived he sent an intense letter to Stokes, which included his first sharply critical assessments of Russian Orthodoxy and its icons: Satan “took away the people’s God and gave them instead bits of fancy

tinsel framing a ghastly lithograph-like image of the face of Christ!”[43] He was soon dismayed to learn that the majority of time would be spent in Russian language study: “I rather expected to be straightway a man of deeds. Instead I was once more put on the scholastic shelf.”[44] He was able to participate in the celebration of the Mayak’s tenth anniversary and wrote an article for a YMCA magazine which summarized his take on the venture: “American money, skill and love have just completed a unique Christian service for needy Russia.”[45] Uzzell wrote to Mott in 1911 to share his frustrations with the organization’s approach to service in a changing society. It included his contemptuous perspective on the Mayak’s relationships to the Orthodox Church and the political authorities. Uzzell argued that cooperating with local priests was counterproductive: “the central purpose which animates the activities of the Miyak will never [be] understood until the golden-robed priests with their interminable chants are replaced by Russian translations of our Association Hymn Book and straight evangelistic talks from the platform.” He described this unwelcome participation of priests as part of an unholy compromise with the state and suggested that it was hypocritical to receive support from the government when it was oppressing the young men he was attempting to serve: Mr. Gaylord dines with the nobility, spends handfuls of roubles feeding their footman and door-men, and arranged visits with the [emperor] while we sit around the tables with the young men in the evening and hear them bewail the fact that their most beautiful poetry and literature has been mutilated by imperial censors, hear them tell how they have been arrested for the most trivial offenses, hear them tell how the cost of living is made ruinously high and how their freedom of movement and speech is a matter of daily uncertainty. He went on to describe his satisfaction with the secret Bible study groups with “a few of our best men” and argue for a combined ministry with students in Moscow.[46] Uzzell presented his views far more strongly than any of the other American Mayak staff members; however, many of them expressed similar views in a more understated fashion. However, less than two years after his arrival, Uzzell was asked to resign from the Mayak. He wrote to Mott to comment at great length on his departure on May 1, 1912, from the work due to an unspecified problem of “character.” He had come with a two-year contract. Uzzell was pleased with his contributions to the work and with his time in Russia. However, he wrote, “I brought a habit with me to Russia which I had not completely conquered at home.”[47] In 1911 a number of comments and events illustrated the submission of the organization to the conservative trends of the Russian capital in an attempt to foster acceptance from the authorities. Gaylord and Stokes met with Prime Minister Petr Stolypin, who mentioned that he wanted his son to join the Mayak when he turned seventeen. They also visited with Emperor Nicholas II at Tsarskoe Selo: “Our audience with the Emperor was most satisfactory. He anticipated all we had to say,

finishing the sentences as we began them almost.”[48] Stokes commented, “We act under the [Russian] Government, almost as agents for the Government.”[49] In January 1912 the council changed the constitution of the society to forbid membership to non-Christians. Up to this point there had been a small number of Jews as members. Moraller presented it in the report as an unfortunate necessity and remarked: “Such an action naturally allies the Mayak with the antisemitic movement, in Russia and with the reaction.” No comment was included on how the Mayak would relate to current Jewish members.[50] A letter from Gaylord to Mott explained that the conservative climate of the society was not intentional—it was due to the convictions of the patrons: “no matter what I may do, I cannot escape from close association with the conservative, not to say reactionary classes.”[51] By the end of 1911 the society had an updated constitution, which reflected both this increased conservatism and the cautious nature of the organization. The goal remained the same: “The Society has as its object the aiding in the attainment of moral, intellectual and physical development of young men of Christian faith of seventeen years of age and upward.” The governing council was required to have fifteen members, and only three could be foreigners. One member needed to be an Orthodox priest. Stokes chose three members; the protector of the society chose the other twelve. The participation of students was specifically forbidden: “To participate in the Society in the quality of members are not allowed: (a) persons not of age; (b) those [studying] in Educational Institutions; (c) soldiers of the lowest grade and pupils in military schools; (d) those whose rights have been restricted by the courts.” The society was required to present an annual report to the Ministry of the Interior and to the Prefect of Police of St. Petersburg. No expressly political activity was allowed: “Within the walls of the ‘Mayak’ are forbidden any sort of political meeting or assembly, the pronouncing of political speeches, no matter what their character, the carrying of flags, the wearing of buttons, rosettes and other badges, indicating the belonging to some sort of political party.” Therefore, “It is forbidden to distribute within the walls of the ‘Mayak’ to the permanent visitors, either freely or for money, [books], brochures, drawings, proclamations, posters etc., no matter what their contents.” Games with playing cards, gambling, theater, alcohol, and dancing were all forbidden. The rooms of the Mayak were open daily from noon until 11 p.m. and on Sundays and holidays from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.[52] As an ordained clergyman, Gaylord felt most frustrated by his inability to publicly teach Bible classes for members. He wrote to Stokes regarding his attempts to have Americans do more religious teaching. The Russian society president confirmed that such teaching could not be done by laymen.[53] The separation between students and other young men led to the requirement of the YMCA conducting two separate programs—which each had particular problems. The Mayak had legal status—but a host of prohibitions and limitations; the student workers rarely had any legal foundation for their work, but they had fewer rules and regulations to heed.[54]

Political limitations, the conservatism of the honorary patron, health problems, and the outbreak of World War I all limited the progress of the St. Petersburg Mayak and blocked movement toward founding a Moscow branch. Gaylord informed Mott that “The political situation in Russia and the personal [prejudices] of the Prince of [Oldenburg] continued to put such obstacles in the way of our work, that the formation of our Council in Moscow was seriously impeded.”[55] The Russian members of the society shared in the widespread early enthusiasm for World War I; Gaylord offered his perspective in a letter to Mott. He hoped that the “ultimate result of this war will be greater political and religious liberty.” However, he believed that a Russian victory might lead to greater power for the autocracy and the state church.[56] In 1914–1915 the Mayak received five thousand rubles directly from the tsar in addition to the three thousand from the state budget and two thousand from the Ministry of Finance. The emperor’s contribution became the occasion for Gaylord’s annual report to the tsar in formal dress. Also, the treasurer Nobel gave his annual donation of five thousand rubles plus five thousand for a new third floor of the building. The Petrograd city council added an additional three thousand. During the 1914–1915 year 2,354 people participated in the Mayak program—this is nearly a 100 percent increase since 1902. Thirty-four percent were from seventeen to twenty, and 31 percent were from twenty-one to twenty-five—this marks a relative aging of the participant population over the thirteen years. The statistics gathered by the organization suggest that the variety of religious affiliation and the number of participants with higher education had remained largely unchanged since the first years. Most participants worked in offices—the percentage of factory workers declined from 7 percent in 1902 to 2 percent in 1915. Looking at the financial statement, the organization received 77,628 rubles in income and had an equal total for expenses. The income consisted primarily of donations (37,000 rubles), member and visitor dues (13,000), and course fees (19,000).[57] After the beginning of the war John Wanamaker, the wealthy and well-known Philadelphia businessman, made Mott a written promise to fund a YMCA building for Moscow in peacetime.[58] The Mayak continued to develop during the war and added new council members and secretaries. By 1916 Hollinger was assistant director, and Herbert Gregory was physical director.[59] New members on the council from 1915 to 1917 were Professor Sergei Feodorovich Platonov, I. S. Krutchkov (a merchant), Prince Alexei Dmitrievich Obolensky, and Father Ivan Slobodskoy. Senator Ivan Vasilievich Meshchaninov (former assistant minister of public instruction and head of the Prison Administration of the Russian Empire), was president at the time.[60] The society also added Russian secretaries during the war: a 1915 report noted three current staff members (Turpeinen, Obraztsov, Yaroslavtsev) and two additions (Ivan Petrovich Gapon tsev and Alexei Vasilievich Iuriev).[61] By October 1917 five American Y men were working with the program: Franklin Gaylord, Ralph W. Hollinger, Joseph J. Somerville, Harry W. Long, and J. Brackett Lewis.[62] The wartime political climate probably contributed to a police report dated

August 22, 1916, which contained detailed general information on the YMCA’s connections to the Mayak in St. Petersburg (probably gleaned from a YMCA publication). It described the roles of Stokes and Mott and the general goals of the organization. The report also raised concern of the connection between the American Baptist Society (ABS) and the YMCA. The report stated that the Department of Spiritual Affairs had previously identified the ABS as “one of the most harmful among foreign sectarian organizations” due to its heavy funding of Baptist work in Russia.[63] The end of autocracy in February 1917 and the political climate which followed created uncertainty for the future of the Mayak, which had been so closely aligned with the regime. Gaylord expressed hesitant optimism and his personal faith to Stokes in a July 1917 letter. He wrote that civil war and starvation may come to Russia, but “we still hope for the best and still stay on.”[64] In the early weeks of 1917 Stokes had finished paying off the mortgage for the facility and transferred the property to the James Stokes Society, which was legally able to hold property in Russia. However, all the documents necessary for this formal transfer were in the office of the chief notary in Petrograd when the revolution began in Russia in March 1917. They were entirely destroyed by fire which consumed the hall of records; no duplicates of these documents were preserved. Gaylord wrote later that the building was seventy feet by seventy feet, with a third story added after purchase, so the building was worth one hundred thousand dollars (with the ruble at fifty-one cents).[65] In 1917 Stokes also transferred the formal direction of the Mayak from himself to the Foreign Committee of the International Committee of the YMCA. This policy was adopted by the Foreign Committee on December 7, 1917, at the request of Stokes; he planned to continue to fund the work. The James Stokes Society retained ownership of the property in Petrograd, but Stokes planned to turn it over at some point in the future.[66] By August 1917 the Mayak had grown to over 3,500 members; later that year the society formally adopted the Paris Basis and became an official YMCA organization.[67] By February 1918 the organization was known as “Young Men’s Christian Association, The Society ‘Mayak.’”[68] After the October revolution A. A. Gromov, who had been arranging lectures, was arrested for alleged participation in a plot against the Bolsheviks. The Mayak was searched by soldiers for three hours as a result.[69] Gaylord left Petrograd for America on December 18, 1917: later he ambiguously wrote, “I left on account of my health.”[70] On February 24, 1918, the American Mayak staff members, except Brackett Lewis, were required by the US ambassador to leave Petrograd. Lewis soon left and turned over the Mayak to Russian secretaries, headed by Iakov Grigorievich Turpeinen.[71] The membership estimate for 1918 was 3,800 members—“the largest YMCA in the world outside of North America.”[72] Turpeinen later described the last days in 1918 of the Petrograd Mayak. He believed that the “beginning of the end” came when the US leaders were required to leave the city in February 1918. Soon thereafter, local kommissars attempted to take

control of the building, but Russian staff members were able to delay this action. However, on September 6 the district Kommissariat of Popular Education issued an order calling for the closing of the society. The next day a group of officials from the Kommissariat arrived and asked the Mayak’s secretaries to leave the building immediately—and the building was sealed. On September 25 a new decree ordered the nationalization of the property and assets of the society. The Council and staff members attempted to block this decision, but resistance was fruitless. On October 31 officials arrested Acting Chief Director Turpeinen and President of the Council Meshchaninov. Turpeinen remained in prison until November, while Meshchaninov died during his confinement on November 4. The case against these men was later withdrawn because of the lack of evidence of criminal behavior. Turpeinen concluded his report, “Thus sorrowfully closed the eighteen years of the light-bringing work of the Mayak.” He added that the Kommissariat of Popular Education utilized the Mayak facility as an educational training facility.[73] James Stokes, the founder of the Mayak, died shortly after the closing of the society in October 1918.[74] Attempts were made to continue the society’s heritage. Donald Lowrie was able to open a Moscow civilian city YMCA in 1918.[75] Somerville and Long brought the tradition from Petrograd to Vladivostok: “The name, the constitution, thirty past members, reinforcement in the coming of Ralph Hollinger, and the program . . . all bore testimony to the carry-over of loyalties and valid experience from the Neva.”[76] Evidence suggests that the Mayak building was transferred to the Komsomol, the Communist youth movement, in 1921.[77] In the summer of 1927 MacNaughten visited Leningrad and saw the building, which had been converted into a dormitory for students. The gymnasium was being used; one room had a large sign, “Anti-Religious Corner.”[78]

Funding For its first year of operation (1900–1901) the organization had income of 20,907 rubles and expenditures of 16,696 rubles. For 1901–1902 the amounts remained similar: 20,069 and 14,604. The main sources of income were donations, fees from members and visitors, and course fees. The main expenses were rent and utilities for the facilities, pay for the building workers, pay for the teachers, and equipment for the organization. For the first year, the leading donors were Stokes (approximately 6,000 rubles), Prince Oldenburg (1,000), the Westinghouse Corporation (1,000), Nobel (500), Smith (500), and N. N. Brusnitsyn (500).[79] After the Mayak received full legal registration Stokes began to make plans for the purchase of a permanent facility. He offered fifty thousand dollars to build a new facility if matching gifts equivalent to one hundred thousand dollars were provided from Russian sources.[80] As stated earlier he purchased a building in 1905 for 118,500 rubles and soon thereafter contributed 37,000 rubles for a gymnastics hall. Stokes did not initially attract the level of Russian financial contributions he expected,

but the society consistently attracted new wealthy Russian donors. In December 1906 the Grand Duke Michael Aleksandrovich, the brother of the emperor, developed an interest in the Mayak, made a contribution valued at five hundred dollars and hosted a lunch for the members of the council at his palace in Gatchina.[81] Gaylord explained the reluctance of some Russian donors by comparing a gift for the Mayak to a gift toward the foundation of a church. He wrote that Russians occasionally fund the construction of an Orthodox building as an attempt to atone for their own sinfulness. However, this motivation did not apply for a donation toward the society. [82]

By 1911, the fees for courses ranged from one to three rubles per month. The eight-month course in the commercial department carried a fee of forty rubles.[83] In 1913 the starting salary of a new American secretary for the program was 125 dollars a month (250 rubles).[84] By the 1911–1912 program year the organization had more than tripled its income and expenses in comparison to the first year of operation. The sum received from membership and class fees came to 24,117 rubles, and the sum received from subscriptions came to 26,883 rubles. Expenses for this period came to 51,000 rubles.[85] This trend continued to the 1914–1915 year, when the budget reached 77,628. The Mayak faced great financial difficulties during the last few months of its existence. The American YMCA provided approximately one hundred thousand rubles in assistance during this time.[86]

Church Relations As stated in chapter 3, the American leaders reluctantly cooperated with Orthodox clergy in order to avoid church and state interference in the program. As a result, the Mayak seemed to avoid any significant opposition from the priests of St. Petersburg. In 1902 one magazine report, apparently based on information provided by a staff member, commented, “Owing to its high patronage, the St. Petersburg Society has enjoyed complete immunity from interference by any branch of the government. Harmony with the government is further established by the fact that the society’s religious features are directed by priests of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Church.”[87] A 1908 report prepared by Gaylord confirmed categorically that the government “has never interfered in any way with the work” of the Mayak. In addition, “The ecclesiastical authorities have in no way interfered with the work and we have [had] the [unpaid] and cheerful co-operation of many priests for the past nine years.” This arrangement required Gaylord and his staff to keep a low profile: “Foreign pastors or missionaries, or [evangelists] if known as such, would probably be considered, at present, dangerous.”[88] When Tracy Redding arrived to work with the Mayak, Gaylord told him not to use the words “missionary” or “revolution.”[89] This arrangement produced a dilemma for Gaylord and others; they resolved the issue by working quietly behind the scenes. They invited a priest to lead public religious programs, while the American secretaries led smaller informal meetings for prayer

and Bible study.[90] Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and John R. Mott seemed to be exceptional. In 1909 Mott reported that the Holy Synod had sent an official communication to the YMCA home office that he and Baron Nicolay were banned from giving lectures in Russia. However, an unnamed prominent official who had heard Mott speak blocked this effort. Mott described his recent meetings held under the sponsorship of the Mayak. A priest approved his speaking notes without changes. “In these two addresses there was set forth the power of sin on the one hand and the sufficient power of Jesus Christ on the other with as much definiteness, fullness and freedom as I have ever done in any country.”[91] Gaylord responded to Mott and shared his concerns about Mott’s boldness; he warned him that such a public message might be allowed once, but not on a regular basis.[92] In spite of his frequent frustration with the limitations of the arrangement, Gaylord believed that it was their only option: he wrote, “The policy we have adopted should be pursued honestly and prayerfully as long as nothing un-christian is demanded of us.” He specifically ruled out wider cooperation with fellow Protestants: “It will not be safe for us for the present to have anything to do with the work undertaken by the various religious denominations: Methodists, Baptists, etc.”[93] Given their understanding of the limitations, the Mayak leaders attempted to work with the clergy holding views closest to their own—the socially active priests of the city. Moraller reported that he was able to “invite the most liberal and progressive priests to give the regular religious talks. These priests are selected because they understand and feel with the young men, and can give a direct and uplifting talk.”[94] In 1911 Gaylord spoke hopefully about the “liberal wing” of the Orthodox Church and its future: “Our mission, up to the [present] time has largely been in the liberal wing of the Orthodox Church. As time goes on this party in the Church will grow and the life there is in it will manifest itself in increasingly better work for our young men.”[95] However, two years later in 1913 he emphasized growing influence of the “reactionary” traditionalists. He expressed specific concern about the new Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Vladimir, and the interference experienced by the Methodists and Baptists. Gaylord concluded that “the Miyak must prepare to fight its battles too.”[96] Gaylord did appreciate at least one of the more conservative Orthodox leaders, Father John of Kronstadt. This priest gave Gaylord a promise of his prayers and gave him a fivefold kiss of approval.[97]

Controversies The primary issue of external controversy was the Russian perception that it was a Masonic organization. In March 1912 Archbishop Antony Volinsky visited the society and gave an address. It was known that he had believed that the Mayak was a sectarian program teaching Masonic ideas. Moraller reported that he gave a talk, met with the council—and then blessed the society. The secretary was clearly relieved: “Now that the representative of the extreme reactionary wing has visited the ‘Mayak,’

and has given it his blessing, we hope that the false rumors about the Society can do no more harm.”[98] However, the next month, the organ of the Holy Synod, Church Bell, attacked the Mayak as an organization which is working to convert Orthodox men to Protestants or Masons.[99] These charges led Gaylord to be more cautious in the selection of secretaries. However, in 1913 he faced a decision when he learned than one of his new recruits, a Mr. Ames, had recently become a Mason. He wrote to Mott to explain the consequences if this became known—“we shall continue to be attacked on the grounds of being a Masonic Society.” Gaylord goes on to discuss a variety of options in dealing with this matter: do nothing, explain the situation to the council members, send Ames back to America, or see if he can leave the Masons. Gaylord preferred the last option.[100] The issue of Masonry contributed to the discussion between Gaylord and the Russian president of the society regarding the possibility of Americans giving public religious instruction. Gaylord was told that this was not possible, and that all teaching must be done by Orthodox clergy: “this must still remain the privilege of the Priests who, so far as I can discover, do not know how to use it.” He recognized the difficulty of the president’s position: “the chief reason that our President gave me for opposition to the formation and teaching of Bible classes . . . was that, in that case, the Miyak would be accused of teaching Masonry; and even if ten priests were always present, that would make no difference.”[101]

Results The society was supported by the imperial family, the Orthodox Church and other churches, the nobility, the bureaucracy, the intelligentsia, and the merchants. Noted Russians who “took a great interest in the society” were Senator Anatolii Fedorovich Koni, Count Vladimir Kokutsov, and Father John of Kronstadt.[102] In 1911 Gaylord wrote to Mott that “From the Russian stand-point, the work in St. Petersburg is a solid success; but it has taken eleven years to do it. This institution attracts young men in increasing numbers each year and there is thorough harmony among the workers.”[103] Stokes himself was apparently satisfied with the returns on his investments: “The work in Russia is beyond all praise, and shows one of the most magnificent openings of any work in the whole world of Association effort.”[104] Annual reports listed several brief testimonials of participants: for example, “Thanks to the organization I acquired an acquaintance with some very honest young people. For me, a person who has arrived from the provinces, this is very important.” “The gymnastics training, which I visited with the most diligence, has been very useful for me. I have started to feel more energetic, relaxed, and stronger. I have been going to lectures and found things to discuss with my friends—I share my opinions and listen to their thoughts on the lectures.”[105] The organization received praise during a speech given by a member of the State Duma: Deputy Vasily von Anrep, a professor of medicine, stated that the Mayak was “useful in the highest degree.” The Minister of Popular Enlightenment

commented at a State Council meeting that the Shaniavsky University, a private institution in Moscow open to a wide range of young people, had “joined the ranks of such useful establishments as the Mayak.”[106] In 1926 Soviet scholar I. D. Levin included the Mayak in his study of prerevolutionary clubs for workers. This book placed the society within the context of other organizations for workers and described the activities of several groups. The volume also provided one early Soviet perspective on its activities. “In the years between the first revolution and the war of 1914, the club movement occupied a very visible place among different forms of the so-called legal workers movement. It achieved a special level of development in the center of the proletarian struggle, in St. Petersburg, which gives this movement special importance.” Of the clubs discussed in the book, the Mayak was the first to develop (although Levin pointed out that it was not strictly a workers’ club according to his paradigm). The author sarcastically commented that the rich American John Stokes founded the club in the memory of his son, who died “from an excessively non-Christian lifestyle.” Levin stated that the Mayak appeared in 1900 and existed to “1910 and later.”[107] He described the controversial activities of the members of the Mayak who were sympathetic to the demands of the revolutionary movement and the swift expulsion of these young men. Levin concluded with a confirmation of the social influence of the Mayak: “This society, penetrated through and through by the spirit of absolute good intentions and located under the observation of a multitude of priests, generals, and dignitaries, played a fairly major role in the work of enlightening workers.”[108]

RUSSIAN CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOL IN BERLIN AND PARIS (1921– 1961) Plans began for the Russian Correspondence School in 1920, when it was determined that in the Central Power nations there were still up to three hundred thousand Russian POWs in line for repatriation. Two men were asked by the leadership of the YMCA to develop a plan for providing educational opportunities by correspondence in order for the men not to lose their time. S. I. Koshkin began to develop a program plan, and Professor N. P. Makarov began preparing a course on agriculture. Paul B. Anderson began to implement this program upon his arrival in Europe in 1921. The first student enrolled in the fall of that year. Valuable publicity was received by the promotion of Russian émigré newspapers and the Zemsky Soiuz organization.[109] In 1923 the focus of the school shifted from POWs to Russian workers across Europe, due to the closing of the camps. The Viestnik samoobrazovaniia (Messenger of Self- education) was sent to enrolled students.[110] Statistics gathered in 1924 on Russian Correspondence School students provide a more complete picture of the young men served by this program. The greatest number of students (49.5 percent) fell into the twenty- to thirty-year age range, while 19 percent were under twenty. The thirty- to forty-year age group included 25.5

percent of the students. Most students (51 percent) had completed secondary education, while 32 percent had only received primary-level education. Few students (5.5 percent) had earned a diploma from an institution of higher education, while an additional 10 percent had completed some higher education. By religion, 70 percent were Russian Orthodox, 9 percent were Roman Catholic, 9.5 percent were Protestant, 10 percent were Jewish, and only 0.5 percent described themselves as atheists. Many (28 percent) had previously worked in the military; others had been technical workers (15 percent), students (14 percent), civil servants or office workers (12.5 percent), laborers (7.5 percent), teachers (6 percent), or farmers (6 percent). The greatest interest was in technical courses.[111] As this survey showed, many students had skills, such as military expertise, which could not be easily applied in emigration. The school offered very practical courses to help the men earn a living. [112]

The program received positive publicity in the Russian émigré press: “Quietly, without any boasting, a highly useful work is being carried on among the emigration; it is not sufficiently known in wider circles. I am speaking about the work of the Russian Polytechnical School, founded by the N. A. YMCA.”[113] The correspondence program gradually expanded in a variety of ways. In 1923 registered students lived in 36 countries, while in 1929 they lived in 61 countries. In 1922 the number of enrolled students was 1,145, but this grew to 8,112 in 1930. From 1922 to 1929 the number of subjects grew from 6 to 163.[114] Statistics from 1930 demonstrate the wide reach of this YMCA training program. Students lived in the Balkans (2196), Poland (1552), the Baltics (1530), Western Europe (924), Central Europe (909), Africa (262), Scandinavia (249), Asia (201), North and South America (150), Russia (124), and Australia (15). The school also gathered statistics on current and former occupations. This data pointed out that students in 1930 included fewer former soldiers and officers, but many more laborers attempting to upgrade their training (when compared to the group in 1924).[115] Statistics for 1933–1938 showed a gradually declining number of new enrollments, and an absence of students from the USSR (in comparison to 124 in 1930). The regions with the highest number of registrations were France, the Baltics, and the Balkans.[116] In 1931 the correspondence school evolved into the Russian Superior Technical Institute, which added evening courses to the curriculum. World War II interrupted the work of many students, but the school continued to operate on a limited basis throughout the war. The Russian Superior Technical Institute finally closed on October 31, 1961, due to declining enrollment: “The decision to close the Institute was made in light of changed conditions. The flood of exiles and refugees ceased. . . .” Over twelve thousand men and women studied in the Correspondence School from 1921 to 1961.[117]

YMCA VOCATIONAL SCHOOL IN SOFIA, BULGARIA (1922–1924) The YMCA Vocational School in Sofia, Bulgaria, was led by Harvey G. Smith and

William Orr. Smith was a graduate of the University of Wisconsin; Orr had earlier served as Massachusetts state commissioner of education.[118] Smith had previously worked for five years in Siberia, where he learned to speak Russian.[119] A variety of educational programs were developed after World War I to aid Russian refugees in Bulgaria. For example two gimnazia were opened in 1920. The Russian Union of Cities and other organizations supported the opening of a variety of schools. A group of émigré engineers and professors organized a technical school with “preparatory engineering courses” which would train men to work in a field with a shortage of workers. Night classes began in September 1921 under the leadership of A. F. Novitsky in three departments: road construction and architecture, electrical, and mechanical. The first group of graduates quickly found work. The Russian Union of Cities worked to find sponsors for this program and eventually made contact with representatives of the American YMCA, which agreed to finance the program. The program was reorganized and opened again late in 1922. The popularity of the program led to competition to enter. The Russian faculty continued under the direction of the Americans.[120] Classes for the YMCA school ran from November 3, 1922, through April 28, 1924. The school closed due to a lack of financial support. The YMCA’s idea for the technical school originated in Constantinople (Istanbul), where many young Russian refugees gathered. YMCA secretaries Ryall, Anderson, MacNaughten, and Alexander surveyed the needs and concluded that a need existed for a short-term practical professional training program. Therefore, the YMCA International Committee asked the Bulgarian ambassador in Washington for permission to organize a school in Bulgaria, due to the comparatively favorable political and financial environment. The permission came with a promise to provide a building at a reduced rent. The YMCA selected two secretaries to head the work, Harvey Smith and William Orr, who was the educational advisor for the European work of the Y. Smith arrived in August 1922, and Orr arrived in September. The primary goal of the school was economic—to assist the men to work with more skill and earn a higher standard of living. Smith summarized one aspect of this goal: “efficiency.” Seven hundred men completed the course and found employment. Smith and Orr faced a variety of problems in organizing the program in Sofia: finding a facility, dealing with government bureaucracy, and organizing student housing. Consultations with Bulgarians led to the development of three courses in the school: Surveying, Electrical-TechnicalMechanical, and Building and Architecture. The courses would be six months in length; each day would be divided in half between theoretical study and practical application. The school’s leadership consisted of an American YMCA secretary, a Russian director, three deans for the three courses, class instructors, and shop assistants. During the existence of the school, 1,700 applications were received, 780 were accepted, and 677 students completed the program. The students came via Constantinople and Bulgaria. The school also offered a YMCA program with social, religious, and physical aspects. An Orthodox priest provided Sunday afternoon

messages, which were attended by 90 percent of the students.[121] King Boris of Bulgaria met with Orr and Smith for an hour and expressed his approval of the program.[122] The expenses for the school’s two years totaled 58,334 dollars.[123] The technical school for Russians in Sofia completed its first six-month program in May 1923. Two hundred seventy students graduated, and 80 percent found work in their specialty within a week of completing the program. Six hundred men applied for the second six-month program, but only three hundred could be accepted.[124] This chapter illustrates the YMCA’s attempts to provide programs for young working Russians which would address their vocational, recreational, and spiritual needs. Each staff member faced significant difficulties due to political, religious, and financial limitations. However, the programs did make significant contributions in the lives of individuals adjusting to new realities during the early twentieth century.

NOTES 1. YMCA secretaries occasionally spelled the name “Miyak.” 2. Louise McReynolds, Russia at Play: Leisure Activities at the End of the Tsarist Era (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003), 87. 3. “The Constitution of the ‘Mayak,’ a Society for helping the moral, intellectual and physical development of young men,” approved December 30, 1911, 1. Mayak, 1905–1919. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. Many records of the Mayak program were apparently lost after 1917: after his departure in 1917, Gaylord wrote, “I was unable to bring any records of the work of the Mayak with me. . . .” F. A. Gaylord, “Notes about the Society Mayak (Y.M.C.A.)” [no date], 3. Correspondence and Reports 1903–1910. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 4. [Paul B. Anderson], “Russian Work—Policy Study,” November 23, 1943, 1. Policy Studies. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B. KFYA. Anton Kartashev, the noted historian, made several errors in discussing the history of the YMCA’s work in Russia. He referred to the Mayak as a program for students—however, the Mayak intentionally discouraged student participation due to the potentially hazardous popularity of radical political behavior among students. He portrayed the work of the Mayak as a failure because religion was not fashionable among students: the Mayak “did not blossom but withered.” A. V. Kartashev and N. A. Struve, 70 let izdatel’stva “YMCA Press”: 1920–1990 (Paris: YMCA Press, 1990), 3. See also I. A. Alekseeva, Istoriia vsemirnogo khristianskogo molodezhnogo dvizheniia v Rossii (Moscow: Seriia “AIRO, Pervaia monografiia,” 2007). 5. Paul B. Anderson, “A Study of Orthodoxy and the YMCA,” 18. Booklet printed in Geneva by the World Alliance of Young Men’s Christian Associations, 1963. Pamphlets on Orthodoxy. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B, Box 1. KFYA. 6. Franklin A. Gaylord, “Extracts from Report for the Year 1908 of the Society for the Moral, Intellectual, and Physical Development of Young Men in St. Petersburg, Russia,” 5, 10. Correspondence and Reports 1903–1910. Russian Work Restricted,

Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 7. Franklin A. Gaylord, “History of the Society Mayak, Petrograd, Russia,” lectures given on January 4, January 11, and February 6, 1917, 2–3, 6, 9–10. Mayak, 1905– 1919. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 8. Franklin A. Gaylord, “Breaking into Russia,” in James Stokes: Pioneer of Young Men’s Christian Associations, ed. Frank W. Ober (New York: Association Press, 1921), 107. 9. Gaylord, “History of the Society Mayak,” 10–12. Also described in [James Stokes], “Recollections,” June 3, 1918, 21–22. 1918–1957. James Stokes, Biographical Records. KFYA. 10. Letter from [John R. Mott] to James Stokes, December 23, 1898, 1, 3. Correspondence 1890–1907. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 11. Gaylord, “History of the Society Mayak,” 12–13. On Prince Khilkov, see Theodore H. Von Laue, Sergei Witte and the Industrialization of Russia (New York: Atheneum, 1969), 79. 12. Paul B. Anderson, “Memorandum on Policy for the Russian Work of the International Committee.” August 9, 1951, 1. Corr. And Reports 1950–1951. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1930–1949, Annual Reports 1930–1949. KFYA. 13. C. J. Hicks, “Partial Report Concerning Railroad Department Matters in Russia,” Constantinople, April 20, 1899, 1. 1899–1917. Russian—International Division. KFYA. 14. Gaylord, “Notes about the Society Mayak,” 1–3. 15. Gaylord, “History of the Society Mayak,” 13–15. It is not clear from the documents reviewed precisely how the prince managed to avoid Pobedonostsev’s opposition. 16. Letter from Franklin Gaylord, Alexander Francis, and W. E. Smith to James Stokes, March 14/27, 1900, 1–2. Correspondence 1890–1907. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 17. Letter from James Stokes to “Her Imperial Majesty, Alexandra Feodorovna,” April 20, 1900. Correspondence 1890–1907. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 18. Gaylord, “History of the Society Mayak,” 16–18; and Dva goda dieiatel’nosti komiteta sodieistviia molodym liudiam v nravstvennom i fizicheskom razvitii v S. Peterburgie [1900–1902] (St. Petersburg: Tovarishchestvo R. Golike i A. Vil’borg, 1903), 8–9. Russia, St. Petersburg, 1900–1921, 1962. KFYA. 19. [D. E. Davis], “YMCA Russian Work: An Interview with Dr. Paul B. Anderson, September 9, 1971,” 15–16. Interview with Paul B. Anderson. Russian Work, Restricted, General, Personal Accounts. KFYA. 20. Dva goda, 7–8, 14–17, 20–21. 21. “Komitet sodieistviia molodym liudiam v dostizhenii nravstvennago i fizicheskago razvitiia,” Niva, 1901, number 21, 402. Petersburg—Mayak, 1900–1916. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports by City. KFYA.

22. Gaylord, “Extracts from Report for the Year 1908,” 8. 23. Gaylord, “History of the Society Mayak,” 18, 20. 24. “Society Founded by a New Yorker is Growing in Favor,” New York Times, May 6, 1901, [no page number]. Petersburg—Mayak, 1900–1916. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports by City. KFYA. 25. “The Y.M.C.A. in Russia,” The Missionary Review of the World (MRW), January 1901, 14:1, 72; “Young Men in Russia,” MRW, April 1901, 14:4, 311–12; “A Russian Y.M.C.A.,” MRW, October 1902, 15:10, 788–89; “Y.M.C.A. in St. Petersburg,” MRW, June 1904, 17:6, 469; “A Gift for Russia’s Young Men,” MRW, June 1905, 18:6, 470; “For the Young Men of Russia,” MRW, May 1908, 21:5, 387. 26. “For Young Men in Russia,” Association Men (AM), January 1901, 133; “Young Men in Russia,” AM, July 1902, 450–51; “The Association in the Czar’s Country,” AM, March 1906, 247; “5,000 Rubles from the Russian Government,” AM, February 1908, 233; “The New Gymnasium of the St. Petersburg, Russia, Association, The Gift of James Stokes” [caption of photos], AM, May 1908, 383; “World Wide,” AM, September 1908, 602; “The ‘Miyak’ (Lighthouse), St. Petersburg,” AM, March 1910, 246–47. 27. Robert Sloan Latimer, With Christ in Russia (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), 42–43. 28. Izviestiia “Maiaka” (Petrograd), April 1916, 9. Russia, St. Petersburg, 1900– 1921, 1962. KFYA. 29. Dva goda, 48, 58. 30. “Statutes of the St. Petersburg Committee for the Moral and Physical Development of Young Men, under the Honorary Patronage of His Highness Prince Alexander Petrovich of Oldenburg,” approved September 19, 1903, 5. Russian Work. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 31. “Affidavit of Franklin A. Gaylord Concerning the Ownership by the Late James Stokes of Certain Property in Petrograd, Russia,” July 20, 1921, 1. Mayak, 1909– 1919. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 32. N. A. Reitlinger, ed., Vos’moi god dieiatel’nosti “Maiaka,” obshchestva sodieistviia nravstvennomu, umstvennomu i fizicheskomu razvitiiu molodykh liudei [1907–1908] (St. Petersburg: Tipographiia Glavnago Upravleniia Udielov, 1909), 8– 10. Russia, St. Petersburg, 1900–1921, 1962. KFYA. 33. Letter from Erich L. Moraller to James Stokes, March 26, 1908, 1–3. Correspondence 1-4/08. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 34. Letter from unidentified Mayak or YWCA worker to James Stokes, March 28, 1908, 2. Correspondence 1-4/08. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 35. Letter from Erich L. Moraller to James Stokes, April 20, 1909, 2. Correspondence 1909. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. The Mayak introduced basketball to Russia, as noted in Gaylord, “Breaking into Russia,” 117. 36. [Erich Moraller], “Report of the Physical Department and the Department of Bible

Study in the Society ‘Miyak,’” [1910], 6. Russian Work. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 37. Letter from Franklin Gaylord to John R. Mott, September 7, 1909, [2]. Correspondence 1909. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 38. [Franklin] A. Gaylord, “Report of the Russo-American Society ‘The Mayak’ of St. Petersburg,” 1909–1910, 1–2. Russian Work. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 39. Letter from Erich L. Moraller to James Stokes, February 1, 1909, 2. Correspondence 1909. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 40. Letter from John R. Mott to Franklin Gaylord, December 14, 1909. Correspondence 1909. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 41. Gaylord, “Report,” 1909–1910, 1, 7–8. 42. Letter from John F. Sinclair, assistant general secretary of the Minneapolis YMCA, to H. P. Anderson, March 1, 1910. Correspondence 1910. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 43. Letter from Thomas H. Uzzell to Mr. and Mrs. James Stokes, September 8, 1910, 1. Correspondence August–October 1910. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 44. Letter from Thomas H. Uzzell to Mr. and Mrs. James Stokes, October 13, 1910, 3. Correspondence August–October 1910. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 45. Thomas H. Uzzell, “The Jubilee of St. Petersburg’s Miyak,” Association Men, June 1911, 386. 46. Letter from Thomas Uzzell to John R. Mott, April 17, 1911, 4–8. Correspondence and Reports 1911–1912. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 47. Letter from Thomas H. Uzzell to John R. Mott, April 9, 1912, 1–2. Correspondence and Reports 1911–1912. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 48. Letter from James Stokes to John R. Mott, Mr. Marling (chairman of the International Committee), and Mr. Murray (chairman of the Foreign Committee), June 5, 1911, 2, 5–6, 9. Correspondence November–December 1911. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 49. [James Stokes], “Statement,” September 11, 1911, 7. Correspondence September–December 1911. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 50. Erich L. Moraller, “Report to the International Committee on the Work of the Society ‘Mayak’ in St. Petersburg, for the year ending Sept. 15th (August 30th old style) 1912,” 17. Correspondence and Reports 1911–1912. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. The political pressure which led to this decision is not described in the available documents. 51. Letter from Franklin A. Gaylord to John R. Mott, December 12, 1913, 1. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted,

Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 52. “The Constitution of the ‘Mayak,’” 1–8, 14. 53. Letter from Franklin Gaylord to James Stokes, April 21, 1912, 2. Correspondence 1912–1914. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 54. Letter from Franklin A. Gaylord to John R. Mott, March 4, 1914, 1–2. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 55. Letter from Franklin A. Gaylord to John R. Mott, September 21, 1914, 1. Russia, St. Petersburg, 1900–1921, 1962. KFYA. 56. Letter from Franklin A. Gaylord to John R. Mott, September 21, 1914, 2. 57. Piatnadtsatyi god, 8, 78–79, 82–85; and Tracy W. Redding, “The Work of the Y.M.C.A. in Russia 1900–1916,” 1972, 3. Redding. Russian Work, Restricted, General, Personal Accounts. KFYA. 58. Ethan T. Colton, Forty Years with Russians (New York: Association Press, 1940), 17. 59. F. A. Gaylord, Ralph W. Hollinger, Herbert Gregory, “The James Stokes Society, The Society Mayak,” [1916], 1. Mayak, 1912–1922. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 60. “Affidavit of Franklin A. Gaylord,” 2; and Gaylord, “Notes about the Society Mayak,” 1–3. 61. Hollinger, “The Mayak Society . . . October 1915,” 3. The first names of the Russian secretaries were not included. 62. Letter from E. C. Jenkins to James Stokes, October 29, 1917. Correspondence 1917. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 63. Police report dated August 22, 1916. GARF, f. 102 OO, o. 1916, d. 266, l. 90, 90 reverse, 100, 100 reverse, 101, 101 reverse. 64. Letter from F. A. Gaylord to James Stokes, July 8, 1917, 1. Correspondence 1917. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 65. “Affidavit of Franklin A. Gaylord,” 2–3. 66. Letter from John R. Mott to James Stokes, December 7, 1917. Correspondence 1917. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 67. “Association Activities: Summary of the Year’s Work in Russian Cities, August 1917 to August 1918,” 1–2. Correspondence and Reports, 1918. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 68. Letter from Ralph Hollinger to F. P. Woodruff, February 7, 1918, 1. Correspondence 1918–1919. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 69. Letter from Ralph W. Hollinger in Petrograd to Franklin Gaylord, [December 19, 1917/January 1, 1918], 1. Correspondence and Reports, 1918. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 70. “Affidavit of Franklin A. Gaylord,” 1. 71. “Association Activities,” 1–2.

72. “Khristianskii soiuz molodykh liudei: Ego vozniknovenie, printsipy i programma,” booklet prepared by the Russian department of the International Committee of the YMCA, New York, 1922, 4. Pamphlets in Russian. Russian Work, Restricted, Pamphlets. KFYA. 73. [J. G. Turpeinen], “Recollections of the last years activity of the Mayak Society for assisting in the mental, moral and physical development of young men in Petrograd for the period from September 22, 1917 to September 7, 1918, the day of its final closure,” 4. Correspondence and Reports, 1921. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 74. “A Tribute to a Friend: Remarks by Dr. John R. Mott at the Funeral of Mr. James Stokes in St. Paul’s Church. Ridgefield, Conn. October 1918,” 2. Correspondence 1918–1919. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 75. “Association Activities,” 3. 76. Colton, Forty Years, 77–78. 77. [Anderson], “Russian Work—Policy Study,” November 23, 1943, 2. 78. Letter from Edgar MacNaughten to John Clark, October 20, 1927, 2. 1927–1929. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929, Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA. 79. Dva goda, 61–65. 80. “Y.M.C.A. in St. Petersburg,” The Missionary Review of the World, June 1904, 17:6, 469; “A Gift for Russia’s Young Men,” The Missionary Review of the World, June 1905, 18:6, 470. 81. Gaylord, “Extracts from Report for the Year 1908,” 5. 82. Franklin Gaylord, “Notes by Mr. Gaylord on the Russian Work,” July 14, 1910, 2. Mayak 1905–1919. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 83. “The Constitution of the ‘Mayak,’” 15. 84. Redding, 2. 85. Moraller, “Report to the International Committee . . . 1912,” 20. 86. [Turpeinen], “Recollections,” 3. 87. “A Russian Y.M.C.A.,” The Missionary Review of the World, October 1902, 15:10, 789. 88. Gaylord, “Extracts from Report for the Year 1908,” 6, 10. 89. Redding, 3. 90. Gaylord, “Extracts from Report for the Year 1908,” 9–10. 91. Letter [from John R. Mott], May 7, 1909, 1–2. Correspondence and Reports 1903–1910. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 92. Letter from Gaylord to Mott, September 7, 1909, [2]. 93. Franklin Gaylord, “Notes by Mr. Gaylord on the Russian Work,” July 14, 1910, 1. 94. [Moraller], “Report of the Physical Department,” [1910], 10. 95. Letter from [Franklin Gaylord] in Moscow to John R. Mott, November 23, 1911. Correspondence and Reports 1911–1912. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA.

96. Letter from Franklin Gaylord to John R. Mott, January 29, 1913. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 97. Colton, Forty Years, 17. 98. Letter from Erich L. Moraller to James Stokes, March 16/29, 1912. Correspondence 1912–1914. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 99. Letter [from Franklin Gaylord] to James Stokes, April 5, 1912, 1. Correspondence and Reports 1911–1912. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 100. Letter from Gaylord to Mott, January 29, 1913. 101. Letter from Franklin Gaylord to John R. Mott, May 4, 1913. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 102. Gaylord, “Notes about the Society Mayak,” 1–3. 103. Letter from [Gaylord] to Mott, November 23, 1911. 104. James Stokes, “To the Foreign Department of the International Committee of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of North America,” no date, 4. Correspondence 1890–1907. James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg. KFYA. 105. Tretii god dieiatel’nosti spb. komiteta sodieistviia molodym liudiam v nravstvennom i fizicheskom razvitii (Maiaka) [1902–1903] (St. Petersburg: Tovarishchestvo R. Golike i A. Vil’borg, 1904), 38–40. Russia, St. Petersburg, 1900– 1921, 1962. KFYA. 106. Reitlinger, ed., Vos’moi god, 17–18. 107. I. D. Levin, Rabochie kluby v dorevoliutsionnom peterburge: Iz istorii rabochego dvizheniia 1907-1914 g.g. (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo VTsSPS, 1926), 3, 7. Stokes’s first name was James, not John; the organization did not close in 1910—it continued until 1918. The author of this study has not been able to document Levin’s comment on Stokes’s son. 108. Levin, Ravochie kluby v dorevoliutsionnom peterburge, 7–8. 109. “The Russian Correspondence School, Berlin” [1924], 1, 5. Russian Correspondence School. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Correspondence School, 1923–1930, Russian Superior Technical Institute, 1931– 1961. KFYA. See also S. V. Karpenko, ed., Russkie bez otechestva: Ocherki antibol’shevistskoi emigratsii 20–40-kh godov (Moscow: Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Gumanitarnyi Universitet, 2000), 326. 110. Paul B. Anderson, “Report, Russian Correspondence School, 1923, 1, 3. Russian Correspondence School. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Correspondence School, 1923–1930, Russian Superior Technical Institute, 1931– 1961. KFYA. 111. “Russian Correspondence School of the American Y.M.C.A.,” December 7, 1924, 1–3. Russian Correspondence School. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Correspondence School, 1923–1930, Russian Superior Technical Institute,

1931–1961. KFYA. 112. Paul B. Anderson, “A School that Adjusts Men to Life,” April 1, 1928, 1–3. Russian Correspondence School. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Correspondence School, 1923–1930, Russian Superior Technical Institute, 1931– 1961. KFYA. Course lists and student regulations for the program can be found in these catalogs: (1) Organizatsiia i programmy russkikh kursov zaochnogo prepodavaniia, 1923. Pamphlets in Russian. Russian Work, Restricted, Pamphlets. KFYA. (2) Russkaia Politekhnicheskaia Shkola zaochnago prepodavaniia pri North American Y.M.C.A., Katalog-Tsiennik, 1929. YMCA Press. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B. 1. KFYA. (3) Russkii Vysshii Tekhnicheskii Institut vo Frantsii, 1931. YMCA Press. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B. 1. KFYA. (4) Russkii Vysshii Tekhnicheskii Institut vo Frantsii. Uchebnyia programmy i pravila priema, Akademicheskii Fakul’tet, 1932. Print on Russia. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B. 1. KFYA. 113. N. S. Timasheff, “A Work That Will Have a Great Future,” La Renaissance [Paris Russian daily], June 17, 1930, translation in archive. Russian Correspondence School. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Correspondence School, 1923– 1930, Russian Superior Technical Institute, 1931–1961. KFYA. 114. [International Survey Committee], “Survey of North American YMCA Service to Russians in Europe” [1930], 76–77. Russia. International Survey—1930, Roumania, Russia, South Africa, Box 12. KFYA. 115. [Statistics on Russian Correspondence School, 1930]. Russian Correspondence School. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Correspondence School, 1923– 1930, Russian Superior Technical Institute, 1931–1961. KFYA. 116. “Russian Superior Technical Institute, Home Study Faculty, Comparative Statistics,” [1937]. Annual Reports 1933–1949. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Budgets and Appropriations, Correspondence and Reports, 1950– , Financial Transactions. KFYA; and “Russian Superior Technical Institute, Home Study Section,” [1939]. Russian Superior Technical Institute. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Correspondence School, 1923–1930, Russian Superior Technical Institute, 1931–1961. KFYA. 117. Letter from Paul B. Anderson to I. V. Morozov, September 6, 1961. 1961. France, Russian Work, 1956–1968. KFYA; letter from Paul B. Anderson, November 1, 1961, 1. 1961. France, Russian Work, 1956–1968. KFYA. 118. “The Y.M.C.A. Vocational School, Sofia, Bulgaria,” no date, 1. YMCA Vocational School, [Sofia], 1924. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 119. Harvey G. Smith, “The YMCA Vocational School in Sofia, Bulgaria, September 22, 1923–June 18, 1924,” 2. YMCA Vocational School, [Sofia], 1924. Russian Work —Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 120. A. N. Goriainov, “Uchebnye zavedeniia russkoi emigratsii v Bolgarii,” in Kul’tura

rossiiskogo zarubezh’ia, ed. A. V. Kvakin and E. A. Shulepova (Moscow: Praim, 1995), 140, 148–49. 121. Harvey Smith, “History and Report of the Y.M.C.A. Vocational School, Sofia, Bulgaria, from its Beginning September 1922 to its Close June 18, [1924],” 1–9, 15, 19, 25. Tech School 1924. Bulgaria. KFYA. 122. Letter from William Orr to John R. Mott, November 19, 1922, 1. Tech School 1922–1924. Bulgaria. KFYA. 123. G. Makarov, “Russian Balkan School,” Sofia, Bulgaria, budget, June 23, 1924. YMCA Vocational School, [Sofia], 1924. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 124. “Report of the Russian Department for the Central European Mid-Winter American Secretaries Conference,” February 1–4, 1924, 4. 1924. Russian Work— Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929, Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA; and “The Y.M.C.A. Vocational School, Sofia, Bulgaria,” 1.

Chapter 5

“Service with Fighting Men”: The Y among Soldiers This chapter traces the YMCA’s work with Russian, Allied, and Central Power soldiers within the territory of Russia (as well as with Russian troops elsewhere in Europe) from 1914 to 1920. First the survey describes the needs which the Association detected and the purposes established by the leaders. It then discusses noteworthy developments, followed by an examination of the program’s economic status, controversial issues, and relationships with the Russian Orthodox hierarchy. Finally, the chapter evaluates the challenges and evaluations of the Y’s wartime programs.[1] Through this wartime service the YMCA developed broader connections within the Orthodox world and experienced a faith which did not always match Protestant expectations. These experiences motivated several YMCA secretaries, most significantly Paul B. Anderson, to develop a philosophy of outreach which was more closely aligned with Orthodoxy. For this reason, this service may be considered a significant step toward the Y’s unique contributions to the support of Russian Christianity.

PURPOSE More than six million soldiers and civilians were held in prison camps during the war; this number far exceeded the number expected by the belligerent nations and the resources available to provide the required services. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 defined the responsibilities for nations holding captives; those held must receive “food, quarters, and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the Government which has captured them.” The unexpectedly high number of captives forced the nations involved to find solutions, including the participation of neutral nations. By May 1915 the United States government emerged as the only body which was capable of providing aid to these prisoners. During the first months of the war the US policy of neutrality was interpreted to exclude any involvement with POWs. However, appeals from Europe and political influence in the United States led to a revision of this position in December 1914. The Department of State agreed to provide relief services for prisoners under the direction of the American Consular Service. Along with other neutral nations, US representatives would inspect prison camps, supervise the provision of supplies, and allocate financial aid to prisoners. However, American embassies in Europe lacked the personnel, infrastructure, and experience required to carry out this large-scale program: “the American diplomatic corps had no experience providing social welfare assistance to foreign nationals.” The Wilson administration soon realized that nongovernmental organizations must participate in the program if the United States was to fulfill its international agreements; a number of American social welfare agencies possessed the

infrastructure and leadership to administer such services to POWs. The American YMCA responded to the request of the government to provide physical, mental, and spiritual assistance for war prisoners. Functioning under the World’s Alliance of YMCAs (based in neutral Geneva, Switzerland) and working with other national Associations, the YMCA launched the international War Prisoners Aid program to assist POWs of any nationality or religious belief.[2]

DEVELOPMENTS YMCA leader John R. Mott traveled with a group to Europe in September 1914 to inspect the situation and determine the possibilities of YMCA assistance. They witnessed overcrowded hospitals and the difficulties in communication between wounded soldiers and family members. Mott and other YMCA leaders were motivated to help; he decided to raise millions of dollars and recruit secretaries to address the needs they observed. He met with the International Committee of the YMCA in December 1914 and attempted to describe the tragic impact of the war on soldiers, students, and refugees. Mott recognized that the war was a disaster, but he expressed his usual optimism and suggested that the war was a significant opportunity to serve an enormous number of people. The main issue at that time was how to provide relief and maintain American neutrality.[3] Mott met with President Woodrow Wilson at the White House in January 1915 to discuss his experiences in Europe. The two had met at Wesleyan University in Connecticut in October 1889; Wilson had been a professor at the school, and Mott had been visiting as a representative of the Student Volunteer Movement. Association and movement functions had provided the context for their friendship—they shared a similar optimistic Protestant worldview and interest in higher education. They both had taken part in the 1905 formation of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ. Another example of the connection had been Wilson’s offer to Mott of an honorary degree from Princeton in 1910. At the 1915 meeting they spoke about ways to develop YMCA service to POWs and maintain US neutrality. They agreed that the “plan to extend relief to war prisoners in both Allied and Central Power countries would meet a desperate need and such a policy would complement the administration’s foreign policy. The American YMCA now had the President’s support for an ambitious relief program in Europe.”[4] The American YMCA and the US government became increasingly interdependent during the war: each side relied on the other to fulfill goals. Wilson was supportive of the YMCA program from the beginning. Y secretaries relied on American ambassadors and their employees in Berlin, Paris, Rome, Vienna, and Petrograd to make successful contact with local officials: “the Association’s standing was clearly bolstered by official American support.” Wilson’s staff provided official channels of communication and intelligence information to the YMCA as well. Y secretaries often communicated with the New York office through American consulates. US diplomats provided political material to Y secretaries on the field. A

change in the political situation, such as the United States entering the war, could lead to the YMCA men themselves being imprisoned as enemy aliens. So, the arrangement kept them informed of possible changes, which would require complex logistical arrangements. One example of this arrangement was with the Y men in Germany, who received political information leading up to the United States’ breaking of diplomatic relations with Germany in February 1917. This allowed them to evacuate the country in an orderly way: the secretaries left Germany on the US ambassador’s train. The US government also occasionally provided materials and finances for YMCA relief programs. For example, the US embassy in Istanbul rented storage space for provisions intended for POWs. The US government sent food relief trains for starving Central Power prisoners held in Siberia—through the YMCA distribution system. The Y provided a variety of specific help for US diplomatic officials, who were overloaded with a number of obligations required by international agreements. Secretaries submitted needed reports on POW camp locations and conditions—freeing officials from this responsibility. Kenneth Steuer argues that this work should not be labeled as espionage: “their reports did not reflect ‘intelligence collection’ activities for the U.S. government.” The YMCA also assisted the US government by distributing food and medical supplies to POWs, especially after 1916, although this was not the primary responsibility of the Association. Wilson’s approach could be described as corporatism—achieving government goals by utilizing large organizations. Occasionally the infrastructure and locations of the YMCA positioned the organization to be the only neutral welfare organization able to deliver the aid.[5] In June 1915, YMCA secretaries A. C. Harte and George Day visited several POW camps in Russia to gain information on conditions and opportunities. They were authorized by General Mikhail Alekseevich Beliaev. Early in their trip they met with the mayor of Moscow and shared about the YMCA’s work with Russian prisoners in Germany. They traveled to Kurgan to visit POW prisons and a hospital—the leaders requested books and athletic equipment. They moved on to Petropavlovsk, Omsk, Novo-Nikolaevsk, and Tomsk. They reported good conditions everywhere but the need for equipment for recreation.[6] Donald A. Lowrie later began to work with POWs at a camp in Tomsk; he reported classes offered in twenty-three subjects, including French, commerce and trade, aeronautics, and geology. They also organized a library and weekly religious services for Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.[7] A key report by Jerome Davis summarizes the first steps in work with Russian soldiers (as opposed to POWs). In January 1917 General Aleksei Nikolaevich Kuropatkin allowed the Y to work with one regiment in Turkestan as long as no printed materials were used. In February the Y was permitted to work with all Russian troops in Turkestan. In July the work expanded to the six regiments in Moscow. In August the prime minister approved the YMCA to work with troops in Irkutsk, Tomsk, Kazan, Kiev, and Odessa; but the Y secretaries were not allowed to work at the front. In September the minister of war gave an official endorsement to the YMCA, and the prime minister allowed the Y to work on all fronts. This led to an

accelerated deployment of Y secretaries and supplies throughout the country. The government provided a building in Moscow for the Y, and a general authorized forty buildings on the western front. A Moscow YMCA city council was formed with these participants: the mayor of Moscow, the minister of justice, the American consul, the chairman of the soldier deputies, the wife of General Aleksei Alekseevich Brusilov, and other officials. A national YMCA office was organized in Moscow as well. Davis described the main goal of the wartime work to US readers in this way: The central aim of the Association’s War Work is to serve Russia, her government and her soldiers with all the power at our command. We believe that our message will be carried not through our words but through our deeds. We feel that the closer we live up to the ideals of the Master in service the more we will demonstrate the ideal for which the Association stands. He explained, “During the two weeks that the soldier is back from the trenches there is little or nothing for him to do. . . . His main occupation is smoking . . . sleeping or engaging in gambling or other harmful amusements.” Y leaders provided supplies and organization for reading, writing, games, and music. Davis wanted thirty American secretaries to begin city associations—for reserve troops. Y buildings were already open in Moscow, Kiev, Odessa, Kazan, Irkutsk, and Tashkent. Davis wanted a total of 830 American secretaries for all aspects of Y work in Russia.[8] When new YMCA recruits arrived in Russia, they were often frustrated by a lack of organization and direction. Harte supervised War Prisoners Aid in Russia and other countries in Europe; he was originally responsible for the Russian Army work. He left Russia in the summer of 1917, delegating his authority to an acting senior secretary, Jerome Davis, who worked with Crawford Wheeler, until Harte’s proposed return in October 1917. Davis was criticized for weak administrative skills; Y secretaries formed a War Work Council in November 1917. Harte could not return to Russia, and his successor, E. T. Colton, appointed on December 5, 1917, did not actually arrive in Russia until March 1918. Therefore, as a YMCA retrospective report explained, “during this entire critical period the administration was in the hands of men whose tenure of office was temporary and who did not feel themselves in a position to make decisions of the most vital importance.”[9] At the end of 1919, Wheeler looked back on three years of wartime work in Russia and emphasized the large scale of this venture. Over three hundred Americans from across the United States had gathered together and worked among many levels of Russian society in many regions of the empire. They worked through every stage of the revolution. He summarized the overarching goals of this work in this way: 1. To aid in rebuilding the morale of the Russian Army and people in their struggle against German imperialism. 2. To carry on a ministry of friendly service to Russian people of all classes and parties and thus to encourage the growing

friendship between America and Russia. 3. To help the Russian people lay the spiritual and material foundations for their new institutions of self-government upon the principles and ideals of our American democracy. These comments reflect the common belief in the YMCA held during the Civil War of 1918–1921 that Bolshevism would not prevail in Russia and that democracy was destined to replace tsarist autocracy. Wheeler then lists the primary difficulties faced by the Y secretaries: the difficulty of learning the Russian language, the lack of a similar previous experience, rapidly changing situations, lack of supplies, and frequent lack of necessary communication and transportation.[10] Wheeler summarized the work by identifying three periods: the first period, from March 1917 to March 1918, began with the February Revolution and ended with the Brest-Litovsk peace settlement. The second period (March 1918 to August 1918) was a transitional period that preceded the Civil War and Allied intervention. The third period was initiated in August 1918 and included the Russian Civil War.[11] The first period continued from March 1917 to March 1918, from the February Revolution to the Brest-Litovsk peace settlement. The focus of the period was the national Russian army. Less than a month after the February Revolution the United States entered the war; this necessitated the withdrawal of American secretaries working with Russian POWs in camps in Germany. In June 1917 the United States recognized the Provisional Government. This led to the formation of a mission to Russia from the US government, led by Elihu Root, which included Mott. On this trip the Y leader secured permission to conduct welfare work with Russian troops and began to recruit workers after his return to the United States. The work began in Turkestan and then expanded to the garrison cities of Moscow, Kiev, Odessa, and Minsk. On October 20, 1917, following consultation with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of War, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armies, and the premier, the Alexander Kerensky cabinet unanimously adopted a resolution which formally approved the work of the YMCA among active and support troops of the Russian army. This approval granted railroad transportation, customs clearance, and postal delivery to the Association at no charge.[12] Approximately fifty new recruits arrived soon after the October Revolution and found that the new Soviet government planned to negotiate a peace settlement with the Central Powers. Russian soldiers were leaving the front, and it became impossible to continue formal work with the troops.[13] Louis Dunnington arrived during this period and described the chaos he experienced—the secretaries were caught in the middle of street fighting and found it very difficult to buy food. He wrote, “Often we were in the midst of the mobs as they were fired upon by the machine gunners of the Bolsheviki, and often people were killed quite near us. The streets were literally lined with the dead and wounded.”[14] Soon after the October Revolution, YMCA work with Russian soldiers ended at

the fronts, and secretaries retreated to the central regions, where they attempted to continue working with soldiers. By February 1918 work with the Russian Army dissolved, since the army ceased to function; the Association adjusted its goals, programs, and policies for the new situation at a conference in Samara in March 1918. At the conference a number of secretaries decided that they should join the Allied army, while others thought it would be more useful to the Allied cause to serve in Russia. Others chose to remain in Russia out of humanitarian ideals. Further discussions led to specific assignments: sixteen to Moscow (seven for relief service to returning Russian prisoners of war, three for a civilian program, and six for leadership and financial responsibilities), five to Samara, four to Kazan, two to NizhniNovgorod, one to Petrograd, two to Archangel and Murmansk. The two men in Yerevan continued their program, and three secretaries from the Mayak in Petrograd began a civilian program in Vladivostok. Six were assigned to the Czechoslovak troops in Siberia; two were sent to assist a trainload of Serbian refugees across Siberia, and one was sent to assist Serbian soldiers heading to France from Arctic port cities. Three rural specialists planned to work among peasants living near the Volga River. Six men left YMCA work to enter the American consular service.[15] The second period of YMCA work with soldiers continued from March 1918 to August 1918. This was a transitional period that led up to the Civil War and Allied intervention. A variety of programs were attempted: joint relief work with American Red Cross, civilian programs in central Russian cities, an agricultural exhibition which traveled along the Volga River, community service in Samara, and assisting a Serbian refugee train.[16] At the time there was a clear distinction between the work of the Red Cross, which distributed supplies and medical aid, and the YMCA, which assisted in exchanging personal messages and funds from family members.[17] The leader of the Red Cross, Raymond Robbins, was much more involved in political work than YMCA leaders. Paul B. Anderson later summarized, “We were concerned with what we could do for the people.”[18] The third period began in August 1918 and included the Russian Civil War. In July and August of 1918 Allied forces, including American troops, were deployed to Murmansk and Archangelsk; the United States also began cooperating with Japan to provide military support for the Czechoslovaks, to maintain the Trans-Siberian Railway, and to protect war materials in Vladivostok. This intervention during the Russian Civil War was part of the Allied strategy for the World War. Russia had signed the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty with Germany on March 3, 1918. In the spring and summer of 1918 American troops were sent to Archangelsk and Vladivostok to prevent German seizure of military equipment in the north and oil fields in the south— before the civil war erupted. However, what began as a pragmatic military operation evolved into a struggle against the Bolsheviks: Allied troops gave “half-hearted” support to White armies. For Soviet leaders and historians, this intervention functioned for many years as key evidence of a Western plan to strangle Soviet Russia.[19]

The participation of the YMCA in the Allied intervention was one of the most controversial aspects of the Association’s work in Russia—both for the participants and the Soviet government. Therefore, the general motivation and justification of the YMCA for this program should be considered carefully. The YMCA’s report acknowledged several reasons for the controversy, such as a lack of clarity about the military objectives of the troops and the dangerous conditions experienced by the YMCA workers. However, the report summarized, “though ill-fated, it was an integral part of the Allied policy of the time, and, with the Siberian expedition, attempted to check the Allied loss caused by Russia’s peace with Germany in March, 1918.” The report noted the US state policy on military action, as defined in August 1918: “the only present object for which American troops will be employed will be to guard military stores which may subsequently be needed by Russian forces and to render such aid as may be acceptable to the Russians in the organization of their selfdefense.” The YMCA was to be part of a US state project for Russian assistance, a plan developed in association with the plans for military intervention: “To aid in this undertaking, the United States Government proposed to send a commission of merchants, agricultural experts, labor advisers, representatives of the Red Cross and of the YMCA, to engage in humanitarian, educational, and economic work for the rehabilitation of Russia.” The report then explained one consequence of intervention for the Y—the end of the work in the territory of Russia controlled by the Soviet government. Intervention required the evacuation of the American Embassy and all official representatives of the United States from Soviet Russia, so the government could provide no protection: virtually all Y staff members left Soviet-controlled territory. Therefore, the new focus of work became various Allied units and civilians in northern Russia and Siberia.[20] The YMCA served a variety of military units during this period: Czechoslovakian soldiers in Siberia, returning Russian POWs, Russian anti-Bolshevik armies (including the Narodnaia army and troops of the Kolchak government), and American Expeditionary Forces and Allied armies in Siberia and North Russia. Y service was also extended to civilians in Siberia. The YMCA program of service to Allied soldiers in northern Russia began with one secretary’s preparation for work in Archangel during the first half of 1918. Approximately five thousand American troops arrived in the fall, and twenty-five American secretaries from central Russia came in October; the secretaries then followed the deployment of the troops. Eventually YMCA personnel included nearly a hundred American, Canadian, and British secretaries, plus Russian assistants. Four American Y secretaries were captured while working near the front with Allied soldiers: two were released in Moscow with the help of the YMCA representative in Copenhagen, who traveled into Soviet Russia to negotiate their release. Bryant Ryall and other Y men were brought to Lubianka when Paul B. Anderson was being held (discussed in chapter 2). In August 1919 the US embassy instructed all Americans to withdraw from northern Russia, so the American YMCA program ended. All American Y men, except one auditor, left northern Russia by September 1919. The Association initiated work for Allied troops in the Russian Far East and Siberia as well: by

February 1919 five Association huts were operating for Allied soldiers near Vladivostok. Services were also offered at Roskalnye, the Chuchan mines, Spaskoe, Harbin, and Khabarovsk. During the summer of 1919 the YMCA served Russian soldiers and civilians in the city of Novo-Nikolaevsk (now Novosibirsk) with playgrounds, educational classes, movies for soldiers, and visitation for invalid soldiers. The program ended with the Soviet advances in fall 1919.[21] Y leader G. S Phelps praised the hard work, morality, and unselfishness of the workers (which included fifteen women in the offices and huts) in Siberia. They were recruited in different ways. Some had served as Y secretaries with Russian troops, others had worked in Japan, China, and the Philippines, while others were American and British businessmen who had come to Siberia before the war. Also, fifteen secretaries and assistants had served with the US and Canadian military in Siberia.[22] The YMCA also worked with the “First Russian Legion,” the Russian Expeditionary Force, a contingent of Russian soldiers which came to France in 1916 and continued to fight on the Allied side after the formal surrender of Russia. They were cut off from Russia after the surrender by the Soviet government. The first contact was made by Samuel B. Vaisey and George Day, who had previously served in Russia.[23] After the armistice in France there were thirty thousand liberated Russian POWs, as well as twenty thousand “old soldiers,” and two thousand combatant troops. The YMCA operated 110 centers to serve these men, who were widely scattered across France. As usual, the programs included education, athletics, library, films, and canteens. This work of the YMCA was welcomed by Boris Bakhmatiev, the Russian ambassador to Washington, who commented, “I am such a great supporter of your institution, because I believe in its great moral power.”[24] Jerome Davis was the first American YMCA secretary to work with soldiers in Russia; his story is one of hundreds which make up the YMCA experience in wartime Russia. He was recruited personally by Mott, who spoke with him at Oberlin College. Davis did not want to interrupt his studies, but Mott suggested, “The instruments of destruction in war today are so terrible that the war cannot last more than a few months.” Davis began his work with little knowledge of Russian; he had studied on the ship while crossing the Atlantic. Soon after his arrival, he made a seven-day train trip to Turkestan to begin working with POWs. This quick initiation into work seemed to be motivated by the YMCA agreement made with German authorities, who agreed to allow Y men to assist Allied prisoners if the YMCA served the German, Austrian, and Turkish prisoners in Russia. Davis was appalled by the social conditions in Turkestan: “Peasants were virtual slaves. The tsar was regarded as ‘divine ruler.’ In fact, the landlord could do almost anything with the girls in his domain. People were dying of hunger and disease on the streets. Begging and prostitution were commonplace.” He estimated that only eight percent of people in Turkestan were literate. Davis later went to Petrograd and met with Kerensky for negotiations on the YMCA’s work. Davis was in Moscow during the Bolshevik takeover in 1917, along with a number of other secretaries. Davis and Crawford Wheeler worked to help carry wounded men

to safety. According to Davis, “After the fighting was over, the U.S. consul general cabled the United States that the American Red Cross had stayed in their rooms throughout the fighting while the YMCA covered itself with glory by carrying in the dead and wounded.” He then took the train to Petrograd to obtain permission from the new government to continue the YMCA’s work with soldiers. The work was approved by a Bolshevik official, who provided a note authorizing the withdrawal of YMCA funds from the state bank. However, the bank cashier refused to provide the funds and demanded a letter from either Leon Trotsky or Vladimir Lenin. Davis then found Trotsky and explained the YMCA’s work—Trotsky provided a note for the bank, and Davis had no more problems with the bank. Davis was strongly opposed to US intervention: “I was astounded to learn that the United States was planning to help overthrow the Bolshevik regime.” He agreed to begin working in Archangel only if the Bolshevik regime collapsed in two months, as predicted by the US ambassador. However, this diplomat’s prediction proved to be inaccurate, so Davis departed: “Two months later Lenin and Trotsky were indeed still alive. I saw the ambassador in Archangel, and then departed for the United States, where I spoke against intervention.”[25] Davis’s opposition to US government actions stood in sharp contrast to the views of John R. Mott, who strongly supported Wilson and his political philosophy. Michael Craig Barnes delves into Mott’s worldview and why he so strongly supported Wilson’s approach to Russia. In July 1918 Mott wrote to the president to express encouragement of his activist policy on Russia, which he believed would assist those who were “groping after larger light and liberty.” Barnes stresses that Mott’s convictions and actions reflected his hope that the Kingdom of God would soon come to both America and Russia. He believed that the United States would play a leading role in this worldwide development due to its economic and political strength and the President’s commitment to be “providentially guided.” Mott believed that the Kingdom of God would arrive in America only as it fulfilled its Christian duty of spreading the reach of the Kingdom around the globe. Both Mott and Wilson hoped to see Russia established as the Eastern outpost of a kingdom centered in Washington. Mott’s Christian vision became closely tied to America’s political agendas and national ambitions. As Barnes summarizes, Mott “was completely convinced that Wilson’s dreams for Russia, were in fact the dreams of God.” Ironically, his identification with US interests contributed to the subsequent ban on the YMCA’s work in the USSR. Mott’s involvement in promoting the continued wartime engagement of the Russian army aligned him so closely with Wilson’s policy that he lost the ability to actively engage on behalf of the Russia Orthodox Church—his first love in Russia.[26]

FUNDING The YMCA’s POW service was initially funded by several wealthy philanthropists in response to Mott’s requests. However, rising costs led to a broader fundraising approach. The YMCA worked with several other American international social welfare

organizations in promoting the United War Work Campaign of November 1918, which eventually gathered 203 million dollars, the largest amount gathered for a voluntary program on record. The share for the American YMCA amounted to 58.65 percent— 108.5 million dollars.[27] The American Y spent nearly eight million dollars for wartime work in Russia.[28] The Russian war work budget for the period November 1, 1918, through October 31, 1919, was 1.6 million dollars.[29]

CHURCH RELATIONS As explained in chapter 3, during the wartime period the Y demonstrated limited support of the Russian Orthodox Church—a positive but interconfessional approach. G. S. Phelps asked F. C. Meredith to work full-time on studying Russian Orthodoxy and developing an approach to the church. Phelps concluded, “From the inception of our movement in Russia it has been a fundamental principle that we should work with the utmost sympathy and in closest co-operation with the Orthodox Church.”[30]

CONTROVERSIES After the October Revolution, critics from all sides denounced the Y for a lack of neutrality. Soviets suspected that secretaries were meddling Allied supporters, but they accepted material aid for Russians returning from POW camps. Non-Bolsheviks often assumed that they were Marxist sympathizers. The Bolsheviks saw the Y as a tool of Washington, since the organization frequently assisted their enemies— especially in North Russia and Siberia. In Murmansk a YMCA secretary served temporarily and informally as US consul—which appeared very suspicious.[31] Here the Y faced a difficult dilemma—it attempted to support the Allied cause and also support any troops that needed assistance. As the concluding YMCA report summarized, “This very non-partisanship made all partisans suspicious. . . .”[32] The organization also faced a variety of difficulties while working in Siberia—in relation to the Omsk government: “The open objections urged against the Y.M.C.A. have been that it is commercialized, that Jews are employed, that it is a cloak for proselytization and that its secretaries are Pro-Bolshevik.”[33] Mott’s wartime alignment of American and Christian goals was popular with many mainline Protestants, but other religious groups, such as the Mennonites and Quakers, rejected his formulation. One conservative Protestant publication firmly rejected Mott’s version of patriotism and his toleration of modernist views: “There is poison in the cup that Doctor Mott brews, and all those who have not yet come under the subtle stupefying charms of these days of man’s greatness and power should cry a warning with all their might.” This author criticized a recent message by Mott in which he claimed that the world war will bring positive changes, such as the “binding of the nations into a Christian brotherhood.” He questioned Mott’s apparent endorsement of evolutionary theories and higher biblical criticism. The author saved

his last bit of disgust for Mott’s reported comment that “It is more necessary to be active than to be orthodox.”[34] This Christian critic was polite in comparison to the American skeptic H. L. Mencken, an “inveterate” YMCA-hater. His criticism reflected suspicion of the motives for this wartime work. In 1920 he wrote, Whether or not the YMCA has decorated its chocolate [peddlers] and soul snatchers I do not know. . . . If not, then there should be some governmental recognition of these highly characteristic heroes of the war for democracy. The veterans of the line, true enough, dislike them excessively, and have a habit of denouncing them obscenely with the corn-juice flows. They charged too much for cigarettes; they tried to discourage the amiability of the ladies of France; they had a habit of being absent when the shells burst in the air. Well, some say this and some say that. A few, at least, of the pale and oleaginous brethren must have gone into the Master’s work because they thirsted to save souls, and not simply because they desired to escape the trenches.[35] In spite of the widespread YMCA optimism, World War I undermined the YMCA’s advance rather than expanding its influence. Before the war the American, British, and German Associations worked closely as partners in the World Alliance of YMCAs. The war broke the cohesion of this arrangement; members of the alliance did not come together for a plenary meeting between 1914 and 1920.[36] In addition, the American Protestant missionary movement was weakened by the close connection between the churches and the war effort. As one scholar explained, “The identification of the missionary and national causes in wartime led to a serious loss of credibility for missions in the decade after the war.” The American entry into the war reflected the entry of many European nations with its enthusiasm for a holy war. Most Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish leaders supported the war effort; the opposition of the Quakers, Mennonites, and Jehovah’s Witnesses was not politely received. Shailer Mathews, the modernist Christian scholar from the University of Chicago, spoke for many Christian leaders when he stated that it was unchristian for an American not to support this war. Evangelist Billy Sunday, a more theologically conservative Protestant, participated in “hang the Kaiser” rallies; he said that Christianity and patriotism were synonyms, just like hell and traitors. As a result, this wartime behavior contradicted the assumed internationalism of the mainstream movement of Christian philanthropy and missionary work. The war undermined the idea that Europe and the United States held a moral superiority which justified the pairing of Christianization and civilization. “After an initial postwar surge, mainline Protestant missions experienced a more-or-less steady decline until after the Great Depression.”[37] Steuer attempts to emphasize the political motivation for the YMCA’s work with émigrés. He describes the work of the YMCA as an “ideological struggle” with Bolshevism “that would last the course of the Cold War.”[38] However, the archival records do not support the unqualified nature of his evaluation. Many of the

secretaries were anti-Bolshevik and doubtless promoted their own political agendas. However, the examples of Jerome Davis, Sherwood Eddy, and Julius Hecker, as well as the radical Russian employees of the YMCA, demonstrate that the Association program was not fundamentally developed as a political program to undermine Bolshevism. The primary motivations of the YMCA’s work with Russian émigrés were primarily humanitarian, secondarily religious, and only occasionally political.

EVALUATIONS YMCA secretaries faced difficulties in serving European POWs due to a variety of suspicions: the motivation of the Y men was frequently challenged. Many officials feared that the secretaries were enemy agents. So, American citizens with German last names could not work in Russia or Britain due to challenges from military authorities. Some prisoners assumed that Y men were propaganda agents for their enemies. Many Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims suspected the goal of proselytization. Another major limitation was a lack of manpower, due in part to the requirement of some knowledge of European languages.[39] In spite of the suspicions and limitations the YMCA significantly improved prisoner conditions in the locations where they were able to operate. The results of the YMCA POW relief program may have matched the goals in quality, but not in quantity. The secretaries simply could not serve the vast number of prisoners and made contact with only a small percentage of them. The highest level of operation was in February 1917, when sixty-eight secretaries served over six million prisoners (Russia held 1.5 million inside its borders; 2.5 million Russians were held as prisoners of war or missing in foreign countries). Steuer summarizes, “The suffering of the POW in the Great War may have been too great a challenge, especially for just one social welfare organization.” The YMCA received criticism for abandoning its policy of neutrality after the United States entered the war in early 1917: “After Congress declared war on Germany, the International Committee decided to throw its full support behind the Allied war effort, instead of maintaining its neutral policies in support of the American Y’s original mission.” Other critics argued that the YMCA was selling items to American soldiers at a profit; this violated the agreement of the Y with the US Quartermaster Corps. An investigation into the matter evolved into a public debate about the pros and cons of the POW service program itself. A Senate committee decided that the overcharging had not been intentional. The Association had factored the cost of transportation into the prices, but the US Army later covered those costs. Steuer remarks, “The damage was done and the Association’s image was tarnished by the adverse publicity.”[40] The YMCA’s evaluations of this work in Russia were ambivalent and identify both failures and successes. The primary YMCA review of the program summarized: Measured by the huge bulk of seething Russia, the total achievement was not large. Considering the conditions, and comparing the number of workers to the

millions to be served, the efforts appear as substantial achievements. The first aim—to help Russian fighting men in the war—could not be attained. The second —to make easier the hard life of thousands of soldiers in Arctic snows and on Siberian steppes and to relieve civilian distress—was successful so far as conditions permitted. The ultimate hope awaits fulfillment—that a demonstration of human fellowship and American helpfulness might restore or inspire in some Russians a faith now submerged by the hates, fears, ambitions and cruelties of war, and so aid them in finding a way to an ordered peaceful life. The report author added, “All the influences brought to bear by the Allied nations failed to keep Russia in the war. Probably the task was an impossible one.”[41] Soviet writers found much to criticize in the YMCA’s wartime work. The work with soldiers appeared in a 1926 article on the church and the international workers’ movement in the Soviet journal Antireligioznik: “The YMCA conducts immense work in the army. How could American imperialism get by without an army? For work in the American army during the war the YMCA received 162 million dollars. From this, six million dollars were consumed on counter-revolutionary work in Soviet Russia.”[42] Another 1926 article in Antireligioznik, addressing the revolutionary effort against the YMCA in China, noted the Association’s program in Russia: “this organization has played and is playing to this time a still under-estimated role in the world workers movement.” The author described the Y as an “imperialist zaslon,” a military unit sent in advance of a main force to protect it from the enemy or give warning of an enemy approach, against revolutionary ferment. The author concludes by condemning the work of the YMCA in preventing the development of working class consciousness and revolutionary activity among factory laborers: The YMCA teaches the young slaves of the capitalist Moloch [an ancient Semitic deity to whom children were sacrificed] “to love your master,” to not grumble about him, it teaches servility and humility. And it achieves success, deceiving and leading behind them millions of slaves of capital of all colors and races.[43] A 1932 historical article published in Bezbozhnik addressed the role of the YMCA in the intervention in the Russian Far East. Author Boris Kandidov argued that the Y had been an agent of American capitalist imperialism—apparently he sensed a need to warn Soviet readers of the ongoing threat of the organization’s subterfuge. In particular he criticized the YMCA for supporting the Czech forces in Siberia and testifying in Washington regarding developments in Soviet Russia. He discussed a Y club set up for soldiers in Samara, which opened in June 1918. At one meeting, speakers called for the overthrow of Soviet power and for supporting the capitalist armies. Kandidov summarized “All these addresses of the sectarians in America had one purpose: to justify the politics of the imperialists and the sending of their troops, cannons, ammunition, and all kinds of equipment to the White Guards.” He continued,

Covering their actions with hypocritical speeches, using all kinds of texts from the “Holy Scriptures,” gabbing about “justice,” “great religious ideas,” and so on, were very convenient for the deception of the masses; sectarian organizations in the history of imperialist intervention in Siberia and the far East consistently carried out their work: they helped those who attempted to smother the proletarian revolution. In this assignment their activity was diverse, they drafted interventionists, attempted to “lift the spirits” of the imperialist troops and White Guard gangs, they spied, they turned people in to the authorities [donosili], distributed counterrevolutionary literature, slandered Soviet power, and when it was needed, they themselves carried a rifle.[44] The American YMCA’s attempts to serve soldiers raised more controversy from more critics than any other aspect of the Russian work. This criticism should be evaluated in light of the wider long-term goal of the organization to provide religious, physical, and social support to all strata of Russian youth.

NOTES

Paul B. Anderson

Kautz Family YMCA Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries

Boys in St. Petersburg Mayak gymnastics class

Kautz Family YMCA Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries

Boys in St. Petersburg Mayak wrestling class

Kautz Family YMCA Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries

Paul B. Anderson

Kautz Family YMCA Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries

Paul B. Anderson and Russian friends

Kautz Family YMCA Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries 1. The most comprehensive primary source on this topic is the YMCA publication, Service with Fighting Men: An Account of the Work of the American Young Men’s Christian Associations in the World War, vol. 1 (1922). Two key secondary studies are Donald E. Davis and Eugene P. Trani, “The American YMCA and the Russian Revolution,” Slavic Review (1974) and Kenneth Andrew Steuer’s dissertation, “Pursuit of an ‘Unparalleled Opportunity’: The American Young Men’s Christian Association and Prisoner-of-War Diplomacy among the Central Power Nations during World War I, 1914–1923” (1997). Steuer’s dissertation provides background information which is essential for understanding the purposes and approach of the YMCA’s wartime program for Russia. He addresses the problems relating to World War I prisoners of war, the reasons for YMCA involvement, and the establishment of the Y’s service to soldiers in Europe. As the footnotes indicate, I have relied extensively on Steuer’s excellent analysis for this chapter, since the YMCA Archives in Minnesota holds fewer documents on this aspect of the Russian work in comparison to other programs. See also Kenneth Steuer, Pursuit of an “Unparalleled Opportunity”: The American YMCA and Prisoner-of-War Diplomacy among the Central Power Nations during World War I, 1914–1923 (New York: Columbia

University Press, 2009). 2. Kenneth Andrew Steuer, “Pursuit of an ‘Unparalleled Opportunity’: The American Young Men’s Christian Association and Prisoner-of-War Diplomacy Among the Central Power Nations during World War I, 1914–1923” (PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1997), 1–4; and letter from Paul B. Anderson to Eugene P. Trani, March 29, 1973, attachment to letter, 1. 1966–1984. Biographical Records, Paul B. Anderson. KFYA. A general source is the archival document, “Meeting of the War Historical Bureau of the Young Men’s Christian Association,” April 1, 1920, which includes comments on Y war work by Colton and Ryall. Correspondence and Reports, 1920. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. See also Paul B. Anderson, “Russian Prisoners of War,” no date [1920 or 1921]. PBAP. 3. Steuer, “Pursuit of an ‘Unparalleled Opportunity,’” 45–47. 4. Steuer, “Pursuit of an ‘Unparalleled Opportunity,’” 48–50. 5. Steuer, “Pursuit of an ‘Unparalleled Opportunity,’” 447–49. 6. [A. C. Harte], “Harte and Day to the Hospitals and German Prisoners’ Camps in Siberia, Petrograd, June 25, 1915,” 1–4. Correspondence and Reports, 1915–1916. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 7. Letter from Donald A. Lowrie to John R. Mott, September 11/24, 1916, 1–2. Correspondence and Reports, 1915–1916. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 8. Jerome Davis, “Association History in the Making in Russia,” October 22/November 4, 1917, 1–3. Correspondence and Reports, 1917. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 9. William Howard Taft et al., eds., Service with Fighting Men: An Account of the Work of the American Young Men’s Christian Associations in the World War, vol. 1 (New York: Association Press, 1922), 427; Davis and Trani, “The American YMCA and the Russian Revolution,” 475. 10. Memorandum from Crawford Wheeler to John R. Mott and E. T. Colton, “Report on War Time Activities in Russia,” November 22, 1919, [3–5]. WWI Field Reports (binder 2). Russia, Colton E. T., Reports, Addresses, and Papers, 2 vols. KFYA. 11. Memorandum from Crawford Wheeler to John R. Mott and E. T. Colton, [7–9]. 12. Taft, Service with Fighting Men, 428–29. 13. Taft, Service with Fighting Men, 419. 14. “Extracts from interview with Mr. Louis L. Dunnington,” [no date], 1. Dunnington. Russian Work, Restricted, General, Personal Accounts. KFYA. 15. Taft, Service with Fighting Men, 427, 430–31. 16. Memorandum from Crawford Wheeler to John R. Mott and E. T. Colton, [8]. 17. Letter from Anderson to Trani, March 29, 1973, attachment to letter, 1. 18. D. E. Davis, “YMCA Russian Work: An Interview with Dr. Paul B. Anderson, September 9, 1971,” 45–46. Interview with Paul B. Anderson. Russian Work, Restricted, General, Personal Accounts. KFYA. 19. Robert C. Grogin, Natural Enemies: The United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War, 1917–1991 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 16–17.

20. Taft, Service with Fighting Men, 433–35, 420. 21. Taft, Service with Fighting Men, 435–37, 441, 445. 22. G. S. Phelps, “Siberian Expedition Report,” November 3, 1920, 38. Siberia. Russian Work, Restricted, North Russia: Archangel, Murmansk, Siberia. KFYA. 23. Letter from George M. Day to John R. Mott, annual report for 1918, 1. Correspondence and Reports, 1918. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA; and “An Army without a Country,” Association Men, September 1918, 26–27. 24. “An Account of Service Rendered Russian Soldiers and Russian Liberated Prisoners-of-War in France,” [no author, 1919], 1–2, 5. Correspondence and Reports, POW, 1919–1920. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918– 1921. KFYA. 25. Jerome Davis, A Life Adventure for Peace, An Autobiography (New York: Citadel, 1967), 24–26, 43–49. 26. M. Craig Barnes, “John R. Mott: A Conversionist in a Pluralist World” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1992), 222–24. 27. Steuer, “Pursuit of an ‘Unparalleled Opportunity,’” 456. 28. Taft, Service with Fighting Men, 456 (no details provided with these statistics). 29. “Recapitulation of Budget for Russian Army Work,” [1918–1919]. Correspondence and Reports, 1919. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 30. Phelps, “Siberian Expedition Report,” 35–37. 31. Davis and Trani, “The American YMCA and the Russian Revolution,” 479, 483. 32. Taft, Service with Fighting Men, 420. 33. Letter from E. T. Colton to Boris Bakhmatieff of the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., October 31, 1919, 3. Correspondence. Russian Work, Restricted, Ethan T. Colton Collection. KFYA. 34. Clipping from “The Gospel Message,” published by the Gospel Union Publishing Company, Kansas City, Missouri, no date, 11–12. Correspondence and Reports, 1915–1916. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 35. Quoted in Clifford Putney, Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880–1920 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 204. 36. Putney, Muscular Christianity, 41. 37. Nathan D. Showalter, “The End of a Crusade: The Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions and the Great War” (Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 1990), abstract [no page], 12–13, 261; see also Lyle W. Dorsett, Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 113–14. 38. Steuer, “Pursuit of an ‘Unparalleled Opportunity,’” 450, 457–58, 460. 39. Steuer, “Pursuit of an ‘Unparalleled Opportunity,’” 450–52. 40. Steuer, “Pursuit of an ‘Unparalleled Opportunity,’” 454–55, 458, 456n17, 473. 41. Taft, Service with Fighting Men, 420–21, 457.

42. M. Sheinman, “Tserkov’ i mezhdunarodnoe rabochee dvizhenie,” Antireligioznik, no. 2 (February 1926): 55. 43. F. F., “Anti-khristianskoe dvizhenie v kitae,” Antireligioznik, no. 1 (January 1926): 57–59. 44. Boris Kandidov, “Interventsiia na dal’nem vostoke i rol’ sektanstva (1918–1921 gg.),” Bezbozhnik, nos. 13–14 (July 30, 1932): 8–9. See also S. Grigortsevich, “Iz istorii amerikanskoi agressii na russkom dal’nem vostoke (1920–1922),” Voprosy istorii 8 (August 1951): 59–79.

Chapter 6

The Russian Student Christian Movement at Home The American YMCA participated in the work of two Russian Student Christian Movements (RSCM) which were similar in purpose but quite different in approach. This chapter and the one that follows survey the history of these two distinct groups. This chapter describes the organization which developed in Russia before and after 1917, while chapter 7 considers the group which originated in western and central Europe after the revolution. The first segments of each chapter identify the needs each movement perceived and the purposes each pursued before outlining the major developments. The second sections examine the financial resources of the organizations. The third segments discuss the relationship of the movements with the Russian Orthodox hierarchy as well as the issues which created controversy within the groups. Finally, the significant outcomes and challenges of the movements are surveyed. Through its relationship with the RSCM within Russia, the YMCA built relationships with students who had been alienated from the Russian Church due in part to its close connection with the autocratic government. Y secretaries successfully integrated small group meetings and annual leadership conferences into the life of the RSCM—these traditions would continue in emigration. Secretaries developed a deeper understanding of Russian cultural values and communication styles and shared these lessons in their letters to their supervisor, John R. Mott. They built relationships with Russian students who would later play key roles in the émigré student movement. These experiences with the RSCM in Russia enabled the YMCA to later support the émigré RSCM in a way which made a tremendous contribution to the life of Russian Orthodoxy in the twentieth century.

PURPOSE As Baron Pavel Nicolay (1860–1919), a Lutheran nobleman with an estate in Finland and a home in St. Petersburg, established relationships with Russian university students during the 1890s, he sensed a deep moral and spiritual need among them. These men and women were experiencing a time of political ferment, and many filled a majority of their hours with socialist meetings, which Nicolay did not support. Frequently students rejected the influence of the clergy and adopted fashionable materialist philosophies.[1] Nicolay believed that even those from religious families did not possess a vital personal faith in God. Therefore, he formed the student movement to be an evangelistic outreach. He explained, “The aim of all our meetings is to lead souls to Christ, to complete conversion. . . . To me it implies a genuine breaking away from all known sin, a surrendering of the complete personality to Christ.”[2] John R. Mott was an optimist, but his view of the spiritual condition of Russian students in 1909 was also far from positive:

The Russian student field presents by far the greatest need to be found anywhere in the student world. . . . Here are literally scores of thousands of students. As a class they are virtually without a religion. While as Russian subjects they are nominally members of the Orthodox Church they despise Orthodox Christianity because they regard the Russian Church as the instrument of oppression and the cause of the crying social crimes with which they are familiar. These students thus constitute not virgin soil but ground covered with tares, a jungle of false notions and dangerous theories. . . . The real Christ is hidden from them. They are also without moral restraints. . . . The literature on which they feed is one of spiritual despair represented by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. He was not encouraged by the religious restrictions enforced by the Orthodox Church during his 1909 trip to Russia: “During the last week of my meetings the Holy Synod by almost unanimous vote passed a resolution against permitting missionaries from abroad to speak on religious themes in Russia.” He spent six days in Moscow and eleven days in St. Petersburg. He spoke five nights in Moscow with the attendance averaging one thousand per night. “I met not one, but several students who were seriously contemplating suicide. A startling number of Russian students each year do commit suicide.”[3] Mott believed that the fundamental need of Russian students was spiritual; he also believed that problems in the realm of faith could have physical consequences. The organizers of the student movement saw their effort as a unique attempt: in 1914 one of the American secretaries wrote that the RSCM was “the only Christian organization in Russia whose aim is the religious transformation of the youth of the country.”[4]

DEVELOPMENTS The two primary leaders of the prerevolutionary Russian Student Christian Movement were Nicolay and Mott; they met in 1899 at a YMCA meeting in Helsinki, Finland. Mott requested that Nicolay accompany him to Russia in order to meet students and investigate the possibility of establishing a ministry among university men. The baron agreed that “the low moral condition of the Russian student world, as well as the spiritual need, makes such work urgently necessary.”[5] Nicolay arranged small meetings in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Dorpat (now Tartu, Estonia) where Mott led discussion groups. As Mott acquainted himself with the needs of the men, he formed the conviction that Russia was “the most needy and difficult student field of all the world.”[6] Nicolay listened carefully to Mott’s dream of a university ministry in Russia and sensed that his experiences in evangelistic ministry had been preparing him for this work. He met with four German university men on November 18, 1899, in St. Petersburg to found the RSCM. The movement grew slowly, and after two years only a small group met for the weekly Bible studies at Nicolay’s home.[7] However, in 1902 the group made significant progress when several Russian students converted to

Christianity. In addition, several Orthodox believers joined.[8] These men did not leave the Orthodox Church to join a Protestant church, for many of them began to understand the significance of their church’s complex rituals. The Bible studies and discussions followed a traditional evangelical pattern, focusing on personal interpretation and application. Nicolay even translated Mott’s book Individual Work for Individuals into Russian.[9] In 1905 the movement adopted a statement of faith which read, “On the basis of the gospel, I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, I have experienced an inner renewal, I have given myself to the Lord and I know that he has accepted me.”[10] The movement spread to the universities of Moscow in 1907 and Kiev in 1910. Mott visited Nicolay in 1909, ten years after their first visit, and again the baron set up evangelistic meetings for Mott in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Nicolay publicized these meetings, and hundreds attended. Many interested men began to attend Bible study circles arranged by the movement. Following his trip, Mott recruited assistants for Nicolay from the American YMCA.[11] After fifteen years of growth, the RSCM declined quickly after the onset of World War I. Most students abandoned their studies to serve as soldiers, and many others returned to live in their home towns. However, Nicolay confidently hoped that the movement would continue. In February 1918, he wrote to Mott that “the students are scattered. Yet I trust God will bring you back to us some day and that we will have glorious times yet.”[12] However, less than a year later Nicolay died after contracting paratyphoid fever. The movement’s limited operation continued under the direction of Vladimir Martsinkovsky, who had become a believer through the ministry of the RSCM. The government exiled him in 1923 because of his influence on youth.[13] The American YMCA first sent secretaries for student work to Russia in 1908.[14] From 1908 to 1914 the American YMCA sponsored four student secretaries: George Day (1882–1958), Harvey W. Anderson (1882–1945), Philip A. Swartz (1889–1962), and Roderick Scott. In 1908 Anderson and Day were sent to work with Nicolay and began to study Russian in St. Petersburg. Anderson then moved to Lesnoi, a suburb of St. Petersburg, to begin work at the Polytechnic Institute of Peter the Great. Day worked for a year at the university in Petrograd, and then moved to Kiev to work in that city. In 1913 Swartz and Scott arrived in St. Petersburg to begin language study. [15]

Anton Kartashev wrote that the prerevolutionary Russian Student Christian Movement was a direct descendant of the ministry of Lord Radstock: he compared the salon gatherings of Radstock with the meetings of Nicolay.[16] Lord Radstock was an English aristocrat who preached in the homes of the St. Petersburg nobility during the 1870s. His message was simple evangelical Christianity, but he did not directly oppose the Orthodox Church. However, he faced resistance from the hierarchy. Colonel Vasily Pashkov began to lead the movement after Radstock’s return to Britain; like Nicolay, he ministered among students as well.

DEVELOPMENTS IN ST. PETERSBURG/PETROGRAD This description of the work within Russia begins with a survey of developments in St. Petersburg/Petrograd and Kiev, the two primary cities for American involvement with the RSCM, and then look at the expansion of the movement. Day, the first secretary sent to work with Russian students, traveled to St. Petersburg in 1909; he was warmly welcomed by Nicolay at the wharf in Helsinki. They traveled to Vyborg, where Day visited the baron’s estate. He then stayed at his apartment in St. Petersburg until he began living with a Russian family. Day soon met Franklin Gaylord of the Mayak, Erich Moraller, and several men from the university. He was presented by the baron to the group as a student of Russian who would eventually provide assistance to the movement. In Day’s words, “Thus we have shunned any appearance of officialdom and have attempted to put [ourselves] on the plain honest footing of friendship and comradeship.” One student took him to St. Petersburg University: “What a motley throng of turbulent yet promising fellows they were! While mingling with the crowd in the long promenade hall which was thick with cigarette smoke my blood thrilled at the splendid challenge which they presented to Christian effort.”[17] Nicolay made a strong impression on Day; the baron’s warm hospitality and openness to students seemed to attract many to gatherings in his home. Day also was impressed by the active participation of students in Bible study groups which used a booklet by Nicolay as a resource.[18] A 1912 letter written by L. Ivanova, a female student in St. Petersburg, gave one Russian woman’s impressions of the movement. She had recently attended a student leadership conference and enjoyed learning from Petr Rodionovich Slezkin, a professor from the Kiev Polytechnical Institute. He impressed her as a “clever, serious, and able person.” She wrote that this conference “helped me to correct several of my thoughts and feelings, from which I could not escape by myself. . . .” Therefore, she encouraged her friend in Kiev to get involved with the student movement.[19] By 1913 the student movement was growing in influence among women in St. Petersburg. According to one report, “In recent times at the Women’s Medical Institute campaigns of the left part of the student body has become difficult in general, for there exists and is strongly expanding a ‘Christian circle,’ which opposes all strikes and political campaigns.”[20] In the fall of 1912 Day’s coworker Anderson began organizing a new program at the institute in Lesnoi. Anderson promoted a “rally,” a meeting to invite men to join Bible study groups, and twenty signed up for two groups. Slezkin made the first public lecture on “Christianity and Civilization”—one thousand students attended. Nicolay presented the second lecture on “Religious Movements among Students of Different Lands.” By the end of the first semester, thirty-five men were enrolled in five Bible circles. However, attendance was lower: Anderson suggested that some of the groups were “woefully dull.” He was also concerned about the comparatively low participation in an institute of six thousand students. He suggested that the program needed to be broader than only the study of the Bible and must to be seen as useful

by students, who often thought they already had an adequate understanding of the Bible. He was encouraged by his personal reception at the institute, where he had enrolled as a regular student. He was asked to teach English classes by students, and he was provided a lecture hall by the institute.[21] Anderson led Bible study groups and also classes in boxing and track and field: Had many a good round with the men and got to know some of them pretty well. One of the big fellows ran into my fist too hard one day while we were boxing and was laid up for two weeks in a hospital. I loaned him money to pay his hospital bill when he got out and he has been my fast friend ever since. I have not determined yet whether it was the blow or the money that won him. The group in Lesnoi was granted registration by the council of the Polytechnic Institute. Anderson and his new friends had met with members of the council in order to secure their approval. This registration allowed them to use meeting rooms at the institute and distribute literature—without additional negotiation with local government or church officials. Anderson was very pleased to report, “We have the goodwill of the Director of the Institute, the friendship of the professors, and the respect of the better element of the student body.”[22] The remaining students in the Petrograd movement met in a rented facility in the center of the city with a meeting room, library, and kitchen. Joint meetings for men and women were held on Sunday evenings, with other meetings held during the week. Four Russian secretaries worked in the city: one full-time woman, one full-time man, and two part-time men.[23] By 1914 a serious conflict developed in St. Petersburg between some of the Russian students and the American YMCA secretaries. In April 1914 Swartz wrote to Ethan Colton to express his frustrations with the YMCA’s Russian student program. He shared his critical observations on the student leaders: “The present leadership of the Russian Student Movement is without broad vision and enthusiasm.” He was especially frustrated by Russian attitudes toward the American Y secretaries: “They do not seek the assistance nor ask for the counsel of the men now in the work. It seems that Americans are considered neither desirable nor valuable assets to their propaganda.”[24] Scott shared a related frustration: “I doubted such fundamental things as that an American could ever really help a Russian in the deeper reaches of his life, or render efficient aid in the student Movement, or whether the lives of the Americans were not really being thrown away in a grand experiment.”[25] Swartz presented several different approaches for future work to Mott. He complained that the RSCM does not seem to desire his work—“We are looked upon with interest and sympathy but with small expectations.” One option was to continue on as before and hope for improved relations with the movement. A second option was to seek a formal invitation from the RSCM to serve as a secretary—he doubted that this would be successful. A third option was to work as a businessman or instructor of English and use his free time for service with students—but he wanted to work full time as a YMCA secretary. A fourth option would be to set up a Mayak-style program for

students. He believed that this would be strongly opposed by the Orthodox Church. A fifth option was to receive appointment as a secretary of the World’s Student Christian Federation (WSCF). He could serve as an advisor rather than as an administrator.[26] Swartz expanded on his concerns regarding his relationship to the Russian students, who had made a decision to avoid the leadership of American secretaries. He noted that a resolution had been passed which requested “no more assistance, financial or otherwise, from America.” Swartz was disappointed that his experience in leading American students was not valued by the Russian students. Therefore, he considered pursuing graduate study which could increase his status among the students: “To win confidence of those leaders by ability in the language, by standing as a scholar and by spiritual power is the task.” However, he soon learned that he could not return to Russia. No reason is stated in the report, but it could be due to wartime restrictions on foreigners with German surnames. After considering several employment options in the United States, he accepted the position of assistant to the pastor at the Central Presbyterian Church of New York City.[27] Anderson had been in Russia longer than Swartz and Scott, and in a letter to Mott he attempted to analyze the reasons for the student-secretary conflict. He grouped his concerns as personal difficulties, ethnic differences, and prejudices. He believed that one root of the problem was that Nicolay, rather than the movement members themselves, had invited the secretaries to participate in the program. He wished to address this problem and work out a plan in which secretaries could work alongside the Russian students: “What I would like to see is brotherly cooperation. I don’t expect that they should ‘swallow’ everything that is put at them, but that they should take us on the same basis as they have taken the Russian secretaries, and cooperate with us in plans for the work of the Movement.”[28] Later in 1914 the war began to overshadow the group’s internal conflicts. Anderson became an active member of the Committee of the Polytechnic Students for Aiding in the Care for Wounded Russian Soldiers.[29] In 1915 he noted that the problems of the war overwhelmed the other issues: “Our large public meetings were abandoned because of police difficulties.” He left the leadership of the student Christian circle to the active students and began working in the hospital for Russian students which had opened in the Polytechnic Institute. Anderson and others did orderly and nursing work.[30] Varvara Maksimovskaya, a female student with the movement in St. Petersburg, shared her perspective in a letter to Slezkin. She suggested that the students in her group resented the presence of Americans in leadership: “really are we such fools that we cannot learn to pray without Americans?” Maksimovskaya seemed to resent being the target of missionary activity: “I think that national pride is suffering here. Let devoted foreigners go to China, to India, to Africa, but when they appear here, many in our group find this offensive. . . .” She did not object to brief visits by foreigners, but she rejected any long-term assistance from abroad: “Better to do without

American money and without American detectives.”[31] Maksimovskaya voiced the views of one wing within the St. Petersburg group which desired to develop according to their own plans under the sponsorship of Russian professors, rather than Day and the American Y secretaries. She did not value Day’s contributions and assumed that he had some other motivations, such as political or financial gain.

DEVELOPMENTS IN KIEV In Kiev the “Student Christian Circle” worked toward three goals: “find among students of all institutions of higher education those who sympathize with the spread of the Gospel of Christ in the student environment,” then “unite believing students for their own strengthening and for the struggle with unbelief among their comrades,” and finally, “conduct active Christian propaganda in student centers in an non-confessional spirit.” One observer summarized the movement philosophy in this way: “Its members are finding that Christians of different confessions can work together for the general work of God, and that confession is a private matter of conscience, which should be respected. For them, on the ground of the Gospel, the important thing is content, not form—not the letter, but the spirit.”[32] As in St. Petersburg, the Kiev student group formed as an evangelistic outreach program. Anna Georgievna Germaize, studying in the higher women’s courses in Kiev, provided a more personal description of the Kiev group with its small group “circles” in a letter written to a friend. Participating in the Kiev circles played a key role in her personal formation during her student years: “In my life in the courses . . . the strongest impression in my memories was made on me in the circles. No lectures, papers, or books satisfied me as deeply or filled my life as did these circles.” She expressed deep enthusiasm for the Kiev movement: “I believe, that in the future of this [Kiev] circle belongs a large mission—it will conquer the whole world.”[33] Day began working in Kiev in 1913 after his time in St. Petersburg. Soon after his arrival he became acquainted with a young man from the Kiev Theological Academy. The student came to one of the leaders meetings and gave some difficult questions to Olga Ivanovna Kuleshova, one of the group leaders: “when she began quoting from several weighty Russian commentaries, he soon changed his attitude to one of respect and admiration. Both Miss Kuleshova and I at the close of the meeting thanked him for coming and expressed our wish that he would continue to come and give us the benefit of his theological training.” The student invited them to tea at his room at the Academy. “So the next afternoon at 5:30 found us there . . . within the very citadel of our friends the enemy. If the Metropolitan knew that the leaders of ‘that hated sectarian student movement’ were taking tea and incidentally spreading its propaganda within the precincts of the Orthodox Theological Academy, oh what wrath and anathemas would descend upon us!” Two theological students from the academy began to attend on Sundays. They told Day that “one of their younger professors regards our movement with considerable favor and has urged these younger students to get in touch with it and find out as much as possible and report to him. Owing to

pressure from the ecclesiastical powers higher up this professor and one or two more liberal of the clergy cannot openly take interest or participation in the movement.”[34] In early 1914 Day and the Kiev students developed plans to expand their influence: Martsinkovsky would give a public address on “The Educated Man and the Gospel” and Nicolay would follow up with Bible messages for the group and help to organize the active members.[35] As a typical YMCA secretary, one of Day’s treasured ideals was efficiency: he told the members in Kiev, “My object in coming to Russia . . . was to cooperate with these leaders in the task of making the movement the most efficient possible.”[36] A letter between students during this period added another perspective on the program in Kiev. One recommended the meetings of the student Christian circle, where a sympathetic professor supported believing students: “If I were in your place I would go there to ask about these questions of doubt, which are many for non-believers. This would be extraordinarily useful and interesting from all points of view.”[37] Of course, the outbreak of war deeply influenced the students and the YMCA workers in Kiev, just as it had in St. Petersburg. Day commented on the debate among Christian students regarding the ethics of war. One group defended pacifism, while the other group defended participation in the current war as a necessity for defense.[38] In 1915 Day began working in the American Red Cross Hospital at the Polytechnic Institute, which held four hundred beds. He provided a wide variety of assistance for the patients and worked with Russian students to distribute New Testaments.[39] Conflict seemed to follow Day from St. Petersburg to Kiev. In 1915 he expressed frustration that Professor Slezkin did not want to secure police permission to hold large Sunday meetings during the war: Day labeled this view as “timid.” According to Day, some students attended the meetings of the religious philosophical society, which “had no difficulty at all in getting permission to hold the meetings of the society.” Day added that he and Slezkin have very different visions for the movement: Slezkin believed that the Orthodox Church must be central to the movement and that sports and religion were an improper combination. He also thought that the movement must be more Russian and less western in spirit. Day believed that Slezkin was out of touch with the young people: “The atmosphere of the Association has become heavy with an ultra-reactionary, extremely ecclesiastical, semi-monastic spirit which emanates largely from our Professor.” Day concluded, “the Professor is steering the Kiev Association pretty straight to the morgue.” However, Day also wrote that the buildings of the Polytechnical Institute, the Women’s University, and the Commercial Institute were evacuated for military use, so the university had been moved to Saratov; he concluded, “The fortunes of war and not the Professor are responsible for this final disaster to the student Christian Association at Kiev.”[40]

DEVELOPMENTS AS A MOVEMENT

The RSCM developed as a united movement which combined the efforts of leaders and students in Petersburg, Kiev, Moscow, and other cities. The student movement was designed to be interconfessional, since Orthodoxy was the state religion, and evangelistic, since the number of practicing Christians was small within higher education. No church sponsored the group or provided significant backing. Nicolay explained that he was “neither for nor against any church.” He encouraged Orthodox young men to participate in the life of the movement and did not urge them to leave their church. However, many Orthodox actively opposed the movement as an unwanted influence in their country; but they did not severely limit the group’s activities. In Kiev an Orthodox professor wrote a condemning article in an influential clerical journal. He closed by claiming, “If you wish to destroy the State and the Church, then for that end the Student Christian Movement will be eminently useful.” For several years, the movement’s leaders attempted to gain official recognition from the government. The Metropolitan of Moscow opposed this attempt and encouraged the Holy Synod to adopt an official resolution against recognition.[41] Paul B. Anderson summarized the interconfessionalism of the RSCM by pointing out that “it was not a Protestant movement.” Nikolay “had high respect for Orthodoxy,” but the government prevented the church from approving any student organization—due to the fear of student political radicalism. Therefore, the movement “embraced both men and women of Orthodox, Lutheran or Calvinist faith.” For these reasons, it “did not have any significant support from either University or Church.”[42] Nicolay played a fundamental role in establishing the interconfessional principle for the student movement; as Robert Latimer described, The baron is a Lutheran, who serves his God by compassionately caring for these wandering sheep. Our conversation was all about this theme. “We admit no responsibility on our part for anybody’s change of faith,” said Baron Nicolay. “It is our duty to declare the truth as we know it. Their spiritual decisions are their own affairs, and they are legally free to make them. If they should give evidence by holiness of life of a change of heart, we are of course thankful to God; but we stand clear of responsibility for any change of creed. We impress on the convert that such a matter is his or her own free act. Mere change of creed or nominal religion is not at all what we aim at, but deliverance from sin and death.”[43] Nicolay believed that evangelism among students would be most successful with the participation of Christian professors. He wrote to Mott in 1906 about Sergei Bulgakov: “He was a disciple of Marx and seems to have turned a Christian and preaches by voice and pen in a way that appeals to students putting (they say) the divinity of Jesus Christ and His resurrection to the front.” The conversion and activism of this professor was a unique encouragement to Nicolay: Bulgakov “offered proof that it was possible to win members of the intelligentsia back to the church without forcing them to abandon the social or political concerns that drove them away in the first place.”[44]

Day served with the movement in both St. Petersburg and Kiev and faced a variety of difficulties. A description of his work provides insight into the common experience of the American secretaries in both cities. According to Day, his status as a representative of the YMCA created difficulties in explaining his status to Russian students, since a “host of prejudices and misconceptions immediately arise in their minds.” Therefore, he decided to “put the stress upon our being students rather than upon being promoters of the World’s Student Christian Movement,” the global network of YMCA and YWCA student organizations. Day was invited by students in the movement to teach Bible study classes. He was glad to report that Nicolay had given his apartment at Moika 30 for movement members to use: one man lived in the apartment and served as the office secretary. One room was used as an office and assembly room, and the other as library and reading area. The men regularly met on Sundays for evening tea at the apartment. The apartment made it easier for visitors to attend meetings. As mentioned earlier, Day worked with another American, Anderson. Their weekly schedule followed this pattern: Monday evenings free, Tuesday and Wednesday evenings for leading English classes for movement members, Thursday evenings for a Bible study group, Friday and Saturday evenings for training classes for Bible study leaders, and Sunday evenings for visiting with students at Nicolay’s apartment. Mornings and afternoons were for university lectures and language lessons.[45] Lecture series functioned as an outreach and as a method to connect the students in different cities of the movement. In 1912 Nicolay invited the American YMCA leader Sherwood Eddy to speak to students in St. Petersburg, Kiev, and Moscow. He wrote that church authorities protested the messages, but political authorities gave him permission to speak. Four hundred attended each of his lectures in Kiev, which were given in the largest available halls. He gave four lectures: “A Rational Basis for Religion,” “The Meaning of Life,” “The Greatest Question in the World (What think ye of Christ?),” and “How to Build Up a Strong Moral Christian Character.” He noted that many students were considering suicide and that Russia’s greatest need is “moral character.” Also, “She does not need more competing foreign sects but vital life for the great church which she already has.”[46] Eddy reported on his meetings with young people, and listed the twelve most common questions asked during and after these meetings:[47] (1) What is the meaning of life? (2) How can a Christian possess any worldly goods? (3) Should I follow the teachings of Christ as Tolstoy does? (4) Is it possible to find God without the solitude of the monastery? (5) Can a Christian enjoy art and nature—or is asceticism the answer? (6) Why does God allow suffering? (7) How can you reconcile man’s free will and God’s sovereignty? (8) Can a merciful God demand the unjust punishment of the innocent? (9) Can the Gospel be reconciled with modern science and life? (10) How can I reconcile Christianity with my revolutionary principles? (11) How can I know and believe in God? (12) Can a Christian commit suicide? In the common YMCA style, he attempted to show how the Christian faith was relevant to the concerns of young people.

The annual leadership conferences also drew the students together. Day reported that at the autumn leadership conference in 1911 “the various local groups were fused into a national movement.” Leaders adopted policies and a constitution. At this time a new patron joined Nicolay in supporting the RSCM—Natalia Ivanovna Orzhevskaia, a wealthy and prominent woman, the widow of the Kiev governorgeneral. She provided financial support for the work in Kiev, including a stipend for Kuleshova as a secretary for students. Orzhevskaia successfully worked on legal registration for the movement. Her place in the aristocracy and the Orthodox Church promised to be very valuable for the movement. Leaders were also pleased that Professor Slezkin chose to identify publicly with the Russia-wide student movement— he was the first to do so. He had served as president of the student group in Kiev and taught a Bible class for students. Also, he had written a pamphlet defending the organization against the attack of a theology professor.[48] The movement made significant progress in the year before the outbreak of war —momentum had developed, and the future appeared brighter. The first Russian movement secretary, Mr. Tchekmarov, a graduate of the St. Petersburg Technological Institute, began work in January 1913. Around this time, Aleksandr Nikitin, a key student leader, made a three-month trip to America to visit a variety of YMCA programs and conferences with the itinerary planned by Sherwood Eddy. Nikitin hoped to bring new ideas into the work in Russia. Movement leaders also presented registration documents to the minister of the interior; the documents included a written statement approving the Movement signed by the dean of the Polytechnic Institute in Lesnoi, by a prominent professor in the University of Petersburg and by a well-known Orthodox priest. Day explained, “The fact that these two very prominent professors and an equally prominent priest willingly endorsed our Movement is an index of the public favor and confidence which the young Movement is beginning to enjoy.”[49] Martsinkovsky emerged as a key movement leader—he was chosen as vicechairman. Slezkin was chosen as president—and shared with students that this was the happiest moment in his life. He gave public lectures in St. Petersburg in the fall as well on “Christianity and Civilization.” Seven hundred filled the hall at the Technical Institute in Lesnoi: one student leader commented, “The Director of the Institute was dumbfounded at the sight of such a splendid [turnout] of students to hear a religious lecture. The contents of the lecture were excellent.”[50] The magazine of the RSCM was the Studencheskii listok (Student Leaflet), with the subtitle “The Journal of the Student Christian Movement.” Issues included an editorial comment, articles, movement and WSCF news, letters, literary stories, and book notices. The international and interdenominational character of the WSCF was promoted. The printed goal of the small magazine was to “spread in the student environment a living and active Christian faith and Christian form of life.”[51] The Studencheskii listok issue for January–February 1913 included articles discussing suicide and the religious opinions of contemporary students.[52] In the United States, The Missionary Review of the World periodical publicized the work of the WSCF with

Russian students.[53] In 1913 Russian leaders of the RSCM visited the United States and experienced the American YMCA in its home context. Eleven delegates from the RSCM attended the summer conference of the WSCF in Lake Mohonk, New York. Representatives came from Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, and Dorpat. The delegation was led by Nicolay, who was chosen to be vice-chairman of the Federation Conference, and included Orzhevskaia. Before the conference they were able to have language classes and visit Princeton and Columbia Universities. According to Day this trip provided new encouragement and vision for the student work in Russia. He saw new relationships with student leaders from other countries to be important. At the conference the RSCM was formally admitted into the WSCF. Also, a decision was made to send Day to Kiev—Nicolay, Mott, Slezkin, and Kuleshova participated in the decision. After this time in the United States, Martsinkovsky became a full-time staff member of the student work—as a traveling secretary based in Moscow. He had worked for five years as a teacher of Russian literature before accepting the position. Nearly one hundred students attended the leadership conference in Vyborg held in September 1913.[54] Due to the war, RSCM students did not gather for their annual leaders conference in the fall of 1914. Large meetings were impossible for Petrograd and Kiev due to martial law. Moscow did not have these restrictions, so the association there was more active.[55] During the war, the student-secretary conflict continued. In July 1915 Anderson reflected on the conflicts faced by all four American Y secretaries working with Russian students. The Americans and Russians had not been able to develop a common approach to building up the faith of students and bringing more into the group. According to Anderson, most of the difficulties were rooted in different visions of the work. The Russians preferred a primarily religious program, while the Americans wanted to broaden the approach to involve more participants. Anderson recommended sending the four secretaries as formal representatives of the YMCA. They could work to develop a Mayak-like program for students, with the full backing of the International Committee. They would encourage the current RSCM but not be directly involved at this time.[56] The war led to the February and October Revolutions, and this led to discriminatory restrictions on the RSCM. One of the participants during these challenging days was a female student in Petrograd. In 1983 she reflected on how the movement influenced her and how she participated in resisting an investigation by the Bolsheviks. At first, she was not impressed by the RSCM: “When, as a student of the Bestuzhevsky courses in Peter[sburg], I saw a display case for the ‘Movement,’ I thought: ‘These students are so behind the times.’” Later, she decided to attend a meeting: “I attended some kind of lecture, for a course studying the Gospel of Mark using the textbook of Pavel Nikolaevich Nicolay († 1919, Protestant). I repeated the course and . . . the Gospel would not let me go. Two years of struggle, after two and a half years—I was a member of the Movement.” She valued the interconfessional

approach of the group: “Representatives of different confessions participated in the circles, and I valued this a great deal. . . . Soon I began to understand the doctrines of different Protestants and Orthodox, and I was attracted to the Orthodox Church.” She then recalled her experience after the October 1917 Revolution, when the members of the movement faced religious discrimination. As she recalled, “I found myself liquidating the Petersburg circle. The whole night I burned the private archive of Pavel Nikolaevich Nicolay, letters to him from movement members [dvizhentsev]. With this we hoped to keep many from being arrested. We succeeded.”[57] It is clear that the relationship between the Russian Christian students and the secretaries from the United States was not free from conflict. The Russians were often attracted to the innovative American approaches to faith and community, but they occasionally bristled at the visitors’ expectations and cultural habits. However, it is also clear that the Russian members held onto several suggestions of Day, Anderson, Schwartz, and Scott, and reformulated their ideas as they pressed forward after the Americans’ departures. After the revolutions of 1917 the American YMCA played a much less visible role in the activities of the RSCM within Soviet Russia. However, American influence continued through covert funding, the informal assistance of Secretary Albert T. Corcoran, and the ongoing influence of the Y’s approach.

DEVELOPMENTS WITH VLADIMIR MARTSINKOVSKY Perhaps the most outstanding example of the influence of the Americans on this Russian effort was in the work of Martsinkovsky, a secretary for the RSCM who carried on the traditions of interconfessional ministry even after his exile from Russia in 1923.[58] Martsinkovsky graduated from the historical-philological faculty of St. Petersburg University and worked as a teacher at a gymnasium from 1907 to 1913. He noted in his autobiography that when he was a student at the university he wrote a research paper on the reforming intellectual Nikolai Novikov (1744–1818) and Russian Masonry of the eighteenth century, based on research in the Public Library of St. Petersburg. (He did not comment if this research was motivated by charges against the YMCA of Masonry.) In 1913 he began working with the RSCM at the invitation of Nicolay. He lectured and held discussions on religious themes at universities and other institutions of higher education in Moscow, Petrograd, Kiev, Odessa, and Samara; his lectures began to attract sizeable crowds due in part to the new regime’s approach to religion.[59] In the spring of 1918 the RSCM held a conference in Samara, where a decision was adopted to expand the organization’s evangelism program. Past experience with opposition from Orthodox clergy motivated them to request a meeting with local clergy to discuss their plans. Several clergy attended the meeting. One speaker from the clergy was a missionary who directed his efforts against “sectarianism” [sektanstvo]; he stressed that the study of the Bible by laypeople leads only to heresy and sects. The RSCM representatives stated that they wanted to “work with the

blessing of the Church and under the leadership of pastors.” One RSCM representative, a graduate of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, reminded the clergy of their responsibility for laypeople. After the meeting, some of the clergy expressed their support for the program and later invited leaders to speak in their churches.[60] During the summer of 1918 the Samara Pedagogical Institute reorganized into a university. Martsinkovsky was invited to speak at the opening ceremony: he lectured on “The Goal of Higher Education.” At this time the city was not under the control of the Soviet government. Students at the university submitted a petition to the administration requesting that a course on ethics be added. The council of professors invited Martsinkovsky to teach the course, and he continued to work in Samara for a year and a half. On a trip to Moscow he attended a lecture by Anatoly Lunacharsky, the People’s Commissar for Enlightenment, on the theme “Why Don’t We Need to Believe in God?” Approximately three thousand were in the hall. Martsinkovsky was opposed to his approach, of course, so he decided to request permission to publicly reply. Lunacharsky answered that this was a lecture, not a debate. However, he let the audience decide by an oral vote, and ten minutes were given to a reply. This event led to other public debates which included Lunacharsky, Martsinkovsky, as well as leading Orthodox priests, Jewish rabbis, and Tolstoyans. Another participant was Vyacheslav Ivanov, the well-known philosopher and poet.[61] Martsinkovsky’s views combined elements of Russian Orthodoxy and evangelical Protestantism, but he served as a member of the Orthodox Church. During the period of 1919–1920 he devoted time to the study and discussion of the issue of baptism. He eventually decided that he could not accept the Orthodox view on infant baptism and held that only believing adults should be baptized. He met with Patriarch Tikhon to discuss the issue of baptism, since earlier the patriarch had approved him as a lay preacher for Orthodox churches. Martsinkovsky submitted a paper with his views on baptism and set up a meeting. Tikhon received him in a friendly manner and discussed his concerns. The patriarch reviewed the doctrinal position of the church and suggested that he prepare a proposal for the upcoming church council. At the meeting the RSCM leader emphasized that he did not want to leave the Orthodox Church. However, he was rebaptized on September 1, 1920. He explained, “By being baptized by faith I did not have an intention of . . . leaving Orthodoxy.” However, he was not satisfied to remain within the church without working for change: “I believed in the possibility of an evangelical reformation within it and even considered that it was necessary for me to remain within this environment to witness about the necessity of personal rebirth and of the conscious reception of every responsible member into the Church.” He clarified, “Therefore I did not formally leave Orthodoxy and did not make any statements on this issue.” However, he understood that the clergy would not ignore his rebaptism: “due to this act I found myself outside this Church, for it naturally ceased acknowledging me as its member or allowing me to participate in the sacraments.” He also wrote that he hoped to see a Russian faith which was a “synthesis, a combination of western masculine activity and eastern

gentle-feminine contemplation. The values of Orthodoxy, several of its deep dogmatic interpretations, its singing and music should be preserved and revived with conscious personal faith, with which free evangelical Christianity is rich.” Martsinkovsky seems to have applied the YMCA’s ideas of masculinity and contextualized them to the Russian culture. When a Russian clergyman later asked if he was a Baptist or an Evangelical Christian, he replied that he was in fellowship with both groups and shared their fundamental convictions. However, he had not joined a congregation of one or the other groups of churches.[62] Martsinkovsky was arrested by the Cheka on March 4, 1921, after a search of his apartment. He was imprisoned at both the Lubianka and Taganskaia prisons. At first the stated reason was counterrevolutionary activity. He was imprisoned while his case was being established. One of his fellow inmates let him read a copy of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel Demons (Besy): “such an amazingly perceptive picture of what is happening now in Russia—and precisely in regard to the Russian struggle with God [bogoborchestvo]!” He was eventually released from prison after he signed a statement that he would not conduct “organizational and agitation work among students.” He reasoned that this referred to political work rather than religious activity. After his release he learned that a female RSCM coworker had been imprisoned for the same length of time.[63] Soon Martsinkovsky’s work was interrupted again. In December 1922 the GPU (State Political Directorate) summoned him for questioning. He was interrogated intensively about his views on war, military service, and pacifism. He replied that he rejected military service and war—but he would not call on soldiers to refuse to fight. On January 2, 1923, officials told him that he would be exiled to Germany for contributing to the “degeneration [razlozhenie] of the Red Army.” He was also told that he would be sent out of Russia with V. G. Chertkov (a friend of Lev Tolstoy) and V. F. Bulgakov (a former secretary of Tolstoy). Martsinkovsky met with another official and asked him the reason for his departure. He was told that he was not considered a political danger, but “for us, the line of your work is harmful at this time. . . . But the main harm [zlo] of your work is in the fact that you work among students.” He left Russia on April 20, 1923. In 1929 he wrote about his hopes for the church: “the Russian Orthodox Church has not yet lived to see a reformation. The ship of the Church is still seeking a secular tugboat. But within the Russian Orthodox environment are living people, who are fervently striving for the transformation of the church in the spirit of the gospel, and it will come.”[64] The Soviet press presented an obituary after his death in 1971: “His numerous [books] are slanders on our reality, in which he, under the guise of interpretation of biblical texts . . . opposed communism, calling it ‘corrosive smoke, which requires a gas mask—religion.’”[65]

DEVELOPMENTS AFTER 1917 Martsinkovsky was a key leader of the RSCM within Soviet Russia, but all work did not depend on him. During the civil war period of 1918–1921 academic life was

interrupted due to the political and economic changes. Most universities and institutes in the major cities operated at a very minimal level. Many returned to the provinces or found work elsewhere in the cities. The activity of the movement in Petrograd ceased, but continued at a low level in Moscow and Kiev. The most common activity was meeting in small groups and helping each other with material needs, such as firewood and food. Those who had returned to the provinces continued the work as opportunity provided. For example a new group formed in Samara which included students from Moscow and Petrograd. There was little interaction between groups across Russia until a federation conference was held in Moscow in 1920. At this time V. A. Ambartsumov was elected chairman, A. S. Sheremetieva as secretary, Martsinkovsky as treasurer, and Kuleshova and S. A. Hinze as two additional members for a central committee. In the 1920–1921 academic year the federation began to work more actively once again and rebuild the structure of the organization. It continued to follow the principles of the WSCF in order to “attract the student to Christ by means of methodical studying of the Holy Scripture in order to make appear actively in life the Christian faith.” Once again students began to meet more regularly in small groups for Bible study and larger groups for teaching on such topics as the atonement of Christ and the conversion of Paul. The federation required that “active members” were those who regularly attended the Bible lessons and “who have come to conscious faith in Christ as their personal Savior.” They needed to actively participate in the “work” of the organization. Also, they were required to subscribe to the federation statement of faith: “I believe in Christ and God, the Savior of the world and me, on the basis of the Gospel, I have confessed my sins. I surrender myself up to Him and I know that He has received me.” The work progressed with difficulty due to limitations on freedom of religion and freedom of the press. The work in 1921 was primarily in Petrograd, Moscow, Kiev, Odessa, and Samara. Eight workers led the ministry, which included four hundred active members in Russia. The next conference was planned for August 19–21, 1921, in Moscow.[66] The tragic famine of the early 1920s influenced the RSCM. Members, along with many other students and professors, received aid from the American Relief Administration. During the spring and summer of 1922 the ARA opened its first kitchens for students in Petrograd, Moscow, Kazan, Odessa, and Ekatrinoslav (now Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine). The kitchens were conducted by the ARA and supported by the YMCA (as described in chapter 1). Ten thousand were served by the program. Those studying at the Samara, Saratov, and Tomsk universities received food from programs of European Student Relief.[67] Ethan Colton, a Y man working under the auspices of the ARA, wrote that “students and professors are thrown into an economic waste place in an effort to maintain themselves while carrying on the processes of culture and learning. It cannot be done by the many without assistance flowing in from the rich resources of this land of ours and the more favored countries of Europe.” He continued, “The great men of science, educators, physicians, artists and authors are living below the line of poverty, and in that depleted state disease comes and finishes them.”[68]

An RSCM report for 1922–1923 described the ongoing activities of the movement, which had twenty full-time workers. A large majority of the members gave a tenth of their income to the movement, but this was not compulsory. Conferences were held in 1920 and 1921, while in 1922 and 1923 there was an enlarged meeting of the Central Committee. Publishing was not permitted at this time, but public lectures were held with attendance up to two thousand. Popular lecture themes included: “The Coming of Christ,” “Can We Live Without Christ?,” and “Do We Need Religion?” The report added that interest in missionary work was growing; students were meeting with other believers to discuss Christian ministry among the nonChristian population of Russia.[69] The Y quietly supported an American secretary, Albert T. Corcoran, to assist with the work. In 1924 a YMCA report noted that private funding should be found for the partial support of Corcoran, “a demobilized secretary who stays on in Russia as an individual forced to earn a precarious living teaching English while serving as [liaison] officer of the Russian Student Christian Movement and bond with the outside world.” The report stated: “This paragraph must never be documented.”[70] A 1925 report added that the RSCM was “again driven under ground by legislation that affords no legal existence to an interconfessional organization.” However, the staff members were being fed and assisted with housing problems. The RSCM also received printed materials: “new Christian literature furnished them by stealth.” In one city, one hundred fifty students were meeting in secret Bible studies.[71] Another 1925 report by the American Y noted in detail the steps taken in Russia to oppose religion: this was a key motivation for supporting the Y’s continuing work. The report described the pressure: “Within a few weeks several of the leaders in Moscow have been arrested, yet the purpose to carry on is not faltering.”[72] In 1926 Corcoran described the difficulties he faced. Due to his regular contact with students, he endured regular police surveillance. A local newspaper printed a derogatory article on him and labeled him “The American ‘pope’” (a disrespectful Russian term for a priest). In 1923 he was detained by the police, while a coworker from the British YMCA was expelled from Russia. Several students were later questioned about their connections with Corcoran. He was called into the police office and told that his visa would be cancelled; later he learned that this was due to an order from higher state authorities. Corcoran went on to describe in detail the many difficulties faced by Christian students. As required by law the RSCM applied for a license in 1922, but no response was received. In 1923 regulations for a religious organization license prohibited a member of one organization from being a member of another. Also, no religious test could be given for membership. So, an interconfessional organization was not feasible, and nothing could be done to preserve the integrity of the RSCM. Therefore, an application was not submitted in 1923. Many Christian students were dismissed from universities and institutes in 1924 as “foreign in ideals”; participation in the Christian group often led to expulsion.[73] In 1928, under Stalin’s regime, the RSCM continued its work in secrecy, since it

was illegal. However, fifty-five Bible study groups continued to meet.[74] As of 1925, forty-eight people in the movement had been arrested. Six salaried secretaries worked in Moscow, Leningrad, Rostov, Samara, and Kiev. In spite of these difficulties, ten students in the movement were planning to join the Orthodox clergy. Ethan Colton claimed, “The Movement is not an official part of the Orthodox Church, but is actively supporting it. All the leaders but two in Leningrad are Orthodox. Of the fifty-three members in this city, but three are Protestants.”[75] Paul B. Anderson reported that around 1928 the authorities arrested and exiled forty of the most active RSCM participants—this effectively ended the activity of the movement inside Russia. [76] However, another report suggested that groups continued to meet until 1934, when the work “was crushed by Stalin.”[77]

FUNDING Under the leadership of John R. Mott, the American YMCA funded much of this work described in this chapter, although the documents reviewed provide few details on budgets before 1925. In 1925 a two-year allocation of 10,200 dollars was budgeted for the RSCM in the USSR.[78] The 1926–1927 budget of the movement was 12,423 rubles, which included 10,642 for salaries. One secretary received 100 rubles a month, two earned 140, and three (unmarried) received 70. Eight hundred rubles were received from former members abroad, while 1579 were raised inside the Soviet Union.[79] The budget for 1927–1928 was 4407 rubles; of this, 350 was raised inside the country.[80] The movement in the Soviet Union was funded in part by donations from the foundation of John D. Rockefeller Jr. to a support program developed by the American YMCA—“To Strengthen and Enrich the Russian Orthodox Church.”[81]

CHURCH RELATIONS From the beginning the RSCM attracted the participation of Orthodox students, but the movement did not function with any support from the hierarchy. This led to limitations on its activity but broadened the appeal of the RSCM to those who were open spiritually but closed to the formal church. The established church was very unpopular among the studenchestvo. Some individual clergy members and Orthodox lay people did actively support the movement and saw it as a means to attract youth to the church. Others opposed it actively: for example, Ivan Georgievich Aivazov, a Moscow diocesan missionary and holder of a candidate degree in theology, condemned the work of Nicolay and the student group—“They work cleverly and treacherously.” He also wrote that since Mott would be speaking soon in Moscow, a “protest must be expressed against foreign propagandists.”[82]

OUTCOMES

The RSCM made a significant contribution to the formation of many future Orthodox leaders, and it also gave experience and training to one of the most influential Baptist leaders in the USSR. In 1944, Aleksandr Karev began serving as general secretary of the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, the leadership of a new merged denomination. He had graduated from a polytechnic institute and had been active in the student movement, through which he met Mott and Eddy. In the 1920s he preached at Protestant churches across the Soviet Union, trained pastors at the Leningrad Bible School, and wrote articles for the journal Khristianin. During the 1950s he emerged as the most influential pastor within the movement. The Bratskii Vestnik (Fraternal Herald, the denominational journal for pastors) frequently featured his sermon outlines, biblical commentary, and theological studies. Walter Sawatsky, a leading scholar on religion in Russia, summarizes his career: “He was the besteducated, brightest, and most able of the Moscow leadership. Wherever he went, people loved him because they sensed that his heart overflowed with love for them.”[83] The history of Christianity includes many accounts of ventures which led to unplanned outcomes. Certainly Mott and Nicolay did not foresee the studentsecretary conflicts which developed, and they did not expect the disruptions of world war, revolution, and civil war. However, these men and their coworkers developed a program which created new religious and social opportunities for hundreds of students, many of whom had been alienated from the church of their families. From among these students emerged many, such as Vladimir Martsinkovsky, who provided leadership for other students. The work of the YMCA with the RSCM parallels the cross-cultural work of the Association with students in countries such as China and Japan and serves as a case study for comparison. However, this project also built a foundation for a very different program that would develop in Russia Abroad after 1917.

NOTES 1. Greta Langenskjold, Baron Paul Nicolay: Christian Statesman and Student Leader in Northern and Slavic Europe, trans. Ruth Evelyn Wilder (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1924), 96. Ethan Colton claimed that Georgy Chicherin, Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs from 1918 to 1930, was a relative of Baron Nicolay: E. T. Colton, “In Support of the Budget for Work among Russians in 1923,” 3. Russia— Speeches and Reports, Germany—Articles. Russia, Colton E. T., Reports, Addresses, and Papers, 2 vols. KFYA. See also Pol Gundersen, Pavel Nikolai iz Monrepo: Evropeets, ne takoi kak vse (Moscow: Bibleisko-bogoslovskii institut sv. apostola Andreia, 2004) and I. A. Alekseeva, Istoriia vsemirnogo khristianskogo molodezhnogo dvizheniia v Rossii (Moscow: Seriia “AIRO, Pervaia monografiia,” 2007). 2. Langenskjold, Baron Paul Nicolay, 107. 3. Letter from John R. Mott, April 12, 1909, 1–3. Correspondence and Reports

1903–1910. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 4. Roderick Scott, “The Young Men’s Christian Association in Russia: Annual Report for 1913–1914 of Roderick Scott,” 2–3. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 5. Hans Brandenburg, The Meek and the Mighty: The Emergence of the Evangelical Movement in Russia (London: Mowbrays, 1976), 137. 6. Kenneth Scott Latourette, World Service: A History of the Foreign Work and World Service of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of the United States and Canada (New York: Association Press, 1957), 370. 7. Langenskjold, Baron Paul Nicolay, 92, 101. The prerevolutionary period of the RSCM is still a theme of interest in Russia; the memory of an active spiritual organization within higher education is attractive for many. One recent publication, Iu. S. Grachev, Studencheskie gody: Povest’ o studencheskom khristianskom dvizhenii v Rossii (St. Petersburg: Bibliia Dlia Vsekh, 1997), presents a dramatized overview of the movement and the personal lives of participants. The book includes several pages of photographs of the RSCM and its participants. 8. Brandenburg, The Meek and the Mighty, 138. 9. Langenskjold, Baron Paul Nicolay, 111, 108. 10. Brandenburg, The Meek and the Mighty, 139. 11. Latourette, World Service, 370–71. 12. Langenskjold, Baron Paul Nicolay, 154–55. 13. Brandenburg, The Meek and the Mighty, 141–44. 14. Paul B. Anderson, “Memorandum on Policy for the Russian Work of the International Committee,” August 9, 1951, 1. Corr. and Reports 1950–1951. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1930–1949. Annual Reports 1930–1949. KFYA. 15. Scott, “The Young Men’s Christian Association in Russia: Annual Report for 1913– 1914,” 3–4. 16. A. V. Kartashev and N. A. Struve, 70 let izdatel’stva “YMCA Press”: 1920–1990 (Paris: YMCA Press, 1990), 4. Paul Gunderson described the relationship of Radstock and Nicolay in Pavel Nikolai iz Monrepo, 25–27. For a recent study of Pashkov and Radstock, see Mark Myers McCarthy, “Religious Conflict and Social Order in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Orthodoxy and the Protestant Challenge, 1812– 1905” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2004). 17. Letter from George M. Day to John R. Mott, October 12, 1909, 1–3. Correspondence and Reports 1903–1910. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 18. Letter from George M. Day to John R. Mott, November 25, 1909, 1–2. Correspondence and Reports 1903–1910. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 19. Police excerpt of letter from L. Ivanova in St. Petersburg to Ivan Adrianovich Chopovsky, a peasant and a student of the Kiev Polytechnical Institute, September

22, 1912. GARF f. 102 OO, o. 1912, d. 266, l. 1. All GARF documents are from the files of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Department of Police, Special Section. 20. Police report on St. Petersburg, January 18, 1913. GARF f. 102 OO, o. 1913, d. 266, l. 1 and 1 reverse. 21. Letter from Harvey W. Anderson to John R. Mott, January 6/19, 1913, 1–8. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 22. Letter from Harvey W. Anderson to John R. Mott, November 5, 1913, 2–4. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 23. Scott, “The Young Men’s Christian Association in Russia: Annual Report for 1913– 1914,” 2–3. 24. Letter from Philip A. Swartz to E. T. Colton, April 1, 1914, 1–3. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 25. Letter from Roderick Scott to John R. Mott, July 10, 1914, 1. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 26. Letter from Philip A. Swartz to John R. Mott, July 11, 1914, 1–5. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 27. Philip A. Swartz, “Annual Report of Philip A. Swartz,” [September 30, 1914], 7–8, 10–11. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 28. Letter from Harvey W. Anderson to John R. Mott, May 17, 1914, 1–7. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 29. Harvey W. Anderson, “Annual Report to the International Committee of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of the Christian Circle of the Polytechnic Students of the Polytechnic Institute of Peter the Great, affirmed by the Institute Council, for the year ending September 30, 1914,” January 1915, 2–6. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 30. Harvey W. Anderson, “Annual Report of the Student Christian Circle of the Polytechnic Institute of Petrograd, for the year beginning October 1st, 1914 and ending September 30, 1915,” 2. Correspondence and Reports 1915–1916. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 31. Excerpt of letter from Varvara Maksimovskaia in St. Petersburg to Petr Rodionovich Slezkin in Kiev, February 7, 1914. GARF f. 102 OO, o. 1914, d. 266, l. 1 and 1 reverse. 32. Police report, January 10, 1913. GARF f. 102 OO, o. 1912, d. 59 ch 32 l B, ll. 147 reverse, 148 reverse, 149. 33. Police excerpt of letter from Anna Georgievna Germaize, a student of the higher

women’s courses in Kiev, to Sofia Iosifovna Ostashevskaia, a teacher at the Minsk Men’s Gymnasium in Minsk, November 2, 1912. GARF f. 102 OO, o. 1912, d. 266, l. 3 and 3 reverse. 34. Letter from George M. Day to John R. Mott, October 26, 1913, 2–3. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 35. Letter from George M. Day to John R. Mott, February 23, 1914, 2, 5–6. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 36. Letter from George M. Day to E. T. Colton, December 5, 1913, 2. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 37. Excerpt from letter from “Tolya” in Petrograd to Anatoly Petrovich Teremets, a university student in Kiev, January 18, 1915. GARF f. 102 OO, o. 1915, d. 266, l. 1. 38. George M. Day, “Student Life and Thought in Russia at the Present Time,” 1–2, 5. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 39. Letter from George M. Day to John R. Mott, February 24, 1915, 1–5. Correspondence and Reports 1915–1916. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 40. George M. Day, “Annual Report 1915,” 16–20. Correspondence and Reports 1915–1916. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 41. Brandenburg, 101, 131–32, 135. 42. [Paul B. Anderson], “Russian Work—Policy Study,” November 23, 1943, 1. Policy Studies. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B., 3. KFYA. 43. Robert Sloan Latimer, With Christ in Russia (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), 96. 44. Bryn Geffert, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans: Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of Interwar Ecumenism (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 111. For a study of the evolving relationship between Bulgakov and the RSCM, see Robert Bird, “In Partibus Infidelium: Sergius Bulgakov and the YMCA (1906– 1940),” Symposion 1 (1996): 93–121. See also Latimer, With Christ in Russia, 97– 98. 45. George M. Day, “Annual Report to the International Committee on the Student Work of Russia for the year ending September 30, 1910.” October 20, 1910, 2–4, 7, 9–10, 12–15. Correspondence and Reports 1903–1910. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 46. Sherwood Eddy, “A Month among Russian Students,” [1912], 1–3. Correspondence and Reports 1911–1912. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 47. Sherwood Eddy, “Revelations of Russian Character,” March 1912, 1. Correspondence and Reports 1911–1912. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence

and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 48. George M. Day, “Annual Report to the International Committee on the Student Work in St. Petersburg for the year ending September 30, 1912,” [September 1912], 1–9. Correspondence and Reports 1911–1912. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 49. Day, “Annual Report to the International Committee,” 1–9. 50. Letter from [Aleksandr Nikitin] to John R. Mott, October 13, 1912, 1–3. Correspondence and Reports 1911–1912. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 51. Studencheskii listok, January–February 1912, no. 1, 3rd year of publication, 3–8. Student Leaflet. Russian Work, Restricted, Periodicals. KFYA. 52. Studencheskii listok, January–February 1913, no. 1, 9–17. Student Leaflet. Russian Work, Restricted, Periodicals. KFYA. 53. “Among Russian Students,” The Missionary Review of the World (MRW) 21, no. 5 (May 1908): 386–87; “Signs of Life in Russia,” MRW 24, no. 2 (February 1911): 84; “Work Among Russian Woman Students,” MRW 25, no. 5 (May 1912): 388–89. 54. George M. Day, “Annual Report for Year Ending September 30, 1913,” 1–14, 19– 21. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 55. George M. Day, Kiev, Russia, “Annual Report for the Year Ending September 30, 1914,” 5–10. Correspondence and Reports 1913–1914. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 56. [H. W. Anderson], “The Russian Student Situation, Facts about the Situation,” [July 1, 1915], 1–4. Correspondence and Reports 1915–1916. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917. KFYA. 57. “Vyderzhki iz pisem 1983 g. staroi ‘dvizhenki,’ uchastvovavshei v rabote Dvizheniia do i v nachale revoliutsii v Peterburge, Kieve, Moskve,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 186, no. 2 (2003): 331–34. 58. S. Shchukin, “V. F. Martsinkovskii, 1884–1971,” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 101/102, nos. 3–4 (1971): 323. 59. V. F. Martsinkovskii, Zapiski veruiushchego: Iz istorii religioznogo dvizheniia v sovetskoi rossii (Prague: 1929), published by author, 254, 6. 60. Martsinkovskii, Zapiski veruiushchego, 54–55. 61. Martsinkovskii, Zapiski veruiushchego, 58–59, 72, 78, 96–104. Michael Rowe, Russian Resurrection: Strength in Suffering—a History of Russia’s Evangelical Church (London: Marshall Pickering, 1994), 71–78, includes these accounts and places them within the context of the growth of the broader evangelical movement in Russia. 62. Martsinkovskii, Zapiski veruiushchego, 110–11, 124, 113, 231, 232n34, 263, 266. For a more detailed presentation of his views, see Vladimir Martsinkovskii, Smysl Zhizni (Novosibirsk: Posokh, 1996). 63. Martsinkovskii, Zapiski veruiushchego, 134, 138, 150, 139, 149, 236, 239. 64. Martsinkovskii, Zapiski veruiushchego, 241, 271–73, 277–79, 302, 295.

65. V. Podoliak, “Missionery anti-kommunizma,” Nauka i religiia, no. 12 (December 1971): 55. 66. [W. Ambartsumov], “Report of the Russian Student Christian Federation during the Period 1918–1921,” 1–6. Correspondence and Reports, 1921. Russian Work Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 67. Helen Ogden, “Russian Student Life,” Intercollegian, October 1922, 7. 68. E. T. Colton, “Report on the Condition of Students and Professors in Russia,” March 28, 1923, 4–5. Articles #2. Russian Work, Restricted, Ethan T. Colton Collection. KFYA. 69. “Russia. Impressions of the Russian Student Christian Movement. For the period Oct. 1st, 1922–June 30th, 1923,” 1–5. RSCM. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 70. “Report of the International Committee to the National Council, Department, Russian—Overseas Division,” [1924], 11. 1924. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929, Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA. 71. “Russia” [a report for 1924–1925], 4–5. 1924–1925. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1922–1944. KFYA. 72. “Private Report on the Russian Religious Situation, January 1925, Prepared under the direction of John R. Mott,” 6. Russian Orthodox Church. Russian Work, Restricted, Ethan T. Colton Collection. KFYA. 73. Letter from A. T. Corcoran to E. T. Colton, September 16, 1926, 1–2. 1926. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1922–1944. KFYA. 74. “Fourth Report on the Fund ‘to Strengthen and Enrich the Russian Orthodox Church,’” March 1928, no page numbers. Russian Church Fund. Russia. KFYA. 75. [E. T. Colton], “Russian Student Christian Movement,” [1927], 1–3, and attachments. RSCM. Colton, Ethan T., Papers. KFYA. 76. [Anderson], “Russian Work Policy Study,” 2. 77. “The Russian Student Christian Movement in France,” December 1969, with an appendix “Memorandum presented by the Russian Student Christian Movement to the International Committee YMCA,” May 12, 1964. RSCM Program Audit 1969. France, Russian Student Christian Movement 1950s–1960s, Chekhov Publishing Co. 1957, Local Associations, 1922–1960s. KFYA. 78. “Brief Outline of Budget, Present and Prospective Leaders of Orthodox Church in Russian Emigration” [1925], 1. 1924–1925. Russian Church. KFYA. 79. [E. T. Colton], “Russian Student Christian Movement,” [1927], 1–3, and attachments. 80. [E. T. Colton], “Russian Student Christian Movement,” [1928], 1–4. Russia. KFYA. 81. “Fourth Report on the Fund ‘to Strengthen and Enrich the Russian Orthodox Church,’” March 1928. 82. Police excerpt of a letter from I. Aivazov of Moscow to Archbishop Anthony (Volynsky) in St. Petersburg, January 25, 1909. GARF f. 102 OO, o. 1909, d. 72, l. 2.

83. Walter Sawatsky, Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1981), 180–81.

Chapter 7

The Russian Student Christian Movement Abroad The émigré Russian Student Christian Movement which developed across Europe after the revolution grew out of the earlier student movement within Russia. However, the later movement more closely identified with the life of the Orthodox Church. The YMCA continued its partnership with the new RSCM and made a tremendous influence within the Russian student population. With the influence of the Y, the RSCM helped to connect many young men and women with the church and contributed to a revival of faith for many. Many intellectual and religious leaders for Russia Abroad emerged from within the ranks of the RSCM and went on to revitalize Orthodoxy as it took shape in a new environment—without the support and control of the state.

PURPOSE As Vasily Zenkovsky, a professor of psychology and an Orthodox believer, considered the needs of Russian students living in Western Europe after the revolution, he sensed serious moral and spiritual deficiencies. His evaluation was similar to Nicolay’s, noted in the previous chapter. However, Zenkovsky believed that student needs were more severe than before the revolution. Due to the chaotic political and military developments surrounding the world war, revolution, and civil war, thousands of university-age men were beginning new lives as refugees in the cities of western and central Europe. Many of these had begun their higher education in Russia before the war and desired to complete their studies. By 1926, over 8,200 Russian émigrés entered higher educational institutions in Europe: 3,200 lived in Czechoslovakia, 1,000 in Yugoslavia, and 700 in France. The others were scattered throughout European cities. Many governments and humanitarian groups contributed to cover the costs of educational expenses. The older segment of the Russian émigré population also contributed to the need. Therefore, approximately 6,600 of the 8,600 Russian students received tuition and living stipends. Although many students received significant financial support, they still led difficult lives. Most stipends provided only the minimal necessities, so many lived in virtual poverty. The majority faced the difficult task of completing their studies in a second language. They experienced a difficult mental transition after serving in the military or performing physical labor for several years. With these hardships, they could not turn to their families or societies which had existed in Russia.[1] As the leaders of the RSCM considered the need for religious ministry, they also realized that these men and women were the only large body of Russian young people able to receive religious instruction. The Soviet government formalized its opposition to religion in the 1929 law which stated, “Religious unions are forbidden . . . to organize either special prayer or other meetings for children, youth, women, or general meetings for bible study, literature, handicraft, religious teaching, etc.,

meetings, groups, circles.”[2] The leaders of the RSCM planned their efforts to meet social and religious needs and help preserve the culture of Russian Orthodoxy during these critical years. According to Zenkovsky and Lev Liperovsky, the movement was formed for careful study of the Christian faith and for active and organized involvement in the life of the church.[3] The leaders encouraged students to understand Orthodox doctrine and celebrate the liturgy.[4] The YMCA described its participation as an effort in character development and religious education among youth.[5] Both Orthodox leaders and American YMCA participants expressed that the movement was part of an effort to preserve the Orthodox culture which was under attack by the Bolsheviks. One YMCA secretary explained, “the spirit of Russia’s youth must be preserved for Russia, it must be morally uplifted, joined to the riches of Russian culture.”[6] The adopted formal purpose statement was broad but very specific: “The Russian Student Christian Movement abroad has as its fundamental purpose the association of believing youth for the service of the Orthodox Church and bringing unbelievers to faith in Christ. It seeks to aid its members to work out a Christian view of life, and sets itself the task of preparing defenders of the Church and faith, able to conduct struggle with contemporary atheism and materialism.”[7] Of course, frequently there is a difference between the stated purpose of an organization and the actual purposes which motivate the members. In 1926 a Y secretary reported on a survey distributed to members in Europe; the survey asked what were the fundamental aims of the movement. The overwhelming majority (thirty-two) answered “to awake youth and to lead it into a real religious life within the Orthodox Church.” Ten replied to serve the future Russia; two replied to make Orthodoxy known to the West; one replied to fight atheism and Communism.[8]

DEVELOPMENTS Four social groups participated in the exile RSCM: prerevolutionary clergy, scholars, active leaders of the prerevolutionary movement, and the younger generation, who grew up in emigration. With this diversity, the movement slowly worked out its direction at annual conferences from 1923 to 1930. The first general conference was held in 1923 in Prerov, Czechoslovakia; the movement decided that it would function with an Orthodox confessional program, not with an interconfessional approach. In 1924 at Prerov leaders decided that the organization must have a non-political nature and be open to members of all political convictions. The 1925 conference in Hopovo, Yugoslavia, addressed the nature of the circles and decided that they would be Orthodox brotherhoods, but with free collaboration and without submission to the hierarchy. After 1925 the movement began to gather regularly in France. In 1926, the movement met in Bierville, while the 1927 conference met in Clermont-en-Argonne. Here it was affirmed that the RSCM would be non-clerical in nature—without formal attachment to a specific hierarchy or jurisdiction. In 1928 leaders met in Montfort to

determine goals for outreach to youth and service to church; the meeting in 1929 in Saveuse centered on the development of a foundational Orthodox worldview. The seventh conference of 1930, in Boissy, discussed the practical application of goals and confirmed an ecumenical direction. Lev Zander, who began working as acting general secretary in 1936, reflected that at these conferences the movement addressed four serious difficulties: growing nationalism, economic hardship, generational differences, and program diversity.[9] One of the key YMCA secretaries with the émigré RSCM was not an American, but a European, Gustave Gerard Kullmann (1894–1961). He earned a university degree in Germany and a law degree at the University of Zurich. He belonged to the Swiss Reformed Church but in the 1930s converted to Russian Orthodoxy. From 1918 to 1919 he was a YMCA secretary for student work in Switzerland, but in 1920 he began working with the American program for émigré Russians. Another key secretary was Donald A. Lowrie (1889–1974), a graduate of Wooster College, who later received a doctorate from the University of Prague. He worked in Russia from 1916 to 1922, and continued working with Russians, especially students, from 1922 to 1932. He later continued his work with the YMCA from 1939 to 1952 with POWs and refugees. One of the leading Russian YMCA secretaries to work with students was Fyodor Pianov (1889–1969). An Orthodox believer, he worked as a Y secretary from 1917 to 1918 in Russia; in 1920 he resumed this work in Europe with the RSCM and Action Orthodoxe programs. He was later sent to the Buchenwald camp by the Nazis. Kullmann was recruited to YMCA work by Archie Harte and sent to the Russian Work Training Course in Cleveland. He first served Russian refugees in a camp, then began to work with students in Berlin along with Amos Ebersole and Pianov. He helped many enter German universities—he was very helpful, since he himself had studied in the country. Kullman, Pianov, and Paul B. Anderson made the contacts with the Russian intellectuals. Kullman was on the editorial board for the YMCA Press and was an advisor for the Put’ journal. He was a key supporter of the RSCM’s move to be an Orthodox movement. He came with his wife Andree and three children to the United States for a time of furlough and study in 1935. Soon thereafter he and his wife divorced. A year later he married Maria Mikhailovna Zernova and entered the Russian Orthodox Church. He resigned from the YMCA and entered the Refugee Service connected with the League of Nations.[10] Apparently Kullman was the only YMCA secretary in the Russian work (from 1900 to 1940) to convert to Orthodoxy. The founding of the second RSCM was a joint venture between Russian university men and women and the American YMCA. In the early 1920s significant groups of Russians began to meet at universities in five European cities. The Russian students initiated the groups in Belgrade, Sofia, and Paris, while American Y secretaries established the meetings in Berlin and Prague. These were Kullmann, Ebersole, Ralph Hollinger, and Lowrie.[11] They attempted to understand the mindset and priorities of Russian professors and students as they advised and encouraged them. At the meetings learners and professors met for study and discussion of the

Bible, the writings of the Church Fathers, and Russian philosophy. They also met for mutual support and assistance.[12] Russian students from various European chapters met for their first conference in 1923 in Prerov, Czechoslovakia. This meeting, organized by Zenkovsky, centered on the celebration of the liturgy. The event became a monumental experience for the participants as they shared their struggles and their common desire for a Christian life. At the Prerov conference the young men and women decided that the movement should not be interconfessional, but Russian Orthodox in nature. They had invited outstanding Russian Orthodox émigré professors to participate, and these professors deeply influenced the students in their choice of direction.[13] In 1924 these students and professors established the RSCM as an autonomous organization with a central bureau in Prague, Czechoslovakia. The center moved to Paris in 1926 and utilized the YMCA’s facility in the French capital.[14] In addition to its regular meetings and conferences, this movement participated in a variety of innovative ventures. It interacted with the World’s Student Christian Federation (WSCF) and encouraged the group to change a major element of its philosophy. Until 1926 the federation operated as an interconfessional body in which the member groups attempted to focus on the elements of Christian faith and practice which all members accepted—Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. In 1926 the federation began to operate as an ecumenical body in which member groups were encouraged to express the fullness of their confession’s faith and practice. Members of the Russian movement began to meet with Anglican students in England in order to explore the common elements of their faith and encourage harmony between Orthodox and Anglican believers. These students founded the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius in 1927.[15] Nicolas Zernov, who earned a doctoral degree from Oxford University, participated in the fellowship and served as secretary from 1934 to 1947. He emerged as one of the most dynamic and influential members of the whole movement.[16] In the 1930s Orthodox students began to meet with young people in the villages of the Baltic states to help them grow in their understanding of faith. This effort led to the founding of the Christian Peasant Youth Movement. In France several students began an effort to preserve the traditional Russian practice of icon writing. They met for classes in the YMCA building in Paris.[17] Another group in Paris committed itself to a regular ministry with Russian children in the city. Hundreds of boys and girls participated in camps and club meetings.[18] The leadership of the movement, especially Zenkovsky, influenced the direction of the YMCA’s work in such predominantly Orthodox countries as Greece and Bulgaria. Mott directed three significant consultations which brought together YMCA leaders and senior Orthodox clergy to discuss the best manner of cooperation.[19] As students and professors participated in a wide array of efforts and activities, they gradually maintained less contact with the international movement. As the focus of the organization broadened, the administration decentralized and exercised less direct control over the different activities.[20] Several groups actually formed

independent associations, so the movement formally reorganized in 1935.[21] Until World War II the RSCM continued to operate from its headquarters in Paris and to contribute significantly to religious education among Slavic émigré youth in France.[22] The formation of the RSCM made sense within the context of the Russian émigré students during this period. They felt a need to organize and cooperate for material and intellectual support and to “create their own framework for any future role they could play in the homeland.” Marc Raeff points out that the RSCM circles were rooted in history—the intellectual circle, or kruzhok, had been the basic structure for the sharing of significant ideas since the eighteenth century. During the nineteenth century they grew in prominence. Many of these circles appeared in emigration as young people came together “to find answers to their emotional anguish and thirst for self-improvement, and to dedicate themselves to work for the common good of their homeland.” The RSCM emerged in this environment with the inspiration of both Russian and American traditions; it became a “youth movement that was quite sui generis.”[23] Amos Ebersole was the first American YMCA secretary to develop a Russian student ministry in Berlin. He was appointed after it was learned that several hundred Russians had enrolled in the technical schools and university of Berlin. He was helped by Pianov, who took leadership when Ebersole left in 1922. Pianov was assisted by Kullman, who was leading the YMCA work with Russians in Germany. Marie Brechet, a secretary for the RSCM in Russia, began working with Russian students in Prague in 1921, when about one hundred Russian and Ukrainian students were enrolled at the university. In that year the Czech government invited three thousand Russian refugees from Constantinople and the Balkans to study at the University of Prague and other institutions in the area. Hollinger, S. M. Keeny, and Lowrie were the earliest American Y staff members to head this service.[24] Nikolai Zernov was an early leader of the student movement in Belgrade; after the revolution he began to study theology at the university there. He explained that there were a wide variety of Russian students in his department at the university, but he began to develop relationships within a group “which sought answers in theology to questions raised by the revolution.” He explained that they began to regularly meet for discussion of common concerns; eventually this took the form of an Orthodox student circle, with a wide variety of cultural, political, and religious backgrounds. However, as Zernov explained, “We found our unity in the Church.” During the first year of meetings, works by these authors were discussed: St. Ignatius, Isaac the Syrian, Vladimir Soloviev, and Mikhail Gershenzon. Zenkovsky began his participation in this circle soon after its formation in 1921. At that time he was teaching psychology at the university. His first lectures on Orthodox culture and the revolution in Russia raised heated discussion for these students. He argued that one of the causes of the revolution had been the church’s support of autocracy: people had left the church because it had supported the government and restricted personal freedoms. Not everyone shared his views, but nonetheless Zenkovsky became one of the most

active members of the circle. A frequent visitor to circle meetings was Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky), one of the three candidates for patriarch in 1918. Until 1923 Zernov and the circle in Belgrade were not aware of the YMCA’s interaction with Orthodox students in Prague and Paris. Therefore, they were very surprised to receive a telegram from Hollinger, a Y staff member who wanted to meet with the Belgrade circle. As Zernov explained, “We looked on all Western Christians as heretics, but the YMCA with its red triangle seemed to us to be an organization which was Masonic and hostile to the church.” However, they decided to meet with him and were impressed with his knowledge of Orthodoxy and his ability to speak Russian. Zernov and others saw him as “sincere,” but others were not convinced. This meeting with Hollinger led Zernov and the Belgrade circle to participate in interconfessional student conferences and develop acquaintances beyond the sphere of Orthodoxy. The decision to begin this process was not an easy one, for many objected to participating in these conferences or receiving money from non-Orthodox organizations. At the first international meetings, organized by the WSCF, members of the Belgrade circle had many opportunities to meet students who had no knowledge of Orthodoxy. As Zernov described, they had many opportunities for “missionary work” among the heretics. His openness to Anglicans (especially Anglo-Catholics) increased over time through participation in meetings. His first impressions were that these students were “naïve” and filled with a “spirit of optimism.” Their loud laughing also impressed him. He eventually decided that these young people were not heretics, but sincere believers who had not experienced the “richness and fullness of Orthodox tradition.” However, they did confess a faith in the Trinity and in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Zernov was less impressed with German Protestants. To him it seemed they were filled with doubt over the existence of God. They were very attracted to philosophical pantheism and the goals of the revolution in Russia: “It seemed that they were ready to help Lenin and Trotsky in a campaign against western democracy.” His experiences led him to develop more contacts between Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic students. He decided that “the task of our generation is the reconciliation of Christians of the East and the West.” Years later Zernov described his appreciation for the work of American YMCA leaders, specifically Pete MacNaughten, Anderson, and Kullman: Their experience and benevolence were very valuable for the Movement. With them we immediately developed a relationship of full trust and friendship. Although financial assistance from foreigners passed through their hands they never behaved as a boss. On the contrary, they were attracted to Orthodoxy and Russian culture, they spoke Russian well, and identified themselves completely with the Movement. Each of them were specialists in their own sphere of work. [25]

The American YMCA and Russian student leaders began to develop specific ministry plans for a wider émigré student work across Europe. Aleksandr Nikitin, a

participant in the prerevolutionary RSCM, proposed an “Evangelistic Campaign Amongst Russian Students in Europe,” which was approved by Mott. The plan was to invite Vladimir Martsinkovsky, Liperovsky, and Stoyan Petkov to work as paid YMCA secretaries alongside MacNaughten and Marie Breshet; the Russian work was to be conducted with Russian leadership. Nikitin spoke to Professor Anton Kartashev, who was ready to provide assistance. The plan called for a conference to be held in September 1922 in Prague. One goal was to develop a “Central Committee of Professors and Secretaries” to lead the ministry among Russian students in Europe of the “Russian Student Christian Association.” At the conference a ministry plan for the coming year would be developed. Nikitin planned to invite five professors to the conference: Georges Florovsky, Kartashev, Professor Pavel Novgorodtsev (lecturer with the Berlin YMCA), Prince Trubetskoy (lecturer for the Bulgarian Student Christian Association), and Protopresbyter Shavelsky (professor, lecturer for the Bulgarian Student Christian Association).[26] These plans were never fully realized due to developments among the leaders, especially at the 1923 Prerov conference. Years after this event, Militsa Zernova wrote of her memories from this first general RSCM conference: “Already on the first evening it became clear how diverse were the different groups that had gathered.” The majority were students who were participants of cities from across Europe; most of them had become deeply attached to the Orthodox Church. There were also a number of professors, many of them former Marxists. The third group included Protestant representatives of the student movement from prerevolutionary Russia. Finally there was a group of Orthodox believers who objected to any foreign assistance due to their concerns about Masonry. Zernova concluded, it “seemed that these people would never reach an agreement.”[27] Sergei Bulgakov, Liperovsky, Nikitin, and Martsinkovsky all participated in the prerevolutionary RSCM and attended the 1923 conference. A main topic for discussion at the 1925 Hopovo conference among one hundred students and guests was the difference between “circles” and “brotherhoods.” The more traditional Orthodox participants wanted to develop brotherhoods in a conservative manner under the control of the hierarchy. The more progressive participants preferred a more informal organization which would not hinder outreach to new participants.[28] However, after the 1923 conference some interconfessional Russian circles continued—the RSCM in Czechoslovakia consisted of several. Brechet led an interconfessional circle which started three Bible study groups for new participants. The Russian bishop Sergei directed an Orthodox circle which studied the Orthodox faith. Lowrie hosted a group which studied the Bible, church history, and Russian religious philosophy. These all met in the city of Prague; the circles which met on the outskirts of the city were led by students. The Russian Department of the YMCA had an office in the Studentsky Domov (Student House) which provided a meeting place and library. However, by 1925 Y secretaries estimated that their combined efforts

reached only ten percent of the Russian student population in Prague.[29] Among the early years of the RSCM abroad, four of the key leaders were known as the “professors.” Nikolai Berdyaev was seen as the “free thinker” and the “great provocateur.” Kartashev represented the experience of the Orthodox theological academies and the St. Petersburg religious-philosophical meetings; he also had served as a minister in the Provisional Government. Zenkovsky was a teacher and organizer; he led the meetings. Bulgakov shared many of these characteristics—and was also a priest. He played a determining role in the Movement’s choice of a churchly and Orthodox character; he led this adoption of a confessional approach over the prerevolutionary interconfessional direction. This man also emphasized two ideas which became central for the RSCM: Christian culture (the “churchification” of life) and the requirement of freedom (without external control).[30] The Orthodox confessional approach of the RSCM was problematic for a number of YMCA secretaries: Anderson reported on a meeting attended by several staff members working in Europe. Many topics of the Russian work were discussed, including the RSCM: “I may say that several expressed their fear that our connection with the Russian Student Christian Movement in Europe was on the wrong basis,— that we were in danger of leading students away from the Y.M.C.A. instead of into it.”[31] Kullman was the leading YMCA influence for moving the RSCM in a confessional direction. The movement was very attached to him and many were very disappointed when they learned that he might leave the Russian work to become general secretary of the WSCF. RSCM leaders, including Zernov, wrote to express their concern about the rumor they have heard about Kullmann permanently leaving the work. “Mr. Kullmann is endowed with quite a special gift of understanding the Russian people and of feeling our attitude toward religion.” They concluded, “we ask you insistently not to detach Mr. Kullman from us and not to destroy, thus, the work which began only now in the emigration and which, with God’s help, may be developed, in a still more successful way, in Russia itself.”[32] In 1927 the leaders of the YMCA Russian work and the RSCM abroad reached an agreement that the Y would not organize a separate program for Russian youth but would support the work of the RSCM.[33] This agreement was difficult to accept for several in the European leadership of the Association. Colton expressed his concern that this position might eventually eliminate any contribution that could be made by the YMCA. He stated that he did not wish to simply build up his organization, but he did believe that it could make a practical contribution to the Kingdom of God among Russians.[34] Kullmann replied to Colton that he was more concerned with the content of the Russian work than the form of the organization or the use of the name “YMCA.” He did not share Colton’s view and attempted to explain his position in a letter. The letter provides background on why the American leaders in Paris decided not to work toward an émigré-led “Russian YMCA” which would exercise leadership over the various work in Europe. He does not feel that their Russian friends would be

willing to take on financial support for programs started by Americans, such as the YMCA Press. Part of this is due to “a deep and almost [ineradicable] suspicion against the ‘firm’—YMCA.” He supported the idea of helping the RSCM become more autonomous and self-supporting. He also defended his view as standing within the vision of the Y: “There is not one single aspect of our work which [is] not in line with the traditional aim and purpose of the YMCA. None of our activities contradict the program and the scope of the YMCA.”[35] An RSCM report for 1927 described its philosophy and relations to western organizations. The report acknowledged that the circles of the movement had been developed out of the experiences of the YMCA with the addition of the values of the Russian church. However, the movement “affirms our full independence from any nonOrthodox organization.” The RSCM was willing to accept assistance from nonOrthodox organizations which desired to help. The report pointed out the specific benefits received from the YMCA and other western believers: “The experience of Christian action in the world, the high level of personal attention to Christ, the wise combination of faith with the deeds of life, even the details of everyday life—these are the most essential characteristics of the spiritual riches, which the Western Christian world revealed before the Movement.”[36] In 1929 Berdyaev explained the uniqueness and significance of the RSCM’s experience: There exists no tradition of an Orthodox Young People’s Christian Movement. This is a new, a creative work; traditions have still to be built up. . . . The Christian movement of youth is the only place in the Russian emigration where “right” and “left” are working together peaceably. The hostility of political parties does much to hinder spiritual work among the Russian emigration. It must be said that the relationship with the Y.M.C.A. acts favorably in neutralizing and avoiding this party hostility.[37] One of Berdyaev’s other important contributions was his intolerance of exclusivist religious nationalism within the organization. He challenged movement members to consider the significance of extreme attitudes: “Nationalism is incompatible with Christianity; it is opposed to the Christian oecumenical spirit. . . . Militant nationalism is at present the greatest danger for the very existence of mankind.”[38] Berdyaev also contributed to the movement’s adoption of a confessional approach by arguing that true interconfessional cooperation was most profitable when each participant lived his own faith to its full measure. However, a controversy within the RSCM led to Berdyaev’s estrangement from the movement. Several members discussed boycotting his lectures since they believed he was not truly Orthodox. In response, Berdyaev wrote a harsh letter to Zenkovsky the president and ended his official connection to the RSCM. He no longer gave lectures at the movement’s headquarters and began speaking at a Paris social service center.[39] During the 1930s the movement faced a variety of economic problems as well as

philosophical debates. In 1930 the RSCM counted 1,220 active participants with 68 circles.[40] Its Social Service Committee provided a number of services to struggling Russians during the financial difficulties of the 1930s. This included a soup kitchen which served regular meals, and a home for the unemployed, which provided beds for forty-five people. The RSCM legal department helped many with the documentation needed for foreign workers in France.[41] In 1930 eight circles functioned in Paris. Three discussed the Bible, with one group focusing on the Sermon on the Mount and another on “Christianity and Modern Life.” One circle was the “Brotherhood of the Holy Trinity.” Others studied works of the church fathers, social problems, literary works, and modern Russia.[42] “For Russia. For the Faith!” (Za Rus’. Za Vieru!) became the motto of the movement during these years.[43] In 1936 the Paris branch of the RSCM and the Church of the Presentation of the Holy Virgin to the Temple left the YMCA office building and moved to a building on rue Olivier de Serres (which the movement purchased in 1951).[44] The émigré RSCM had an undefined relationship with the WSCF, due in part to the situation of its older sister movement within Russia. Officially the émigré RSCM was not a member of the WSCF, because the movement abroad had to remain separate from the movement within Russia for political reasons. However, the émigré movement worked in close contact with the WSCF.[45] Maria Skobtsova was a key RSCM participant of the 1930s; she was one of the most outspoken female leaders in the organization. Her bold and flamboyant personality combined with her passionate support of ministry to the poor to influence many émigré students. In Russia she had joined the revolutionary movement and participated in the literary circles gathered around Aleksandr Blok and Vyacheslav Ivanov. She married impulsively when young, had a child, and divorced soon thereafter. During the revolution she served as mayor of Anapa on the Black Sea. There the retreating White Army arrested and tried her for sympathizing with the Bolsheviks. Later, after the political scene changed, she escaped execution as a counterrevolutionary only after she bluffed a close relationship with Vladimir Lenin’s wife. She eventually converted and became a nun, but her lifestyle lost none of its revolutionary flair as she devoted herself to serving among the poor. She took part in active intellectual discussions with scholars in the movement, such as Berdyaev, Bulgakov, and Georgy Fedotov. She also roamed through Paris markets, begging for food to share with the poor. Late at night she searched for homeless people in order to assist them.[46] RSCM circles in Latvia, Estonia, and Vyborg, Finland, continued to develop in the 1930s. Two circles met in Vyborg to study Christian apologetics and philosophy. They drew participants from the Russian college in the city.[47] One of the most tragic chapters in the history of the RSCM was the story of Ivan Arkadievich Lagovsky, Tatiana Evgenievna Desen, and Nikolai Nikolaevich Penkin, three leaders of the movement in the Baltics. In 1933 Lagovsky received an appointment as RSCM secretary for the Baltic states; he and his coworkers continued to work in the region

after these countries were annexed by the USSR in 1940. Professor Sergei Gennadievich Isakov of Tartu University has reviewed more than seven hundred pages of interrogations in the file on the RSCM in the KGB archives. These records provide insight into the work of Lagovsky, Desen, and Penkin. When questioned about the anti-Soviet nature of their work, Lagovsky replied, “The Movement set as its task the struggle with contemporary materialism and atheism, the attraction of young people to the church, and assistance in working out a religious worldview. It is built on foundations opposed to communism.” The documents also told their fate: “In the beginning of April of 1941, in a closed session of a military tribunal was issued a decision—to execute by firing squad. After a few days the sentence was brought to fulfillment.” According to documents in the KGB archives, Lagovsky was arrested by the political police on August 5, 1940, because “his activity is dangerous for the state system and security.” He was transferred to Leningrad and charged with his crime: “Lagovsky Ivan Arkadievich, being a participant of the Russian Student Christian Movement in Estonia, conducted anti-communist activity and work which is hostile to the Soviet Union, which is sufficient grounds for charging of crime under article 58, paragraph 4.” The documents provided information on his early life and studies—he received a candidate degree in theology from the Kiev Theological Academy. In 1919 he left Russia on a ship to Constantinople. He moved to Paris and worked as an assistant in the Theological Institute. In 1933 he moved to Tartu and worked there with the RSCM.[48] World War II created a tremendous challenge for the RSCM. Zander reported that the RSCM was required to cease its formal activity, but members were able to continue working in parishes and schools. The war forced the RSCM headquarters to drop the main focus of its work—the coordination of the movements throughout Europe: “All relations with abroad were stopped, life became abnormal and insecure, there was a threat of mobilisation, [imprisonment] or becoming a refugee.” From autumn 1939 until spring 1944 the central office attempted to work in three areas: spiritual support for Russian soldiers in the French Army, one-day conferences, and ecumenical work. Like all social organizations, the RSCM had no legal right to hold retreats in spite of their non-political character. The organization was investigated by the German authorities, and the offices were searched. Several documents were seized and files were sealed. In March 1943 Zander was called to the Gestapo and questioned about his ecumenical work. He was told to only work on academic projects at home and not engage in any social service work—otherwise he would be arrested. He was told, “A simple order is enough to send you where nobody will ever see you again.” However, the church near the headquarters was able to legally continue several aspects of the movement’s work.[49] After the war, refugees from Estonia and Latvia founded a branch of the RSCM in Germany. However, due to emigration, this wing soon reorganized in the United States as the “Christian Movement of Russian Students in America” in 1950. Its constitution defined the organization as an organic part of the RSCM in Europe. Professor M. M. Karpovitch of Harvard University served as an early president. The

Vestnik of the RSCM was restarted in 1949 in Germany and transferred back to Paris in 1950. In 1952 Kirill Elchaninov replaced Zander as general secretary.[50] An “initiative group” of these Russian émigrés in Germany wrote for permission to organize a German department of the RSCM. Their letter shared a history of the movement in the Baltic states during the war. After the 1940 occupation many movement members continued to practice their faith actively, and some lost their lives as a result. A number of RSCM members were able to enter German-occupied zones of the USSR and serve among churches, youth, and children.[51] In 1957 the International Committee of the YMCA transferred majority rights and responsibilities of the YMCA Press and United Publishers, Ltd., to the Russian Student Christian Movement, which agreed to operate both organizations according to stated purposes and goals.[52] From 1961 to 1979 the RSCM sent more than 500,000 books to the USSR. They also sent hundreds of packages to needy people and families of those imprisoned for religious reasons. Father Dimitry Dudko wrote from the USSR: “We place great hopes on you.”[53] Many Soviet readers appreciated the Vestnik (Messenger) journal published by the RSCM. One reader wrote, “The Russian Student Christian Movement is the symbol and example of the future church community so much needed here. Father S. Bulgakov wrote about this, 25 years ago, in an article entitled ‘The Service of the RSCM in the Church.’ The only religious magazine for the last years has been your Messenger. You can hardly imagine with what an attention and hope each issue, each page of your magazine is being read.”[54] The Vestnik was an important aspect of the RSCM’s work; Zander expressed his appreciation for the rich content provided in every issue—intellectual reflection and creative discussion for Christian living.[55] During the 1970s the RSCM began to emphasize a dual purpose in serving Russia—and the West. As new generations of the Russian emigration were born, many began to adopt the languages of the country where they were living. The movement began to focus more attention on developing Orthodox Christians for life in the West. Aleksei Kniazev stressed that the development of “French Orthodoxy” was especially strategic due to the widespread reinterpretation of traditional Christian doctrines within Western Christianity. He argued that the West was “now engulfed by neo-Arian heresy” and explained that for “the Christian West, as it once was for Arius, Christ is already not the true God-man, Savior, Victor over sin and death—but, in the best case, only a teacher of morals.”[56] The one hundredth issue of the Vestnik was published in 1971. Over the years the Vestnik RSCM/RCM had developed from an organizational bulletin for the RSCM to a “thick journal” for the Russian émigré world. Before 1939, the role of the thick journal was played by Put’ and Novyi grad, neither of which reappeared after the war. The Vestnik did not claim to be the heir of these journals, but it eventually replaced them.[57] The first issue was published by editors Lagovsky and Zernov on December 1, 1925. From 1930 to 1931 editorial responsibility was held by Lagovsky and G.

Fedotov, and from 1937 to 1939 Zenkovsky served as editor. From 1940 to 1948 the Vestnik was not published. In 1949 two different versions of the journal appeared—in Germany (edited by A. Kiselev and then G. Benigsen) and also in Paris (edited by Ivan Morozov). In 1950 publication was united in Paris with Morozov as the editor. From 1952 to 1969 Morozov coedited with N. A. Struve, who currently serves as editor.[58] The editors made two significant changes to the Vestnik cover beginning with issue 112 in 1974. The word “Student” was dropped from the title. Also, the cover inscription “Paris-New York” became “Paris-New York-Moscow.” These were not merely cosmetic changes, as the Vestnik was no longer simply a journal of the student movement. The editors of the journal viewed the publication as a messenger of a Russian Christian movement which connected Paris to New York and Moscow. Even though there was not yet an organizational base in the USSR, a spiritual connection united believers across geographical boundaries.[59]

FUNDING During the 1920s and 1930s the American YMCA contributed manpower and finances to the movement. In 1926 the RSCM organized its first fundraising campaign, following the example of the Association in the United States. They chose one week to collect donations within the Russian émigré community. In 1926 19,755 French francs were collected, in 1927—29,613, and in 1928—90,000. In 1928, the Y provided twenty percent of the RSCM local Paris budget. The remaining 80 percent came from the fundraising campaign and other income.[60] In 1930, the movement operated with a fairly large budget of over 35,000 dollars. The membership contributed 26 percent of this amount, and the American YMCA donated 24 percent. The International YMCA also secured an additional 9 percent, while the WSCF provided 7 percent. Contributions from other Russians, Europeans, and Americans covered the balance of the budget.[61] However, as the worldwide economic depression spread, the donations dropped dramatically. As a result, the movement was forced to curtail its activities during the 1930s. The total budget for 1936–1937 for the organization in Paris included the general department, the children’s home, Sunday School, boys and girl’s departments, medical service, library, and summer camps. The total came to 293,822 francs.[62]

CHURCH RELATIONS Although many Russian émigré clergy supported the RSCM, several priests adamantly opposed its work. Most favored closer contact with the churches of Europe and America, yet a vocal conservative minority advocated total separation from non-Orthodox churches. The metropolitan of the first group, Evlogy, welcomed the activity of the movement and the support of the YMCA.[63] He believed that “It is the beginning of a new Russia, bright, beautiful and deeply religious. The Movement

looks to the Orthodox Church for guidance and inspiration.”[64] The second group of clergy, led by Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky), met in Yugoslavia in 1926 and issued a condemnation of the YMCA and the World’s Student Christian Federation as “anti-Christian.” This condemnation forbade Orthodox believers from associating with the groups. However, most clergy and believers did not accept this pronouncement. [65] A number of priests accused the movement of departure from the dogmas of the faith, of heresy, of “Marxism.” The attachment of “repentant Marxists” to religion brought suspicion. There were reprimands also for the fact that the very name of the Russian Student Christian Movement omitted the word “Orthodox.” It was suggested that the organization had secretly “sold out” to Catholicism. The philosophers received accusations of theological modernism.[66] Bryn Geffert comments, “Accusations of Masonic sympathies—a sort of catchall condemnation frequently employed by conservative Orthodox critical of groups that seemed inadequately Orthodox—had been circulating long before the Karlovatskii condemnation.” Geffert summarizes Metropolitan Antony’s dilemma related to the condemnation of the YMCA. The metropolitan actually opposed the resolution when it was presented by the organization, but he was not willing to separate himself from the Synod for the sake of the RSCM. This council served as his base of authority, and he was philosophically closer to this circle than to the RSCM and Metropolitan Evlogy’s community. In this context, Antony sent an awkward and contradictory letter to the RSCM which attempted to show support for the student movement, the YMCA, and the Synod. He assured the Movement’s members that he recognized their “devotion to the Orthodox Church.” However, he also challenged the movement to “humility, patience, and obedience,” and warned them of the hazards that come with “a surplus” of freedom. This letter did not bring an improvement in relations with the Synod and its supporters, and eventually Antony demonstrated clear hostility toward the Movement. Geffert summarizes, “Following the condemnation the RSCM charted a middle course, steadfastly refusing to recognize other confessions as equal to Orthodoxy, yet refusing to suspend relations with those confessions.”[67] Zernov wrote to Metropolitan Antony and expressed his frustration with the council’s decision: “Were all necessary steps really taken to establish the true character of the YMCA? I know that they were not asked to give any material; and that when they desired doing so it was said that it was not necessary.”[68] The Belgrade circle of the RSCM withdrew from the movement in 1928 due to the circle’s criticism of Protestant influence.[69] “For all their good work, the Russian Student Christian Movement could not avoid one of the regular hazards of émigré life in the form of attacks from the political extremes. The movement’s links with the YMCA, for instance, excited suspicions on the far right that Masonic influences were at work in the movement’s evangelical activity.”[70]

CONTROVERSIES

During the first sixteen years of the RSCM, three significant controversies developed within the group. The first concerned the relationship of the movement to the YMCA. In 1927 Edgar MacNaughten, a senior YMCA secretary, wanted to expand the Association’s own ministry among Russian young men; but the movement leaders objected. They felt that only their organization should be responsible for this type of service. After consideration, the YMCA agreed with the leaders’ position.[71] The second controversy concerned the relationship of the movement to the church. One group favored a lay-directed system of leadership while another group desired a clergy-directed arrangement. Eventually the movement adopted the first model of administration. The students also debated whether the general focus of the group should be spiritual and philosophical in nature or more focused on practical work in society. The group gradually decided to focus more on issues of a spiritual nature and adopted the slogan “the churchification of life.”[72] Kartashev presented the 1920s debate concerning the formation of a nondenominational movement or a predominantly Orthodox movement by contrasting the experiences of Martsinkovsky and Nikitin, two leaders of the prerevolutionary movement who contributed to this debate. He called Martsinkovsky a “rock-solid antichurchman” (tverdokamennyi antitserkovnik) who “dramatically fell . . . into sectarianism” (Kartashev’s term for evangelical Christianity). Nikitin, on the other hand, “movingly confessed his decisive crossing over to Orthodox churchmanship.”[73] Liperovsky explained his view on interconfessionalism: “During the last year of our activities among the Russian students two directions in the work have appeared clearly, namely two different understandings of the principle of interconfessionalism. The first understanding is that the interconfessional Christian circles have communion one with another on the ground of bringing students to Christ.” This approach focused on evangelism; it encouraged members to participate in a church but not to bring any distinctive beliefs or practices from their church into the organization. Church participation was essentially a private matter. “The second tendency among the students . . . also accepts and appreciates the interconfessional principle, but it accepts it as [the] unification of confessional circles and groups.” In this plan, within the circles would be a shared form of church life. The circles could then have interaction with circles of a different confession. The student Christian circles are essentially Orthodox—but this seems to currently be “illegal.” Liperovsky wanted to legalize the second version of interconfessionalism and encourage students to develop their Orthodox faith freely within the circles and the larger movement of Russian Christian students.[74] Politics was a potentially divisive issue for the movement, so eventually a policy was set: The Movement is strictly non-political in character. Its members may undertake political work in various national organisations, but the Movement as such stands aside from political struggle in a most remarkable way. It unites representatives of the most opposed political and economic views, which is a particularly difficult

thing to do among Russians.[75] However, “right-wing émigré publications, such as ‘The Two-headed Eagle’ (organ of the ‘Monarchist Council’), constantly spread false rumors about the connections of the RSCM and Masonry, since the organization received subsidies from foreigners, in particular from the YMCA.” Toward the end of the 1920s there were serious disagreements within the RSCM regarding the idea of “churchification” (otserkovlenie). The disagreement was often a debate between the generations. The “fathers” focused on the impact of the church in the social sphere, while the “children” focused more on Russian national politics. In the 1930s this debate evolved into a division between the right and left wings of the RSCM. In 1933 the RSCM affirmed an apolitical approach. However, no decision could hide the emerging differences within the organization. The “left” attempted to find common ground between Christianity and socialism, while the “right” took a strong anticommunist position. Some members of the right displayed a more extreme Russian nationalism. The left followed the example of Berdyaev, and in the 1930s Mother Maria played a leading role. Nikitin, who had been a leader in the pre-revolutionary movement, played a leading role on the right. In 1935 the RSCM moved into its own facility on rue Olivier de Serres 91 in Paris. This reflected the desire of the leaders to establish the movement as a fully Russian organization, independent of the American YMCA. The work of the religious circles grew weaker in the 1930s—“due to a reduction of attention to missionary work” in comparison to the 1920s.[76] Metropolitan Evlogy addressed the controversial question of the YMCA and Masonry at an Association meeting in Bulgaria—several Orthodox hierarchs attended as guests. He explained that there was no evidence of an organizational connection between the YMCA and Masonry, although individual YMCA members were free to become a Mason if they chose. Evlogy added, “I think that the persons which had accused the YMCA of Masonry themselves did not believe in the accusations (seeing as how they were groundless and absurd), but used them for an attack on me.”[77]

OUTCOMES Although these students, professors, and YMCA secretaries struggled to define their goals and priorities, they were quite successful in fulfilling their purposes: encouraging loyalty to Orthodoxy among émigré young men, building character, and preserving Russian Orthodox culture. By 1930 almost 3,000 of the 8,200 Russian students were participating in the activities of the movement: the program reached almost a third of its potential audience with its program. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the students participated in religious study groups. During 1930 in France, 343 of the 1,406 movement participants met with a religious study group.[78] The YMCA building in Paris became a genuine center of Russian culture with its variety of programs and supportive atmosphere. The RSCM also contributed to improved understanding between Russian and Western Christians. The Fellowship of St. Alban and St.

Sergius helped many English and Russian Christians develop a deeper appreciation for the other’s heritage. As the movement leaders experimented with new programs and investigated untested ideas, they certainly did not reach their goals at times. Perhaps the greatest weakness of the movement was an inability to maintain cooperation among members with different strengths or goals. However, in spite of the inherent difficulties of its work, the movement significantly influenced the Russian student diaspora. The American YMCA supported the second student movement just as it had its prerevolutionary predecessor. During the 1950s Zander reported that the RSCM was still fulfilling its purpose: I think it is [the] most alive body which we have in the emigration. In many ways its work is unique (the only theological magazine—in Russian and in French); the only organization which has religious summer camps; Sunday schools, study circles, religious conferences for youth and so on. The RSCM is [a] real agency for missionary work: the children are christianizing their parents![79] In 2003 Struve, the editor of the Vestnik, shared about the role played by the YMCA in the history of the RSCM: “The first push came from the Protestant West, which aroused, even when the Movement became Orthodox, the indignation of conservative, withdrawn churchmen. Is it not time to acknowledge, that the good seeds, sown from the West, can give wonderful sprouts on Eastern Orthodox soil?”[80] The YMCA staff members made a significant contribution to the organization and methods of the RSCM, since lay organizations of this kind were rare in Russia. This was especially true with work for girls and boys. Y secretaries also provided training in fund-raising, which helped the movement to increase donations from Russian sources. The movement in turn passed on this experience to other Russian organizations. “The Movement is thus a force creating a new religious intelligentsia and through them a new religious culture for Russia.”[81] The hierarchy of the Orthodox Church recently commemorated the contribution made by some of the émigré believers associated with the RSCM: members of the emigration in France were canonized by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in January 2004. Dimitri Klepinin (1904–1944) and Mother Maria (Skobtsova) (1891–1945) were sainted on that day. Father Dimitri and Mother Maria worked with others to save the lives of numerous Jews during the Nazi occupation. Eventually they were deported to Germany. He died of pneumonia in the Dora camp on February 9, 1944. She was gassed at Ravensbruck on March 31, 1945. Witnesses stated that she had taken the place of another prisoner.[82] Soviet writers commemorated the role of the RSCM as well: A. V. Belov and A. D. Shilkin’s booklet Religiia v ideologicheskoi bor’be (Religion in the Ideological Struggle) (Moscow, 1970, 62 pages, 90,000 copies printed) analyzed a variety of anti-Communist periodicals and paid special attention to articles in the Vestnik. The authors argue, “In this literature the struggle against Marxist-Leninism is conducted from the position of Christianity— true, this is Christianity which has been touched up

and cleaned up, Christianity in its ideal form.” Kartashev, Zenkovsky, and others had contributed to a book published in New York titled Orthodoxy and Life, which prompted this review: Having held a grudge against the Soviet regime, which in the years of the Great October Revolution took away all privileges . . . the leaders of the movement cannot forget that they are left with a broken washtub [left with nothing]. Having learned nothing for more than fifty years, they continue to hate the Soviet Union and strive to raise a new generation of Russian emigration in a spirit of hatred toward communism and the Soviet regime; they are using the movement for the unification of the youth, concealed, it seems, with the innocent sign: “student Christian movement.” They concluded their feisty evaluation by arguing that the Vestnik “has devoted itself to the struggle against the forces of progress, peace, and true humanism” without journalistic integrity: “Constantly on the pages of the Vestnik appear slanderous little articles about unceasing repression against believers in the USSR, about the tyranny of local authorities, about lawlessness going on in Russia. These fabrications are picked up and passed on as if they were absolutely reliable.”[83] Perhaps the finest compliment on the value of the YMCA’s contribution to the RSCM came from Evlogy, the spiritual leader of many in the movement: We [the RSCM] utilized the material support of this organization [the American YMCA], which was wealthy and friendly to us. The YMCA, it is true, helped us and helps us, but we remained faithful to our ideology, which lay at the foundation of our association, and always emphasized our inner independence, which did not prevent us from maintaining the best relationships with our friends. At the head of the YMCA in the first years of the emigration were E. I. MacNaughten, P. F. Anderson, G. G. Kullman, leaders of broad views and considerate relationships to our ideology. They supported us, never using philanthropy as a means for propaganda of their doctrine among Russians.[84]

NOTES 1. L. Zander, “Russian Students in Emigration,” unpublished paper, 1926, 1–4. PBAP. See overview of RSCM in S. V. Karpenko, ed., Russkie bez otechestva: Ocherki antibol’shevistskoi emigratsii 20–40-kh godov (Moscow: Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Gumanitarnyi Universitet, 2000), 333–79. For V. V. Zenkovsky’s commentary on the development of the RSCM, see his undated manuscripts, “Moi vstrechi c vydaiushchimisia liud’mi” and “Moe uchastie v Russkom Studencheskom Khristianskom Dvizhenii.” Vasilii Zen’kovskii Collection, Bakhmeteff Archive, Columbia University, New York City. 2. [RSCM], “The Struggle for Youth,” unpublished brochure, [1931]. PBAP.

3. V. V. Zenkovsky and L. N. Liperovsky, “Orthodox Youth,” unpublished brochure, 1927. PBAP. 4. See Kenneth Scott Latourette, World Service: A History of the Foreign Work and World Service of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of the United States and Canada (New York: Association Press, 1957), 379. 5. [Paul B. Anderson], “Fundamentals of the Young Men’s Christian Association,” unpublished draft, 1929, 42. PBAP. 6. Donald E. Davis, “The American YMCA and the Russian Emigration,” Sobornost 9 (1987): 32. 7. Paul B. Anderson, “North American Y.M.C.A., Russian Service in Europe, Administrative Report for the Year 1936,” 9. Annual Reports 1933–1949. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Budgets and Appropriations, Correspondence and Reports, 1950– , Financial Transactions. KFYA. 8. Letter from G. G. Kullmann to E. T. Colton, January 11, 1926, 1. 1925. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929. Annual Reports 1920–1929. KFYA. 9. L. Zander, “General Survey of the Russian Student Christian Movement,” September 1937, 1–4. RSCM. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. On the 1925 conference, see G. G. Kullmann, “Annual Conference of the Russian Student Christian Movement Outside Russia Held in the Russian Monastery of Hopovo (Jugoslavia) From September 11th to September 17th, 1925,” October 5, 1925. Karlovitz Criticism. Russian Church. KFYA. On the 1927 conference, see L. N. Liperovsky, “The Fifth Annual Assembly of the R.S.C.M,” November 10, 1927. RSCM. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 10. Letter from Paul B. Anderson to Ethan T. Colton, November 28, 1961, 1–2. Biographical Records, Kullman, Gustave Gerard, 2 folders. KFYA. 11. Paul B. Anderson, “Notes on the Development of Y.M.C.A. Work for Russians Outside Russia, 1919-1939,” unpublished paper, 1940, 7. PBAP. 12. Zenkovsky and Liperovsky, “Orthodox Youth,” 1. 13. Anderson, “Notes on the Development of the Y.M.C.A.,” 7. 14. Davis, “The American YMCA and the Russian Emigration,” 29. 15. Anderson, “Notes on the Development of the Y.M.C.A.,” 13–15. A Russianlanguage collection of articles from Sobornost, the English-language journal of the society, has been published as Sodruzhestvo sviatogo albaniia i prepodobnogo Sergiia, Sobornost’: Sbornik izbrannykh statei iz zhurnala sodruzhestva Sobornost (Moscow: Bibleisko-bogoslovskii institut cv. apostola Andreia, 1998). 16. Kallistos Ware, “Nicolas Zernov (1898–1980),” Sobornost 3 (1981): 11. 17. Anderson, “Notes on the Development of the Y.M.C.A.,” 18, 23. 18. Zenkovsky and Liperovsky, “Orthodox Youth,” 2. 19. Anderson, “Notes on the Development of the Y.M.C.A.,” 19. 20. Anderson, “Notes on the Development of the Y.M.C.A.,” 27.

21. Davis, “The American YMCA and the Russian Emigration,” 32. 22. Anderson, “Notes on the Development of the Y.M.C.A.,” 31. 23. Marc Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919– 1939 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 71, 91, 134. 24. “Russian Headquarters” [1924], “Work for Russian Students in Berlin,” 1, and “Work for Russian Students in Prague,” 1. 1924. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929. Annual Reports 1920–1929. KFYA. 25. N. M. and M. V. Zernov, eds., Za rubezhom: Belgrad-Parizh-Oksford (Khronika sem’i Zernovykh) (Paris: YMCA Press, 1973), 28–30, 33–35, 45–49, 144. 26. Letter from A. Nikitin to Ruth Rouse, July 18, 1922, with attached document, “Evangelistic Campaign Amongst Russian Students in Europe,” 1–3. 1920–1923. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929. Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA. 27. Militsa Zernova, “Pis’mo prislannoe Militsei Zernovoi na s’’ezd Russkogo Studencheskogo Khristianskogo Dvizheniia (noiabr’ 1984),” ACER-RSCM Tribune, no. 1 (January–February 1985): 42. ACER. 28. G. G. Kullmann, “Annual Conference,” October 3, 1925, 2–3. 29. “Report of the Russian Student Department, Prague,” December 31, 1925, 1–6. 1925. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920– 1929. Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA. 30. A. I. Kyrlezhev, “O. Sergii Bulgakov i [RSKhD] za rubezhom,” in Bogoslov, filosof, myslitel’: Iubileinye chteniia, posviashchennye 125-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia o. Sergiia Bulgakova (sentiabr’ 1996 g., Moskva) (Moscow: Dom-muzei Mariny Tsvetaevoi, 1999), 82–85. 31. Letter from Paul B. Anderson to Ethan T. Colton, February 6, 1926, 1–2. 1925. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929. Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA. 32. Letter from RSCM leaders in France to John R. Mott, July 6, 1926, 1–3. 1925. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929. Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA. 33. Memorandum from Paul B. Anderson to V. V. Zenkovsky, June 8, 1932. RSCM. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B., 3. KFYA. 34. Letter from E. T. Colton to G. G. Kullman, July 5, 1928, 1–2. 1927–1929. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929. Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA. 35. Letter from G. G. Kullmann to E. T. Colton, October 3, 1928, 4. 1927–1929. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929. Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA. 36. Russkoe Studencheskoe Khristianskoe Dvizhenie za rubezhom (Paris: RSKhD, 1928), 4–7. ACER. 37. Nicholas Berdiaeff, “Difficulties of Religious Work among the Russian Youth,” December 27, 1929, 1–2. YMCA Relations (1926– ). Russian Church. KFYA. 38. N. Berdiaeff, “The Ideological Crisis of the Movement,” n.d., 3. RSCM. Russian

Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 39. Donald A. Lowrie, Rebellious Prophet: A Life of Nicolai Berdyaev (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), 192–93. 40. [International Survey Committee], “Survey of North American YMCA Service to Russians in Europe,” [1930], 131. Russia. International Survey—1930, Roumania, Russia, South Africa, Box 12. KFYA. 41. “Russian Service in Europe,” World’s Youth, April 1936, 74–76. 42. [International Survey Committee], “Survey of North American YMCA Service,” 139. 43. “Za Rus’. Za Vieru! (For Russia. For the Faith!)” promotional brochure for the RSCM, [1933], 1. RSCM. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 44. [L. Zander], “The Life of the Russian Student Christian Movement outside Russia: 1933–1953,” August 1954, 3. ACER. 45. [International Survey Committee], “Survey of North American YMCA Service,” 196. 46. Michael Plekon, Living Icons: Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), 59, 78–79. See also Sergii Gakkel’, Mat’ Mariia (Paris: YMCA Press, 1992). 47. J. G. Lockhart, “The Russian Student Christian Movement in the Baltic States,” [193– ]. RSCM. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. See also B. V. Pliukhanov, RSKhD v Latvii i Estonii (Paris: YMCA Press, 1993). 48. Tamara Miliutina, “Delo RSKhD v Estonii,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 171, nos. 1–2 (1995): 189–92. See also “Ivan Arkad’evich Lagovskii,” [n.d.]. ACER. 49. L. Zander, “Statement on the Activity of the Russian Student Christian Movement during the war period 1939–1944,” December 1, 1944, 1–5. Lev Zander archive (korobka 4, papka 1, #1:18). ITOS. 50. [Zander], “The Life,” 4–5. ACER. 51. “V Sovet R.S.Kh.D. Parizh,” April 20, 1948, 1. Lev Zander archive (korobka 16, papka 4, #4:1). ITOS. 52. “Proposed Articles of Agreement between The International Committee of Young Men’s Christian Associations and the Russian Student Christian Movement,” March 7, 1957, 1. RSCM. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B., 3. KFYA. 53. Russkoe Studencheskoe Khristianskoe Dvizhenie, “Pomoshch’ veruiushchim v rossii,” publicity newsletter, [1980], 1–2. RSCM Relations. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B., 3. KFYA. 54. “Digest of a Letter from Russia to the editor of the ‘Messenger of the R.S.C.M,’” summer 1969, 3. RSCM Program Audit 1969. France, Russian Student Christian Movement 1950s–1960s, Chekhov Publishing Co. 1957, Local Associations, 1922–

1960s. KFYA. Solzhenitsyn comments with approval on the Vestnik in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Invisible Allies, trans. Alexis Klimoff and Michael Nicholson (Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1995), 219, 224. 55. L. Zander, “The First Period of the Life of the Russian Student Christian Movement,” August 1954, 5. ACER. 56. Aleksei Kniazev, “Puti dvizheniia (k corokapiatiletiiu psherovskogo s’’ezda),” December 4, 1970, 5–6. ACER. 57. Nikita Struve, “Sotyi nomer,” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 100, no. 2 (1971): 3–4. 58. “Kratkaia istoriia vestnika R.S.Kh.D.,” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 100, no. 2 (1971): 5–6. 59. “Eshche o napravlenii zhurnala,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 112/113, nos. 2–3 (1974): 3–4. 60. Russkoe Studencheskoe Khristianskoe Dvizhenie za rubezhom v 1928 g. (Paris: RSKhD, 1929), 16. ACER. 61. [RSCM]. 62. “Financial Report of the Russian Student Christian Movement in Paris for the year October 1st 1936–October 1st 1937.” February 2, 1938, 1–3. RSCM. Russian Work —Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 63. Nicolas Zernov, The Russians and their Church, 3rd ed. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978), 173–74. 64. V. Korenchevsky, “The Russian Student Christian Movement,” unpublished pamphlet, 1926, 15. PBAP. 65. Latourette, World Service, 380. 66. Viacheslav Kostikov, Ne budem proklinat’ izgnan’e: Puti i sud’by russkoi emigratsii (Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 1990), 251. 67. Bryn Geffert, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans: Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of Interwar Ecumenism (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 114–18. 68. Letter from Nicolas Zernoff to Metropolitan Anthony, July 16, 1926, 4. Karlovitz Criticism. Russian Church. KFYA. 69. [International Survey Committee], “Survey of North American YMCA Service,” 127. 70. Robert H. Johnston, “New Mecca, New Babylon”: Paris and the Russian Exiles, 1920–1945 (Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988), 88. 71. Anderson, “Notes on the Development of the Y.M.C.A.,” 12–13. 72. Davis, “The American YMCA and the Russian Emigration,” 30–33. 73. A. V. Kartashev and N. A. Struve, 70 let izdatel’stva “YMCA Press”: 1920–1990 (Paris: YMCA Press, 1990), 8–9. 74. L. N. Liperowsky, “Memorandum of Conversation of Mr. R. W. Hollinger and Dr. L. N. Liperowsky on May 9, 1924, Prague,” 1–3. Russia. KFYA. 75. Korenchevsky, “The Russian Student Christian Movement,” 14.

76. S. V. Karpenko, ed., Russkie bez otechestva: Ocherki antibol’shevistskoi emigratsii 20–40-kh godov (Moscow: Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Gumanitarnyi Universitet, 2000), 339, 343–45, 349, 353–59. 77. Metropolit Evlogy, Put’ moei zhizni: Vospominaniia Metropolita Evlogiia, Izlozhennyia po ego razskazam T. Manukhinoi (Paris: YMCA Press, 1947), 536–37. 78. [RSCM]. 79. Letter from L. Zander to E. R. Hardy of Westdean Rectory, Seaford, Sussex, England, May 13, 1959. Lev Zander archive (korobka 15, papka 5, #5:3). ITOS. 80. N. Struve, “RSKhD kak prorocheskoe iavlenie v Tserkvi,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 185, no. 1 (2003): 327–29, 332. 81. [International Survey Committee], “Survey of North American YMCA Service,” 194–95, 130. 82. “Ecumenical Patriarchate to Glorify Mother Maria (Skobtsova), Companions,” The Orthodox Church 40, nos. 3/4 (March/April 2004): 14. 83. “Sovetskie propagandisty o ‘Vestnike,’” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 100, no. 2 (1971): 12–21. For similar Soviet criticism of the RSCM, the YMCA Press, and the theological institute, see G. V. Vorontsov, “Tserkovno-emigrantskaia fal’sifikatsiia religioznogo voprosa v SSSR,” Voprosy nauchnogo ateisma 10 (1970): 372–94. This article gives extensive attention to the work of Paul B. Anderson, Nikolai Berdyaev, Sergei Bulgakov, Anton Kartashev, and Nikita Struve. 84. Evlogy, Put’ moei zhizni, 535.

Chapter 8

“The Hunger for Books”: Serving a Starving Readership This publishing house for all these years has been giving to Russians living in Russia the real bread of life. . . . I really have to testify that the hunger for books is really a much greater hunger than the hunger for food. . . . The greatest help that we can receive is precisely the kind of help that was given to us by Paul Anderson.[1] Natalia Solzhenitsyn praised the work of the YMCA Press during a 1982 New York City press conference. Her remarks underscored the significance of a small enterprise established sixty years earlier. During World War I the Y began to produce practical textbooks and Protestant writings for Russian citizens. However, the focus of the Association’s publishing efforts later turned to religious literature for Russian émigrés living in western and central Europe. Initially, the YMCA’s Russian title list included writings by such mainline Protestants as Harry Emerson Fosdick. A few years later its theological titles primarily featured works by Russian Orthodox authors such as Sergei Bulgakov. This chapter traces the history of YMCA Russian publishing from its beginnings until 1940. First the noteworthy events and evolving goals are surveyed, then analyzed in more detail. The second section examines the organization’s economic developments and relationships with the Russian Orthodox hierarchy. Finally, the substantial challenges, outcomes, and legacy of the YMCA Press are evaluated. This chapter argues that the YMCA Press served as the centerpiece of the Association’s service to the Orthodox community. By publishing works of many outstanding Russian authors, Paul B. Anderson and his colleagues enabled intellectual, spiritual, and cultural conversations among authors and readers. The list of works published includes a wide range of philosophical, theological, literary, and historical masterpieces.[2]

DEVELOPMENT AND GOALS The unique role of the press in the Russian emigration has been noted in a variety of studies: for example, “The small establishment on the rue-de-la-Montagne-SainteGeneviève has remained the oldest, most important publisher of Russian books outside Russia. Its services to expatriate Russian culture have been incalculable.”[3] However, such evaluations usually do not pay attention to the original Protestant leadership of a remarkable Orthodox publishing house, the political impact of its avowedly non-political efforts, and the recent activities of the YMCA Press in Russia and Ukraine.

The full life span of the press has included six significant leaders: Julius Hecker, Paul B. Anderson, and Nikolai Berdyaev led the way until 1940; after the war Donald Lowrie, Ivan Morozov, and Nikita Struve provided direction.[4] Anderson established the organizational foundation for the work, while Berdyaev provided the intellectual direction. Berdyaev’s literary productivity continued alongside his editorial and social activities: “Writing nine books in fifteen years, beside scores of articles and countless lectures, would be a notable record for any man. In addition, as he had done in Berlin, Berdyaev gave considerable time to students and other young people.”[5] The publisher built its program on his writings but extended far beyond his contributions; the press printed virtually all of the Russian editions of his books. Nikita Struve began his contribution during a time of difficult transition in the 1950s and continues to provide leadership in Paris. Struve wrote that after Berdyaev died in 1948, the leadership of the YMCA Press was passed onto American leaders who did not share the perspective and experience of Anderson and Lowrie. Those who received authority over the Russian work did not share an appreciation for the religiousphilosophical approach of the press: for them, this approach seemed alien and irrelevant. Therefore, Anderson was able to arrange a transfer of the ownership of the YMCA Press to the Russian Student Christian Movement.[6] Marc Raeff notes the YMCA Press in his monograph Russia Abroad. Since the nineteenth century, creative literature had provided the most important vehicle for Russia’s intellectual and cultural life. After 1920 émigrés assumed that this trend would continue, so writing and publishing continued to sustain a “sense of unity and coherence” within the emigration. Raeff summarizes the dilemma which emerged: “There was no lack of potential authors, but given émigré circumstances and the world’s economic condition, it was no small challenge to set up a publishing house and find a printer. It was even more difficult to organize the distribution to widely scattered and penurious customers.” However, émigrés boldly set out to develop new literary ventures; many hoped that new publications could be distributed in Soviet Russia as well as in Russia Abroad, due to the climate of the New Economic Policy. From 1918 to 1928 in Berlin the number of Russian émigré publishers totaled 188. “Many had but an ephemeral existence, and many had only a few titles to their credit. Yet the number is quite extraordinary and had no counterpart in any émigré center.” The financial stability of the YMCA Press enabled it to make a more long-term contribution to the provision of high-quality intellectual works. The financial sponsorship of the American Y also provided indirectly for the material support of a number of Russian authors who would otherwise have needed to find other employment.[7] From 1915 to 1924 the YMCA publishing effort focused on meeting the educational needs of Russians. During World War I secretaries believed that an eagerness for education existed among Russian prisoners of war. They desired to provide materials which could contribute to the prisoners’ intellectual development. During the Russian Civil War Y leaders realized that warfare was interrupting the

nation’s educational processes. They reasoned that a need existed for technical manuals[8] as well as primary and university textbooks within Russia’s borders.[9] A key figure in the shift of the press from practical textbooks to Russian religious thought (and from Prague to Berlin) was Aleksandr Semenovich Iashchenko, the Berlin publisher of a new journal Novaia russkaia kniga (The New Russian Book). He planned to publish an anthology of articles on contemporary issues in Russian religion. This anthology became one of the first two books published with the imprint “YMCA Press.” Problemy russkogo religioznogo soznaniia (Problems of the Russian Religious Mind) was published along with Berdyaev’s Mirovozzrenie Dostoevskogo (The Worldview of Dostoevsky) in 1924. In this way the press began to publish religious-philosophical books on three educational levels: higher, average, and lower. [10]

After 1924 the Association’s publishing addressed the religious needs of the Russian émigré population in Europe. Several secretaries working among the émigrés noted a growing interest of the “homesick million” in literature satisfying their longing for traditional Orthodox topics.[11] They believed three factors figured in the shortage of Russian religious literature. First, the Soviet government had placed severe restrictions on the production of religious books and periodicals.[12] Second, the government was also waging a fierce war on religion through atheistic literature. For example, during the first three months of 1930, Soviet presses printed over 140 million pamphlets of antireligious content.[13] Finally, few publishing houses in Europe were willing to print Russian religious literature, for the effort would produce a relatively meager profit.[14] The directors of the YMCA’s Russian publishing efforts set their goals to match what they perceived to be the needs of their audience. Initially the Association produced textbooks to be used by Russians—including the prisoners of war and émigrés—and hoped to export large quantities to Russia. The directors of the correspondence school utilized these books in their instructional programs.[15] However, after 1924 the primary purpose of the YMCA Press was to produce Russian Orthodox religious literature. By producing this type of literature, the organization attempted to build character among the youth, study contemporary social challenges, and preserve traditional Russian culture. One Y publication expressed its publishing goal as creating a “positive and helpful influence for the building [of] character in the youth of emigrant and indigenous populations, and for retaining their loyalty to the Church.”[16] The leaders encouraged authors to address social and moral problems, such as atheistic materialism and labor issues, from a distinctively Orthodox Christian perspective. Furthermore, the directors of the YMCA Press hoped that the production of quality works of philosophy and theology would help to preserve and develop Russian Christian culture.[17] The Russian publishing effort began during World War I due to the efforts of Hecker, a theologically liberal Methodist clergyman who had grown up in St.

Petersburg. During the war Hecker worked at Russian prisoner of war camps in Austria-Hungary, teaching literacy classes to soldiers from a peasant background. For this reason he created a series of primary readers.[18] After completing his work in Hungary, Hecker returned to America and obtained YMCA authorization and funding for an extensive textbook publishing program.[19] He established the program in Geneva, Switzerland, and enlisted the help of Russian assistants. With this program Hecker and his assistants began to produce a variety of Russian language books on history, anthropology, science, and religion with the imprint “World Alliance YMCA.”[20] However, Hecker was never able to personally distribute any books, for in 1920 John R. Mott expelled him from leadership of this program. Apparently, Mott disagreed with Hecker’s policy of collaborating with Russian socialists. N. A. Rubakin, a socialist, had assisted him in producing books on popular science. This program printed only six books, including one work by Fosdick, an American pastor and author who promoted modernist theology.[21] Many émigré Russian Orthodox readers were offended by the viewpoints expressed in these books, which expressed religious and philosophical views which contradicted traditional Orthodox teaching.[22] Hecker publicly displayed his disregard for Russian Orthodoxy. He wrote an article in 1920 on “The Religious Characteristics of the Russian Soul.” Here he remarked that, for the Russian, “morality has little to do with his religious life.”[23] In 1933 he wrote, “Orthodoxy is . . . conformity to the old rites and practices and has little or nothing to do with the Bible and the basic dogma of the church.”[24] The most significant controversy surrounding the publishing of the YMCA developed at the beginning of the program. Hecker led a plan to distribute a variety of books among Russians, including a number of works by American Protestants which offended many within the Russian Orthodox community—although other Russians read them with appreciation. As noted previously, Hecker began the Russian publishing program while he was working with POWs in Austria at Camp Wieselburg. He arranged for the printing of several school books and selections of classic Russian literature—due to a shortage of reading material. He continued this work after he was forced to move to Switzerland after the United States entered the war. The funds were provided by the War Work Council. When the war prisoner aid work was ended he requested funds for the establishment of a permanent department of Russian publications. He received fifty thousand dollars for the program, with the goal of providing literature in accordance with the goals of the Association. Four types of books were to be produced: (1) religious, moral, and aesthetic; (2) technical, vocational, and educational; (3) popular science; and (4) history, economics, and sociology. The book list included four books by H. E. Fosdick: The Meaning of Prayer and The Manhood of the Master (both printed), The Assurance of Immortality and The Meaning of Faith (both in preparation). Also on the list was Walter Rauschenbusch’s The Social Principles of Jesus. Hecker’s books on the YMCA were printed as well: The YMCA at Work and Under the Sign of the Red Triangle.[25] Hecker was responsible for 150,000 prisoners at a time for one year (during this

period, 200,000 passed through the camps). Classes included lectures and instruction for illiterate men—one report claimed, “Hundreds, possibly thousands, learned to read in these prison-camp schools.”[26] However, Constantine Sakharov, chairman of the Russian National Society, wrote to the YMCA in 1921 to complain about several books published by the YMCA for Russians. He stated that they directly or indirectly attack the Russian Orthodox Church and that “all of them are tainted with infamous socialistic, radical and even communistic propaganda.” He first provided details from the book Great Words of Life by Rubakin. He was especially upset that the book ridiculed the traditional Christian understanding of God, sin, the sacraments, and the church.[27] C. V. Hibbard at the New York office replied directly to Sakharov’s letter; he thanked him for his opinion but offered no apology. He noted that one of the Russian history books condemned by Sakharov was never distributed, and suggested that Sakharov’s point of view would not be shared by all other Russians.[28] One month later, Ethan T. Colton wrote a general letter to “the friends of our service [on] behalf of Russia” to respond to Russian National Society’s “attack” on the Russian Literature Department. Colton identified the society as a group of “extremely reactionary” Russians associated with a former member of the “Black Hundred.” He explained that the group sent a letter of protest with quotes from several books to the Association and then forwarded the letter to many Russian Orthodox clergymen. Colton argued that one of the attacked books, Great Words of Life, was written by Rubakin, a former atheist materialist who converted “to the philosophic Christian position.” So, his book was a defense of faith written to atheists, rather an attack on faith, as suggested by the group. Colton concluded his letter with an explanation of the liquidation of the Russian Literature Committee. The reason given was the lack of possibility of working in Russia: Hecker “retired with the dissolution of the staff.”[29] In 1922 the leaders of the YMCA’s Russian work reestablished the publishing program. They used the funds allocated for Hecker’s project to purchase a wellequipped printing plant with modern presses in Prague.[30] This location appeared to be ideal due to economic conditions and the availability of transport facilities.[31] James Niederhauser, an American secretary who had been employed in Siberia, served as the director of the new program until 1923. Anderson worked closely with Niederhauser during these years as the director of the Berlin correspondence school, and in 1923 Anderson began to serve as the director of publishing as well.[32] Niederhauser chose to name the operation IMKA TISK—the Czech translation of “YMCA Publishers.”[33] During 1923 YMCA Publishers printed a translation of Mott’s Facing Young Men with the Living Christ and produced thirty-six additional books, primarily textbooks for the correspondence school. However, in the same year the Soviet government declared an embargo on the importation of Russian language publications. Niederhauser and Anderson had set up the operation for large-scale production, expecting to export huge quantities of textbooks into Russia. After the embargo, the

plant was virtually unusable, for only the small European émigré market remained.[34] Anderson remarked, “We were left high and dry.”[35] In 1924, after a financially favorable sale of the Prague plant, the publishing enterprise moved to Paris with the correspondence school and student movement. As mentioned earlier, the goals of the YMCA Press changed as well. In Berlin, Anderson had developed relationships within the émigré academic community. He had cooperated with Berdyaev, the exiled Moscow philosophy professor, in the establishment of the Free Philosophical Academy. As Anderson and his colleagues began to understand the intellectual and religious vitality of the Orthodox community, they decided to focus on the publication of Russian Orthodox literature. However, the press continued to develop textbooks in small quantities to support the correspondence school.[36] Local printers produced the finished books.[37] For many years Russian authors had written “lives of saints” to inspire and challenge young Russian men and women. Therefore, working together with Russian advisors, Anderson decided to publish a historical biography of Saint Sergius of Radonezh; he selected Boris Zaitsev, an accomplished novelist, to write the book. Émigrés eagerly purchased this work, so the press continued to publish these new lives of saints.[38] In 1924 the YMCA Press published Problems of the Russian Religious Mind, a collection of articles on contemporary issues in Russian religious philosophy. Anderson explained the significance of this publication: This volume . . . made an impression on the Russian reading public as showing that the YMCA was not a Protestant proselytizing organization, but one which held to the idea that its work must represent the indigenous thought and aspirations of the Russian people. It set the tone for our program. . . . The YMCA had thus identified itself with creative Orthodox doctrine.[39] The YMCA Press continued to produce academic works in religious philosophy and theology in addition to the more popular spiritual writings. Five years after the first Orthodox publication, the press had published eight works classified as “Problems of Life and Religion,” eight philosophy titles, four theology texts, three works on church services, and eight works classified as “Lives of Saints and History of the Orthodox Church.”[40] Another early publication was a translation of the Russian Orthodox liturgy into English by Isabel F. Hapgood: “The highest prelates of the Russian Church, both in America and in Europe, have endorsed this version—the only complete English edition in existence.”[41] Berdyaev emerged as the leading Russian participant in the YMCA Press. He also participated widely in the religious life of Paris and developed a network of friendships with Orthodox, Catholics, and Anglicans.[42] He served as the senior editor, working with Anderson, Kullmann, and Boris Vycheslavtsev, another philosophy professor from Moscow. He worked carefully and thoroughly, personally evaluating

every proposed manuscript.[43] In 1925 Berdyaev discussed with Anderson the possibility of publishing a journal which could serve as a forum for the exchange of religious, philosophical, and literary ideas. With special funding from Mott, the journal Put’ (The Way) became an integral element of the YMCA Press program. Berdyaev served as the sole editor for each of the journal’s sixty-one issues from 1925 until 1940. The German invasion of France in 1940 curtailed publication.[44] He allowed a variety of opinions to be published; he refused only “clearly obscurantist or malicious reactionary” authors.[45] The press published three journals: Put’ (The Way) (1925–1940), Novyi grad (The New City) (1934–1939), and Pravoslavnaia mysl’ (Orthodox Thought) (1928– 1954). Novyi grad had more social-political content than Put’—it was edited by G. P. Fedotov. Pravoslavnaia mysl’ included articles written by professors at the theological institute.[46] Colton originally envisioned a different editorial approach for Put’. He desired an interconfessional journal which would include both Orthodoxy and Protestantism, while Anderson and G. G. Kullman envisioned a journal focusing on Russian Orthodoxy. Kullman was not opposed to an interconfessional journal, especially if it included attention to Roman Catholicism. However, he sensed that the journal most desired by his Russian friends was a journal of Russian religious thought —based in Orthodoxy. Also, he believed that many Russian émigrés, especially the more conservative ones, would see it as “Protestant American propaganda” and not welcome the journal. He believed that Western Christian ideas would be discussed in the journal but thought the Russians should be free to choose the approach.[47] A recent study by L. D. Ezova describes the breadth of Put’—which was a “true encyclopedia of Russian spiritual culture.” Topics included theology, philosophy, the ecumenical movement, ancient history, youth ministry, developments in Soviet Russia, and many other topics. Ezova also highlights its “unique” editorial approach: Berdyaev allowed freedom of expression and would not allow the journal to be dominated by ideology.[48] Of course, not all welcomed Put’ with open arms: it “was received with acclamation by some and sharp criticism by other reviewers. It is charged with being too liberal and too Orthodox.”[49] Colton supported the publishing of Orthodox literature but feared that these books would not communicate with Russian young people who were materialist in outlook. He asked Anderson to find an author for a book on Marxism and Christianity which could attract this type of student to Christianity.[50] Anderson experienced difficulty in the business affairs of the YMCA Press due to the chaotic competitive interaction between the Russian publishers in Paris. In 1925 these publishers began to cooperate and formed a local professional society with Anderson as the chairman. This cooperation grew and in 1931 the firms established a joint stock company known as Les Editeurs Réunis (United Publishers). As mentioned earlier, World War II disrupted the operations of the YMCA Press, which by 1939 had published a total of 274 titles. Prior to the war the press gained the position as the primary publisher of philosophical and religious books in the Russian language.[51]

World War II interrupted publications and European distribution. Sales were limited to France and the POW program of the YMCA, which provided books to Russian prisoners held in German prison camps. The 1940s brought another trial to the press—the deaths of its two chief authors: Sergei Bulgakov in 1944 and Berdyaev in 1948. D. A. Lowrie became director of the press in 1947, since Anderson was supervising the work in Europe for the American Y. Lowrie retired in 1955 and the press was transferred to the RSCM.[52]

FUNDING The Association provided the initial funding for Hecker’s publishing program: the International Committee provided 250,000 dollars as the Russian Textbook Fund.[53] After Hecker’s departure, this funding was transferred to the Prague production effort.[54] After selling the plant, the YMCA almost totally recovered its investment— even after producing thousands of textbooks.[55] However, the YMCA Russian leadership apparently made an unsound investment in Prague. Donald Davis points out that “The main target of this misplaced humanitarianism was Russia, even though no definite approach to anyone in the USSR had been made.”[56] The Prague funds became the Russian Literature Fund, an asset of the press.[57] This fund enabled press leadership to begin operation as a publishing business. During the 1920s the YMCA Press maintained business relationships with Russian bookshops in fourteen countries, but the press could not reach selfsufficiency: the Association continued to fund the press with this motivation: None of the Russian publishing houses already existing can afford to publish religious books. These are forced to publish books not because these books are needed for furthering spiritual culture but books that will meet with the best sales. Thus, in the present situation the publication service can be carried on only by some organization which is interested in spiritual welfare and is ready to make a certain financial sacrifice. There is no such Russian institution at the present moment.[58] After the death of Berdyaev, his heir turned over the rights to his books in return for an annuity. This provided a steady source of income for the press.[59] In addition to the YMCA subsidy, book sales, and the profits from Berdyaev translations, the press also received funding from the East European Fund. When the Chekhov Publishing House was liquidated the YMCA Press received its remaining stock; the proceeds were reinvested to fund new publishing.[60]

CHURCH RELATIONS The conservative Russian Orthodox leadership continued to distrust the American

YMCA, even after the press began to publish traditional Orthodox literature. In 1926 a group of influential bishops issued a pronouncement which declared that the YMCA was “anti-Christian” and forbade members of the Orthodox Church from organizing under the auspices of the Association. However, by 1939 most leaders of the émigré Russian Orthodox Church in Europe had granted their blessing to the YMCA’s work. [61]

The press, like the RSCM, was directly affected by the 1926 decisions of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which met at Karlovce, Yugoslavia. The council reaffirmed its earlier condemnation of the YMCA, YWCA, and WSCF as anti-Christian and heretical and threatened excommunication of Orthodox believers who maintain relationships with the groups. The YMCA was labeled as “Masonic” due to the publication of two books: The Social Principles of Jesus by Rauschenbusch and Manhood of the Master by Fosdick. Key authors, including Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Kartashev, and Zenkovsky, were charged with heresy.[62] One example of the fallout of this decision is a letter from Archbishop Feofan of Sofia to the publishing house. The archbishop wrote to explain why he cannot participate in the activities of the YMCA Press. He stated that the synod decision of November 1926 forbids bishops and clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church from taking part in the activities of the YMCA Press. He specifically mentioned the “energetic agitation” of Y workers in promoting the US recognition of the Soviet Union and in the work of the Living Church.[63] Kullmann and Anderson actively worked to address the council’s concerns. The press established contact with the new Moscow Patriarch Aleksy I after World War II: the patriarch requested books for the reopened theological academies and seminaries.[64] Undoubtedly, the press made its greatest contribution to the Russian Orthodox émigré community after the organization moved to Paris in 1924. By actively investigating the needs and desires of the Russian diaspora, Anderson and his colleagues were able to assist in one of the areas of greatest need. Throughout his years in Paris, Anderson attempted to purchase every work on religious topics produced in the Soviet Union.[65] This study augmented his ability to intelligently and appropriately cooperate with the émigrés as they attempted to preserve Orthodox culture. During these years the American YMCA made at least five accomplishments through the YMCA Press. The press produced a collection of significant theological and philosophical literature which was widely used among émigré Russian Orthodox clergy and laymen. The faculty of the St. Sergius Theological Academy was able to distribute its writings through the YMCA Press.[66] The press assisted Berdyaev in publishing Put’, the world’s only intellectual journal grounded in Russian Orthodoxy.[67] As Anderson’s successor explained, “The worth of such literature . . . can be calculated only against the dark background of the state presses of Communist Russia that pour out deluges of materialistic atheism.”[68] The press also contributed to literature production for the entire Russian émigré community through its support

for Les Editeurs Reunis. However, Anderson and his colleagues also made a contribution to readers of other lands, for other agencies translated several titles into English, French, German, and other languages.[69] These translations introduced many Catholics and Protestants to the thought of the Russian Orthodox Church.

CHALLENGES The two major challenges of the YMCA Russian publishing program developed due to Hecker’s program and the hasty planning of the Prague project. Hecker produced works which were offenses to many émigrés. The planners of the Prague project apparently neglected to systematically survey the needs of their audience and the viability of distribution. Anderson managed to convince his superiors to actively support, during the Depression, a publishing house which produced religious-philosophical works that were very different than the practical Christian books preferred by American Protestants. The centerpiece of the press was the journal Put’, which Raeff evaluates as the “most significant religious journal of Russia Abroad.” For the Y office in New York and other sponsors, Anderson promoted its “potential significance for a philosophical-religious revival in Soviet Russia in the future. It would seem, on the evidence of the illegal Berdiaevite group in Leningrad in the 1960s, and the keen interest shown by some circles of the dissident Soviet intelligentsia that this hope was not quite in vain.” Put’ was clearly not a tool of its capitalist benefactors, for it continued a prerevolutionary tradition which criticized both revolutionary materialism and bourgeois capitalism: “they carried on and broadened the critique by former Marxists such as Struve, Bulgakov.”[70]

OUTCOMES By 1955 the YMCA Press had published 126,342 volumes of 400 titles.[71] However, the American leaders of the Russia work frequently said that they were most interested in person-to-person work. One example of importance to them would be the young Russian man who wrote to thank the editor for the September 1925 edition of Put’, which helped him in his journey to Orthodox Christianity. He described his past trials in the civil war, attempted suicide, struggle with tuberculosis, and attempts to find a purpose for life. Reading the articles “gave peace and joy to my soul exhausted by a vain search of Truth.”[72]

LEGACY Of course, the impact of the YMCA Press in the 1920s and 1930s can be better evaluated by briefly reviewing its development after World War II. In 1946 the press began sending copies of all its published works to the Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union. A small number of copies were sent to the Patriarchate or one of the

leading bishops for use in theological schools.[73] After the war the press published the complete works of Fyodor Dostoevsky—at the time they were not available in the USSR. The press also expanded its publication of fiction, including the works of Anna Akhmatova, Marina Tsvetaeva, Andrei Platonov, and Vladimir Voinovich.[74] “A revival of the press began with the end of Khrushchev’s second thaw and with the development of samizdat (self-publishing), which quickly turned into tamizdat (publishing abroad). The press received manuscripts often without the knowledge of the authors.”[75] In 1967 the press the first publisher in the west to reprint Mikhail Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita (which was first published in the journal Novy mir). [76] By 1959 Berdyaev’s works were translated into fourteen languages. More than ten titles were published in each of these languages: English, French, German, and Spanish.[77] The 1950s brought an end to direct American YMCA involvement: Anderson oversaw the disengagement progress of the Y’s International Committee from its Russian Work in Paris. Ownership of the YMCA Press was transferred to the RSCM, the Association’s Paris office was closed, and a Board of Trustees was formed for the St. Sergius Theological Institute. Anderson apparently worked very carefully to cover every detail of the transition, especially with regard to finances and support staff personnel.[78] In 1961 the YMCA Press acquired a facility, including a bookshop on rue-de-laMontagne-Sainte-Geneviève in Paris: a new era for the press began with this move. [79] The Paris bookshop was frequented by a variety of readers, including students of a Catholic college in Rome where priests were trained for undercover religious work in the USSR.[80] Metropolitan Nikolai, exarch for western Europe for the Moscow Patriarch and Bishop Nikodim, the head of the Foreign Office of the Moscow Patriarchate, visited the bookstore and purchased many books. Anderson commented, “This is evidence of the interest of the Moscow Patriarchate in our publications. They do not get [to] publish theological or other religious works in [the] U.S.S.R., except for the monthly Journal and the [Almanac].”[81] Interest in the publications of the YMCA Press grew inside the USSR during the 1960s. Sources inside the country reported that Vasily Zenkovsky’s History of Russian Philosophy, published by the press, was mimeographed (five hundred copies) and distributed to the intellectual leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church and some members of the Academy of Sciences. Joel Nystrom of the YMCA commented to his colleagues that the YMCA Press “is part and parcel of the struggle within the Soviet Union to turn Russian culture into creative Christian channels. It is fighting the battle of American and World Christians against Communist Atheism.”[82] The press received a great deal of publicity in the late 1960s and the 1970s due to the publication of several works by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It published the first full-length Russian version of Solzhenitsyn’s Cancer Ward.[83] The publication of Solzhenitsyn’s Arkhipelag GULag was a bomb which exploded on December 28, 1973. For the first time, the publishing house received worldwide attention. In a few

weeks fifty thousand copies were sold—a record for Russian émigré publishing. Nikita Struve later pointed out that only then did many American YMCA leaders find out about the publishing activities taking place for Russians in Paris; he also noted the ironic parallel between Lenin’s exile of intellectuals in 1922 and Brezhnev’s exile of Solzhenitsyn in 1974. “The first allowed the creation of the publishing house, the second gave it a new impulse.”[84] One journalist offered this view: “In the end, it comes down to this: The YMCA Press is not in the business of grinding axes, or of fighting ideological wars. It’s in the business, of course, of furthering the Christian faith.”[85] On April 9, 1975, Solzhenitsyn visited the office of the YMCA Press in Paris: Paul B. Anderson, Nikita Struve, Ivan Morozov, Alexander Elchaninov, and others were present. Anderson and Solzhenitsyn discussed the American’s early days in Russia in 1917 and 1918—the author had known of his imprisonment in the Lubianka prison. Anderson invited him to the United States, and Solzhenitsyn said that he would like to use research libraries in America. They also conversed on the YMCA’s work in the United States; the formal part of the meeting discussed copyrights, distribution, etc.[86] At this meeting Solzhenitsyn gave Anderson a book with the inscription, “To Paul Anderson with thanks and respect, remembering how much he has done for Russian culture.”[87] In his autobiography, the Nobel laureate referred to his publishers as “selfless.”[88] When he first met Anderson, he exclaimed, “Otets IMKI!” (“Father of the YMCA Press!”).[89] However, the press also supported Solzhenitsyn in a less obvious manner. Through publishing the writings of Berdyaev and Bulgakov, the press indirectly inspired Solzhenitsyn to continue their critique of materialism and atheism. Readers in the Soviet Union distributed the works of émigrés through unofficial channels. Zernov wrote that many emigrants of the 1970s who had been inspired by this literature were attempting to “pursue ideas which were the centre of attention for their grandfathers.”[90] In 1974 the press published Iz pod glyb (From Under the Rubble), a collection of essays by Solzhenitsyn and others which stressed the need for a moral and ethical revolution in the Soviet Russia. From Under the Rubble followed the path of Landmarks and Out of the Depths, for the philosophical positions and literary forms of the 1974 publication followed the models of the earlier collections.[91] These essays called for a return to the ideas held by Berdyaev and Bulgakov. Solzhenitsyn wrote, “History is us—and there is no alternative but to shoulder the burden of what we so passionately desire and bear it out of the depths.”[92] By supporting the work of Solzhenitsyn, the American YMCA contributed to the development of one wing of Russian literary culture. By the 1970s the Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia (Messenger of the Russian Christian Movement) was filling the role which had been played by Put’ during the interwar years—a thick journal of philosophical, religious, and literary explorations.[93] They were both published by the press for a broad section of the Russian émigré population. The press continued to publish works which were banned in the Soviet Union until the Gorbachev period. These include the works of

Maksimilian Voloshin, Osip Mandelshtam, Anna Akhmatova, Lev Gumilev, Marina Tsvetaeva, and a number of lesser-known poets and writers. In 1990 the director of the press, Nikita Struve, wrote, For many years, almost seventy years, the publisher YMCA Press stood almost alone in guarding Russian culture. Today, when the emancipation of Russia is beginning, it will become one of its centers, equally with domestic publishing houses. In a common work of grandfathers, fathers, and grandsons, here, abroad, and there, in Russia, the YMCA Press, looking back, not without justifiable pride in the long path it has traveled, is ready to continue its service to the Russian word and to Russian Orthodox theological and church culture.[94] The press was able to openly return to Russia in 1990. On September 17 an exhibition opened at the Library of Foreign Literature in Moscow: “70 Years of the Publishing House YMCA Press: 1920–1990.” This was organized by the Knizhnaia Palata SSSR (The Book Chamber of the USSR) and the publishing house Khudozhestvennaia Literatura (Artistic Literature). This event allowed Struve to enter the USSR for the first time. The following spring in March 1991 the press was featured in an exhibition in Leningrad. At this event Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev (1906–1999), the literary scholar who was considered by many to be the guardian of Russian culture, reflected on the significance of the authors whose books were published by the YMCA. Struve also shared with those attending about the men who founded the publishing house but had not lived to see it return to Russia. Struve focused on the contribution of Mott to the project.[95] From 1990 to 1992 the YMCA Press opened libraries in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Kiev, Tver, Orel, Voronezh, and Stavropol; these libraries opened within large existing libraries and were open to the public. This project was supported by Patriarch Aleksy II. From 1990 to 1992 the press also worked to establish a Russian publishing partner, Russkii Put’, which reprinted YMCA Press books. In these first two years, more than 150,000 books were sold.[96] The grand opening of the “Library-Foundation of Russia Abroad” took place in Moscow on December 9, 1995. The founders of this new institution were the YMCA Press, the social foundation of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and the city of Moscow. Solzhenitsyn, Struve, and Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk all spoke at the event. The building is now located in Moscow at 2 ulitsa Nizhniaia Radishchevskaia. In June 1996 the library held a special event at which Solzhenitsyn presented his collection of eight hundred manuscript memoirs of Russian émigrés. At the opening of the library foundation Struve commented that this event was a part of the return of the heritage of the Russian émigrés after the collapse of Communism. He explained, Today, opening the Library Foundation of Russia Abroad, we, assisting in this return, are beginning a work which for now is still humble, but in thought and in perspective is significant. The first descendants of the Russian émigrés—I am

not speaking only from myself, but from many of my contemporaries . . . sense, that in the heart of Russia a long-awaited house is opening for them. This is their own house, devoted to the work of their fathers and grandfathers.[97] In September 2000 the press celebrated its tenth year of work in Russia with an event in Moscow. Over these ten years, the press has presented exhibitions of its books in fifty cities in Russia.[98] As the American and Russian participants looked back at their venture in publishing, they usually emphasized the uniqueness and timeliness of the program. In 1955 Donald Lowrie concluded, “Had not the YMCA-Press existed, it is probable that many of these books would never even have been written.”[99] The prominent émigré historian Anton Kartashev, who worked together with the YMCA, reflected on the accomplishments of this program and argued that it was “worthy of a high moral prize.” He concluded that “our Russian debt” is to give to Paul B. Anderson and the American founders “just recognition for their activity, which surpasses both their and our expectations.”[100] In 1980 Struve commented on the recent developments, by which the press received more manuscripts from within the USSR. He was pleased by the development of this “dialogue,” which he viewed as “cooperation in the moral recovery of the country.”[101] The influence of the YMCA Press and its authors continues in Russia today: the return of the émigrés took longer than expected, but the hopes of the first generation were realized, at least in part, after their departure.

NOTES 1. Paul B. Anderson, “No East or West: The Memoirs of Paul B. Anderson,” ed. Donald E. Davis, unpublished draft, preface. 2. A different version of this chapter was published as Matthew L. Miller, “A Hunger for Books: the American YMCA Press and Russian Readers,” Religion, State and Society 38, no. 1 (March 2010): 53–73. For a Russian-language summary of this chapter, see M. L. Miller, “Strast’ k chteniiu: Amerikanskoe izdatel’stvo ‘IMKA-Press’ i rossiiskie chitateli,” in Russkoe nasledie v stranakh vostochnoi i tsentral’noi evropy, ed. A. V. Antiukhov (Bryansk, Russia: Brianskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2010), 58–62. For a brief introduction to the history of the YMCA Press and a bibliography of its publications, see A. L. Gurevich, Istoriia izdatel’stva “YMCA-Press” (Moscow: Kompaniia Sputnik+, 2004). 3. Robert H. Johnston, “New Mecca, New Babylon”: Paris and the Russian Exiles, 1920–1945 (Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988), 54. 4. Meeting with Nikita Alekseevich Struve, the director of the YMCA Press and editor of the Vestnik, May 16, 2005, at the bookstore in Paris. N. A. Struve is the grandson of P. B. Struve. 5. Donald A. Lowrie, Rebellious Prophet: A Life of Nicolai Berdyaev (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), 192. 6. A. V. Kartashev and N. A. Struve, 70 let izdatel’stva “YMCA-Press”: 1920–1990

(Paris: YMCA Press, 1990), 25–27. 7. Marc Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919– 1939 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 69, 73–78. 8. Donald E. Davis, “The American YMCA and the Russian Emigration,” Sobornost 9 (1987): 25–26. 9. Paul B. Anderson, “The American Y.M.C.A. in Service for Russia,” November, 1926, 3. PBAP. 10. E. V. Ivanova, “Deiatel’nost’ izdatel’stva ‘YMCA-Press’ v Berline,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 188, no. 2 (2004): 342, 350–51. 11. Anderson, “No East or West,” 106. 12. Paul B. Anderson, “Russian Literature Service ‘YMCA Press,’” March 1, 1928, 1. PBAP. 13. Ethan T. Colton, Forty Years with Russians (New York: Association Press, 1940), 134. 14. Anderson, “Russian Literature Service,” 2. 15. Kenneth Scott Latourette, World Service: A History of the Foreign Work and World Service of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of the United States and Canada (New York: Association Press, 1957), 377. 16. [Paul B. Anderson], “Fundamentals of the Young Men’s Christian Association,” unpublished draft, 1929, 44. PBAP. 17. Anderson, “Russian Literature Service,” 5–6. 18. Anderson, “No East or West,” 90. 19. Latourette, World Service, 377. 20. Anderson, “No East or West,” 91. 21. Anderson, “No East or West,” 91, 104. 22. Colton, Forty Years, 132. 23. Julius F. Hecker, “The Religious Characteristics of the Russian Soul,” Methodist Review 103 (November 1920): 902. 24. Julius F. Hecker, Religion and Communism: A Study of Religion and Atheism in Soviet Russia (London: Chapman and Hall, 1933), 26. 25. Julius F. Hecker, “Statement Pertaining to Department of Foreign Language Publications,” n.d. Julius Hecker, 1915–1924. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1922–1944. KFYA. 26. William Orr, “Educational Work of the Young Men’s Christian Associations, 1916– 1918,” Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1919, no. 53 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1919), 24. 27. Letter from Constantine Sakharov to the YMCA, April 8, 1921, 1–7. Correspondence and Reports, 1921. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 28. Letter from C. V. Hibbard to Constantine Sakharov, April 12, 1921, 1. Correspondence and Reports, 1921. Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921. KFYA. 29. Letter from E. T. Colton “To the Friends of Our Service in Behalf of Russia,” May

26, 1921, 1–4. Correspondence. Russian Work, Restricted, Ethan T. Colton Collection. KFYA. 30. Paul B. Anderson, “Notes on the Development of Y.M.C.A. Work for Russians Outside Russia, 1919–1939,” 1940, 8. PBAP. 31. Colton, Forty Years, 132–33. 32. Davis, “The American YMCA,” 26. 33. Anderson, “No East or West,” 97. 34. Latourette, World Service, 377–78. 35. Anderson, “No East or West,” 102. 36. Latourette, World Service, 378. 37. Anderson, “No East or West,” 127. 38. Anderson, “No East or West,” 118. 39. Anderson, “No East or West,” 118–19. 40. [Anderson], “Fundamentals,” appendix 9. 41. Association Press, New York, “Advertising Copy on the Russian Service Book.” Orthodox Service Book. Russian Church. KFYA. 42. Paul B. Anderson, “Administrative Report of Paul B. Anderson for 1939, Paris, France,” January 25, 1940, 5. Annual Reports 1933–1949. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Budgets and Appropriations, Correspondence and Reports, 1950–, Financial Transactions. KFYA. Berdyaev continued his close collaboration with French Catholic philosophers and writers, including Jacques Maritain and others associated with the journals Esprit and Temps présent. 43. Lowrie, Rebellious Prophet, 201. 44. Anderson, “No East or West,” 141–42. Antuan Arzhakovskii, Zhurnal Put’ (1925– 1940): Pokolenie russkikh religioznykh myslitelei v emigratsii (Kiev: Feniks, 2000) is an in-depth (656 pp.) evaluation of the philosophical trends represented by the journal’s authors and the ideological evolution of the publication. 45. Lowrie, Rebellious Prophet, 199. 46. Paul B. Anderson, “A Brief History of YMCA Press,” February 1972, 10. Corr. and Reports 1950–. Russian Work, Restricted, Publications, YMCA Press in Paris. KFYA. 47. Letter from G. G. Kullmann to E. T. Colton, February 10, 1925, 2–3. Y Press. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B, 3. KFYA. 48. L. D. Ezova, “Pereosmyslenie opyta russkoi dukhovnoi kul’tury parizhskim zhurnalom ‘Put,’” in Rossiiskaia intelligentsiia na rodine i v zarubezh’e: Novye dokumenty i materialy, ed. Karen Zavenovich Akopian (Moscow: Ministerstvo kul’tury Rossiiskoi Federatsii and Rossiiskii institut kul’turologii, 2001), 49–50, 63. 49. Paul B. Anderson, “Russian Service in Europe, Annual Report for the Year 1925,” 8. Annual Reports, 1925–1929. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929, Annual Reports, 1920–1929. KFYA. 50. Letter from E. T. Colton to John R. Mott, May 24, 1926, 5. YMCA Relations (1926–). Russian Church. KFYA. 51. Anderson, “Notes,” 9, 20, 32; “Paul B. Anderson,” The Christian Century 102, no. 25 (August 14–21, 1985): 730.

52. Anderson, “A Brief History of the YMCA Press,” 10–11. 53. Davis, “The American YMCA,” 25. 54. Latourette, World Service, 377. 55. Anderson, “Notes,” 11. 56. Davis, “The American YMCA,” 26. 57. Colton, Forty Years, 133. 58. [International Survey Committee], “Survey of North American YMCA Service to Russians in Europe” [1930], 100, 115. Russia. International Survey—1930, Roumania, Russia, South Africa, Box 12. KFYA. 59. Paul B. Anderson, “International Committee YMCA, Russian Work in 1949,” 5. Russian Literature Account #3 1949–1950. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B, 2. KFYA. 60. Anderson, “A Brief History of the YMCA Press,” 12. 61. Colton, Forty Years, 183–84, 134. 62. Letter from Paul B. Anderson to E. T. Colton, July 19, 1926. Karlovitz Criticism. Russian Church. KFYA. 63. Letter from Archbishop Feofan to N. A. Klepinin, December 2, 1926, translation in archive. YMCA Relations (1926–). Russian Church. KFYA. 64. Paul B. Anderson, “Russian Work in Europe, Report on Consultations in July and August 1949,” August 9, 1949, 2. 1964. France, Russian Work, 1925–1965. KFYA. 65. Anderson, “Notes,” 17–18. 66. Edward Kasinec, “Bibliographical Census: Russian Emigre Theologians and Philosophers in the Seminary Library Collection,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 16 (1972): 41. 67. Lowrie, Rebellious Prophet, 199. 68. Colton, Forty Years, 134. 69. Latourette, World Service, 378; L. Zander, ed., List of the Writings of Professors of the Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris 1925–1954 (Paris: The Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, [195-]), 5–99. 70. Raeff, Russia Abroad, 144, 146. 71. Donald A. Lowrie, “Study of Russian Publishing Program,” January 5, 1955, 1. 1/55. France, Russian Work, 1954–1955, N. Goncharoff Research Project, 1954– 1955. KFYA. 72. Letter from Vladimir [Nosovich] to the editor of Put’, February 28, 1926, 1. Russian Work. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B, 3. KFYA. 73. Letter from Paul B. Anderson to John R. Mott, April 19, 1951, 2. Corr. and Reports 1950–. Russian Work, Restricted, Publications, YMCA Press in Paris. KFYA. However, Anderson later clarified that the “YMCA Press does not engage in any illegal shipments to the Soviet Union.” Letter from Paul B. Anderson to Harry Brunger, September 1, 1975, 2. Solzhenitsyn. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B, 3. KFYA. 74. “YMCA-Press,” promotional sheet, [1975], 1–2. YMCA Press. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B, 1. KFYA. 75. Kartashev and Struve, 70 let izdatel’stva “YMCA-Press,” 30.

76. Sylvia List, “Portrait of an Unusual Publishing House,” Die Zeit, January 25, 1974, trans. Paul B. Anderson, no page numbers. Articles. Russian Work, Restricted, Publications, YMCA Press in Paris. KFYA. 77. “Translations of Works by N. A. Berdyaev, Senior Editor Russian YMCA-Press, 1923-1947,” June 1, 1959, 1. Chekhov, 6–9/59. France, RSCM—YMCA Press 1957– 1960, Chekhov Press 1950s. KFYA. This document lists Berdyaev’s foreign language titles and publishers. 78. Paul B. Anderson, “Progress Report on Russian Work,” October 19, 1959, 1–3. Chekhov, 10–12/59. France, RSCM—YMCA Press 1957–1960, Chekhov Press 1950s. KFYA. 79. Kartashev and Struve, 70 let izdatel’stva “YMCA-Press,” 28–29. 80. “So Faith Endured . . . ,” Newsweek, October 24, 1960, reprint, no page number given. M General 1943–1946. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B, 2. KFYA. 81. Memorandum from Paul B. Anderson to Millard F. Collins, Robert Frers, and others, April 21, 1961. 1960–1961. France, Russian Work, 1956–1968. KFYA. 82. Memorandum from Joel E. Nystrom to the members of the Executive Committee of the International Committee, YMCA’s, February 4, 1965, 1–2. Correspondence (C–D). Paul B. Anderson, Correspondence 1964–1965. KFYA. 83. Henry Raymont, “Russian Emigres Gain in Publishing,” New York Times, October 30, 1968. Articles. Russian Work, Restricted, Publications, YMCA Press in Paris. KFYA. 84. Kartashev and Struve, 70 let izdatel’stva “YMCA-Press,” 30–31. Details on the publication of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago are provided in “Arkhipelag GULag,” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 108/109/110, nos. 2-3-4 (1973): iii–v. This issue of the Vestnik also includes the first publication of Solzhenitsyn’s “Zhit’ ne po lzhi!” (Live not by lies!) on pp. vii–viii, 1–3. 85. Irving Marder, “One of the Focal Points of World Publishing,” International Herald Tribune, February 14, 1975, no page number. Articles. Russian Work, Restricted, Publications, YMCA Press in Paris. KFYA. 86. Paul B. Anderson, “Visit with [Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn] and his wife at the YMCA Press in Paris,” April 13, 1975. Solzhenitsyn. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B, 3. KFYA. 87. Letter from Anderson to Brunger, September 1, 1975, 1–2. 88. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf: Sketches of Literary Life in the Soviet Union, trans. Harry Willetts (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1979), 383. Solzhenitsyn describes the development of his relationship with the YMCA Press in more detail in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Invisible Allies, trans. Alexis Klimoff and Michael Nicholson (Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1995), 216, 218, 222–23, 229–30, 235, 245, 247–48. 89. Donald E. [Davis], “Paul B. Anderson (1894-1985),” Sobornost 8, no. 1 (1986): 57. 90. Nicolas Zernov, “The Significance of the Russian Orthodox Diaspora and Its Effect on the Christian West,” in The Orthodox Churches and the West, ed. Derek

Baker (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976), 326. 91. Max Hayward, introduction to From Under the Rubble by Alexander Solzhenitsyn et al., trans. Michael Scammel (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975), v–vii. For commentary on Iz pod glyb, see Marc Raeff, “Iz pod glyb and the History of Russian Social Thought,” Russian Review 34 (1975): 476–88. 92. Alexander Solzhenitsyn et al., From Under the Rubble, trans. Michael Scammel (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975), x. 93. Kartashev and Struve, 70 let izdatel’stva “YMCA-Press,” 34–35. 94. Kartashev and Struve, 70 let izdatel’stva “YMCA-Press,” 40. For additional perspective on the role of the YMCA Press in catalyzing the preservation of Russian religious culture and promoting Orthodoxy in the West, see W. Weidle, “The YMCAPress in Paris Connects Past and Future,” The Orthodox Church, May 1976, 4, 6. 95. Arkhimandrit Avgustin (Nikitin), Metodizm i pravoslavie (St. Petersburg: Svetoch, 2001), 163–64. See also Nikita Struve, “Retrieving the Lost (Interview with Nikita Struve),” interview by V. Semenko, Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate 1 (1991): 4345. 96. Viktor Moskvin, “YMCA-Press v gorodakh Rossii i Ukrainy,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 166, no. 3 (1992): 280–81. See also on 1990 Moscow exhibition: “Vystavka izdatel’stva YMCA-Press v Moskve,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 159, no. 2 (1990): 307–10. A later trip to Russia’s north is presented in Ioann Privalov, ed., “YMCA-Press” v Arkhangel’ske: Vstrechi s N. A. Struve: lektsii, interv’iu, besedy (Archangelsk: Obshchina Khrama Sreteniia Gospodnia, 2002). For discussion of the broader context of publishing in Russia after 1985, see Stephen K. Batalden, “The Contemporary Politics of the Russian Bible: Religious Publication in a Period of Glasnost,” in Seeking God: The Recovery of Religious Identity in Orthodox Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia, ed. Stephen K. Batalden (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1993), 232–47. 97. Nikita Struve, “IMKA-Press po goradam i vesiam Rossii i stolitsam vostochnoi Evropy,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 173, no. 1 (1996): 277–80. 98. T. Emel’ianova, “10-letie ‘IMKA-Press’ v Rossii,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 181, no. 3 (2000): 266. 99. Lowrie, “Study of Russian Publishing Program,” 1. 100. Kartashev and Struve, 70 let izdatel’stva “YMCA-Press,” 1, 6, 12–14. 101. “IMKA-Press, 80-e gody (an interview with the director of the publishing house [Nikita Struve] by Vladimir Allo),” Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 3325 (September 11, 1980): 12.

Chapter 9

Teachers and Priests: The St. Sergius Theological Academy Five hundred years ago St Sergius built his monastery in the heart of an impenetrable forest. We are setting up this cloister in the midst of a noisy city, the heart of a world civilization. . . . How I wish that this place should become a warmly-lighted centre of orthodoxy. . . . I hope that our foreign friends, representatives of Western Christianity, may also find a way to this shrine. . . . We must show them the beauty of orthodoxy.[1] At the 1925 consecration of the sanctuary at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, Metropolitan Evlogy expressed these desires for the new center. During the early 1920s several Russian Orthodox clergy in Europe and the leaders of the YMCA Russian work decided that it was necessary to organize a training institute for future priests. With the American YMCA’s financial support and administrative guidance, the Russian instructors of the academy established a distinguished school which trained many priests to serve the émigré community. These professors also published a variety of noteworthy theological and historical works. This chapter examines the development of the St. Sergius Theological Academy from its establishment in 1925 until 1940. First the survey presents the needs which the founders recognized and their primary intentions for the institution. Then the major events in the growth of the school are reviewed. The second section examines the school’s financial history, controversial events, and its connection to the Russian Orthodox leadership. Finally, the most important outcomes and legacy of the academy are considered. As this chapter demonstrates, the YMCA contributed to the development of St. Sergius and each of the faculty members by making significant financial contributions, encouraging a broad range of opinions on theological and ministry issues, setting an example of practical ministry to contemporary parishioners, and developing a strong network of global relationships. The Y’s support of this institution, along with its assistance of the RSCM and the YMCA Press, made a substantial contribution to the progress and spread of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The American YMCA served as active promoter and developer for a Russian Orthodox theological seminary in Paris which “was the first truly free Russian theological academy in history.” The first name of the school was the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris (Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe de Paris). The word “Russian” was not included in the name. On the fifteenth anniversary of the school in 1940 Metropolitan Evlogy formally changed the Russian (not the official French) title to St. Sergius Theological Academy.[2] The founders of the school were reluctant to name it an “academy,” out of respect for the four highest institutions of prerevolutionary theological education. The name “Orthodox Theological Institute”

was chosen as a sign that it was an extension of the Orthodox Theological Institute that operated in Petrograd from 1919 to 1921 after the Bolshevik regime closed the four academies and all other institutions of higher theological education.[3] The Institute was usually referred to as Sergeevskoe podvor’e (the courtyard of Sergei) or simply the podvor’e.[4]

PURPOSE The primary goal of the Institute was to prepare Russian Orthodox priests to serve within the émigré community. As Vasily Zenkovsky later wrote, “The Theological Institute was founded with the primary goal of preparing priests and this is true today as well. To achieve this goal requires not only theological education, but also spiritual formation.” The school was designed to develop the hearts of future priests rather than just the minds. His explanation reflected his years of association with the YMCA, which emphasized the importance of well-rounded development: spiritual, mental, social, and physical. The liturgy was the center of the school: “Attendance at the [daily] worship services of the church of Sergiev Podvor’e was made a requirement for the students of the Theological Institute from its very founding.”[5] The secondary purpose of the school was to promote the development of Russian theology. Edgar MacNaughten, a key leader in the YMCA Russian work and a fund raiser for St. Sergius, described the five primary needs which could be met through a Russian Orthodox theological academy in western Europe. First, he pointed out the great shortage of priests within the émigré population. MacNaughten estimated that the ratio of Russian émigrés to priests was seven thousand to one.[6] Lev Zander, an academy professor, added that many requests from Russian believers for a priest could not be met. He also noted that many of the active priests were over seventy years old.[7] Furthermore, Paul B. Anderson, an advisor for the academy, explained that many young men of the RSCM desired to enter the priesthood. MacNaughten also stressed the need to intellectually prepare priests for the future of Russia. Since the Soviet government was suppressing formal theological education within its borders, the YMCA reasoned that young men must receive training elsewhere in Europe.[8] Sergei Bulgakov, the most well-known of the St. Sergius professors, wrote that before the 1917 Revolution 862 students and 120 teachers were studying in Russia’s four theological academies, the highest institutions for religious instruction.[9] By the end of 1918 the Soviet government closed these academies.[10] During the 1920s Russian universities began to aggressively promote atheistic philosophy. MacNaughten expressed the need to train priests to “meet the issues more intelligently in future Russia.” He also pointed out that Russian scholarly theologians needed an opportunity to develop their Slavic theological tradition through creative thinking and publishing. Finally, MacNaughten mentioned the necessity of providing more occasions for discussions between scholars of the Orthodox Church

and the Anglican community of Britain and America.[11] The Orthodox and YMCA leaders who established the Orthodox Theological Institute hoped that the school could help meet these five needs. Due to Soviet oppression, St. Sergius functioned as the only traditional Russian Orthodox seminary from 1925 until 1944. “Living Church” academies operated in Moscow and Leningrad for a period during these years, but these schools were outside the boundaries of mainstream Russian Orthodoxy due to schism.[12] The primary purpose of the Paris academy was to prepare Russian priests for both the present émigré community in Europe and future congregations in Russia.[13] Anderson and his YMCA colleagues aided the academy because they were convinced that it could be a cornerstone “for the maintenance of the Christianizing influence of Russian Orthodoxy, not only in the emigration but in all the churches of the West.”[14]

DEVELOPMENT In February 1921 leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church in Paris, with the blessing of Metropolitan Evlogy, began to conduct informal “Courses of Higher Theological Education.”[15] These leaders decided to approach leaders of the American YMCA to see if they would support the formation of a more formal theological institute for pastoral training. Zander played a key role in attracting the participation of the American Y: he met John R. Mott at a conference for the WSCF in Peking in 1922 and presented the idea of an institution to prepare youth for service in the church. Mott also discussed this idea in Peking with Lev Liperovsky and Aleksandr Nikitin, who knew Mott when they were both members of the prerevolutionary RSCM.[16] However, the YMCA was also considering other options for funding Russian pastoral training. One 1924 proposal for a one-year program in Moscow originated with Pavel Florensky, the well-known clergyman and professor of the Moscow Theological Academy. He “brought forward the idea as spokesman for other Russian Church leaders who adhere to the authority of Patriarch Tikhon.” The proposed oneyear program would be open to students of all Christian confessions in Russia. Financial support and visiting lecturers would be provided by American, British, and European churches. The YMCA could provide translation and publishing costs. The program would emphasize new forms of social ministry and new issues in theology.[17] Before the revolution, Florensky and his friend Bulgakov had dreamed of “a theological school which is free, modern, and faithful to tradition.”[18] In April 1924 Ethan Colton wrote to Mott that no consensus about the Russian Orthodox seminary in Europe existed among the YMCA workers or the Russian church leaders. Therefore, he authorized funding for ten scholarships for Russian Orthodox students to a theological school in Constantinople, where some Russians had already begun studying. He also raised issues related to the proposed program for Moscow— Florensky’s one year interconfessional program.[19] In the summer of 1924 Metropolitan Evlogy decided on his preferred approach

and wrote to Mott to request assistance in purchasing a German Lutheran church building in Paris to use as a seminary building. He shared his motivation for beginning the program soon: “All over Europe, [wherever] Russian refugees are gathered you can find young men anxious to get an adequate training for priesthood.” The building is “now for sale according to the Versailles treaty regulations regarding alien property. . . . We need therefore a sum of Fr. Frs. 135.000 or about Dollars 6750 to secure the premises.”[20] The church, founded by Pastor Friedrich von Bodelschwingh in 1858, had once housed an orphanage for poor children.[21] In Russia Abroad Marc Raeff describes the 1925 dedication of the church and grounds, which were dedicated to St. Sergei of Radonezh, the patron saint of Muscovy, and the opening of the Institute. The school’s curriculum was based on that of prerevolutionary institutions.[22] Anderson and G. G. Kullmann discussed the property with Mott, who provided five thousand dollars from a YMCA fund. With this gift and other donations, the Metropolitan purchased the property and began to organize a faculty and student body. Anderson and Kullmann served on a sponsoring committee for the academy.[23] On April 30, 1925, classes commenced with four professors.[24] At the commencement of the third academic year (1927–1928), forty-six students were studying at the academy. The ages of the students ranged from twenty-two to forty. A few of the men had studied in theological academies in Russia; the remainder of the student body had served as engineers, monks, students, workers, and officers. Many had traveled to Paris from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Serbia, Belgium, Finland, and Estonia. The men participated in a traditional academic theological curriculum and contributed to the practical life of the academy church. Each student attended a ninety-minute service in the morning and a forty-five-minute service in the evening. In addition they sang in the choir, served as readers, and cleaned the sanctuary.[25] The students occupied three crowded dormitory rooms and met for meals at the academy. They were able to study in a seminary library which held over two thousand volumes by 1931.[26] By 1931 St. Sergius employed six professors, seven occasional lecturers, and two additional language instructors. These men were excellent scholars,[27] and most of them had studied at Russia’s finest schools. From 1925 to 1939, seventeen professors served at St. Sergius. The following list identifies the faculty with their field of instruction and number of books published before 1954: Nicolay Afanasiev Canon law and early church history (2) Sergei Bulgakov Dogmatics and Christian sociology (21) Bishop Kassian (S. S. Bezobrazov) New Testament and Greek (3) Archimandrite Cyprian (Konstantin Kern)

Patristic theology, pastoral theology, and Greek (4) Georgy Fedotov History of the Western churches and hagiology (8) Georges Florovsky Patrology, dogmatics, and moral theology (3) Vladimir Ilyin Liturgics and history of philosophy (5) Anton Kartashev Church history (3) Pyotr Kovalevsky Latin (2) Konstantin Mochulsky History of the Western churches, Latin, and Slavonic (5) Boris Sove Old Testament Fyodosy Spasky Liturgics and Latin (1) Sergius Verkhovsky Dogmatics and moral theology Boris Vysheslavtsev Moral theology (5) Vladimir Weidle Christian art and history of the Western churches (5) Lev Zander Philosophy, pedagogy, and comparative theology (3) Vasily Zenkovsky Philosophy, apologetics, and history of religion (7)[28] The subjects listed above display the breadth of instruction offered at the academy. The students and professors of St. Sergius participated in innovative religious education programs. In 1927, after his return from study in the United States, Zenkovsky established a religious pedagogical department which published a variety of study materials and conducted a training course for Russian Orthodox volunteers. During the first year of the department, sixty volunteer leaders from several European countries participated in a four-day conference to study pedagogical methods developed by Catholics and Protestants. In addition, the conference leaders presented several sessions on the methodology of anti-religious youth work in the Soviet Union.[29] St. Sergius instructors and students also filled a significant role in the development of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. Professors Bulgakov, Florovsky, and Fedotov each participated in these meetings where members of the RSCM met with Anglican students to explore the common elements of their faith and

encourage communication between the churches.[30] Bulgakov, one of the most prominent of the academy scholars, taught at St. Sergius from its founding until his death in 1944. Anderson commented, “The combination of his remarkable intellectual and spiritual gifts with his completely Russian attachment to Church and people made him a natural leader among people of the Russian religious renaissance in Paris, and in the West, generally.”[31] The YMCA leadership knew that by assisting Bulgakov they could assist the wider Orthodox community. Bulgakov was the son of a priest, but he turned during his early years to atheism and Marxism. After studying philosophy and political economy in Germany, he eventually grew dissatisfied with Marx’s ideas and returned to the Orthodox Church, along with Berdyaev and other notable intellectuals.[32] In 1925 he accepted a position as Professor of Dogmatic Theology at St. Sergius, where he built many personal relationships with students and followed a rigorous schedule of study and writing. Bulgakov published books and journal articles in theology, ecumenism, philosophy, sociology, and economics.[33] He wrote six of his most significant theological works as two trilogies. The first set, which centered on the theme of divine wisdom in the world, contained The Burning Bush, The Friend of the Bridegroom, and Jacob’s Ladder. These books provided teaching on Mary, John the Baptist, and angels. The second set, which discussed the relationship of God to humanity, contained The Lamb of God, The Comforter, and The Bride of the Lamb.[34] Bulgakov provided significant leadership for the Russian Orthodox as these believers began to participate in the ecumenical movement. In 1932 he contributed to the Oxford meeting of the Life and Work conference where many clergy discussed the practical aspects of church cooperation. He also traveled to Edinburgh in 1937 for a meeting of the Faith and Order conference which focused on theological issues related to church unity. In 1934 and 1936 he visited the United States to meet with the leadership of the Episcopal Church. During these visits Bulgakov delivered messages at Columbia University in New York City and Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois.[35] Bulgakov led a community of Orthodox scholars at St. Sergius which spiritually challenged seminary students and produced a variety of thoughtful writings. In 1969 Alexander Schmemann, dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York, published Russian Theology: 1920–1965, a bibliographical survey which documented the substantial contribution made by these men and placed their work within the context of contemporary Russian Orthodox religious thought. Schmemann commented that at St. Sergius “a brilliant group of scholars, coming from very different backgrounds, succeeded in maintaining, in spite of difficult material conditions, a very high level of theological work and a remarkable productivity.” As Schmemann surveyed each division of theology, he commented on works by many St. Sergius professors. He discussed the work of Bulgakov and Florovsky in dogmatic theology and the study of Kern in liturgics. Schmemann noted that Fedotov was a “real pioneer” in hagiology, the study of the saints. Also, he wrote that the writings of

Zenkovsky and Florovsky on philosophy were “absolutely indispensable to every student of Russian Orthodoxy.”[36]

FUNDING The initial fundraising campaign brought in donations from Mott and a variety of other sponsors, including four thousand francs from E. L. Nobel (a supporter of the St. Petersburg Mayak) and one hundred thousand francs from the Jewish philanthropist M. A. Ginsburg. Anglican sources raised almost 40 percent of the Institute’s first operating budget of 1926; many Anglicans saw support as a means to build stronger relations with Orthodox leaders.[37] John D. Rockefeller Jr. gave a total of 66,932 dollars from 1926 to 1929 for the “strengthening and enriching the life of the Russian Orthodox Church.” The funds were primarily used for the Orthodox Theological Institute.[38] During the 1930s the Institute did not continue to receive funds from Rockefeller, so YMCA secretaries worked to find additional sponsors, especially from the Anglican/Episcopalian community. However, the school faced financial hardships during these years of depression. The proposed budget for 1933–1934 was set at 232,300 francs, a decrease from previous years. Professor salaries declined sharply from the 1931–1932 year to the proposed 1933–1934 salaries. For example, Bulgakov’s pay declined from 2,210 francs per month to 1,200.[39] In 1934 Mott participated in a fundraising effort which includes a comment from Metropolitan Evlogy on the economic situation of the seminary: “At the present time its position is truly critical, near to a [catastrophe].” Mott added, “The student dormitory and refectory are primitive. Ten cots to a room is the average. One hook or two per student do duty for wardrobes and are ample for all the clothing he possesses.”[40] The professors of St. Sergius persevered in their academic work through the economic difficulties of the 1930s and as late as 1939 continued to serve thirty residential students each year. By 1938 the school had enrolled 168 students from thirteen countries.[41] The academy operated on an extremely limited budget; in 1927 expenditures totaled eighteen thousand dollars.[42] This amount covered food and books (46 percent), salaries for eight professors (30 percent), building maintenance and utilities (15 percent), and general expenses (9 percent).[43] Four years later this budget grew to nineteen thousand dollars.[44] As mentioned earlier, Mott had arranged a large financial gift for the purchase of the property. Although the American YMCA did not continue contributing directly to the budget of the academy, the leaders of the Y Russian work assisted in coordinating donations from English and American sources.[45] MacNaughten and Kullmann traveled to the United States in 1927 to meet with possible donors in New York and Boston.[46] Through their efforts, committees formed in five American cities and contributed over eleven thousand dollars in the first year.[47] These groups combined to form a standing committee within the organization of the Episcopal

Church which raised a substantial annual fund for the school’s maintenance.[48] The American YMCA also encouraged the support of the Church of England, which in 1923 established the Appeal for the Russian Clergy to raise funds for the many needs of the Russian Church. This organization, renamed the Appeal for the Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund in 1926, contributed substantially to the academy. By 1939 Anglicans contributed approximately seventy-five thousand pounds sterling to the various needs of the Russian Orthodox Church.[49] Students made a significant financial contribution by touring with the seminary choir, which accepted voluntary offerings. By 1936, 46 percent of the budget was provided by British sources, 41 percent by American donors, and 13 percent by Russians.[50]

CONTROVERSIES One “external” controversy for the Institute was linked to its funding. In 1926 Anderson reflected on one consequence of the fund to aid the Russian Church: some Orthodox critics argued that Metropolitan Evlogy, the academy, and the student movement had given control of their work to the YMCA in exchange for funding. In light of this, Anderson stated, “A responsibility is placed on us to see them through financially until they can win enough followers to fully support them in this work.”[51] Vladimir Vostokov and N. S. Batiushkin were only two of many from the more conservative wing of the émigré Russian church who claimed that Metropolitan Evlogy and the professors of St. Sergius “sold themselves” to the YMCA and its MasonicJewish directors. They wrote, “Many people have written to Eulogius asking for explanation of the fact that the Academy is being organised on the funds of the YMCA and of the jew Ginsburg. . . . What explains so rich a gift of 7000 dol. for the YMCA? Will the YMCA have a voice in deciding the [selection] of the professors?”[52] These objections seem to be rooted in understandable suspicion, since Protestant gifts to Orthodox institutions were not common. However, the author has not seen any documents which suggest YMCA control or inappropriate influence over the academy or its selection of faculty. Turning from the right to the left, the Soviet press had an opinion or two about the Paris institute, which the atheist journal Antireligioznik presented as a training center for anti-Soviet espionage. According to one writer, Metropolitan Evlogy “takes the most active part in all White Guard meetings. . . . Evlogy repeatedly made public statements with anti-Soviet appeals and with the goal of anti-Soviet agitation traveled to London to the Archbishop of Canterbury.” The author described the institute’s true goal—to prepare “directors and agents in the field of espionage. These pastors are just what the French general staff needs.”[53] Available evidence suggests that while most participants held anti-Soviet views, the school did not work toward specific political goals. An “internal” controversy related to Soviet politics illustrates this point. As Zenkovsky explained, the school did not require a specific political ideology for students or faculty. They were free to

choose their own position, so positions ranged from democracy to monarchism. However, support of the “Soviet orientation” was not allowed. As a result, in 1947 the institute did not accept Sofrony Sakharov from Mt. Athos into the student body and dismissed the instructor Nikolai Eremin. Within the fairly wide political boundaries the staff and faculty attempted to allow flexibility on some issues and encourage freedom of choice. As Zenkovsky summarized, “the Institute consciously and consistently struggles with any display of obscurantism . . . and the extreme of ritualism [obriadoverie], and narrow pedantry [nachetnichestvo].”[54] This freedom to express one’s opinion led to productive debates among faculty members, but some of these debates led to less productive quarrels and grudges. They “found it difficult to get along with each other.” Some of the debates were rooted in the fundamental theological and philosophical argument between Bulgakov, who always had one eye on the modern world, and Florovsky, who always had an eye on the Greek Church Fathers. The quarrels often used expressions not common for Christian theology, such as Professor Cyprian’s dismissal of Bulgakov’s books as “the dead inhabitants of library shelves.” Florovsky offended many on the faculty with his Ways of Russian Theology (Puti russkogo bogosloviia), “a brilliant work filled with strident critiques of his contemporaries.”[55] One catalyst for controversy among the instructors was an outsider who had declined an invitation to join the faculty—Nikolai Berdyaev, the sharp-witted philosopher. He was upset at those who believed that Bulgakov should not freely express his more controversial theological views, so he wrote an article “The Spirit of the Grand Inquisitor.” In the article he charged that “the Orthodox clergy and monasteries lack culture and education,” and concluded that “this obscurantist violence to theology . . . is on a very low level of thinking.” Berdyaev’s passionate responses often brought more heat than light to the issues.[56] Bulgakov received severe criticism from more conservative Orthodox theologians for his views on the relationship of the Russian Orthodox Church with other churches and for certain aspects of his theology. In 1933 he published a highly controversial document which suggested partial intercommunion as a path toward OrthodoxAnglican reconciliation. While Orthodox leaders rejected his position, this idea did prompt profitable discussion.[57] Bulgakov referred to his study of the incarnation as “Sophiology,” the study of the wisdom of God. He saw his teaching as an attempt to continue discussion of the statement of the Council of Chalcedon (451) on the two natures of Christ. Many Orthodox theologians appreciated his creative thought, but others believed that his ideas were heretical and dangerous. Moscow church leadership condemned these teachings in 1937,[58] but the bishops of western Europe disagreed with this pronouncement and refused to limit his intellectual freedom.[59]

CHURCH RELATIONS However, apart from this incident, the St. Sergius Theological Academy and the

leaders of the YMCA Russian work maintained a mutually supportive relationship with both the Russian and the western European hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. Bulgakov expressed his loyalty to the Russian leadership in a 1926 speech. He stressed, “Religious enthusiasm and devotion to the Church on the part of the teachers and students unites it with the Russian Church of Tichon, its spiritual leader and confessor. One life, one will, one hope, one love, one faith here and there.”[60]

OUTCOMES After carefully listening to the concerns of Russian émigrés, Mott, Anderson, and their colleagues contributed to one of the most influential Orthodox academic institutions of the twentieth century.[61] As the only Russian Orthodox theological institute from 1925 to 1944, St. Sergius achieved the goals set by its founders. The primary purpose of the school was to train priests for ministry to the Russian Orthodox community, and parishes willingly accepted the service of the academy’s graduates.[62] Thomas Hopko has noted that, in addition to training scores of church workers and priests, St. Sergius also provided qualified faculty for St. Vladimir’s Seminary in New York,[63] which in turn trained many leaders for Orthodox churches in the United States. In addition, with the YMCA’s assistance, St. Sergius professors and students were able to meet Western Christians and participate fully in the ecumenical movement. Finally, academy professors published texts of enduring value on theology and spirituality. In 1969 Alexander Schmemann, dean of St. Vladimir’s Seminary, wrote an assessment of recent Russian Orthodox theology which concluded with a powerful endorsement of the St. Sergius Theological Academy—it led to “great vitality and creativity.”[64] From 1925 to 1940 nearly 100 men graduated from the Institute: among the 168 students who attended during this period there were 119 Russians, 15 Estonians, 13 Poles, 9 Latvians, 4 Bulgarians, 1 Serb, 2 Romanians, 3 Finns, 1 Lithuanian, and 1 Swiss.[65] Marc Raeff echoes Schmemann’s praise: “it is clear that St. Serge’s did help to preserve and train the intellectual and spiritual backbone of the theological leadership of the Russian church abroad.” He also points out that the institute was able to overcome “great financial constraints through the generosity of the World Student Christian Federation, the YMCA, and the dedication of the émigrés themselves.”[66] St. Sergius also contributed to the training of clergy and the development of theology in the wider Orthodox world. Professors Kartashev and Florovsky were each invited to spend a semester at the University of Athens—this is just one example of influence on Greek Orthodoxy.[67] No Greek students attended before the war, but by the 1954–1955 academic year they were the second largest ethnic group in the student body: thirteen were Russian and twelve were Greek.[68] The Institute’s influence beyond the traditional borders of Orthodoxy began in Paris itself. In 1944 Saint Denis Institute opened as a seminary for French converts to Orthodoxy. In 1948 the school was renamed the French Orthodox Institute. By 1949

the school had eight faculty members and twenty-three degree students of seven nationalities.[69] However, by 1955 this institute closed.[70] During World War II the school was not able to receive funds from its “ecumenical friends.” Also, many students and professors were not able to travel back to Paris after their summer travels. The remaining students and professors decided to continue their academic work in spite of the difficulties.[71] During the wartime occupation of Paris a German officer came to inspect the seminary. The French government had confiscated the property after World War I, so the students and staff were concerned that everything could be closed down or repossessed. The officer explained that he was the son of Pastor Bodelschwingh, founder of the German church which now served as the seminary’s facility. He saw that his father’s portrait was still hanging in the library of the school and asked about the activities of the Institute. He then stated that he believed the gospel was being preached and taught—so the school could continue as before.[72] Another day the staff of the school was warned that Russian agents of the German authorities would be coming to collect all the Hebrew books in the library for destruction. They were able to hide the most valuable books, but the agents came and removed a hundred less important volumes.[73] St. Sergius was able to train qualified future leadership for the Institute, as well as for the Russian Student Christian Movement and the YMCA Press. During his career Ivan Morozov served as instructor of church history for the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute, director of the YMCA Press, and general secretary of the RSCM in France. In September 1939 Morozov was a student at the Theological Institute. He joined the other students and professors in deciding to continue their studies. In 1945, after graduating from the Institute, he was chosen to be the next general secretary of the RSCM. He agreed to take the position, in spite of all the post-war difficulties. He also became the editor of the renewed Vestnik RSKhD. In 1961 he was selected to follow A. V. Kartashev as instructor of church history after his death. Also around this time he was invited to serve as director of the YMCA Press—at the time the American YMCA was ending its support of this project.[74] Evaluating the Institute and the YMCA’s involvement in its support is not a simple task. In 1944 the Soviet government began to allow the development of formal theological education in the USSR. This advance created a new problem for Patriarch Aleksy I—a shortage of qualified faculty for the newly opened institutions. As a result, he petitioned the government, through the Council for Russian Orthodox Church Affairs, for permission to invite four or five professors of theology from Paris and Prague to serve as instructors in the reopened theological academies.[75] The government did not support this petition, but the account illustrates the unique role played by the Saint Sergius Academy. Orthodox believers and leaders evaluated the preparation for ministry offered by St. Sergius in different ways. Zenkovsky wrote that the program was not always seen as adequate: some believed that student life was “marked with the stamp not of spirituality [dukhovnost’] but of worldly emotion

[dushevnost’].”[76] Lev Zander acknowledged that progress was made in training new theologians, but in 1959 he expressed his ambivalence about the ability of the new generation of graduates to continue the tradition begun by the first generations of scholars: “They have another trend, another style of thinking; we admire their ability but they don’t continue the tradition we served.”[77] The fact that St. Sergius faculty wrote a tremendous number of books is well known. However, books are not as significant without readers. Evidence suggests that the writings produced by the Institute have been and are being distributed and read. When Soviet censorship declined during the late 1980s, reprints and new editions of books published by St. Sergius faculty quickly appeared in Russia from a variety of publishers. The appearance of these new books has continued to this day; the books of Berdyaev, Fedotov, Kartashev, Mochulsky, Bulgakov, and others have been printed by the tens of thousands.[78]

LEGACY The significance of the YMCA’s support of St. Sergius from 1925 to 1940 is demonstrated by the work of the Institute in the 1990s. In 1997 the school’s student body of fifty included students from France, Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Poland, Lithuania, Finland, Georgia, Lebanon, Japan, Ethiopia, Turkey, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Italy, and the United States. In the 1970s French became the second official language of the Institute—the liturgical language continues to be Slavonic. In the 1960s and 1970s fewer and fewer Russian students were attending the school, so the language of instruction became French. This paralleled the shift of St. Vladimir’s seminary in New York to English-language instruction. The year 1965 may serve as a signpost for the transition of the Institute from a Russian Orthodox school to an all-Orthodox school. In this year the second rector of the Institute, Bishop Kassian, died. The Institute is one of very few Orthodox theological schools in Western Europe, so its graduates have become the priests of most local churches in this region. Graduates have become bishops, and one has become a patriarch.[79] It is well known that the Institute made a great contribution to the formation of St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary, the leading Orthodox theological school in the United States. In 1948 Florovsky moved to New York to become the dean. Fedotov was already teaching there. Soon Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff joined them as well. “In this way almost the entire second generation of professors from the Institute ended up across the ocean, completely devoting themselves to the mission of the creation of an American national Church and feeding it with a prestigious theological school.”[80] Schmemann and Meyendorff served the Orthodox Church for many years as priests, teachers, and scholars. Each led St. Vladimir’s Seminary in New York as dean: Schmemann from 1962 until 1983[81] and Meyendorff from 1984 until 1992.[82] Their labors contributed to the growth and health of the Orthodox Church in the United States. Their careers underscored the academy’s success in

providing qualified clergy and producing some of the creative Orthodox writings available, for as P. D. Steeves explains, After the middle of the nineteenth century the most creative developments within Orthodoxy came from Russian writers, such as Vladimir Solovyev, Nikolai Berdyaev, Sergei Bulgakov, Georges Florovsky, and from professors of the Russian seminaries in Paris and New York, notably Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff. Their work is too recent for it to be incorporated into the essence of Orthodoxy, but it testifies to the continuing vitality of the tradition.[83] The Institute now is assisted by the Association for the Support and Maintenance of the Orthodox Theological Institute (AMEITO), an organization of financial donors which includes Catholic and Protestant members.[84] The school operates as a part of the Russian Orthodox Archbishopric of Western Europe. One goal of the school is to serve as a “meeting place through the participation of its teachers to national and international dialogues, either interorthodox, ecumenical or interreligious.”[85] The Institute currently offers full-time on-campus and part-time correspondence programs for students at the bachelors, masters, and doctoral degree levels. The Institute also grants a research doctorate in association with a French Catholic seminary. The school maintains relationships with other Orthodox theological study programs through the Syndesmos, the international Orthodox youth network, and regular conferences on Orthodox theological education. The majority of graduates join the clergy, and an increasing percentage are continuing on for more education after completing their program. The YMCA currently provides no financial support; in the 1950s the US organization curtailed its financial support of the Russian work after the most active staff members of the Russian work had passed away or moved on to other initiatives. The early investment had been viewed by the Association as seed money rather than a promise of long-term maintenance. Since 1990 the number of students from formerly Communist countries has increased. Currently three students from Greece are enrolled. The Institute has developed contacts with Moscow Theological Academy in Sergiev Posad, Kiev Theological Academy, and St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Institute in Moscow.[86] Perhaps the best way to demonstrate the value of the St. Sergius Academy is to present its two most well-known and frequently contrasted professors, Sergei Bulgakov and Georges Florovsky. These two were the leaders of the most significant doctrinal trends of the Institute, the “Russian School” of Bulgakov, with its roots in nineteenth-century Russian religious philosophy and its attention to contemporary thought, and the “Neopatristic Revival” of Florovsky, with its roots in the writing of the Greek fathers. Their contrasting views were debated by the faculty, discussed by Orthodox clergy, and studied by theologians and historians. It is truly remarkable that for a time they coexisted, uncomfortably, at this small seminary in Paris. Their contrasting views spurred each other on to define their positions and express their convictions; the relative freedom of the Institute allowed them each to formulate their

views in a way which would not have been possible if they had gone unchallenged in a more narrow environment. Mott’s financial gift to purchase the facility is still remembered and discussed, but his example of supporting leaders with radically different views may have made a more important impact. Bulgakov defended the uniqueness of Orthodoxy but was able to honestly evaluate his heritage and learn from traditions other than his own. On one hand, he argued, “Orthodoxy is not one of the historic confessions: it is the church itself in its verity.” Yet he openly acknowledged, “There is much in the practice and customs of Orthodoxy that gives cause for sorrow—sacerdotalism, lack of culture and enlightenment in Church life, ritualism, superstition, and ignorant formalism—in fact everything that makes our Orthodoxy unorthodox.” His approach to liberal Protestants (which included many of his financial sponsors) balanced honest appreciation and criticism as well. He showed appreciation for the sincere prayer life, personal Bible reading, respect for laypeople, and practical philanthropy he had observed among Protestants: “different Christian peoples, belonging to different confessions, may learn much from each other. The West may find a complement to its dryness in the free spirit of Orthodoxy; and the Orthodox East can learn from the Christian West many things in regard to the religious organization of everyday life.”[87] Florovsky (1893–1979) developed a reputation as an outstanding theologian, philosopher, and historian. Many have referred to him as the leading Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century. One of his fundamental principles was that the Eastern and Western traditions within Christianity “are not independently whole units that can stand in and by themselves.” This historical conviction led to his theological approach to “go forward with the Fathers” and emphasize the patristic tradition of the early united church.[88] Florovsky and Bulgakov both benefited directly and indirectly from the contributions of the YMCA.

NOTES 1. Donald A. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris: The Orthodox Theological Institute (New York: Macmillan, 1951), 11. 2. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris, 90, 19–20. 3. Alexis Kniazeff, “Serving God and the Church,” in L’Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe Saint-Serge: 70 Ans de Théologie Orthodoxe a Paris (The Saint Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute: 70 Years of Orthodox Theology in Paris), L’Association pour le Maintien et l’Entretien de l’Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe (AMEITO) (Paris: Editions Hervas, 1997), 10. 4. Paul B. Anderson, “A Brief History of YMCA Press,” February 1972, 7. Corr. and Reports 1950–. Russian Work, Restricted, Publications, YMCA Press in Paris. KFYA. 5. V. Zen’kovskii, “Dukhovno-vospitatel’naia rabota bogoslovskogo instituta,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 145, no. 3 (1985): 246. 6. Edgar MacNaughten, “Report on the American Aid to Strengthen and Enrich the Russian Orthodox Church,” unpublished paper, October 1931, 2. PBAP.

7. L. A. Zander, ed., “Religious News Sheet of the Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris,” unpublished newsletter, October 1927, 2–3. PBAP. 8. MacNaughten, “Report on American Aid,” 3. 9. Sergius Bulgakoff, “The Sanctuary Lamp of St. Sergie: The Russian Academy in Paris,” in The Russian Refugee Church and Student Movement (London: Appeal for the Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund, [192-]), 7. PBAP. 10. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris, 1. 11. MacNaughten, “Report on American Aid,” 3. 12. Bulgakoff, “The Sanctuary Lamp,” 7. See Edward E. Roslof, Red Priests: Renovationism, Russian Orthodoxy, and Revolution, 1905–1946 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002). 13. Zander, “Religious News Sheet,” 3. 14. Paul B. Anderson, “No East or West: The Memoirs of Paul B. Anderson,” ed. Donald E. Davis, unpublished draft, 156. 15. Kniazeff, 9. For background on Metropolitan Evlogy, see Viacheslav Kostikov, Ne budem proklinat’ izgnan’e: Puti i sud’by russkoi emigratsii (Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 1990), 326–33. 16. “Pamiati prof. L. A. Zandera: 19.2.1893–17.12.1964,” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 75/76, nos. 4–1 (1964/1965): 29. 17. “Outline of a Plan in the Direction of Establishing a Theological Academy in Moscow under the Patronage of Western Churches,” 1924, 1–3. Russian Orthodox Church. Russian Work, Restricted, Ethan T. Colton Collection. KFYA. 18. Anton Arzhakovskii, “Sviato-Sergievskii Pravoslavnyi Bogoslovskii Institut v Parizhe,” in Bogoslov, filosof, myslitel’: Iubileinye chteniia, posviashchennye 125letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia o. Sergiia Bulgakova (sentiabr’ 1996 g., Moskva) (Moscow: Dom-muzei Mariny Tsvetaevoi, 1999), 111. 19. Memorandum from E. T. Colton to John R. Mott, April 23, 1924. 1924–25. Russian Church. KFYA. 20. Letter from Metropolitan Eulogius to John R. Mott, July 28, 1924, 1–2. YMCA Relationships (1920–1925) 2. Russian Church. KFYA. Apparently Evlogy chose to resolve the lack of consensus by acting decisively in response to an opportunity to purchase a facility. 21. “Iz proshlago Sergievskago Podvor’ia,” Viestnik russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 11 (November 1927): 20. 22. Marc Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919– 1939 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 127. 23. Anderson, “No East or West,” 13. 24. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris, 19. 25. Zander, “Religious News Sheet,” 3. 26. MacNaughten, “Report on American Aid,” 2. 27. W. Chapin Huntington, The Homesick Million (Boston: Stratford, 1933), 142. 28. L. Zander, ed., List of the Writings of Professors of the Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris 1925–1954 (Paris: The Russian Orthodox Theological

Institute in Paris, [195-]), 5–99. See also L. Zander, ed., List of Writings of the Professors of the Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris: 1955–1965 (Paris: Russian Orthodox Theological Institute, [196-]). 29. Zander, “Religious News Sheet,” 4. 30. Nicolas Zernov, The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius (Oxford: The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1979), 9; see also Bryn Geffert, “Sergii Bulgakov, the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, Intercommunion and Sofiology,” Revolutionary Russia 17, no. 1 (June 2004): 105–41. 31. Anderson, “No East or West,” 184. 32. Stanley S. Harakas, “Sergius Bulgakov and His Teaching,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 7 (1962): 92. 33. Zander, List of the Writings, 5–16. 34. Sergei Bulgakov, A Bulgakov Anthology, ed. James Pain and Nicolas Zernov (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), xv–xvi. 35. Harakas, “Sergius Bulgakov and His Teaching,” 102–3. 36. Alexander Schmemann, Russian Theology: 1920–1965, A Bibliographical Survey (Richmond, VA: Union Theological Seminary, 1969), 7, 24–26. 37. Bryn Geffert, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans: Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of Interwar Ecumenism (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 38. 38. Paul B. Anderson, “Memorandum on Policy for the Russian Work of the International Committee,” August 9, 1951, 5. Corr. and Reports 1950–1951. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1930–1949, Annual Reports 1930–1949. KFYA. 39. “Budget of the Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, July 1st, 1933– June 30, 1934.” ROTA, 1930–1933. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 40. John R. Mott, “The Russian Theological Academy of St. Sergius—an Appraisal,” [1934], 4–5. ROTA, 1934–. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 41. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris, 27. 42. Zander, “Religious News Sheet,” 3. 43. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris, 77. 44. MacNaughten, “Report on American Aid,” 2. 45. Kenneth Scott Latourette, World Service: A History of the Foreign Work and World Service of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of the United States and Canada (New York: Association Press, 1957), 381. 46. Anderson, “No East or West,” 157. 47. MacNaughten, “Report on American Aid,” 1. 48. Ethan T. Colton, Forty Years with Russians (New York: Association Press, 1940),

147. 49. Donald Davis, “British Aid to Russian Churchmen 1919–1939,” Sobornost 2, no. 1 (1980): 42–43. 50. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris, 32, 87. 51. Paul B. Anderson, “Russian Service in Europe, Annual Report for the Year 1926,” 10. Annual Reports, 1925–1929. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920–1929, Annual Reports 1920–1929. KFYA. 52. Vladimir Vostokoff and N. S. Batiushkin, “Report Handed Over May 18/31, 1925 to the Episcopal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Foreign Countries by the Former Members of the Church Administration Abroad,” 1–2, 11–12. ROTA, 1923– 1929. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 53. B. Kandidov, “Interventsiia, vreditel’stvo i tserkov’,” Antireligioznik, no. 1 (January 1931): 27–28. 54. Zen’kovskii, “Dukhovno-vospitatel’naia rabota bogoslovskogo instituta,” 251–52. 55. Geffert, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans, 238. 56. Lowrie, Rebellious Prophet, 195–96. 57. Bulgakov, A Bulgakov Anthology, xi. 58. Harakas, “Sergius Bulgakov and His Teaching,” 93. 59. Bulgakov, A Bulgakov Anthology, xvi. 60. Bulgakoff, “The Sanctuary Lamp,” 9. 61. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris, 22, 41. 62. Colton, Forty Years with Russians, 146. 63. Thomas Hopko, “Russian Orthodox Church,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade, vol. 12 (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 490. 64. Schmemann, Russian Theology, 35. 65. Letter from Donald A. Lowrie to the Carnegie Endowment for the Advancement of Teaching, March 12, 1940, 2. ROTA, 1934–. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. According to a recent Russian publication, during its first eleven years, the Institute graduated 133 people—52 were ordained as priests: Viacheslav Kostikov, Ne budem proklinat’ izgnan’e: Puti i sud’by russkoi emigratsii (Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 1990), 344–45. The reason for the discrepancy is not clear. 66. Raeff, Russia Abroad, 128. 67. Paul B. Anderson, “Report for 1937, Russian Service in Europe,” July 28, 1938, 2. Annual Reports 1933–1949. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Budgets and Appropriations, Correspondence and Reports, 1950–, Financial Transactions. KFYA. 68. [Donald A. Lowrie], “The Orthodox Theological Institute of Saint Sergius in Paris, Report for the Academic Year 1954–1955,” attached to the “Report on Russian Work, Paris,” January 20, 1956, 1. Corr. and Reports 1952–1959. Russian Work— Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1930–1949, Annual Reports 1930–1949. KFYA.

69. [Paul B. Anderson], “International Committee YMCA, Russian Work in 1949,” 6. Russian Literature Account #3 1949–1950. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B, 2. KFYA. 70. Paul B. Anderson and Donald A. Lowrie, “Interim Summary Report on Study of the Russian Work of the International Committee YMCA,” March 11, 1955, 5. 312/55. France, Russian Work, 1954–1955, N. Goncharoff Research Project, 1954– 1955. KFYA. 71. Aleksei Kniazev, “Ivan Vasil’evich Morozov (1919–1978),” November 30, 1978, 1. ACER. 72. Donald A. Lowrie, “Memorandum re Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris,” September 30, 1947, 1. ROTA, 1934–. Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund. KFYA. 73. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris, 43–44. 74. Kniazev, “Ivan Vasil’evich Morozov,” 1–3. ACER. 75. Tatiana A. Chumachenko, Church and State in Soviet Russia: Russian Orthodoxy from World War II to the Khrushchev Years, ed. and trans. Edward E. Roslof (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2002), 71–72. The YMCA also received significant positive (and negative) attention at a 1948 Moscow gathering of hierarchs from the Eastern Orthodox world. The proceedings were published as Deianiia soveshchaniia glav i predstavitelei avtokefal’nykh pravoslavnykh tserkvei v sviazi s prazdnovaniem 500 letiia avtokefalii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 8–18 iiulia 1948 goda, 2 vols. (Moscow: Moscow Patriarchate, 1949). Archpriest G. I. Razumovsky warmly referred to Paul B. Anderson as “omnipresent” (vezdesushchii) in the Orthodox émigré world and noted that he spoke Russian “beautifully” (2:106). Bishop Nestor, on the other hand, energetically criticized the YMCA as a Masonic and destructive influence on the Orthodox world (2:382–85); see Anderson, “Memorandum on Policy for the Russian Work,” August 9, 1951, 7, for his comments on these meetings. 76. Zen’kovskii, “Dukhovno-vospitatel’naia rabota bogoslovskogo instituta,” 254. 77. Letter from L. Zander to E. R. Hardy (at Westdean Rectory, Seaford, Sussex, England), May 13, 1959. Lev Zander archive (korobka 15, papka 5, #5:3). ITOS. 78. Arzhakovskii, “Sviato-Sergievskii Pravoslavnyi Bogoslovskii Institut v Parizhe,” 124. 79. Nikolai Ozolin, “K semidesiatiletiiu russkogo pravoslavnogo bogoslovskogo instituta prepodobnogo Sergiia Radonezhskogo v Parizhe,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 174, no. 2-1 (1996/1997): 258, 271, 259. 80. Ozolin, “K semidesiatiletiiu russkogo pravoslavnogo bogoslovskogo instituta prepodobnogo Sergiia Radonezhskogo v Parizhe,” 270–71. 81. Peter Scorer, “Alexander Schmemann (1921–83),” Sobornost 6, no. 2 (1984): 66. 82. “Protopresbyter John Meyendorff (in Memoriam),” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 36, no. 3 (1992): 180. 83. P. D. Steeves, “The Orthodox Tradition,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 808.

84. Olivier Clement, “Saint Sergius Institute Today,” in L’Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe Saint-Serge: 70 Ans de Théologie Orthodoxe a Paris (The Saint Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute: 70 Years of Orthodox Theology in Paris) L’Association pour le Maintien et l’Entretien de l’Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe (AMEITO) (Paris: Editions Hervas, 1997), 19. 85. Jean Colosimo, “A Theological Home for All,” in L’Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe Saint-Serge: 70 Ans de Théologie Orthodoxe a Paris (The Saint Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute: 70 Years of Orthodox Theology in Paris) L’Association pour le Maintien et l’Entretien de l’Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe (AMEITO) (Paris: Editions Hervas, 1997), 27–28. 86. Author’s interview of Archimandrite Job Getcha, professor of church history at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute, May 20, 2005, at the Institute in Paris. See also “60th Anniversary of St. Sergius Institute, Paris,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 29, no. 3 (1985): 258–60. 87. Bulgakov, A Bulgakov Anthology, 18, 58, 74–75, 104–5, 125, 133, 136. 88. Peter A. Chamberas, “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky (1893–1979): Russian Intellectual Historian and Orthodox Theologian” Modern Age 45 (2003): 50, 56, 62, 66. See also Marc Raeff, “Enticements and Rifts: Georges Florovsky as Historian of the Life of the Mind and the Life of the Church in Russia,” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 6 (1990): 187–244; and E. L. Mascall and Rowan Williams, “George Florovsky (1893–1979),” Sobornost 2, no. 1 (1980): 69–72.

Chapter 10

Sustaining an Orthodox Commonwealth Comparing the Russian work of the YMCA with the organization’s philanthropic work with youth in the traditionally Orthodox nations of the Balkans during the first half of the twentieth century provides valuable perspectives. This chapter begins by reviewing the history of American philanthropy in the Balkans during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including efforts in religious philanthropy, education, and relief work; the political ramifications of these programs will also be considered. After considering these contexts the work of the YMCA in Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Romania will be discussed and compared to the service with Russians. Dimitri Obolensky has described the shared international cultural tradition which outlasted the Byzantine Empire as the “Byzantine Commonwealth.”[1] By being active in the Balkans as well as in Russia and its diaspora, the YMCA helped to sustain the unity of an Orthodox commonwealth which persisted as a cultural and spiritual phenomenon long after the geographic and political boundaries of the Byzantine Empire changed. The staff, programs, and publications of the Y helped to maintain the vitality of this commonwealth and its living connection with the Russian Orthodox world.

AMERICAN PHILANTHROPY IN THE BALKANS The philhellenic movement raised awareness of Greece in the United States and served as a catalyst for overseas involvement. Robert L. Daniel points out that “One of the first overseas areas in which Americans deliberately sought to change native mores, customs, and technology was the Near East. Philhellenes, moved by the romantic passions of the moment, alternated bearing arms in the cause of Greek independence with dispensing alms.” The American missionary movement channeled the growing concern for Greece to develop a wide range of philanthropic programs. By 1914 over one thousand Americans had traveled to the Near East to work with these efforts.[2] The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (American Board, ABCFM) was one of the first agencies to begin working in the Near East. The American Board, staffed by Congregationalists and Presbyterians, combined education, economic development, and religious activities in their service. The American Board was joined by other Presbyterian and Methodist groups, as well as the American Bible Society. These missionaries originally hoped to attract Muslims and Jews to the Christian faith, but few converted. They also desired to work within the Orthodox churches of the empire and independent Greece, but their presence was seen as a threat by many clergy, who feared defections to Protestantism. These difficulties led to an increased focus on educational, medical, and other forms of philanthropy. These efforts were attempts to address practical human needs and to develop better relations with the churches. The hierarchy continued to resist the work of the missionaries and banned the Bibles provided by the American Bible Society due to the use of modern Greek; they cooperated with government officials in this

resistance.[3] Julius Richter offered a Protestant perspective on the difficulties faced in philanthropy. He defended the reasons for interacting with the Orthodox churches and expressed disappointment in the lack of Orthodox outreach to Muslims. Richter argued that Protestantism and “genuine national feeling” are not incompatible, and that the Orthodox “identification of the nation with the Church” was dangerous to the life of the church. He claimed that “The great Protestant missions have been sent to the Near East with the earnest desire, not to found new Churches, but, by selfdenying service and by the introduction of Protestant vitality, to prepare the way for reform from within.”[4] The American Board began its work in Bulgaria in 1878. The original goal of the agency was to reach the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire with the gospel. They realized that this could not be pursued directly, since “the death penalty was inflicted on any apostate from Islam.” As a result, they aimed to work indirectly by inspiring ministry and moral reform within the Orthodox Church. They recognized many common beliefs with the Orthodox, but saw a difference in understanding the process of salvation, centered on the role of sacraments.[5] Missionaries faced difficulties in Greece due to a lack of understanding of nationalism, which had grown due to the War of Independence. They rarely recognized that the church provided a measure of cultural cohesion.[6] Rita C. Severis echoes these themes in her study of American mission work: “It was hard for the missionaries to understand how deeply rooted were the rituals of the Orthodox Church. This was a point of direct conflict with their beliefs, for the missionaries rejected all forms of traditional ritual and advocated a new morality reflected in a fresh interpretation of the Scriptures.”[7] An indigenous Greek organization with similarities to the YMCA was Zoe (Life), the common name of the “Union of the Cooperating Christian Corporations” in Greece. It began as a publishing effort to encourage the development of Christian ideals. In 1911 the periodical Zoe was first published and by 1961 had more than 170,000 subscribers—and had produced 360 books with total sales of 9 million copies. The organization eventually led a Sunday school program for young people which gained a total enrollment of 200,000 participants.[8] A variety of educational institutions appeared over the years: elementary schools for the needy (without tuition), elementary schools (with tuition), high schools, colleges, and agricultural schools. After a hundred years of educational investment, the schools initiated by Americans left a significant social and cultural legacy. They served as models for the educational institutions developed in the Near East after 1918. The schools introduced young people to new ideas and encouraged them to participate in cultural and political endeavors. By teaching national literatures and histories, they also contributed to the development of national self-awareness among the Christians of the Ottoman Empire. Training institutions introduced new ideas in the fields of medicine, agriculture, technology, and business.[9] This heritage of volunteerism in the Near East reached a climax in 1922–1923, when American organizations such as the Red Cross provided funding and assistance

to provide relief for the million Greek refugees arriving from Turkey after the military defeat at Smyrna. Workers provided emergency food, clothing, health care, and medicines; they also assisted Greek officials in developing disaster relief policies. US volunteers also provided nursing training and developed orphanages.[10] The nongovernmental contacts of one hundred years of American philanthropy developed strong bonds between the United States and the Near East. The US government gradually recognized the social and cultural prestige which was gained through humanitarian activity in the Balkans and began to consider certain leaders as unofficial government representatives. In a 1911 speech to Congress, President William Howard Taft emphasized the significance of philanthropy for the promotion of US political and commercial interests. This view was greatly strengthened during World War I.[11] The distinctive symbol of the American Red Cross banner was recognized as a sign of US humanitarianism during the war. The Red Cross had been founded in 1881 and incorporated by the US Congress in 1900; the incorporation “mandated its close cooperation with the U.S. government during its foreign missions.” Dimitra Giannuli argues that the Red Cross fulfilled both humanitarian and political roles during the war. Staff members provided their service to troops, while the US government saw the program as a means to strengthen European openness to democratic government, especially if the philanthropy was accompanied by American state funding. During and after the war, US diplomats frequently considered the American Red Cross and other American philanthropic agencies as “arms” of the government for disbursing aid. This policy of “independent internationalism” allowed the United States to extend influence in issues without specific political or diplomatic involvement.[12] This American humanitarianism “paved the way” for the greatly increased cultural and political role in the Near East after 1945.[13] Before turning to the work of the YMCA, it is helpful to remember key aspects of the American philanthropic tradition in the Balkans and the wider Near East. American Protestant organizations faced difficulties in working alongside the Orthodox Church due to the cultural influence of Orthodox churches and the ramifications of nationalism. These difficulties led to a greater focus on educational programs, many of which made significant long-term impact. American philanthropic organizations assumed a secondary role as representatives of the US government, even if this role was not desired by the agency.

THE YMCA IN GREECE In 1892 L. D. Wishard, foreign secretary of the North American YMCA, helped to set up a Y in Athens, Greece, but it folded by 1914. In 1918 Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos invited the YMCA War Work Council to send secretaries to work with Greek soldiers. H. A. Henderson and Richard Boardman had been working with French troops near Salonika, but they shifted to work in the area with Greek troops. Approximately twenty-five American secretaries joined them, and thirty-four Y huts

with a variety of services for soldiers were set up by 1920. In that year work with civilians began in Athens and Salonika, under the direction of the International Committee of the American YMCA. Darrell O. Hibbard began working in Athens, while Ulius L. Amoss began in Salonika; Greek YMCAs were formally established in these cities in 1923 and 1921. In 1920 a Y was organized for Greeks in Smyrna, but the military defeat and Greek evacuation of 1922 ended this project. Greek Orthodox clergy supported the work in Athens and Salonika, which included work for boys and students. Relief work for newly resettled Greeks from Asia Minor contributed to the Y’s growing popularity. Hibbard left Greece in 1924 for health reasons, so Amoss moved to Athens in 1925. Herbert P. Lansdale Jr. came to Salonika to support the work, and Lewis W. Riess became national physical director. A new association was formed on the island of Corfu by Metropolitan Athenagoras, who later became patriarch of Constantinople. Greek secretaries joined the work, and by 1930 the Y program had developed a strong tradition of American secretaries following the lead of the local staff. The depression of the 1930s contributed to this trend: for financial reasons all American staff but Lansdale were recalled. However, Lansdale developed a financial program which led to local self-support: by 1934 the Greek Y maintained four camps for boys. In 1939 Lansdale returned to the United States for family reasons, so James W. Brown was asked to divide his time between Greece and Romania. In November 1939 the Greek government declared that all education for youth must be done through the state. The work previously done by the Y was now the responsibility of the National Youth Organization, the EON. The YMCA was dissolved and the facilities were taken over by the EON. Prime Minister Metaxas decided to ignore the agreement made earlier with Lansdale for a limited continuation of the Y’s work. However, by 1942 the political situation had changed, and the YMCA program was restored.[14] One of the most significant outcomes of the American YMCA’s work in Greece was its influence on the future Ecumenical patriarch Athenagoras I. In 1967 he wrote a letter to Paul B. Anderson and recalled his early involvement with the Y: he “lived the life of this Organization, inspired each day by its Christian spirit and Apostolic activities for young men.”[15] Two of the greatest challenges to the YMCA program in Greece were the 1922 events in Smyrna and the closing of the Y from 1939 to 1942. George Horton, a US consular official, described the work of the YMCA in Smyrna and Salonika. The facility used by the Y for service to Greek soldiers was “one of the biggest and finest in Smyrna.” The civilian department for the city operated in a former café—this facility was destroyed by the fire of 1922. The Y also offered an agricultural training program and a summer camp for boys outside the city. The Salonika Y operated a school and an agricultural college with the support of local and national authorities. Horton invited King Alexander to Salonika to visit the YMCA and other educational institutions. This US official described the influx of Greek refugees into Smyrna after the advances of Turkish troops against the Greek army: “They were arriving by thousands in Smyrna and all along the seacoast. They were filling all the churches, schools and the yards

of the Y.M. and Y.W.C.A. and the American mission schools.” “I was proud of my whole colony at Smyrna. Mention should be made of Jacobs, director of the Y.M.C.A. He was and is still, doubtless, famous for a genial smile which he himself calls the ‘Y.M.C.A. smile.’”[16] The correspondence of Secretary Herbert P. Lansdale Jr. documents his bold but ultimately futile efforts to keep the YMCA from being absorbed by the EON, the national youth movement during the regime of Prime Minister Ioannis (John) Metaxas. Lansdale met with Metaxas on December 13, 1938. They talked for ninety minutes about the history of the YMCA in Greece and its current status. Metaxas outlined his position on the organization, and Lansdale optimistically assumed that it would not lead to a merger with the national youth movement for four reasons. First, Metaxas’s time and interest in the YMCA showed that he wanted the Y to continue to function. Second, he would not want to offend Americans. Third, the current plans for the Greek national youth movement left free days for young people to participate in Y activities. Fourth, he believed that the national youth movement leaders would like to see the Y continue.[17] After the meeting Lansdale wrote up a summary of the meeting, which was subsequently approved by Metaxas. The prime minister stated that he was “opposed to all forms of international intercourse except scientific, political and athletic.” Therefore, he did not approve Lansdale’s request to allow Greek youth to attend upcoming conferences in Yugoslavia and the Netherlands: “If young men go abroad and meet people of other nations who are enemies of ours, they will become soft and will, therefore, not be good fighters to defend their fatherland.” Metaxas also stated that “there is no place for a religious organization outside of the Church.” However, he agreed that “the YMCA would continue as an autonomous institution, continuing its program as in the past.” The national youth movement would provide additional “civic” instruction to the boys and young men; he stated that he appreciated the work of the YMCA.[18] Later that year Lansdale received the news that in November 1939, by decree of the Greek government, the YMCAs, the YWCAs, the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts were dissolved.[19] Lansdale had moved back to the United States and was now the general secretary of the YMCA of Rochester, New York. After learning of the closure, he sent a letter of protest to Metaxas: “I am deeply disappointed that your Government has dissolved the Young Men’s Christian Association in Greece and has confiscated its property.”[20] Metaxas wrote a reply to Lansdale and stated, with a touch of cynicism, that the YMCA was closed along with all nongovernmental educational organizations: “It would have been difficult to make any exception. . . . We should rather have believed that you and your friends would feel gratified to find that we had reached the point where we are able alone to order the affairs of our household.”[21] Lansdale experienced a reminder that philanthropy in Greece under a dictator, like benevolent programs under a tsar (or commissar), depends on the will of the few.

THE YMCA IN BULGARIA In Bulgaria the YMCA program emerged through the work of Protestant missionaries rather than Y secretaries. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions established Y programs in the Balkans as a way to extend influence on Orthodox believers. In 1899 the First Evangelical Church, a Congregationalist congregation in Sofia, organized the Kotva (Anchor) youth association. An Association secretary affiliated with the World’s Alliance of YMCAs in Geneva reorganized the program as a YMCA; membership included Protestants, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. By 1910 seventeen Y organizations had been organized by ABCFM workers in Bulgaria and Macedonia. In 1909 the American Board invited the YMCA International Committee in New York to send a secretary for the Balkan peninsula. Eventually both YMCA and YWCA secretaries began work in Bulgaria. The interconfessional nature of the movement created difficulties: the Orthodox looked at the YMCA as a “veiled form of Protestant propaganda,” while Evangelicals “lacked confidence in the possibility of acting fruitfully in association with members of the national Church.” In 1910 a Bulgarian Alliance of YMCAs was founded; and the Sofia Association requested a secretary from the World’s Committee, so Henri Johannot was sent to work with this Protestant YMCA in 1913. Work with students in Sofia also began in 1910, when a student with a scholarship from an evangelical church in the city, organized an unofficial YMCA for students. These students invited John R. Mott and Sherwood Eddy to speak at the university and received approval from the university officials. Both men spoke to large audiences in university halls, and many students were attracted to the groups. Mott met with Metropolitan Stefan and spoke at the Bulgarian Orthodox Church seminary. He also had a thirty-minute conference with the tsarina, who stated that she would support the work of the YMCA. Eventually, official YMCA and YWCA organizations formed for students in Sofia.[22] After a time of controversy, Orthodox young men were accepted as members and leaders of the Sofia YMCA. World War I disrupted the work of the student movement and the Association; the International Committee sent a secretary, P. MacGregor Allen, to the Bulgarian capital in 1921 and the work of both groups resumed. Aleksandr Nikitin, who had been a leader of the prerevolutionary Russian Student Christian Movement, began to strengthen the Bulgarian student work in 1922. [23] Allen retired in 1939, and Paul B. Anderson was asked to provide oversight.[24] However, the Y was closed and not allowed to function under the postwar Communist government. The Sofia Association offered a variety of educational programs in addition to weekly Sunday meetings. This work was endorsed by the Bulgarian Ministry of Education.[25] Evening classes were offered in foreign languages and business; over 500 students participated in the classes in 1925–1926, while over 1,800 attended lectures. During this period the total membership of the twenty Bulgarian YMCAs reached seven hundred young men.[26]

The Bulgarian YMCA relied on initial funding from the American Y. The International Committee gave the Bulgarian Alliance the funds remaining from wartime POW work after the war. Also, the barracks were given to the Sofia association.[27] During the 1920s Bulgarian leaders requested assistance in securing a new building due to the proximity of the barracks meeting area to a Protestant church.[28] The establishment of the YMCA in Bulgaria led to more resistance from local Orthodox leaders than in Greece. This was due in part to vocal criticism from leaders of the refugee Russian Orthodox Church, who labeled the work as “Judeo-Masonic.” The Y was defended by Metropolitan Stefan of Sofia and Professor Stefan Zankov of the Orthodox Theological Faculty, who also served as dean of the cathedral. Leaders of the Orthodox Church divided into supporters and opponents of the YMCA.[29] In 1924 the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church issued an official statement against the YMCA. It stated that the aims and ideals of the YMCA were not in harmony with the church’s goals. Specifically it opposed the action of Bible study groups as “Protestantism”: “It puts a personal conception, which is individual, neutral and independent of Church authority and holy traditions, as the basis of religious belief.” The Y was declared “unsafe” for church members.[30] Due to this growing controversy, Mott chose Sofia as the location for the first Consultation on Relationships between the YMCA and the Orthodox Church in 1928. At the meeting, Mott allowed an open discussion of the charges that the Y was a Protestant organization aimed at proselytism and the destruction of the Orthodox Church. The conference was viewed as a success by the YMCA.[31] The YMCA made steady progress in gaining acceptance among Orthodox clergy.[32]

THE YMCA IN ROMANIA Romania also had a state Orthodox Church, but had a large number of Protestants and Catholics in the country. YMCA work began during World War I when Y workers who had been in Turkey began working with Romanian soldiers. After the war the Romanian government invited the Y to continue its work.[33] American secretaries started a program for boys in Bucharest and obtained land for camps. By 1924 six hundred boys were participating.[34] By that time three American personnel were working in the country: Frank E. Stevens (general secretary and physical director), James W. Brown (boy’s work director), and William H. Morgan (student secretary). [35] Programs included Bible study groups, a playground, and an English class.[36] The student work followed a typical YMCA pattern. Students were initially attracted by public lectures by an American speaker, Robert P. Wilder. Smaller meetings for interested students followed. Leaders were sent to WSCF conferences in Europe and gathered for retreats in Romania. The student work saw some cooperation between Romanian and Hungarian students, in spite of traditional animosity between these groups. Morgan welcomed Orthodox participation but continued to use American Protestant sources, such as books written by Harry Emerson Fosdick.[37] The

Romanian YMCA was officially established in 1927 and maintained contact with the Ministry of Public Instruction. During the 1920s this movement relied on American funding. The move to financial self-support was hindered when the Bucharest Association lost most of its funds due to a bank failure. However, by the 1930s secretaries reported that the movement was self-supporting.[38] The Orthodox clergy did not oppose the YMCA as strongly as it did in Bulgaria, but it did not provide the level of support received by the Y in Greece. In 1924 the senior American secretary reported that he was attempting to develop relations with Orthodox clergy but still facing suspicion of Protestant propaganda. He attempted to make connections within the less conservative elements of the clergy: “Our place is with the Orthodox church which is looking for new light, and eager to get something from the West.” In contrast to all other known reports, Stevens wrote that Harry Emerson Fosdick’s books were “read and studied continually” by priests, professors, and students.[39] However, the secretaries reported that the Romanian Orthodox Church “has been warmly sympathetic and the relations with it have been most cordial and helpful.”[40] Bucharest hosted the second of the three conferences on Orthodoxy and the YMCA in 1930, and these meetings seem to have improved relations with the Orthodox Church. In 1937 the national secretary was able to report: “The Association enjoys the support and backing of the Greek Orthodox Church, with two leading Bishops and a priest on the Board of Directors.”[41] As in Greece and Bulgaria, World War II brought insurmountable challenges to the philanthropy of the Romanian YMCA. The challenges of war came especially close to J. W. Brown, the American national secretary. In January 1941 Brown observed street fighting in Bucharest which broke out near his apartment and office. [42] Y work was suppressed during the Nazi occupation and ended under the Communist government.[43] The work of the American secretaries in Romania progressed rather slowly in comparison to other movements in the Balkans. In the early 1930s an Association evaluation noted that “The YMCA in Roumania is frankly admitted in YMCA circles to be one of the weaker movements. It has dwindled from army and civilian work on a large scale to a small Association in Bucharest and a center in a neighboring community conducted by volunteers.” Developing this volunteer leadership was a special challenge, as Romanian laypeople were slow to take ownership of the work. This evaluation also pointed out that the Romanian Association had not developed strong relationships with the World Alliance or the American YMCA. The situation seemed to be a puzzle with no clear answers for the leaders: “One is inclined to believe that the bulk of America’s contribution to Roumania came too soon, before the ground was prepared to receive it and to use it to the best advantage. . . . The environment is not hostile to the growth of Association work, but rather alien to it.”[44] In contrast, a national secretary report in 1943 reported a number of positive outcomes: Hundreds of boys and young men had been taught to follow Jesus’ example and participate in the church. The Association had encouraged interaction

and peace among the country’s ethnic groups. Also, American sports and sportsmanship had been introduced.[45]

THE YMCA IN YUGOSLAVIA YMCA work in Yugoslavia began after World War I under the leadership of a British Y man who promoted a Protestant-style Bible study. The Association grew and later reported an approximation of forty groups with five thousand members.[46] In 1911 John R. Mott visited Belgrade and organized a study group for students. However, the war ended this program; an unsuccessful revival attempt was made in 1919.[47] In 1930 Donald A. Lowrie, a longtime participant in the work with Russians, re-launched a program for university students in Belgrade after the Athens consultation on the YMCA and Orthodoxy. His work was an attempt to demonstrate the principles adopted at the meeting. Lowrie initiated his work under the authority of the British YMCA and was able to use two rooms of the Belgrade Y building for the student work. He began by forming a leadership council with the assistance of the Orthodox hierarchy. Lowrie expanded the program by organizing study groups.[48] By the end of 1931 Lowrie had organized four discussion group “clubs”: “Religious-Philosophical Problems,” “International Relations,” “Modern Social Problems,” and the “Go and See Club,” which provided excursions. The average total attendance for the four groups was around sixty.[49] He also organized a retreat for Serbian and Bulgarian students at a Serbian monastery close to the Bulgarian border.[50] Lowrie reported an increase in the distribution of communist anti-religious propaganda in Eastern Europe; one brochure argued that Jesus never lived. The YMCA worked with other Christian organizations to respond with the production of literature.[51] Lowrie’s long-term goal was to develop an indigenous student ministry in Belgrade which would be “particularly adapted to Orthodox students.” He also planned to interact with YMCA personnel in other Orthodox countries to share ideas and promote the goals of the Athens consultation.[52] As he explained to friends, “In Belgrad the prevailing atmosphere is thoroughly Orthodox and we hope to repeat here the very successful experience we have had with the Russians in Western Europe. If we can, the results will be felt all through the Balkans, in new life in the church and new Christian leadership in public affairs.”[53] He was glad to report that he had received the support of a Bishop Nikolai, an influential leader. He also met with the patriarch and received approval for his planned student work.[54] However, Lowrie’s plan was largely unfulfilled, since he was recalled to the United States due to a lack of funds to support the work in Yugoslavia. His supervisor asked that he return to the United States by August 1932.[55] Paul B. Anderson reported that the general work of the Yugoslavian YMCA ended with the German attack of 1940.[56]

THE YMCA IN THE BALKANS: A SUMMARY

From 1900 to 1940 Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Serbian region of Yugoslavia shared common experiences of a dominant Orthodox religion, a history of inclusion in the Ottoman Empire, and growing nationalisms. However, it is difficult to formulate a direct comparison of the YMCA programs in these four Balkan nations for a variety of reasons. Obviously the cultural and political similarities coexist with exceptions, such as the earlier development of Greece’s independence and the higher level of ethnic diversity of Romania and Yugoslavia. Also, this research has not located any direct statistical comparisons of membership or finances. Therefore, the following comparisons, based on the gathered documentary evidence, are presented tentatively. In these four countries YMCA secretaries recognized the historic difficulty of developing a Protestant or interconfessional program in a country with a predominant Orthodox Church. They primarily focused on developing educational and recreational programs, as earlier American philanthropists had done. The earliest YMCA outreach in all four countries usually took a distinctly Protestant approach—and did not develop a broad following. After World War I, American missionaries took a more active approach to working with Orthodox young people and developed interconfessional programs which welcomed full Orthodox participation. The Greek work received the most enthusiastic support of the church, while the Bulgarian work received the most vocal opposition. World War II disrupted the activities of all four national movements. Postwar Communist regimes in Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia prohibited the development of the YMCA in these countries. As of 1963 the only Orthodox movements which continued were the YMCA of Greece and the Russian Student Christian Movement abroad.[57] The outstanding feature of the interwar YMCA movements in these four Balkan nations was a new openness to working with the Orthodox churches. A comment from a leader of European YMCA movements summed up the approach of this period: I do not think that there is any example in Western modern history of such a degree of identification between Church and nation as one finds, for instance, in the modern history of Greece and Bulgaria. What we call a State-Church in the West is the Church which, for historical and other reasons, is the largest in the country. But in Greece and Bulgaria it means really the only Church that counts at all.[58] Some critics might challenge his approving comment on “the only Church that counts at all.” While the YMCA’s openness to these churches has been widely applauded, one may wonder if the Association’s toleration and tacit endorsement of exclusive forms of Orthodox nationalism contributed in the long run to current restrictions on religious freedom in these countries and the ongoing marginalization of non-Orthodox faiths, such as Judaism, Islam, and Protestantism. The YMCA’s work with Russians experienced responses from Orthodox leaders

which were similar to those received in the Balkans: mixtures of enthusiastic welcome, cautious suspicion, and heated opposition. The Balkan movements each built a working relationship with the Orthodox leaders, and the Greek movement experienced the most fruitful cooperation. However, none of the American leaders supported as close a relationship as was developed in the 1920s and 1930s with Russian émigrés. American leaders in the Balkans, especially Lowrie in Belgrade, showed appreciation and support for Orthodox leaders, but Paul B. Anderson and G. G. Kullman were unique in their championing of the Orthodox vision. This seems to be due to their experiences with the intellectuals of the Russian emigration, who made a cultural impact far greater and more creative than any Orthodox leaders in the Balkan countries.

NOTES 1. Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500–1453 (New York: Praeger, 1971). For critical reflections on this idea, see Paschalis M. Kitromilides, An Orthodox Commonwealth: Symbolic Legacies and Cultural Encounters in Southeastern Europe, Variorum Collected Studies Series (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007); and Christian Raffensperger, “Revisiting the Idea of the Byzantine Commonwealth,” Byzantinische Forschungen 28 (2004): 159– 74. 2. Robert L. Daniel, American Philanthropy in the Near East, 1820–1960 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1970), ix, xi. On Protestant missionary work in the Near East, see also Mary Sudman Donovan, “Women as Foreign Missionaries in the Episcopal Church, 1830–1920,” Anglican and Episcopal History 61 (1992): 16–39; Joanna B. Gillespie, “Mary Briscoe Baldwin (1811–1877), Single Woman Missionary and ‘Very Much My Own Mistress,’” Anglican and Episcopal History 57 (1988): 63–92; Mark S. Nestlehutt, “Anglicans in Greece: The Episcopal Mission and the English Chaplaincy at Athens,” Anglican and Episcopal History 65 (1996): 293–313. 3. Dimitra M. Giannuli, “American Philanthropy in the Near East: Relief to the Ottoman Greek Refugees, 1922–1923” (PhD diss., Kent State University, 1992), 23–24, 27– 29. 4. Julius Richter, A History of Protestant Missions in the Near East (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910), 68–70. 5. William Webster Hall Jr., Puritans in the Balkans: The American Board Mission in Bulgaria, 1878–1918, A Study in Purpose and Procedure (Sofia: Studia HistoricoPhilologica Serdicensia, 1938), 3. 6. Theodore Saloutos, “American Missionaries in Greece: 1820–1869,” Church History 24 (1955): 171. 7. Rita C. Severis, ed., The Diaries of Lorenzo Warriner Pease, 1834–1839: An American Missionary in Cyprus and his Travels in the Holy Land, Asia Minor and Greece, vol. 1 (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002), xxxiii. 8. S. M. Sophocles, The Religion of Modern Greece (Thessalonika: Institute for

Balkan Studies, 1961), 58–59. 9. Giannuli, “American Philanthropy in the Near East,” 31, 33, 49–50. 10. Giannuli, “American Philanthropy in the Near East,” 341. 11. Giannuli, “American Philanthropy in the Near East,” 39. 12. Dimitra Giannuli, “American Philanthropy in Action: The American Red Cross in Greece, 1918–1923,” East European Politics and Societies 10, no. 1 (Winter 1996): 108–9, 132. 13. Giannuli, “American Philanthropy in the Near East,” 343. 14. Kenneth Scott Latourette, World Service: A History of the Foreign Work and World Service of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of the United States and Canada (New York: Association Press, 1957), 384–87. See also Paul B. Anderson, “A Study of Orthodoxy and the YMCA,” 21–23, booklet printed in Geneva by the World Alliance of Young Men’s Christian Associations, 1963. Pamphlets on Orthodoxy. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B, 1. KFYA. 15. “A Grand Old Man and a Great Old Friend of the YMCA,” World Communiqué, September–October 1967, 10. This piece is a translation from Greek of a letter from Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I to Paul B. Anderson, April 24, 1967. Miscellaneous. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B., 3. KFYA. 16. George Horton, The Blight of Asia (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1926), 88–90, 118, 131. See also Louis P. Cassimatis, American Influence in Greece, 1917–1929 (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1988), which describes the Y’s assistance with the Smyrna evacuation on p. 128. 17. Letter from Herbert P. Lansdale Jr. to Eugene E. Barnett, January 13, 1939, 2–3. Lansdale. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B., 3. KFYA. (Barnett was executive secretary of the International Committee of the YMCAs of Canada and the United States. Lansdale was national director of the YMCAs of Greece.) 18. H. P. Lansdale Jr., “Summary of Conversation between His Excellency John Metaxas and H. P. Lansdale, Jr., in the Prime Minister’s Office, on Tuesday, December 13, 1938, 5–6:30 pm,” December 28, 1938, 1–3. Lansdale. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B., 3. KFYA. 19. Memorandum from Herbert P. Lansdale Jr., December 1, 1970, 1. Lansdale. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B., 3. KFYA. 20. Letter from Herbert P. Lansdale Jr. to John Metaxas, December 14, 1939. Lansdale. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B., 3. KFYA. 21. Letter from J. Metaxas to Herbert P. Lansdale Jr., December 27, 1939, 1. Lansdale. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B., 3. KFYA. 22. Hall, Puritans in the Balkans, 224–25; and Kenneth Andrew Steuer, “Pursuit of an ‘Unparalleled Opportunity’: The American Young Men’s Christian Association and Prisoner-of-War Diplomacy among the Central Power Nations during World War I, 1914–1923” (PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1997), 27–29. 23. Anderson, “A Study of Orthodoxy and the YMCA,” 20–21. 24. “Postwar Policy—Bulgaria,” November 23, 1943, 2. 1939–1949. Roumania, Correspondence and Reports, Misc. 1946–1974, 64. KFYA.

25. Letter from “the Bulgarian delegation” [signatures unclear] of the Sofia YMCA to John R. Mott, June 1, 1923, 2. Sofia 1922–1931. Bulgaria. KFYA. 26. R. H. Markham, Bulgaria and the Y.M.C.A. (Sofia: Stopansko Razvitie, 1926), 42, 46. YMCA Press. YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B., 1. KFYA. 27. “Bulgaria,” [1924], 1–2. Tech School 1924. Bulgaria. KFYA. 28. Letter from the Sofia YMCA to Mott, June 1, 1923, 3–4. 29. Letter from the Sofia YMCA to Mott, June 1, 1923, 2. 30. “Bulgaria, Section II,” [1924], 1–2. Sofia 1932–1960. Bulgaria. KFYA. 31. Anderson, “A Study of Orthodoxy and the YMCA,” 20–21. 32. Markham, Bulgaria and the Y.M.C.A., 46. 33. [International Survey Committee], “The Report of the Survey in Roumania,” [1930], 3. Romania. International Survey—1930, Roumania, Russia, South Africa, Box 12. KFYA. 34. F. E. Stevens, “Material from Roumania for the Conference between the International Committee and Other Association Movements to Be Held September 1924,” 4. 1918–1938. Roumania, Correspondence and Reports, 1916–1946, 64. KFYA. 35. “A Statement for the European Commission on the Present Status of the Work in Rumania as of May 1st,” [1924], 1. 1916–1926. Roumania, Correspondence and Reports, 1916–1946, 64. KFYA. 36. Stevens, “Material from Roumania,” 5. 37. Wm. H. Morgan, “Pioneering Among Romanian Students,” April 15, 1924, 2–5. 1916–1926. Roumania, Correspondence and Reports, 1916–1946, 64. KFYA. 38. [International Survey Committee], “The Report of the Survey in Roumania,” 3, i–ii. 39. Stevens, “Material from Roumania,” 2–3, 8. 40. “A Statement for the European Commission,” 2. 41. “Europe Moves Mass-ward: Interview with James Brown, National YMCA Secretary of Roumania,” [1937], 2. Misc. Roumania, Correspondence and Reports, Misc. 1946–1974, 64. KFYA. 42. Letter from J. W. Brown to Frank V. Slack, January 23, 1941, 1–3. 1940–1945. Roumania, Correspondence and Reports, 1916–1946, 64. KFYA. 43. Anderson, “A Study of Orthodoxy and the YMCA,” 23–24. 44. [International Survey Committee], “The Report of the Survey in Roumania,” i, iv–v. 45. James W. Brown, “Policy Advisory Study, Rumania,” November 23, 1943, 2. 1939–1949. Roumania, Correspondence and Reports, Misc. 1946–1974, 64. KFYA. 46. P. H. Sitters, “Jugoslavia,” British Y.M.C.A. Review, clipping in archive, no date, 139. 1919–1946. Yugoslavia, Correspondence and Reports, 1919–1959. KFYA; and Anderson, “A Study of Orthodoxy and the YMCA,” 25. 47. [Donald A. Lowrie], “Student Department YMCA in Belgrad,” [1931], 1. 1930– 1932. Yugoslavia, Correspondence and Reports, 1919–1959. KFYA. 48. Donald A. Lowrie, “Student Work in Jugoslavia,” February 24, 1932, 1–2. 1930– 1932. Yugoslavia, Correspondence and Reports, 1919–1959. KFYA. 49. Donald A. Lowrie, “Student Department of the Belgrad YMCA, Report for

October and November 1931,” 1–2. 1930–1932. Yugoslavia, Correspondence and Reports, 1919–1959. KFYA. 50. Donald A. Lowrie, “Student Department of the Belgrad YMCA, Report for March 1932,” 2. 1919–1946. Yugoslavia, Correspondence and Reports, 1919–1959. KFYA. 51. Donald A. Lowrie, “Communist Anti-Religious Activities in the Baltics and the Balkans,” 1932, 1–3. 1919–1946. Yugoslavia, Correspondence and Reports, 1919– 1959. KFYA. 52. “Memorandum of Conversation between Messrs: Davis, Gethman, Willis, and Lowrie, Geneva, April 29th, 1930,” 1–2. 1919–1946. Yugoslavia, Correspondence and Reports, 1919–1959. KFYA. 53. Letter from Donald A. Lowrie to friends, September 1930, 1. 1919–1946. Yugoslavia, Correspondence and Reports, 1919–1959. KFYA. 54. Letter from Donald A. Lowrie to friends, December 9, 1930, 2–3. 1930–1932. Yugoslavia, Correspondence and Reports, 1919–1959. KFYA. 55. Letter from Frank V. Slack to Donald A. Lowrie, June 7, 1932, 1–3. 1919–1946. Yugoslavia, Correspondence and Reports, 1919–1959. KFYA. 56. Anderson, “A Study of Orthodoxy and the YMCA,” 25. 57. Anderson, “A Study of Orthodoxy and the YMCA,” 1. 58. W. A. Visser ‘T Hooft, “Remarks on the Present Situation of the Orthodox Churches in the Balkan Area,” unpublished report, 1929, 2. Visser ‘T Hooft Association Papers, May 1929. KFYA.

Epilogue During the forty years discussed in this study, YMCA secretaries trained gymnasts, set up bookkeeping classes, taught Bible study groups, organized training programs, assisted prisoners of war, published books, funded seminaries, opened schools, and carried out a multitude of other tasks. In all these programs they demonstrated a remarkable sense of flexibility and responsiveness to perceived needs. They reached a variety of goals and failed to achieve other aims; however, in the final analysis their efforts helped preserve, enrich, and expand the legacy of Orthodox Christianity. In 1935 Sergei Bulgakov delivered an address at the tenth anniversary of the theological institute, “By the River Kebar.” In this speech, later published in Put’, he compared the experience of Russian Orthodox believers in exile to the Babylonian exile of the nation of Israel: the prophet Ezekiel had written: “while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God” (Ezekiel 1:1, NIV). Bulgakov then applied this passage to Russia Abroad and reflected on how as refugees they were able to develop their faith in a way that was not just relevant for Russia but for the wider world: “A national consciousness became universal. A provincial history became global.”[1] Bulgakov commented on an experience that has been shared by many communities of faith—dislocation can lead to reevaluation and creative development. Nikolai Zernov also reflected on the unexpected benefits of trials: “The Russian emigration unexpectedly received a new experience of church life, independent of state guardianship. This gave it strength and inspiration, which was so urgently necessary for believers inside Russia, cut off from the rest of the Christian world, not having access to the sources of religious enlightenment.”[2] Perhaps the best example of this principle, and the best example of the YMCA’s contribution, is the life of an Orthodox Christian woman, Sophie Koulomzin. Her autobiography reflected on her experiences and her lifelong interaction with the YMCA; her honest account showed the Russian work of the YMCA at its most effective, and its most absurd.

THE YMCA AND SOPHIE KOULOMZIN Koulomzin was born in Russia and later lived in the émigré communities of Estonia, Berlin, Paris, and New York. She joined the faculty of St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary and became an influential leader in the area of Orthodox youth education. Throughout her life she had contact with a variety of YMCA secretaries and programs. Ironically, one of the most in-depth and positive reflections on the personal impact of the Y’s work comes from a woman rather than a man. She first became acquainted with the organization while she was living temporarily in Moscow during the First World War. “We did not feel isolated from the outside world, for there was

quite a large group of foreigners in Moscow, most of them American YMCA secretaries who were trying to continue their work for German prisoners of war and to organize ‘Y’ clubs in the Russian army. They were all frequent visitors at our English-speaking home.”[3] Her sister Mania worked as a secretary in the YMCA office until it closed in 1918. She, along with Paul B. Anderson and other Russian secretaries, was imprisoned for a few days. Her family fled with great difficulty to Estonia, where she met other Y staff members: “At that moment they came close to my idea as angels.” Her family eventually arrived in Berlin, where they read letters held for them at the YMCA office. They were relieved to receive news from relatives. She described the help received in Berlin from YMCA secretaries: “They received us that day with a warmth I will never forget. Dirty and shabby as we were, they took us to one of the best restaurants in town. . . . these friends managed to give us an almost dream-like feeling of well-being and friendship during the month we remained in Berlin.” As time went on she began to compare her religious outlook with that of the Americans, “the Protestant idealism of American vintage.” She explained, “It appealed to my sense of responsibility, a sense of mission in life.” However, her approval was limited. She described the Y workers in Estonia as “kindly, yet culturally limited. . . . They were missionaries of ‘the American way of life,’ innocently fervent in their faith in a ‘world made safe for democracy,’ believing in the constant progress of human society, and so lacking in knowledge of any culture except their own small-town American one.” She gave two examples of cross-cultural blunders: Herbert Gott, an American Y leader in Estonia, assumed that Russians had experience with “Robert’s Rules of Order.” Gott also asked her (a young woman from a traditional background) to interpret a lecture for boys on sex education. Fortunately, another secretary, Frank Ritchie, understood her discomfort and cancelled the lecture. She wrote, “At that moment he gained my eternal affection.”[4] The American YMCA offered her a full scholarship for university study in the United States, which would have led to service as an RSCM secretary. She turned it down for family reasons, but she later received a scholarship to study at the University of Berlin. There she became involved in the RSCM and acquainted with Berdyaev. She found his lectures hard to follow, but adopted one of his main ideas as her own: “man’s freedom under God, man’s freedom as part of God’s vision for the creation of man, the inner freedom that no slavery can destroy.” She participated in the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. Later she received a one-year scholarship, funded by Rockefeller, to study American methods of religious education, social work, and youth work. In 1926, during this time in the United States, she attended a lecture by Sherwood Eddy on Russia. She was astounded by his exuberant praise of the Communists and condemnation of the Orthodox Church. After his lecture, she spoke with him for an hour and explained why she thought his comments were unfair. She reported his reply: “I have no interest in Russia, I am interested in saving America, for I believe it is beginning to commit the same mistakes the czarist regime committed in Russia. I am using my visit to Russia as a weapon to

that end—to awaken, to sting the American public to see its faults.” She suggested that it was unfair for a Christian visiting Russia “not to say a single word about Patriarch Tikhon.” Eddy replied, “I admit I do not render justice to the Orthodox Church. I do not understand it. I do not respect the Patriarch. . . .” She concluded, “Sherwood Eddy is not alone. Scores of lecturers and speakers repeat the same stuff.” She also met Jerome Davis, who also was lecturing on Russia and expressing sympathy for the Soviet regime; she told him that she “felt pretty bitter about what they both were doing.”[5] She returned to France and began working in a salaried position with the RSCM; her assignment was to develop Christian education programs for children. One of her friends in work was Father Dimitri Klepinin, who later assisted Jews during World War II. She told of his bold confrontation of a German officer, who had learned of his efforts. The officer told him that he could be released if he promised to not help additional Jews. Klepinin replied, “I can say no such thing. I am a Christian, and must act as I must.” The officer barked back, “Jew-lover! How dare you talk of those pigs as being a Christian duty?” Klepinin quietly raised the cross which hung around his neck and said, “Do you know this Jew?” He died at the Nazi camp in Dora, Germany. [6] She continued to work with the Y in France after the war and published several books on religious education with the YMCA Press.

THE YMCA AND FATHER ALEXANDER MEN Another example of the long-term influence of the YMCA is the ministry of Father Alexander Men (1935–1990), a Russian Orthodox priest who was known as an apostle to intellectuals during the last years of the USSR. Men listed Nikolai Berdyaev and Sergei Bulgakov as important influences on his thinking.[7] His work can be seen as an example of their goal—Orthodoxy in conversation with the modern world. During the relative freedom of the 1980s he communicated with many Soviet listeners through public lectures, radio programs, and television broadcasts. Men shared the Orthodox faith and skillfully connected it to themes in history, science, and culture. His obituary in the Herald of the Russian Christian Movement highlighted his synthesis of faith and modern thought and emphasized that he was an “heir” of many great Russian thinkers, such as Bulgakov and Berdyaev.[8] Nikita Struve, editor of the Herald and director of the YMCA Press, did not know Men personally. However, they had planned to meet at Father Men’s church near Moscow on September 15, 1990—but Men was killed on September 9.[9] After Men’s death, Struve received a letter from him which expressed anticipation for their meeting and gratefulness for the work of the YMCA Press: “Thank you for your longlived and selfless labors.” Men concluded, “The Protestants are very active. We are laboring with them and don’t want to fall behind them (without confrontation, but in peaceful competition for the sake of the Word).”[10] This section of the Herald which included this letter also featured an interview with Men: “Which theologians and

writers influenced you the most?” “In the first place I would name V. Soloviev. Although I do not share many of his views, he was for me a real teacher. But already after him I studied the works of the representatives of Russian religious philosophy. To Berdyaev, Florensky, Bulgakov, Frank, Lossky, and others, I am many ways in debt.”[11] It could be said that Men joined this group of contemporary Russian Christian thinkers. On May 5, 1998, the controversial Bishop Nikon of Ekaterinburg watched as a pile of books written by contemporary Orthodox theologians burned. They were written by Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorff, and Alexander Men; Nikon considered them to be contaminated by western ideas and heresy.[12]

THE YMCA AND ORTHODOX EXPANSION The YMCA also contributed to the growing influence of Orthodoxy in western Europe and the United States. After the 1917 Revolution thousands of Orthodox Christians began new lives in a modern pluralistic European society. Although many of them practiced their faith in a traditional Russian manner, they understood that they were surrounded by Protestant and Catholic neighbors. At this time a small group of Russian émigrés began to participate in the ecumenical movement which had begun to develop after the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910. Nikolai Zernov, one of the most enthusiastic participants, expressed that Orthodox leaders participated in the ecumenical movement for personal, national, or doctrinal reasons. Some men desired to build personal relationships with Western Christians. Others participated in the movement in order to discuss the injustices suffered by their people. Finally, several of the Orthodox involved in ecumenical work desired to participate in the doctrinal discussions. Zernov also explained that some Orthodox leaders objected to involvement in the ecumenical movement for political, moral, or doctrinal reasons. Russian Orthodox émigrés took part in three different areas of ecumenism. Several Orthodox participated in Faith and Order meetings as well as Life and Work conferences. Young Orthodox women and men attended gatherings of the World’s Student Christian Federation. Also, Orthodox and Anglican theologians held official doctrinal consultations, which many hoped would eventually lead to reunion.[13] Orthodox believers of the Russian diaspora made important contributions during the early stages of the ecumenical movement. First, they enhanced the theological discussions which tended to be restricted to the field of liberal Protestant theology. Second, they protested the tendency to deemphasize important theological distinctions between churches. At the same time the Orthodox emphasized the shared doctrinal heritage of the churches. As Paul Steeves explained, the Russians argued that Christian unity should not be built on a foundation of the “least common denominator” among churches but on the basis of the universal Christian tradition expressed by the seven ecumenical councils.[14] John R. Mott, Paul B. Anderson, and other YMCA secretaries encouraged the Russian Orthodox community to participate in the ecumenical movement and arranged for the translation of many Orthodox religious writings. In this way the

Association contributed in an unexpected way to the growth in influence of Orthodoxy in western Europe and the United States. Zernov pointed out that the recent experiences of the Russians served as a practical example of the need to build bridges: “Having been tested by the persecution of the church and having lost their homeland, Russians in exile with a special sharpness felt the necessity of Christian unity.”[15] The Association’s service with Russian émigrés in Russia and in western Europe was an example of genuine interaction, for Mott, Anderson, and other Y leaders learned valuable principles as they assisted Russian Christians. As Mott encouraged the RSCM, he learned the value of supportive friendships among Christians of different confessions. The leaders of the Mayak experienced the loyalty of many Russians to traditional Orthodox teaching and the possibility of cooperating with the clergy of the church in sponsoring a program of moral, intellectual, and physical development. As Anderson worked with other secretaries to serve prisoners of war, they developed effective methods to serve Russian prisoners with low morale. Before establishing the YMCA Correspondence School, Anderson surveyed the needs of potential students in order to provide useful training. As Y leaders assisted the Russian Philosophical Academy they observed the influence of thought on Russian intellectuals. Through their involvement with the émigré RSCM, they learned the value of encouraging indigenous leadership to develop and adjust its own programs. In a similar manner, Anderson discovered the benefit of enabling Russian authors to produce timely, well-crafted literature. Finally, by supporting the St. Sergius Theological Academy, Y secretaries saw the motivating influence of capable Orthodox scholars on industrious young men. The relationship between the YMCA and Russian Christians was certainly a two-way partnership. At several points during this forty-year period the YMCA leadership appeared to be disorganized and without clear goals. However, if one considers the new and chaotic situations which the Association faced, these faults seem unavoidable. The leaders defined their goals more clearly as they were able to evaluate the conditions they faced.

MORE THAN A PROTESTANT CRUSADE? The preceding discussion makes clear that a recent critique of the YMCA’s efforts with Russians falls far short in providing a balanced evaluation. Michael D. Carter describes the YMCA’s ministry as an exclusively Protestant effort, infected with arrogance and nationalism. Unfortunately, he ignores key sources of information on the Y’s work in Orthodox lands. He writes, “when the YMCA entered Russia” and “Initially, work in Russia” to discuss work with POWs—he ignores the earlier work of the Mayak and RSCM, which usually did not promote Americanized Christianity. He does not seem to understand that the YMCA was well on its way in its transition from evangelical to liberal Christianity. His sources are limited—only published sources, none of several accessible archives. He does not consider Mott’s published papers on Orthodoxy or the article by Davis and Trani in Slavic Review on the YMCA and the

Russian Revolution. He ignores the wide variety of individual personalities who expressed different political positions—usually he includes quotes from an unnamed “Y worker.” Carter’s conclusion demonstrates the weakest points of his article: While it lasted it was an ambitious and, in the Y’s own words, “glorious” crusade. The YMCA found out by 1920, however, that it was too ambitious and ultimately doomed to failure. The peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia were not nearly as “malleable” and “plastic” as the YMCA had hoped. It instead learned that not everyone in the world aspired to be “Americanized” or be converted to Protestant Christianity. No amount of money, effort, or assistance was going to change this reality. What began as a glorious crusade for God and country ended quietly with Bolshevism entrenched in Russia and Protestant Christianity still alien to the peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia.[16] “Ended”? The work continued until 1923 in Vladivostok. He ignores virtually all later YMCA work with émigrés. “Converted to Protestant Christianity”? This was not the goal of the YMCA during this period. “Protestant Christianity still alien”? He seems not to be aware of the indigenous Baptist and Evangelical Christian movements, which grew rapidly during this period and included tens of thousands of Russians.

THE YMCA, THE ORTHODOX, AND THE MODERN WORLD In the final analysis, modernization is not always accompanied by secularization and rejection of traditional belief; Russia’s experience of the Silver Age is one illustration. The relationship of the YMCA and Russian Christians is another example. Marc Raeff comments that “It may be a common impulse for a group in exile to retain and reinforce the traditional role of its church. But it has not been common for émigrés to modernize the social role and to activate the intellectual life of their church, as happened in Russia Abroad.”[17] YMCA secretary Donald Lowrie[18] pointed out the parallel between Russian life in the Soviet Union and in Russia Abroad. He wrote that the Soviet government attempted to root religion out of everyday Russian life. A parallel process was taking place in the lives of émigré Russians. As one exile explained, Most of modern life, within Russia or outside it, is secularized—religious life is limited to the individual and even in this stage often confined to one day or a few hours on Sunday. Religion as such has little bearing on life as a whole. This fact has been [noted] a hundred times before, by all sorts of Christian thinkers in the west; noted and tacitly accepted, if not de jure, at least de facto. The Russians note, but organize to [protest] against it.[19] The American YMCA may have indeed modified appreciably its traditional approach to religion as it faced the modern world, but its Russian work nevertheless

demonstrated that it still held on to classic Christianity as it moved forward.[20]

NOTES 1. Sergei Bulgakov, “Pri riekie Khovarie,” Put’, April–June 1935, issue 47, 67–68. See Anton Arzhakovskii, “Sviato-Sergievskii Pravoslavnyi Bogoslovskii Institut v Parizhe,” in Bogoslov, filosof, myslitel’: Iubileinye chteniia, posviashchennye 125-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia o. Sergiia Bulgakova (sentiabr’ 1996 g., Moskva) (Moscow: Dom-muzei Mariny Tsvetaevoi, 1999), 112. 2. N. M. Zernov, Zakatnye gody: Epilog khroniki sem’i Zernovykh (Paris: YMCA Press, 1981), 18–19. 3. Sophie Koulomzin, Many Worlds: A Russian Life (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), 43. 4. Koulomzin, Many Worlds, 69, 71, 75, 81, 83. 5. Koulomzin, Many Worlds, 106, 129–30, 137. 6. Koulomzin, Many Worlds, 228–29. 7. Yves Hamant, Alexander Men: A Witness for Contemporary Russia (Torrance, CA: Oakwood Publications, 1995), 51. 8. G. Paprotski, “Otets Aleksandr Men’,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 159, no. 2 (1990): 290–91. 9. Nikita Struve, “Pamiati otsa Aleksandra Menia,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 159, no. 2 (1990): 294. 10. “Pis’mo o. Aleksandra Menia k N. A. Struve,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 159, no. 2 (1990): 297. 11. Aleksandr Men’, “Interv’iu na sluchai aresta,” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 159, no. 2 (1990): 302. 12. Michael Plekon, Living Icons: Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), 234–35. 13. Nicolas Zernov, “The Eastern Churches and the Ecumenical Movement in the Twentieth Century,” in A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1517–1948, ed. Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill, 2nd ed. (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1967), 653–54, 669–71. On Orthodoxy and ecumenism, see also E. A. Karmanov, R. I. Semennikova, and N. N. Divakova, eds., Pravoslavie i ekumenism: Dokumenty i materialy, 1902–1998, 2nd ed. (Moscow: Otdel Vneshnikh Tserkovnykh Snoshenii Moskovskogo Patriarkhata, 1999). This volume includes contributions by Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Kartashev, Florovsky, and Schmemann. 14. P. D. Steeves, “The Orthodox Tradition,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 808. This testimony had unexpected results, which the leading French Protestant leader of that time explained: “Marc Boegner states that the Orthodox in Paris have done more to create better understanding between French Protestants and Catholics, than they ever could have done themselves.” Paul B. Anderson, “International Committee YMCA, Russian Work in 1949,” 6. Russian Literature Account #3 1949–1950. YMCA of the USA, Anderson,

Paul B, 2. KFYA. 15. Zernov, Zakatnye gody, 16–17. On the YMCA, Orthodoxy, and the ecumenical movement, see also Vasil T. Istavridis, “The Orthodox Youth and the Ecumenical Movement,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 2 (1956): 81–88. 16. Michael D. Carter, “The Crusade for God and Country: The Role of the YMCA in Europe and Russia, 1915–1920,” Fides et Historia 26, no. 3 (Fall 1994): 61, 69–70. Emphasis added. 17. Marc Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919– 1939 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 155. 18. For an account of his work after this period, see Donald A. Lowrie, The Hunted Children (New York: Norton, 1963). This book describes Lowrie’s leadership of relief workers during World War II in France. Through their efforts thousands of lives were saved, including 6,000 Jewish children who were hidden in villages. Also, H. William Taeusch, “‘10 Donald A. Lowrie,” Wooster Alumni Magazine, January 1975, 31–32: President Eduard Benes stated that Lowrie was “responsible for saving more Czechoslovakian lives from Nazi torture than any other one person in the world.” 19. Donald A. Lowrie, “Russians Confer on Christian Culture,” [1928 or 1929], 2. 1928–1929. Russian Church. KFYA. 20. For commentary on current developments involving the influence of modernity on religion, state policy on religious organizations, relations between Orthodox and Protestants, and American involvement, see Catherine Wanner, “Missionaries of Faith and Culture: Evangelical Encounters in Ukraine,” Slavic Review 63, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 732–55. Another collection of perspectives can be found in Walter W. Sawatsky and Peter F. Penner, eds., Mission in the Former Soviet Union (Schwarzenfeld, Germany: Neufeld Verlag, 2005).

Appendix: A Note on Archival Sources KFYA

Kautz Family YMCA Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries, Minneapolis.

This collection includes approximately fifty boxes of documents on YMCA work with Russians and in the Balkans. In addition, this archive contains biographical record files for many staff members. Box names are listed as they were identified at the time of research. The archive has conducted minor reorganization of some boxes since that time. However, documents are accessible according to the information provided in the footnotes. The current collection finding aid, “YMCA International Work in Russia and the Soviet Union and with Russians: An Inventory of Its Records” may be accessed at http://special.lib.umn.edu/findaid/html/ymca/yusa0009x2x1.phtml. Bulgaria Colton, Ethan T., Papers (Boxes 1–5) France, Russian Student Christian Movement 1950s–1960s, Chekhov Publishing Co. 1957, Local Associations, 1922–1960s France, RSCM—YMCA Press 1957–1960, Chekhov Press 1950s France, Russian Work, 1925–1965 France, Russian Work, 1954–1955, N. Goncharoff Research Project, 1954– 1955 France, Russian Work, 1956–1968 Greece International Survey—1930, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Box 1 International Survey—1930, Esthonia, Greece, Box 6 International Survey—1930, Roumania, Russia, South Africa, Box 12 James Stokes Society including Saint Petersburg Paul B. Anderson, Correspondence, 1964–1965 Phelps, G. Sidney, Papers Roumania, Correspondence and Reports, 1916–1946, 64 Roumania, Correspondence and Reports, Misc. 1946–1974, 64 Roumania, Voice of Youth 1921, National Conference Report 1947, Papers Russia Russia, Colton E. T., Reports, Addresses, and Papers, 2 vols. (Boxes 1–3) Russia—International Division Russia, St. Petersburg, 1900–1921, 1962 Russian Church (Boxes 1–2) Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Budgets and Appropriations, Correspondence and Reports, 1950–, Financial Transactions Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1920– 1929, Annual Reports, 1920–1929

Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1930– 1949, Annual Reports 1930–1949 Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Correspondence School, 1923–1930, Russian Superior Technical Institute, 1931–1961 Russian Work—Europe, Restricted, Russian Orthodox Theological Academy, Russian Student Christian Movement, Russian Student Fund Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1903–1917 Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1918–1921 Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports, 1922–1944 Russian Work, Restricted, Correspondence and Reports by City Russian Work, Restricted, Donald Lowrie Collection Russian Work, Restricted, Ethan T. Colton Collection Russian Work, Restricted, General, Personal Accounts Russian Work, Restricted, Harbin, Shanghai Russian Work, Restricted, North Russia: Archangel, Murmansk, Siberia Russian Work, Restricted, Pamphlets (Boxes 1–2) Russian Work, Restricted, Periodicals Russian Work, Restricted, Publications, YMCA Press in Paris YMCA of the USA, Anderson, Paul B. (Boxes 1–3) Yugoslavia, Correspondence and Reports, 1919–1959 PBAP

Paul B. Anderson Papers, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Archives. This collection includes records which span Anderson’s career with the YMCA.

BACU

Bakhmeteff Archive, Columbia University, New York City. This archive holds the Vasilii Zen’kovskii Collection which includes his undated manuscripts “Moi vstrechi c vydaiushchimisia liud’mi” and “Moe uchastie v Russkom Studencheskom Khristianskom Dvizhenii.”

GARF

Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (State Archive of the Russian Federation), Moscow. Fond 102 contains reports from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Department of Police, Special Section. Several documents describe the activities of the Russian Student Christian Movement and the Mayak from 1909 to 1916.

ITOS

L’Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe Saint-Serge (St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute) archive, Paris. The archive holds records for many faculty members, including the papers of Lev Zander.

ACER

Action Chrétienne des Étudiants Russes (Russian Student Christian Movement) archive, Paris. This collection includes movement documents from the 1920s through the 1980s.

Bibliography PRIMARY SOURCES “Adres P. F. Andersonu ot R.S.Kh.D.” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 64, no. 1 (1962): 2–3. American Independent Smyrna Mission. First Four Years of the American Independent Smyrna Mission, Under the Patronage of the New Haven Ladies’ Greek Association. Smyrna, Greece: Antonio G. Damiana, 1834. “Among Russian Students.” The Missionary Review of the World 21, no. 5 (May 1908): 386–87. Anderson, Paul B. “Church and State in the Soviet Union.” In The Church and State, edited by Kenneth G. Grubb, 239–64. London: Oxford University Press, 1939. ———. “The Legacy of John R. Mott.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 16 (1979): 27–30. ———. No East or West. Edited by Donald E. Davis. Paris: YMCA Press, 1985. ———. “No East or West: The Memoirs of Paul B. Anderson.” Edited by Donald E. Davis. Unpublished manuscript, n.d. ———. “The Orthodox Church in Soviet Russia.” Foreign Affairs 39 (1961): 299– 311. ———. People, Church and State in Modern Russia. London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1944. ———. “Reflections on Religion in Russia, 1917–1967.” In Aspects of Religion in the Soviet Union, edited by Richard H. Marshall Jr., 11–33. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. ———. A Study of Orthodoxy and the YMCA: The Significance of Recent Developments for Y.M.C.A. Policy and Practice. Geneva: World Alliance of Young Men’s Christian Associations, 1963. An Answer to the Charges of the Greek Ecclesiastical Committee at Smyrna against the English and American Missionaries. Smyrna, Greece: Harlow American Press, 1836. “Arkhipelag GULag.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 108/109/110, nos. 2-3-4 (1973): iii–v. “An Army without a Country.” Association Men, September 1918, 26–27. “The Association in the Czar’s Country.” Association Men, March 1906, 247. Attwater, Donald. The Catholic Eastern Churches. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1935. Bagdon, J. O. A Brief Comparison of the Fundamental Doctrines of the Anglican and Greek Churches. London: J. T. Hayes, n.d. Bardsley, Joseph. The Greek Church, Her Doctrines and Principles Contrasted with Those of the Church of England. Is Union Desirable or Possible? London: Hatchards, 1870.

Barnwell, R. Grant. The Russo-Turkish War. Philadelphia: John E. Potter, 1877. [Berdyaev, Nikolai]. Ot redaktsii. “Dukhovnyia zadachi russkoi emigratsii.” Put’, no. 1 (September 1925): 3–8. “Beseda tov. Iaroslavskogo s amerikanskoi delegatsiei.” Bezbozhnik, no. 17–18 (September 1932): 5–6. Continuation in nos. 19–20 (October 1932): 7. Biggs, C. R. Davey. The Russian Church. [London]: Faith Press, n.d. Bigg-Wither, Reginald F. A Short History of the Church of Russia: Its Teaching and Its Worship. New York: Macmillan, 1920. Bookwalter, John W. Siberia and Central Asia. Springfield, OH: n.p., 1899. Brewer, Josiah. A Residence at Constantinople in the Year 1827. New Haven, CT: Durrie and Peck, 1830. Brooks, Jesse W., ed. Good News for Russia. Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1918. Brown, Joseph. Eastern Christianity and the War with Idolatry, Superstition, and Corruption of the Christians of Turkey, Greece, and Russia, Exposed and Considered with the Present War, and the Prospects of a Reformation. London: Edward Stanford, 1877. Bulgakov, Sergius. A Bulgakov Anthology. Edited by James Pain and Nicolas Zernov. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976. ———. “Pri riekie Khovarie.” Put’, no. 47 (April–June 1935): 66–70. ———. “The Sanctuary Lamp of St. Sergie: The Russian Academy in Paris.” In The Russian Refugee Church and Student Movement. London: Appeal for the Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund, [192-]. Burgess, Richard. Constantinople and Greek Christianity. London: James Nisbet, 1855. Buroker, L. P. “Radicalism Invades Y.M.C.A.” The Defender Magazine 11–12 (April 1937): 23–25. Chukovskii, K. Dnevnik 1901–1929. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1991. Colton, Ethan T. “The Appeal to Religion.” Association Men, December 1919, 215, 256. ———. Forty Years with Russians. New York: Association Press, 1940. ———. Four Patterns of Revolution. New York: Association Press, 1935. ———. “Is the Russian Church Christian?” The Christian Century, May 7, 1925, 602–4. ———. “No Slackening in Russia.” Association Men, November 1918, 206–7. ———. “The Test of Communist Economic Resource.” Slavonic Review 11, no. 31 (July 1932): 37–58. ———. Toward the Understanding of Europe. New York: Association Press, 1944. ———. “With the Y.M.C.A. in Revolutionary Russia.” The Russian Review 14, no. 2 (April 1955): 128–39. ———. The XYZ of Communism. New York: Macmillan, 1931. Constantinides, Michael. Life and Work in the Diocese of Athens. London: St.

Sophia Vicarage, 1928. ———. The Orthodox Church. London: Williams and Nogate, 1931. Darr, John. “Russia, Yet Undiscovered.” Intercollegian, February 1944, 9. Davidson, Randall T. Allocution on the Relations of the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches. London: The Faith Press, 1923. Davis, Jerome. A Life Adventure for Peace, An Autobiography. New York: Citadel, 1967. Davis, Malcolm W. “Russia Looks Ahead.” Association Men, December 1923, 149–50, 181–82. Deianiia soveshchaniia glav i predstavitelei avtokefal’nykh pravoslavnykh tserkvei v sviazi s prazdnovaniem 500 letiia avtokefalii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 8–18 iiulia 1948 goda. 2 vols. Moscow: Moscow Patriarchate, 1949. Denton, W. Servia and the Servians. London: Bell and Daldy, 1862. Douglas, J. A. The Relations of the Anglican Churches with the EasternOrthodox. London: Faith Press, 1921. Dukes, Paul. “The Secret Door.” The Atlantic Monthly 128 (July 1921): 1–13. “Ecumenical Patriarchate to Glorify Mother Maria (Skobtsova), Companions.” The Orthodox Church 40, no. 3/4 (March/April 2004): 14. Eddy, Sherwood. A Century with Youth: A History of the Y.M.C.A. from 1844 to 1944. New York: Association Press, 1944. ———. The Challenge of Russia. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1931. ———. Eighty Adventurous Years: An Autobiography. New York: Harper, 1955. ———. Everybody’s World. New York: George H. Doran, 1920. ———. The Kingdom of God and the American Dream: The Religious and Secular Ideals of American History. New York: Harper, 1941. ———. New Challenges to Faith: What Shall I Believe in the Light of Psychology and the New Science. New York: George H. Doran, 1926. ———. A Pilgrimage of Ideas: or, The Re-education of Sherwood Eddy. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1934. ———. “Russia Revisited.” Association Men, October 1926, 61, 74. ———. Russia Today: What Can We Learn From It? New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1934. Emel’ianova, T. “10-letie ‘IMKA-Press’ v Rossii.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 181, no. 3 (2000): 266–68. “Eshche o napravlenii zhurnala.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 112/113, nos. 2–3 (1974): 3–4. Metropolit Evlogy. Put’ moei zhizni: Vospominaniia Metropolita Evlogiia. Izlozhennyia po ego razskazam T. Manukhinoi. Paris: YMCA Press, 1947. F. F. “Anti-khristianskoe dvizhenie v Kitae.” Antireligioznik, no. 1 (January 1926): 56–62. Fisher, George Park. History of the Christian Church. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1897. “5,000 Rubles from the Russian Government.” Association Men, February 1908,

233. “For the Young Men of Russia.” The Missionary Review of the World 21, no. 5 (May 1908): 387. “For Young Men in Russia.” Association Men, January 1901, 133. Fosdick, Harry Emerson. The Manhood of the Master. New York: Association Press, 1923. [French, Thomas Vapy]. Some Notes of Travel. By a (Late) Missionary Bishop with Special Reference to the Greek Orthodox and Anglican Churches, and Some Recent Invitations to Closer Intercommunion and Fellowship Both of Witness and Service. London: David Nutt, 1890. Frere, W. H. Some Links in the Chain of Russian Church History. London: Faith Press, 1918. Gaylord, Franklin A. “Breaking into Russia.” In James Stokes: Pioneer of Young Men’s Christian Associations, edited by Frank W. Ober, 107–22. New York: Association Press, 1921. Gerrare, Wirt. The Story of Moscow. London: J. M. Dent, 1903. “A Gift for Russia’s Young Men.” The Missionary Review of the World 18, no. 6 (June 1905): 470. Gilpin, Henry D. The American Missionaries in Greece. Philadelphia: King and Baird, 1856. Grachev, Iu. S. Studencheskie gody: Povest’ o studencheskom khristianskom dvizhenii v Rossii. St. Petersburg: Bibliia Dlia Vsekh, 1997. Grant, Frank. Religiia na sluzhbe amerikanskogo kapitala. Moscow: Bezbozhnik, 1928. Hale, Charles R. A Brief Narrative of a Visit to the Eastern Churches in the Interests of Church Unity. Davenport, IA: n.p., 1886. Hayward, John. The Book of Religions; Comprising the Views, Creeds, Sentiments, or Opinions, of All the Principal Religious Sects in the World, Particularly of all Christian Denominations in Europe and America. Boston: A. Colby, 1860. Heald, Edward T. Witness to Revolution: Letters from Russia, 1916–1919. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1972. Hecker, Julius F. Religion and Communism: A Study of Religion and Atheism in Soviet Russia. London: Chapman and Hall, 1933. ———. “The Religious Characteristics of the Russian Soul.” Methodist Review 103, no. 6 (November 1920): 897–907. ———. “The Russian Church under the Soviets.” Methodist Review 107, no. 4 (July 1924): 542–55. ———. “The Soviets Look at Uncle Sam.” Religion in Life 3, no. 4 (Autumn 1934): 588–98. Horton, George. The Blight of Asia. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1926. “IMKA-Press, 80-e gody (an interview with the director of the publishing house [Nikita Struve] by Vladimir Allo).” Russkaia Mysl’ (Paris), no. 3325 (September 11,

1980): 12. Ivanov, V. Pravoslavnyi mir i masonstvo. Reprint of original 1935 ed. Moscow: Trim, 1993. ———. Russkaia intelligentsia i masonstvo: Ot Petra Pervogo do nashikh dnei. Reprint. Moscow: Moskva, 1997. “Iz proshlago Sergievskago Podvor’ia.” Viestnik russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 11 (November 1927): 20–21. Jessup, Henry Harris. The Greek Church and Protestant Missions; or, Missions to the Oriental Churches. New York: Christian Literature Co., 1891. Johnstone, James. “A Few Days on the Continent, Embracing a Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s ‘Vaticanism,’ from Personal Inspection of the Idolatrous Services of Greek Churches.” The United Kingdom Anti-Papal League Magazine 3 (1875): 41– 65. Kandidov, B. “Interventsiia, vreditel’stvo i tserkov’.” Antireligioznik, no. 1 (January 1931): 16–31. ———. “Interventsiia na dal’nem vostoke i rol’ sektanstva (1918–1921 gg.).” Bezbozhnik, nos. 13–14 (July 30, 1932): 8–9. Karmanov, E. A., R. I. Semennikova, and N. N. Divakova, eds. Pravoslavie i ekumenism: Dokumenty i materialy, 1902–1998, 2nd ed. Moscow: Otdel Vneshnikh Tserkovnykh Snoshenii Moskovskogo Patriarkhata, 1999. Kartashev, A. V., and N. A. Struve. 70 let izdatel’stva “YMCA-Press”: 1920– 1990. Paris: YMCA Press, 1990. Koloskov, V. N. “Iz istorii ideologicheskoi bor’by pervykh let Sovetskoi vlasti.” Voprosy filosofii, no. 11 (November 1964): 142–52. Koulomzin, Sophie. Many Worlds: A Russian Life. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980. Kurtz, J. H. Church History. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1890–1894. Langford-James, R. L. L. A Dictionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church. London: Faith Press, [1923]. L’Association pour le Maintien et l’Entretien de l’Institute de Théologie Orthodoxe. L’Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe Saint-Serge: 70 Ans de Théologie Orthodoxe a Paris. Paris: Editions Hervas, 1997. Levin, I. D. Rabochie kluby v dorevoliutsionnom peterburge: Iz istorii rabochego dvizheniia 1907–1914 g.g. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo VTsSPS, 1926. Lowrie, Donald A. The Hunted Children. New York: Norton, 1963. ———. The Light of Russia: An Introduction to the Russian Church. Prague: YMCA Press, 1923. ———. Rebellious Prophet: A Life of Nicolai Berdyaev. New York: Harper, 1960. ———. Saint Sergius in Paris: The Orthodox Theological Institute. New York: Macmillan, 1951. Martsinkovskii, V. F. Smysl zhizni. Novosibirsk: Posokh, 1996. ———. Zapiski veruiushchego: Iz istorii religioznogo dvizheniia v sovetskoi

Rossii. Prague: n.p., 1929. McCaig, A. Grace Astounding in Bolshevik Russia: A Record of the Lord’s Dealings with Brother Cornelius Martens. London: Russian Missionary Society, 1920. Medbery, R. B. Memoir of Mrs. Sarah Emily York, Formerly Miss S. E. Waldo; Missionary in Greece. Boston: Phillips, Sampson, 1853. Men’, Aleksandr. “Interv’iu na sluchai aresta.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 159, no. 2 (1990): 298–305. ———. “Pis’mo o. Aleksandra Menia k N. A. Struve.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 159, no. 2 (1990): 297. Meredith, Frederic Charles. The Young Men’s Christian Association and the Russian Orthodox Church. [New York]: International Committee of the YMCA, 1921. “The ‘Miyak’ (Lighthouse), St. Petersburg.” Association Men, March 1910, 246– 47. Moskvin, Viktor. “YMCA-Press v gorodakh Rossii i Ukrainy.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 166, no. 3 (1992): 280–82. Mott, John R. Addresses and Papers of John R. Mott. Vol. 3, The Young Men’s Christian Association. New York: Association Press, 1947. ———. Cooperation and the World Mission. New York: International Missionary Council, 1935. ———. The Evangelization of the World in This Generation. New York: Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, 1900. ———. Five Decades and a Forward View. New York: Harper, 1939. ———. The Future Leadership of the Church. New York: YMCA Student Department, 1909. ———. “The Outlook in the Moslem World.” Reprint from The International Review of Missions (London), n.d. ———. “Recent Experiences and Impressions in Russia.” Unpublished manuscript, 1917. ———. The World’s Student Christian Federation: Origins, Achievements, Forecast. [London]: World’s Student Christian Federation, 1920. Neale, John Mason. A History of the Holy Eastern Church. London: n.p., 1848– 51. “The New Gymnasium of the St. Petersburg, Russia, Association, The Gift of James Stokes” (caption of photos). Association Men, May 1908, 383. Ogden, Helen. “Russian Student Life.” Intercollegian, October 1922, 7. Oldham, R. S. “Eastward Ho!” The Foreign Church Chronicle 21 (1897): 226– 32. Ozolin, Nikolai. “K semidesiatiletiiu russkogo pravoslavnogo bogoslovskogo instituta prepodobnogo Sergiia Radonezhskogo v Parizhe.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 174, nos. 2–1 (1996/1997): 258–72. Paprotski, G. “Otets Aleksandr Men’.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 159, no. 2 (1990): 287–93. Podoliak, V. “Missionery anti-kommunizma.” Nauka i religiia, no. 12 (December

1971): 55. Porus, Vladimir, ed. Russkoe bogoslovie v evropeiskom kontekste: S. N. Bulgakov i zapadnaia religiozno-filosofskaia mysl’. Moscow: Bibleisko-bogoslovskii institut sv. apostola Andreia, 2006. Privalov, Ioann, ed. “YMCA-Press” v Arkhangel’ske: Vstrechi s N. A. Struve: lektsii, interv’iu, besedy. Archangelsk: Obshchina Khrama Sreteniia Gospodnia, 2002. Rauschenbusch, Walter. The Social Principles of Jesus. New York: The Woman’s Press, 1917. Reyburn, Hugh Y. The Story of the Russian Church. London: A. Melrose, 1924. Richter, Julius. A History of Protestant Missions in the Near East. Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910. “Russian Service in Europe.” World’s Youth 12, no. 1 (April 1936): 74–76. “A Russian Y.M.C.A.” The Missionary Review of the World 15, no. 10 (October 1902): 788–89. Russkoe Studencheskoe Khristianskoe Dvizhenie za rubezhom. Paris: RSKhD, 1928. ACER. Russkoe Studencheskoe Khristianskoe Dvizhenie za rubezhom v 1928 g. Paris: RSKhD, 1929. Schmemann, Alexander. Russian Theology: 1920–1965, A Bibliographical Survey. Richmond, VA: Union Theological Seminary, 1969. Scott, S. Herbert. The Eastern Churches and the Papacy. London: Sheed and Ward, 1928. Severis, Rita C., ed. The Diaries of Lorenzo Warriner Pease, 1834–1839: An American Missionary in Cyprus and his Travels in the Holy Land, Asia Minor and Greece. 2 vols. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002. Shein., M. “Bog—vernyi sluga kapitala.” Bezbozhnik, no. 6 (March 1926): 6–7. ———. “Nash ‘drug’ v Amerike.” Bezbozhnik, nos. 13–14 (July 1926): 11–12. ———. “Tserkov’ i mezhdunarodnoe rabochee dvizhenie.” Antireligioznik, no. 2 (February 1926): 50–61. “Signs of Life in Russia.” The Missionary Review of the World 24, no. 2 (February 1911): 84. Sinclair, William MacDonald. The Churches of the East. London: Elliot Stock, 1898. Sodruzhestvo sviatogo Albaniia i prepodobnogo Sergiia. Sobornost’: Sbornik izbrannykh statei iz zhurnala sodruzhestva Sobornost. Moscow: Bibleiskobogoslovskii institut cv. apostola Andreia, 1998. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I. Invisible Allies. Translated by Alexis Klimoff and Michael Nicholson. Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1995. ———. The Oak and the Calf: Sketches of Literary Life in the Soviet Union. Translated by Harry Willetts. New York: Harper and Row, 1979. Solzhenitsyn, Alexander, et al. From Under the Rubble. Translated by Michael Scammel. Boston: Little, Brown, 1975.

“Sovetskie propagandisty o ‘Vestnike.’” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 100, no. 2 (1971): 12–22. Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn. Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church. New York: Scribners, 1862. Stock, Eugene. “An Early Anglican Mission to the Eastern Churches.” The East and the West: A Quarterly Review for the Study of Missions 3 (1905): 271–83. Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. Philadelphia: Griffith and Rowland, [1907– 1909]. Struve, Nikita, ed. Bratstvo sviatoi Sofii: Materialy i dokumenty, 1923–1939. Moscow-Paris: Russkii Put’- YMCA-Press, 2000. ———. “IMKA-Press po goradam i vesiam Rossii i stolitsam vostochnoi Evropy.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 173, no. 1 (1996): 277–80. ———. “Pamiati otsa Aleksandra Menia.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 159, no. 2 (1990): 294–96. ———. “RSKhD kak prorocheskoe iavlenie v Tserkvi.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 185, no. 1 (2003): 326–34. ———. “Sotyi nomer.” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 100, no. 2 (1971): 3–4. Tozer, Henry Fanshawe. The Church and the Eastern Empire. London: Longmans, Green, 1888. US Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Europe. Antireligious Activities in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 12 May 1965. ———. Recent Developments in the Soviet Bloc: Status of Human Rights in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. 88th Cong., 2nd Sess., 29 January 1964. Uzzell, Thomas H. “The Jubilee of St. Petersburg’s Miyak.” Association Men, June 1911, 386– 87. Vivian, Herbert. Servia: The Poor Man’s Paradise. London: Longmans, Green, 1897. Vsepoddannieishii otchet ober-prokurora sviatieishago sinoda po viedomstvu pravoslavnago ispoviedaniia za 1903–1904 gody. St. Petersburg: Synodal’naia tipographiia, 1909. Vsepoddannieishii otchet ober-prokurora sviatieishago sinoda po viedomstvu pravoslavnago ispoviedaniia za 1908–1909 gody. St. Petersburg: Synodal’naia tipographiia, 1911. “Vyderzhki iz pisem 1983 g. staroi ‘dvizhenki,’ uchastvovavshei v rabote Dvizheniia do i v nachale revoliutsii v Peterburge, Kieve, Moskve.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 186, no. 2 (2003): 331–35. “Vystavka izdatel’stva YMCA-Press v Moskve.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 159, no. 2 (1990): 307–10. Walker, Williston. A History of the Christian Church. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1918. Walsh, Warren B., ed. “Documents: Petrograd, March–July, 1917: The Letters of

Edward T. Heald.” The American Slavic and East European Review 6, nos. 16–17 (May 1947): 116–57. Williams, J. E. Hodder. The Life of Sir George Williams, Founder of the Young Men’s Christian Association. New York: International Committee of Young Men’s Christian Associations, 1906. Wishard, Luther D. “A Glimpse of Russia.” Young Men’s Era, 1892, 421. “Work among Russian Woman Students.” The Missionary Review of the World 25, no. 5 (May 1912): 388–89. World’s Committee of Y.M.C.A.s. Objectives, Principles, and Programme of Y.M.C.A.s in Orthodox Countries. Geneva: World’s Committee of Y.M.C.A.s, 1933. “World Wide.” Association Men, September 1908, 602. [YMCA]. Osnovy khristianskago soiuza molodykh liudei. Paris: YMCA Press, 1929. “The Y.M.C.A. in Russia.” The Missionary Review of the World 14, no. 1 (January 1901): 72. “Y.M.C.A. in St. Petersburg.” The Missionary Review of the World 17, no. 6 (June 1904): 469. YMCA Press. Catalogue of Russian Books—Western Editions, 1985–1986. Paris: YMCA Press, 1985. “Young Men in Russia.” Association Men, July 1902, 450–51. “Young Men in Russia.” The Missionary Review of the World 14, no. 4 (April 1901): 311–12. Zander, L., ed. List of the Writings of Professors of the Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, 1925–1954. Paris: The Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, [195-]. ———. List of Writings of the Professors of the Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, 1955–1965. Paris: The Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, [196-]. Zen’kovskii, V. “Dukhovno-vospitatel’naia rabota bogoslovskogo instituta.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 145, no. 3 (1985): 246–54. ———. “Pamiati D-ra Dzhona Motta.” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 36, no. 1 (1955): 31–32. Zernov, Nicolas. “The Eastern Churches and the Ecumenical Movement in the Twentieth Century.” In A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1517–1948, 2nd ed., eds. Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill, 645–74. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1967. ———. The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. Oxford: The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1979. ———. The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. ———. The Russians and Their Church. 3rd ed. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978. ———. “The Significance of the Russian Orthodox Diaspora and its Effect on the

Christian West.” In The Orthodox Churches and the West, edited by Derek Baker, 307–27. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976. ———. Zakatnye gody: E’pilog khroniki sem’i Zernovykh. Paris: YMCA Press, 1981. ———. Za rubezhom: Belgrad-Parizh-Oksford: Khronika sem’i Zernovykh: 1921–1972. Paris: YMCA Press, 1973. Zernova, Militsa. “2-aia chast’ pis’ma prislannogo Militsei Zernovoi na s’’ezd Russkogo Studencheskogo Khristianskogo Dvizheniia (noiabr’ 1984).” ACER-RSCM Tribune, no. 2 (June 1985): 51–54. ———. “Pis’mo prislannoe Militsei Zernovoi na s’’ezd Russkogo Studencheskogo Khristianskogo Dvizheniia (noiabr’ 1984).” ACER-RSCM Tribune, no. 1 (January– February 1985): 40–44.

SECONDARY SOURCES: BOOKS AND DISSERTATIONS Akopyan, K. Z., ed. Rossiiskaia intelligentsiia na rodine i v zarubezh’e. Moscow: Ministerstvo Kultury RF, 2001. Alekseeva, I. A. Istoriia vsemirnogo khristianskogo molodezhnogo dvizheniia v Rossii. Moscow: Seriia “AIRO, Pervaia monografiia,” 2007. Andersen, Nancy Keever. “Cooperation for Social Betterment: Missions and Progressives in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1894–1921.” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1999. Andreyev, Catherine, and Ivan Savicky. Russia Abroad: Prague and the Russian Diaspora, 1918–1938. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004. Appleby, R. Scott. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000. Arkhimandrit Avgustin (Nikitin). Metodizm i pravoslavie. St. Petersburg: Svetoch, 2001. Arzhakovskii, Antuan. Zhurnal Put’ (1925–1940): Pokolenie russkikh religioznykh myslitelei v emigratsii. Kiev: Feniks, 2000. Augst, Thomas. The Clerk’s Tale: Young Men and Moral Life in NineteenthCentury America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Bailey, Heather Leigh. “Ernest Renan’s Life of Jesus and the Orthodox Struggle against the De-Christianization of Christ in Russia, 1863–1917.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2001. Baird, Catherine. “The ‘Third Way’: Russia’s Religious Philosophers in the West, 1917–1996.” PhD diss., McGill University, Montreal, 1997. Barnes, M. Craig. “John R. Mott: A Conversionist in a Pluralist World.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1992. Basil, John D. Church and State in Late Imperial Russia: Critics of the Synodal System of Church Government (1861–1914). Minneapolis: Minnesota Mediterranean and East European Monographs, 2005. Batalden, Stephen K., ed. Seeking God: The Recovery of Religious Identity in

Orthodox Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1993. Beshoner, Jeffrey Bruce. Ivan Sergeevich Gagarin: The Search for Orthodox and Catholic Union. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002. Billington, James H. The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture. New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Binns, John. An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Bourdeaux, Michael, ed. The Politics of Religion in Russia and the New States of Eurasia. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1995. Boyd, Nancy. Emissaries: The Overseas Work of the American YWCA, 1895– 1970. New York: Woman’s Press, 1986. Brandenburg, Hans. The Meek and the Mighty: The Emergence of the Evangelical Movement in Russia. London: Mowbrays, 1976. Brower, Daniel R. The Russian City between Tradition and Modernity, 1850– 1900. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Caldwell, Melissa L. Not By Bread Alone: Social Support in the New Russia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Calian, Carnegie S. Icon and Pulpit: The Protestant-Orthodox Encounter. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Carpenter, Joel A., ed. Modernism and Foreign Missions: Two Fundamentalist Protests. New York: Garland, 1988. Carter, Robert Lee. “The ‘Message of Higher Criticism’: The Bible Renaissance and Popular Education in America, 1880–1925.” PhD diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1995. Cassimatis, Louis P. American Influence in Greece, 1917–1929. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1988. Chamberlain, Lesley. The Philosophy Steamer: Lenin and the Exile of the Intelligentsia. London: Atlantic Books, 2006. Chulos, Chris J. Converging Worlds: Religion and Community in Peasant Russia, 1861–1917. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2003. Chumachenko, Tatiana A. Church and State in Soviet Russia: Russian Orthodoxy from World War II to the Khrushchev Years. Edited and translated by Edward E. Roslof. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2002. Clowes, Edith W., Samuel D. Kassow, and James L. West, eds. Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991. Coleman, Heather. Russian Baptists and Spiritual Revolution: 1905–1929. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005. Constantelos, Demetrios J. Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare. 2nd ed. New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1991. ———. Poverty, Society and Philanthropy in the Late Mediaeval Greek World. New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1992.

Corrado, Sharyl. “The Philosophy of Ministry of Colonel Vasiliy Pashkov.” M.A. thesis, Wheaton College, 2000. Crummey, Donald. Priests and Politicians: Protestant and Catholic Missions in Orthodox Ethiopia, 1830–1868. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Cunningham, James W. The Gates of Hell: The Great Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1917–1918. Edited by Keith and Grace Dyrud. Minneapolis: Minnesota Mediterranean and East European Monographs, 2002. ———. A Vanquished Hope: The Movement for Church Renewal in Russia, 1905–1906. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981. Curti, Merle. American Philanthropy Abroad: A History. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1963. Dalbotten, Diana Marie. “Ancient Souls and Modern Art: Nicholas Roerich and the Silver Age of Russian Art.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2000. Daly, Jonathan W. The Watchful State: Security Police and Opposition in Russia, 1906–1917. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2004. Daniel, Robert L. American Philanthropy in the Near East, 1820–1960. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1970. Davidann, Jon Thares. A World of Crisis and Progress: The American YMCA in Japan 1890–1930. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 1998. ———. “A World of Crisis and Progress: Christianity, National Identity, and the American YMCA in Japan, 1890–1930.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1995. Davis, Donald E., and Eugene P. Trani. The First Cold War: The Legacy of Woodrow Wilson in U.S.-Soviet Relations. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002. Davis, Nathaniel. A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2003. Dorsett, Lyle W. Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. ———. A Passion for Souls: The Life of D. L. Moody. Chicago: Moody Press, 1997. Dowie, Mark. American Foundations: An Investigative History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001. Eddy, Charles B. Greece and the Greek Refugees. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1931. Elfenbein, Jessica Ivy. The Making of a Modern City: Philanthropy, Civic Culture, and the Baltimore YMCA. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2001. ———. “To ‘Fit Them for Their Fight with the World’: The Baltimore YMCA and the Making of a Modern City, 1852–1932.” PhD diss., University of Delaware, 1996. Ellis, Jane. The Russian Orthodox Church: A Contemporary History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. Evensen, Bruce J. God’s Man for the Gilded Age: D. L. Moody and the Rise of Modern Mass Evangelism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Evtuhov, Catherine. The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of

Russian Religious Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997. Fairbairn, Donald. Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Ferm, Deane W. “Sherwood Eddy: Evangelist and YMCA Secretary.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1954. Fitzgerald, Thomas E. The Orthodox Church. Denominations in America, Number 7. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995. Foglesong, David S. The American Mission and the “Evil Empire:” The Crusade for a “Free Russia” since 1881. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Fouyas, Methodios. Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglicanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Friedman, Lawrence J., and Mark D. McGarvie, eds. Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Gakkel’, Sergii. Mat’ Mariia. Paris: YMCA Press, 1992. Garrett, Shirley Stone. “The Salvation of China: Urban Reform and the Chinese YMCA.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1966. Gatrell, Peter. A Whole Empire Walking: Refugees in Russia during World War I. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. Geanakoplos, Deno John. Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen Through Contemporary Eyes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Geffert, Bryn. “Anglicans and Orthodox between the Wars.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2003. ———. Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans: Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of Interwar Ecumenism. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010. Geraci, Robert P. and Michael Khodarkovsky, eds. Of Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001. Giannuli, Dimitra M. “American Philanthropy in the Near East: Relief to the Ottoman Greek Refugees, 1922–1923.” PhD diss., Kent State University, 1992. Glad, John. Russia Abroad: Writers, History, Politics. Tenafly, NJ: Hermitage, 1999. Grabill, Joseph L. Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East: Missionary Influence on American Policy, 1810–1927. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971. Grogin, Robert C. Natural Enemies: The United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War, 1917–1991. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001. Gundersen, Pol. Pavel Nikolai iz Monrepo: Evropeets, ne takoi kak vse. Moscow: Bibleisko- bogoslovskii institut sv. apostola Andreia, 2004. Gurevich, A. L. Istoriia izdatel’stva “YMCA-Press.” Moscow: Kompaniia Sputnik+, 2004. Gustav-Wrathall, John Donald. Take the Young Stranger by the Hand: Same-Sex Relations and the YMCA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Hall, William Webster, Jr. Puritans in the Balkans: The American Board Mission

in Bulgaria, 1878–1918, A Study in Purpose and Procedure. Sofia, Bulgaria: Studia Historico-Philologica Serdicensia, 1938. Hamant, Yves. Alexander Men: A Witness for Contemporary Russia. Torrance, CA: Oakwood Publications, 1995. Hammond, Peter. The Waters of Marah: The Present State of the Greek Church. London: Rockcliff, 1956. Hard, William. Raymond Robins’ Own Story. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1920. Hardeman, Hilde. Coming to Terms with the Soviet Regime: The “Changing Signposts” Movement among Russian Émigrés in the Early 1920s. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1994. Hayes, Nicholas. “The Intelligentsia-in-Exile: Sovremennye Zapiski and the History of Russian Émigré Thought, 1920–1940.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1976. Hedda, Jennifer Elaine. “Good Shepherds: The St. Petersburg Pastorate and the Emergence of Social Activism in the Russian Orthodox Church, 1855–1917.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1998. ———. His Kingdom Come: Orthodox Pastorship and Social Activism in Revolutionary Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2008. Henderson, Sarah L. Building Democracy in Contemporary Russia: Western Support for Grassroots Organizations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003. Herlihy, Patricia. The Alcoholic Empire: Vodka and Politics in Late Imperial Russia. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Herrlinger, K. Page. “Class, Piety, and Politics: Workers, Orthodoxy, and the Problem of Religious Identity in St. Petersburg, 1881–1914.” PhD diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1996. Hillmer, Paul Allan. “‘This Is Practical Religion’: The Cleveland YMCA and the Social Service Movement.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2001. Hopkins, C. Howard. History of the YMCA in North America. New York: Association Press, 1951. ———. John R. Mott, 1865–1955: A Biography. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979. Hosking, Geoffrey A., ed. Church, Nation and State in Russia and Ukraine. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991. Huntington, W. Chapin. The Homesick Million. Boston: The Stratford Company, 1933. Husband, William B. “Godless Communists”: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917– 1932. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2000. Institut Vsyeobschei Istorii RAN. Rossiia v izgnanii: sudby rossiiskikh emigrantov za rubezhom. Moscow: Institut Vsyeobschei Istorii RAN, 1999. Ippolitov, S. S., V. M. Nedbaevskii, and Yu. I. Rudentsova. Tri stolitsy izgnaniia: Konstantinopol, Berlin, Parizh. Moscow: Spas, 1999. Iriye, Akira. Cultural Internationalism and World Order. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1997. Johnston, Robert H. “New Mecca, New Babylon”: Paris and the Russian Exiles, 1920–1945. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988. Karlin, Jane F. “Disciples of Mercury: The Commercial Education Program of the Young Men’s Christian Association, 1851–1916.” PhD diss., New York University, 1993. Karpenko, S. V., ed. Russkie bez otechestva: Ocherki antibol’shevistskoi emigratsii 20–40-kh godov. Moscow: Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Gumanitarnyi Universitet, 2000. Kassow, Samuel D. Students, Professors, and the State in Tsarist Russia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Keller, Charles Andrew. “Making Model Citizens: The Chinese YMCA, Social Activism, and Internationalism in Republican China, 1919–1937.” PhD diss., University of Kansas, 1996. Kennan, George F. Soviet-American Relations, 1917–1920: Russia Leaves the War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956. Kenworthy, Scott M. The Heart of Russia: Trinity-Sergius, Monasticism and Society after 1825. Oxford: Oxford University Press and Washington, DC: Wilson Center Press, 2010. Kimbrough, S. T., Jr., ed. Orthodox and Wesleyan Spirituality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002. Kitromilides, Paschalis M. An Orthodox Commonwealth: Symbolic Legacies and Cultural Encounters in Southeastern Europe. Variorum Collected Studies Series. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007. Kivelson, Valerie A., and Robert H. Greene, eds. Orthodox Russia: Belief and Practice under the Tsars. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003. Kizenko, Nadieszda. A Prodigal Saint: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian People. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. Kostikov, Viacheslav. Ne budem proklinat’ izgnan’e: Puti i sud’by russkoi emigratsii. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 1990. Kvakin, A. V., and E. A. Shulepova, eds. Kultura rossiiskogo zarubezh’ia. Moscow: Rossiiskii Institut Kulturologii, 1995. Langenskjold, Greta. Baron Paul Nicolay: Christian Statesman and Student Leader in Northern and Slavic Europe. Translated by Ruth Evelyn Wilder. New York: George H. Doran, 1924. Lansdale, H. Parker. “A Historical Study of YMCA Boys’ Work in the United States, 1900– 1925.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1956. Latimer, Robert Sloan. Dr. Baedeker and His Apostolic Work in Russia. London: Morgan and Scott, 1907. ———. With Christ in Russia. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. World Service: A History of the Foreign Work and World Service of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of the United States and Canada. New York: Association Press, 1957.

Levaco, Ronald, ed. and trans. Kuleshov on Film: Writings by Lev Kuleshov. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. Lewis, David C. After Atheism: Religion and Ethnicity in Russia and Central Asia. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000. Lindenmeyr, Adele. Poverty Is Not a Vice: Charity, Society and the State in Imperial Russia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Lombard, Anne S. Making Manhood: Growing Up Male in Colonial New England. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Lossky, Vladimir. Orthodox Theology: An Introduction. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978. Marder, Brenda L. Stewards of the Land: The American Farm School and Modern Greece. Boulder, CO: East European Quarterly, 1979. Mastrantonis, George. Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tübingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982. McCarthy, Kathleen D. American Creed: Philanthropy and the Rise of Civil Society, 1700– 1865. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. McCarthy, Mark Myers. “Religious Conflict and Social Order in NineteenthCentury Russia: Orthodoxy and the Protestant Challenge, 1812–1905.” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2004. McReynolds, Louise. Russia at Play: Leisure Activities at the End of the Tsarist Era. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003. Mendel, Arthur P. Dilemmas of Progress in Tsarist Russia: Legal Marxism and Legal Populism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961. Michaelson, Aaron Neil. “The Russian Orthodox Missionary Society, 1870–1917: A Study of Religious and Educational Enterprise.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1999. Miller, Matthew Lee. “American Philanthropy among Russians: The Work of the YMCA, 1900–1940.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2006. Mjagkij, Nina. “History of the Black YMCA in America, 1853–1946.” PhD diss., University of Cincinnati, 1990. Mjagkij, Nina, and Margaret Spratt, eds. Men and Women Adrift: The YMCA and the YWCA in the City. New York: New York University Press, 1997. Morrissey, Susan K. Heralds of Revolution: Russian Students and the Mythologies of Radicalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Nichols, Robert L., and Theofanis George Stavrou, eds. Russian Orthodoxy under the Old Regime. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1978. Niesen, Wilhelm. Reformed Symbolics: A Comparison of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962. Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992. Nutt, Rick L. The Whole Gospel for the Whole World: Sherwood Eddy and the American Protestant Mission. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997.

Obolensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500–1453. New York: Praeger, 1971. Okkenhaug, Inger Marie. The Quality of Heroic Living, of High Endeavor and Adventure: Anglican Mission, Women and Education in Palestine, 1888–1948. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002. Parker, Michael. “The Kingdom of Character: The Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions (1886–1926).” PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 1994. Patenaude, Bertrand M. The Big Show in Bololand: The American Relief Expedition to Soviet Russia in the Famine of 1921. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002. Peris, Daniel. Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998. Perry, Ken, et al., eds. The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999. Pisiotis, Argyrios K. “Orthodoxy versus Autocracy: The Orthodox Church and Clerical Political Dissent in Late Imperial Russia (1905–1914).” PhD diss., Georgetown University, 2000. Plekon, Michael. Hidden Holiness. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009. ———. Living Icons: Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002. Pliukhanov, B. V. RSKhD v Latvii i Estonii. Paris: YMCA Press, 1993. Poliakov, Iu. A. Istoriia rossiiskogo zarubezh’ia: Problemy adaptatsii migrantov v xix–xx vekakh. Moscow: Institut Rossiiskoi Istorii, Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1996. Poole, Randall A., ed. Problems of Idealism: Essays in Russian Social Philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003. Popov, A. V. Russkoe zarubezh’e i arkhivy. Moscow: Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Gumanitarnyi Universitet, 1998. Prokurat, Michael, Alexander Golitzin, and Michael D. Peterson. Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996. Putney, Clifford. Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880– 1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. Raeff, Marc. Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919–1939. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Ramsey, Dwayne George. “College Evangelists and Foreign Missions: The Student Volunteer Movement, 1886–1920.” PhD diss., University of California, Davis, 1988. Raymond, Boris, and David R. Jones. The Russian Diaspora: 1917–1941. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2000. Read, Christopher. Religion, Revolution, and the Russian Intelligentsia: 1900– 1912. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1979. Reid, Daniel G., ed. Dictionary of Christianity in America. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 1990. Repp, Arthur Christian. “In Search of an Orthodox Way: The Development of Biblical Studies in Late Imperial Russia.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Chicago, 1999. Richmond, Yale. Cultural Exchange & the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003. Risedorph, Kimberly Ann. “Reformers, Athletes and Students: The YMCA in China, 1895– 1935.” PhD diss., Washington University, 1994. Robson, Roy. Old Believers in Modern Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1995. Rosenberg, Emily S. Spreading the American Dream: American Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890–1945. New York: Hill and Wang, 1982. Rosenthal, Bernice Glatzer, and Martha Bohachevsky-Chomiak, eds. A Revolution of the Spirit: Crisis of Value in Russia, 1890–1924. Translated by Marian Schwartz. New York: Fordham University Press, 1990. Roslof, Edward E. Red Priests: Renovationism, Russian Orthodoxy, and Revolution, 1905– 1946. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. Rouse, Ruth, and Stephen Charles Neill, eds. A History of the Ecumenical Movement: 1517– 1948. 2nd ed. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1967. Rowe, Michael. Russian Resurrection: Strength in Suffering—A History of Russia’s Evangelical Church. London: Marshall Pickering, 1994. Sack, Daniel Edward. “Disastrous Disturbances: Buchmanism and Student Religious Life at Princeton, 1919–1935.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 1995. Salzman, Neil V. Reform and Revolution: The Life and Times of Raymond Robins. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1991. Saul, Norman E. Concord and Conflict: The United States and Russia, 1867– 1914. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1996. ———. Friends or Foes? The United States and Soviet Russia, 1921–1941. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006. ———. War and Revolution: The United States and Russia, 1914–1921. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2001. Sawatsky, Walter. Soviet Evangelicals since World War II. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1981. Sawatsky, Walter W., and Peter F. Penner, eds. Mission in the Former Soviet Union. Schwarzenfeld, Germany: Neufeld Verlag, 2005. Schenkel, Albert F. The Rich Man and the Kingdom: John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the Protestant Establishment. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Selles, Johanna M. The World Student Christian Federation, 1895–1925: Motives, Methods, and Influential Women. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011. Shalin, Dmitri N., ed. Russian Culture at the Crossroads: Paradoxes of Postcommunist Consciousness. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996. Shaw, P. E. American Contacts with the Eastern Churches 1820–1870. Chicago:

The American Society of Church History, 1937. Shedd, Clarence. History of the World’s Alliance of Y.M.C.A.s. London: World’s Committee of Young Men’s Christian Associations, 1955. Shelokhaeva, V. V. Russkoe zarubezh’e—zolotaia kniga emigrat’sii: Pervaia tret’ xx veka. Moscow: Rosspen, 1997. Shevzov, Vera. Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Showalter, Nathan D. “The End of a Crusade: The Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions and the Great War.” Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 1990. Shragin, Boris, and Albert Todd, eds. Landmarks: A Collection of Essays on the Russian Intelligentsia, 1909, Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Gershenzon, Izgoev, Kistyakovsky, Struve, Frank. Translated by Marian Schwartz. New York: Karz Howard, 1977. Sidorov, Dmitrii. Orthodoxy and Difference: Essays on the Geography of Russian Orthodox Church(es) in the 20th Century. San Jose, CA: Pickwick Publications, 2001. Smith, Douglas. Working the Rough Stone: Freemasonry and Society in Eighteenth-Century Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1999. Sophocles, S. M. The Religion of Modern Greece. Thessalonika, Greece: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1961. Stamoolis, James J. Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today. Minneapolis: Light and Life Publishing Company, 1986. Stavrou, Theofanis George, ed. Art and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983. ———. Russian Interests in Palestine, 1882–1914: A Study of Religious and Educational Enterprise. Thessaloniki, Greece: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1963. ———, ed. Russia under the Last Tsar. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969. Steinberg, Mark D. Proletarian Imagination: Self, Modernity, and the Sacred in Russia, 1910– 1925. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002. Steuer, Kenneth Andrew. “Pursuit of an ‘Unparalleled Opportunity’: The American Young Men’s Christian Association and Prisoner-of-War Diplomacy among the Central Power Nations during World War I, 1914–1923.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1997. ———. Pursuit of an “Unparalleled Opportunity”: The American YMCA and Prisoner-of- War Diplomacy among the Central Power Nations during World War I, 1914–1923. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. Streiff, Patrick Ph. Methodism in Europe: 19th and 20th Century. Tallinn, Estonia: Baltic Methodist Theological Seminary, 2003. Strickland, John Douglas. “Orthodox Patriotism and the Church in Russia, 1888– 1914.” PhD diss., University of California, Davis, 1999. Tabor, James Alan. “In the Service of the Russian Tsar: The Life and Work of Konstantin Mikhailovich Bazili, 1809–1884.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2003.

Taft, William Howard, et al., eds. Service with Fighting Men: An Account of the Work of the American Young Men’s Christian Associations in the World War. 2 vols. New York: Association Press, 1922. Tarasar, Constance J., ed. Orthodox America, 1794–1976: Development of the Orthodox Church in America. Syosset, NY: Orthodox Church in America, 1975. Taylor, S. J. Stalin’s Apologist: Walter Duranty, the New York Times’s Man in Moscow. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Tyrrell, Ian. Reforming the World: The Creation of America’s Moral Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010. Ugolnik, Anthony. The Illuminating Icon. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989. Valliere, Paul. Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov: Orthodox Theology in a New Key. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Von Laue, Theodore H. Sergei Witte and the Industrialization of Russia. New York: Atheneum, 1969. Wardin, Albert W., Jr. Evangelical Sectarianism in the Russian Empire and the USSR: A Bibliographic Guide. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1995. Warren, Heather Anne. “‘That They All May Be One’: Americans’ Quest for Christian Unity, 1918–1948.” PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1992. Wartenweiler, David. Civil Society and Academic Debate in Russia, 1905–1914. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Werth, Paul W. At the Margins of Orthodoxy: Mission, Governance, and Confessional Politics in Russia’s Volga-Kama Region, 1827–1905. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002. Williams, Robert C. Culture in Exile: Russian Émigrés in Germany, 1881–1941. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1972. Winter, Thomas. Making Men, Making Class: The YMCA and Workingmen, 1877–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. ———. “A Wise Investment in Growing Manhood”: The YMCA and Workingmen, 1872–1929.” PhD diss., University of Cincinnati, 1994. Wrathall, John Donald. “American Manhood and the YMCA, 1868–1920.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1994. Wuthnow, Robert, Virginia A. Hodgkinson, et al. Faith and Philanthropy in America: Exploring the Role of Religion in America’s Voluntary Sector. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1990. Wynot, Jennifer. “Keeping the Faith: Russian Orthodox Monasticism in the Soviet Union, 1917–1939.” PhD diss., Emory University, 2000. ———. Keeping the Faith: Russian Orthodox Monasticism in the Soviet Union, 1917–1939. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004. Xing, Jun. “Baptized in the Fire of Revolution: The American Social Gospel and the YMCA in China: 1919–1937.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1993. ———. Baptized in the Fire of Revolution: The American Social Gospel and the YMCA in China, 1919–1937. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 1996. Xing, Wenjun. “Social Gospel, Social Economics, and the YMCA: Sidney D.

Gamble and Princeton-in-Peking.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, 1992. Young, Glennys. Power and the Sacred in Revolutionary Russia: Religious Activists in the Village. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997. Zeiger, Susan. In Uncle Sam’s Service: Women Workers with the American Expeditionary Force, 1917–1919. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. Zhuk, Sergei I. Russia’s Lost Reformation: Peasants, Millennialism, and Radical Sects in Southern Russia and Ukraine, 1830–1917. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004.

SECONDARY SOURCES: ARTICLES AND BOOK CHAPTERS Altholz, Josef L. “Anglican-Orthodox Relations in the Nineteenth Century.” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 18/19 (2002/2003): 1–14. Andrews, F. Emerson. “Growth and Present Status of American Foundations.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 105 (1961): 157–61. Arzhakovskii, Anton. “Sviato-Sergievskii Pravoslavnyi Bogoslovskii Institut v Parizhe.” In Bogoslov, filosof, myslitel’: Iubileinye chteniia, posviashchennye 125letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia o. Sergiia Bulgakova (sentiabr’ 1996 g., Moskva), 109–28. Moscow: Dom-muzei Mariny Tsvetaevoi, 1999. “Assotsiatsiia khristianskoi molodezhi ameriki.” In Entsiklopediia rossiiskoamerikanskikh otnoshenii xviii–xx veka, E. A. Ivanian, 56–57. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 2001. Beran, Janice A. “Americans in the Philippines: Imperialism or Progress through Sport?” The International Journal of the History of Sport (Great Britain) 6 (1989): 62–87. Bird, Robert. “In Partibus Infidelium: Sergius Bulgakov and the YMCA (1906– 1940).” Symposion 1 (1996): 93–121. ———. “YMCA i sud’by russkoi religioznoi mysli (1906–1947).” In Issledovaniia po istorii russkoi mysli: Ezhegodnik za 2000, edited by M. A. Korelov, 165–223. Moscow: OGI, 2000. Bourdeaux, Michael. Review of No East or West by Paul B. Anderson. In Religion in Communist Lands 14, no. 2 (1986): 229–31. Bundy, Lester L. Review of No East or West by Paul B. Anderson. In Journal of Ecumenical Studies 25, no. 4 (Fall 1988): 625. Bunting, James F., et al. “The YMCA from 1939 to 1979.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 16 (1979): 87–94. Carter, Michael D. “The Crusade for God and Country: The Role of the YMCA in Europe and Russia, 1915–1920.” Fides et Historia 26, no. 3 (Fall 1994): 58–70. Chamberas, Peter A. “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky (1893–1979): Russian Intellectual Historian and Orthodox Theologian.” Modern Age 45 (2003): 49–66. Chernolutskaya, Elena. “Religious Communities in Harbin and Ethnic Identity of Russian Emigrés.” South Atlantic Quarterly 99, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 79–96. “Church and State in Russia: Towards Cooperation.” Review of People, Church and State in Modern Russia by Paul B. Anderson. Times Literary Supplement (London), May 6, 1944, 218. Coleman, Heather J. “Atheism versus Secularization? Religion in Soviet Russia, 1917–1961.” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 1, no. 3 (Summer 2000): 547–58. Curti, Merle. “American Philanthropy and the National Character.” American Quarterly 10 (1958): 420–37. ———. “Tradition and Innovation in American Philanthropy.” Proceedings of the

American Philosophical Society 105 (1961): 146–56. Davidann, Jon Thares. “The American YMCA in Meiji Japan: God’s Work Gone Awry.” Journal of World History 6 (1995): 107–125. Davis, Donald. “The American YMCA and the Russian Emigration.” Sobornost 9 (1987): 24–41. ———. “British Aid to Russian Churchmen, 1919–1939.” Sobornost 2, no. 1 (1980): 42– 56. ———. “Paul B. Anderson (1894–1985).” Sobornost 8, no. 1 (1986): 55–58. Davis, Donald E., and Eugene P. Trani. “An American in Russia: Russell M. Story and the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1919.” The Historian 36, no. 4 (August 1974): 704–21. ———. “The American YMCA and the Russian Revolution.” Slavic Review 33, no. 4 (September 1974): 469–91. Dixon, Simon. “The Church’s Social Role in St. Petersburg, 1880–1914.” In Church, Nation and State in Russia and Ukraine, edited by Geoffrey A. Hosking, 167–92. New York: St. Martin’s, 1991. ———. “The Orthodox Church and the Workers of St Petersburg 1880–1914.” In European Religion in the Age of Great Cities, 1830–1930, edited by Hugh McLeod, 119–41. New York: Routledge, 1995. Donovan, Mary Sudman. “Women as Foreign Missionaries in the Episcopal Church: 1830– 1920.” Anglican and Episcopal History 61 (1992): 16–39. Dumenil, Lynn. “Religion and Freemasonry in Late 19th-Century America.” In Freemasonry on Both Sides of the Atlantic: Essays Concerning the Craft in the British Isles, Europe, the United States, and Mexico, edited by R. William Weisberger, Wallace McLeod, and S. Brent Morris, 605–20. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Dunstan, John. “George A. Simons and the Khristianski Pobornik: A Neglected Source on St. Petersburg Methodism.” Methodist History 19 (October 1980): 21–40. Elliott, Mark. “Methodism in Russia and the Soviet Union.” In Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, edited by Joseph L. Wieczynski, 22:15– 18. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press, 1981. Epsy, R. H. Edwin. “In Appreciation of Paul B. Anderson.” In Aspects of Religion in the Soviet Union, edited by Richard H. Marshall Jr., 5–9. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. Ezova, L. D. “Pereosmyslenie opyta russkoi dukhovnoi kul’tury parizhskim zhurnalom ‘Put.’” In Rossiiskaia intelligentsiia na rodine i v zarubezh’e: Novye dokumenty i materialy, edited by Karen Zavenovich Akopian, 47–66. Moscow: Ministerstvo kul’tury Rossiiskoi Federatsii and Rossiiskii institut kul’turologii, 2001. Foglesong, David S. “Redeeming Russia? American Missionaries and Tsarist Russia, 1886– 1917.” Religion, State and Society 25, no. 4 (1997): 353–68. Freeze, G. L. “Handmaiden of the State? The Church in Imperial Russia Reconsidered.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36 (1985): 82–102. ———. “Recent Scholarship on Russian Orthodoxy: A Critique.” Kritika:

Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 2, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 269–78. Geffert, Bryn. “Sergii Bulgakov, the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, Intercommunion and Sofiology.” Revolutionary Russia 17, no. 1 (June 2004): 105–41. Giannuli, Dimitra. “American Philanthropy in Action: The American Red Cross in Greece, 1918–1923.” East European Politics and Societies 10 (1996): 108–32. Gillespie, Joanna B. “Mary Briscoe Baldwin (1811–1877), Single Woman Missionary and ‘Very Much My Own Mistress.’” Anglican and Episcopal History 57 (1988): 63–92. Goriainov, A. N. “Uchebnye zavedeniia russkoi emigratsii v Bolgarii.” In Kul’tura rossiiskogo zarubezh’ia, edited by A. V. Kvakin and E. A. Shulepova, 140–64. Moscow: Praim, 1995. Griffin, Nicholas J. “Chinese Labor and British Christian Missionaries in France, 1917–1919.” Journal of Church and State 20 (1978): 287–304. Grigortsevich, S. “Iz istorii amerikanskoi agressii na russkom dal’nem vostoke (1920–1922).” Voprosy istorii 8 (August 1951): 59–79. Gulyga, A. “Nachal’nyi period antisovetskoi interventsii SShA (1917–1918 gg.).” Voprosy istorii 3 (March 1950): 3–25. Ha, Nam-Gil, and J. A. Mangan. “A Curious Conjunction—Sport, Religion and Nationalism: Christianity and the Modern History of Korea.” The International Journal of the History of Sport (Great Britain) 11, no. 3 (December 1994): 329–54. Harakas, Stanley S. “Sergius Bulgakov and His Teaching.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 7 (1962): 92–105. Haskell, Peter Carl. “American Civil Religion and the Greek Immigration: Religious Confrontation before the First World War.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 18, no. 4 (1974): 166–92. Heald, Morrell. “Business Thought in the Twenties: Social Responsibility.” American Quarterly 13 (1961): 126–39. Hopko, Thomas. “Russian Orthodox Church.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Mircea Eliade, 12:488–491. New York: Macmillan, 1987. Hruby, Blahoslav, and Olga S. Hruby. “Dr. Paul B. Anderson Remembered.” Religion in Communist Dominated Areas 24 (1985): 98–99. Hutchison, William R. “Missionaries on the ‘Middle Ground’ in China.” Reviews in American History 25, no. 4 (1997): 631–36. Iatrides, John O. “Missionary Educators and the Asia Minor Disaster: Anatolia College’s Move to Greece.” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 4 (1986): 143–57. Ioffe, A. E. “Missiia Ruta v Rossii v 1917 godu.” Voprosy istorii 9 (1958): 87– 100. Irvin, Dale. “John R. Mott and World-Centered Mission.” Missiology: An International Review 12, no. 2 (April 1984): 155–65. Istavridis, Vasil T. “The Orthodox Youth and the Ecumenical Movement.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 2 (1956): 81–88. Ivanova, E. V. “Deiatel’nost’ izdatel’stva ‘YMCA-Press’ v Berline.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 188, no. 2 (2004): 334–63.

Kasinec, Edward. “Bibliographical Census: Russian Emigre Theologians and Philosophers in the Seminary Library Collection.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 16 (1972): 40– 44. Kenworthy, Scott. “Russian Reformation? The Program for Religious Renovation in the Orthodox Church, 1922–1925.” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 16/17 (2000/2001): 89–130. Kimbrough, S. T., Jr. “The Living Church Conflict in the Russian Orthodox Church and the Involvement of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” Methodist History 40, no. 2 (January 2002): 105–18. “Konstantin Vasil’evich Mochul’skii (1892–1948).” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 155, no. 1 (1989): 161–62. “Kratkaia istoriia vestnika R.S.Kh.D.” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 100, no. 2 (1971): 5–6. Kyrlezhev, A. I. “O. Sergii Bulgakov i [RSKhD] za rubezhom.” In Bogoslov, filosof, myslitel’: Iubileinye chteniia, posviashchennye 125-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia o. Sergiia Bulgakova (sentiabr’ 1996 g., Moskva), 82–89. Moscow: Dom-muzei Mariny Tsvetaevoi, 1999. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. “John R. Mott: A Centennial Appraisal.” Religion in Life 34 (1965): 371–82. Likachev, Dmitry S. “Religion: Russian Orthodoxy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Modern Russian Culture, edited by Nicholas Rzhevsky, 38–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Lilje, Hanns. “Some Notes on the History of the Ecumenical Movement.” Lutheran World 8 (1961): 126–38. Lindenmeyr, Adele. “The First Soviet Political Trial: Countess Sofia Panina before the Petrograd Revolutionary Tribunal.” Russian Review 60, no. 4 (2001): 505–25. ———. “The Rise of Voluntary Associations during the Great Reforms, the Case of Charity.” In Russia’s Great Reforms, 1855–1881, edited by Ben Eklof, John Bushnell, and Larissa Zakharova, 264–79. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. ———. “A Russian Experiment in Voluntarism: The Municipal Guardianships of the Poor, 1894–1914.” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas (West Germany) 30 (1982): 429–51. Long, John W., and C. Howard Hopkins. “The Church and the Russian Revolution: Conversations of John R. Mott with Orthodox Church Leaders, June–July 1917.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 20, no. 3 (1976): 161–80. Lotz, Denton. “The Watchword for World Evangelization: ‘The Evangelization of the World in this Generation.’” Baptist Quarterly (Great Britain) 34 (1992): 398–408. Lupkin, Paula. “A Temple of Practical Christianity.” Chicago History 24, no. 3 (1995): 22–41. Lutz, Jessie Gregory. “The Heyday of the China YMCA as Exemplified in the Career of Eugene Barnett, 1910–1936.” Republican China 17, no. 2 (1992): 5–29. Malone, Donald Carl. “A Methodist Venture in Bolshevik Russia.” Methodist

History 18 (July 1980): 239–61. Mascall, E. L., and Rowan Williams. “George Florovsky (1893–1979).” Sobornost 2, no. 1 (1980): 69–72. Meehan-Waters, Brenda. “From Contemplative Practice to Charitable Activity: Russian Women’s Religious Communities and the Development of Charitable Work, 1861–1917.” In Lady Bountiful Revisited: Women, Philanthropy, and Power, edited by Kathleen D. McCarthy, 142–56. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1990. Mews, Stuart. “Anglican Intervention in the Election of an Orthodox Patriarch, 1925–6.” In The Orthodox Churches and the West, edited by Derek Baker, 293–300. Oxford: Blackwell, 1976. Miliutina, Tamara. “Delo RSKhD v Estonii.” Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 171, nos. 1–2 (1995): 189ff. Miller, M. L. “Strast’ k chteniiu: Amerikanskoe izdatel’stvo ‘IMKA-Press’ i rossiiskie chitateli.” In Russkoe nasledie v stranakh vostochnoi i tsentral’noi evropy, edited by A. V. Antiukhov, 58–62. Bryansk, Russia: Brianskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet, 2010. Miller, Matthew L. “A Hunger for Books: The American YMCA Press and Russian Readers.” Religion, State and Society 38, no. 1 (March 2010): 53–73. Neill, Stephen. “An Historical Understanding.” Foundations 25 (1982): 9–21. Nestlehutt, Mark S. “Anglicans in Greece: The Episcopal Mission and the English Chaplaincy at Athens.” Anglican and Episcopal History 65 (1996): 293–313. Page, Benjamin B. “First Steps: The Rockefeller Foundation in Early Czechoslovakia.” East European Quarterly 35 (2001): 259–308. “Pamiati prof. L. A. Zandera: 19.2.1893–17.12.1964.” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 75/76, nos. 4–1 (1964/1965): 26–33. Pashkina, E. G. “Amerikanskaia organizatsiia ‘YMCA’ i russkaia emigratsiia pervoi poslerevoliutsionnoi volny.” Amerikanskii ezhegodnik (2010): 332–41. “Paul B. Anderson.” The Christian Century 102, no. 25 (1985): 730. Pierard, Richard V. “John R. Mott and the Rift in the Ecumenical Movement during World War I.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23, no. 4 (Fall 1986): 601–20. Pisiotis, Argyrios K. “The Unknown Dissent: The Prosopography of Clerical AntiTsarist Activism in Late Imperial Russia.” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 18/19 (2002/2003): 63–94. Plamper, Jan. “The Russian Orthodox Episcopate, 1721–1917: A Prosopography.” Journal of Social History 34 (2000): 5–34. Polunov, A. Iu. “Church, Regime, and Society in Russia (1880–1895).” Russian Studies in History 39 (2001): 33–53. ———. “Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev—Man and Politician.” Russian Studies in History 39 (2001): 8–32. ———. “The State and Religious Heterodoxy in Russia (from 1880 to the Beginning of the 1890s).” Russian Studies in History 39 (2001): 54–65. Poole, Randall A. “Utopianism, Idealism, Liberalism: Russian Confrontations with

Vladimir Solov’ev.” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 16/17 (2000/2001): 43–87. Porter, Robin. “Industrial Reformers in Republican China.” Chinese Studies in History 27, nos. 3–4 (1994): 3–276. Porter, Thomas Earl. “A Compromise between State and Society: The Philanthropic Activity of the General Zemstvo Organization in Russia, 1904–1914.” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 34, no. 4 (Winter 2000): 427–46. “Protopresbyter John Meyendorff (in Memoriam).” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 36, no. 3 (1992): 180–82. Pulcini, Theodore. “Russian Orthodoxy and Western Christianity: Confrontation and Accommodation.” In Russia and Western Civilization: Cultural and Historical Encounters, edited by Russell Bova, 78–112. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2003. Putney, Clifford. “Character Building in the YMCA, 1880–1930.” Mid-America 73 (1991): 49– 70. Raeff, Marc. “Enticements and Rifts: Georges Florovsky as Historian of the Life of the Mind and the Life of the Church in Russia.” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 6 (1990): 187–244. ———. “Iz pod glyb and the History of Russian Social Thought.” Russian Review 34 (1975): 476–88. Raffensperger, Christian. “Revisiting the Idea of the Byzantine Commonwealth.” Byzantinische Forschungen 28 (2004): 159–74. Remnick, David. “The Exile Returns.” New Yorker, February 14, 1994, 64–83. Richardson, Malcolm. “Philanthropy and the Internationality of Learning: The Rockefeller Foundation and National Socialist Germany.” Minerva (Great Britain) 28 (1990): 21–58. Rostovtsev, Andrei. “‘Britanskoe Bibleiskoe Obshchestvo’ i rasprostranenie Biblii: Torgovlia ‘dukhovnoi sivukhoi’ v Rossii.” Bezbozhnik, no. 24 (December 1927): 5–9. Saloutos, Theodore. “American Missionaries in Greece: 1820–1869.” Church History 24 (1955): 152–74. Schapiro, Leonard B. “The Vekhi Group and the Mystique of Revolution.” In Readings in Russian History. Vol. 2, The Modern Period, edited by Sidney Harcave, 115–33. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1962. Schumacher, Horst. “50 Jahre YMCA-Press.” Osteuropa (West Germany) 22 (1972): 754–56. Scorer, Peter. “Alexander Schmemann (1921–83).” Sobornost 6, no. 2 (1984): 64–69. Seregny, Scott J. “Zemstvos, Peasants, and Citizenship: The Russian Adult Education Movement and the World War I.” Slavic Review 59, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 290–315. Setran, David P. “Student Religious Life in the ‘Era of Secularization’: The Intercollegiate YMCA, 1877–1940.” History of Higher Education Annual 21 (2001): 7–45. “60th Anniversary of St. Sergius Institute, Paris.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 29, no. 3 (1985): 258–60.

Shchukin, S. “V. F. Martsinkovskii, 1884–1971.” Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia 101/102, nos. 3–4 (1971): 322–24. Shevzov, Vera. “Icons, Miracles, and the Ecclesial Identity of Laity in Late Imperial Russian Orthodoxy.” Church History 69 (2000): 610–31. Spurr, Geoffrey D. “The London YMCA: A Haven of Masculine Self-Improvement and Socialization for the Late-Victorian and Edwardian Clerk.” Canadian Journal of History 37 (2002): 275–301. Stammler, Heinrich A. “Russian Orthodoxy in Recent Protestant Church History and Theology.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 23 (1979): 207–16. Steeves, P. D. “Berdyaev, Nikolai Aleksandrovich.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 133–34. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984. ———. “The Orthodox Tradition.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 804–8. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984. Stolberg, Benjamin. “Communist Wreckers in American Labor.” Saturday Evening Post 212, no. 10 (September 2, 1939): 5–7, 32–36. Struve, Nikita. “Retrieving the Lost (Interview with Nikita Struve).” Interview by V. Semenko. Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate 1 (1991): 43–45. Timberlake, Charles E. “Religious Pluralism, the Spread of Revolutionary Ideas, and the Church-State Relationship in Tsarist Russia.” In Religious and Secular Forces in Late Tsarist Russia, edited by Charles E. Timberlake, 3–29. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1992. Tollefson, Terry. “American Missionary Schools for Cyprus (1834–1842): A Case Study in Cultural Differences.” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 10/11 (1994/1995): 37–87. Turan, Ömer. “American Protestant Missionaries and Monastir, 1912–17: Secondary Actors in the Construction of Balkan Nationalisms.” Middle Eastern Studies 36, no. 4 (October 2000): 119–36. Urry, James. “John Melville and the Mennonites: A British Evangelist in South Russia, 1837–ca 1875.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 54 (1980): 305–22. Volf, Miroslav. “The Eighth Day of Creation: From a Russian Orthodox Philosopher, a Provocative Alternative to Modernity.” Books and Culture, January/February 2004, 24–25. von Mohrenschildt, Dimitri. “The Early American Observers of the Russian Revolution, 1917– 1921.” Russian Review 3 (1943): 64–74. Vorontsov, G. V. “Tserkovno-emigrantskaia fal’sifikatsiia religioznogo voprosa v SSSR.” Voprosy nauchnogo ateisma 10 (1970): 372–94. Wanner, Catherine. “Missionaries of Faith and Culture: Evangelical Encounters in Ukraine.” Slavic Review 63, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 732–55. Ware, Kallistos. “Nicolas Zernov (1898–1980).” Sobornost 3 (1981): 11–32. Weeks, Charles J. “A Samaritan in Russia: Vice Admiral Newton A. McCully’s Humanitarian Efforts, 1914–1920.” Military Affairs 52 (1988): 12–17. Williams, Wayne. “Ministry and Espionage: The YMCA in Ukraine 1915–1918.” The Ukrainian Quarterly 32 (1976): 152–60.

———. “The Y.M.C.A., American Diplomacy and the Ukrainian Republic.” New Review 12, no. 4 (1972): 20–46. Yannaras, Christos. “Orthodoxy and the West.” Eastern Churches Review 3 (1971): 286–300. Zacek, Judith Cohen. “The Russian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church.” Church History 25 (1966): 411–37. Zatko, James J. “The Vatican and Famine Relief in Russia.” Slavonic and East European Review 42 (1963): 54–63. Zebrowski, Piotr T. “Symbol of Symmetrical Development: The Reception of the YMCA in Poland.” The International Journal of the History of Sport (Great Britain) 8, no. 1 (1991): 96–110.

Index A ABCFM See American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions ABS See American Baptist Society Aivazov, Ivan Georgievich, 1 Akhmatova, Anna, 1 Aleksandrovich, Michael, 1 Aleksy I, 1 , 2 Alexander I, 1 Allen, P. MacGregor, 1 allied soldiers, 1 , 2 Ambartsumov, V. A., 1 AMEITO See Association for the Support and Maintenance of the Orthodox Theological Institute American Baptist Society (ABS), 1 American Bible Society, 1 American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM), 1 American Consular Service, 1 American Protestant missionaries, 1 American Red Cross, 1 American Relief Administration (ARA), 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 American-Russian program, 1 American YMCA Bulgarian YMCA funded by, 1 Civil War and secretaries captured from, 1 depression’s impact on, 1 divinity of Jesus Christ and membership in, 1 Eastern Orthodoxy shifting attitude of, 1 ministry plans developed by, 1 national context of, 1 RSCM work of, 1 Russia and, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Russian Orthodox and, 1 , 2 socialism discussions of, 1 two-part strategy of, 1 U.S. government interdependent with, 1 Zernov’s appreciation for, 1 Amoss, Ulius L., 1 analytical archival research, 1

Anatoly, bishop, 1 Anchor youth association, 1 Anderson, H. D., 1 , 2 Anderson, Harvey Winfred, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Anderson, P. F., 1 Anderson, Paul B., 1 , 2 Bolsheviks arresting, 1 ecumenical movement encouraged by, 1 Harte comments of, 1 as influential leader, 1 , 2 life goals of, 1 local professional society formed by, 1 Lubianka imprisonment of, 1 , 2 omnipresence of, 1 Orthodox Christian culture preservation desire of, 1 Orthodox Theological Institute aided by, 1 Orthodox vision championed by, 1 Pashkov movement influence comments of, 1 People, Church and State in Modern Russia (PCSMR) by, 1 Petrograd arrival of, 1 RSCM and, 1 , 2 Russian Correspondence School implementation by, 1 Russian Orthodoxy conservative elements conflict and, 1.1-1.2 Russian YMCA staff members and, 1 service of, 1 Solzhenitsyn, A., meeting, 1 “The YMCA and the Russian Orthodox Church” by, 1 YMCA Press and, 1 YMCA Publishers established by, 1 , 2 Anglo-Catholic theologians, 1 Anrep, Vasily von, 1 Antireligioznik, 1 , 2 Antony, Metropolitan, 1 , 2 apostolic Christianity, 1 ARA See American Relief Administration Arkhipelag GULag (Solzhenitsyn, A.), 1 Association for the Support and Maintenance of the Orthodox Theological Institute (AMEITO), 1 Association Men, 1

T The Association Outlook, 1 The Assurance of Immortality (Fosdick), 1

A atheistic philosophy, 1 Athenagoras, Metropolitan, 1 Athens, Greece, 1 , 2 autocracy, 1

B Baker, Miller, 1 Balkans, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4.1-4.2 Ballantine, William G., 1 , 2 Balmont, Konstantin, 1 Banton, W. W., 1 , 2 Barnes, Michael Craig, 1 Batiushkin, N. S., 1 Beard, A. F., 1 Belgrade, 1 , 2 Beliaev, Mikhail Alekseevich, 1 Belov, A. V., 1 Benes, Eduard, 1 Berdyaev, Nikolai, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 as anti-Bolshevik, 1 confessional approach pushed by, 1 RSCM experience explained by, 1 “The Spirit of the Grand Inquisitor” by, 1 YMCA Press and, 1 , 2 Bezbozhnik (The Godless), 1 , 2 BFBS See British and Foreign Bible Society Bible, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5

T The Big Show in Bololand: The American Relief Expedition to Soviet (Patenaude), 1

B Billington, James, 1 Bird, Robert, 1 Blok, Aleksandr, 1 Boardman, Richard, 1 Bodelschwingh, Friedrich von, 1 Boegner, Marc, 1 Bog-vernyi sluga kapital (God-a Faithful Servant of Capital), 1 Bolsheviks

Anderson, P. B., arrested by, 1 Berdyaev as anti-, 1 Russians and, 1 , 2 Russian YMCA offices closed by, 1 seizure of power by, 1 YMCA’s ideological struggle with, 1 Bookwalter, John, 1 Boris, king, 1 Bourdeaux, Michael, 1 Bratskii Vestnik (Fraternal Herald), 1 Brechet, Marie, 1 , 2 Brest-Litovsk peace settlement, 1.1-1.2 , 2

T The Bride of the Lamb (Bulgakov, S.), 1

B British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), 1 Brown, James W., 1 , 2 , 3 Brusilov, Aleksei Alekseevich, 1 Bulgakov, Sergei, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 books by, 1 , 2 , 3 “By the River Kebar” address of, 1 death of, 1 Russian Orthodoxy and, 1 , 2 , 3 St. Sergius teaching of, 1 Bulgakov, V. F., 1 Bulgaria, 1 , 2 Bunin, Ivan, 1

T The Burning Bush (Bulgakov, S.), 1

“ “By the River Kebar”, 1

C Calvin, John, 1 Cancer Ward (Solzhenitsyn, A.), 1 Carter, Michael D., 1 Catholics, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5.1-5.2 , 6

Chagall, Marc, 1 Chaliapin, Fyodor, 1 character-building sports, 1 Chekhov Publishing House, 1 Chertkov, V. G., 1

T The Christian Century, 1

C Christianity apostolic, 1 Bible interpretations in, 1 Eastern, 1 indigenous leadership important in, 1 modern, 1 , 2 muscular, 1.1-1.2 Muslims and adoption of, 1 , 2 Protestants, 1 , 2.1-2.2 , 3 YMCA’s role in expansion of, 1

“ “Christianity and Civilization” (lecture), 1 , 2

C Christian Movement of Russian Students in America, 1 Christian Peasant Youth Movement, 1 Chrysostom, John, 1 Church History (Kurtz), 1 churchification of life, 1 , 2 citizens, 1 , 2 Civil War, 1 , 2 , 3 Coleman, Heather, 1 Colton, Ethan, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 American Relief Administration work of, 1 , 2 Eastern Orthodox hierarchy relationships developed by, 1 Orthodox and Protestant common ground and, 1 Orthodoxy’s Living Church work of, 1 RSCM working in secrecy and, 1 “The Russian Orthodox Church - A Spiritual Liability or Asset?” by, 1 Russian Orthodox Church comments of, 1 Colton, T., Sr., 1

T The Comforter (Bulgakov, S.), 1

C Committee for the Promotion of Moral and Physical Development of Young Men, 1 Communism, 1 Communist Youth Association, 1 Communist youth movement, 1 community, sense of, 1 condemned ecclesiasticism, 1 conferences, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 confessional approach, 1 , 2 conservatives, 1 , 2.1-2.2 , 3.1-3.2 , 4 , 5 , 6 controversies, 1 , 2 , 3 Corcoran, Albert T., 1 , 2 correspondence programs, 1 Council of Chalcedon, 1 Crane, Charles R., 1

T The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy (Evtuhov), 1

C cross-cultural work, 1 Cyprus, 1

D Daniel, Robert L., 1 Davidann, Jon Thares, 1 Davis, Donald E., 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Davis, Jerome, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Dawn (Zaria), 1 Day, George, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Dean, J. W., 1 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Gibbon), 1 Demons (Besy) (Dostoevsky), 1 discriminatory restrictions, 1 Dixon, Simon, 1 Dostoevsky, Fyodor, 1 Drummond, Henry, 1

Dudko, Dimitry, 1 Dunnington, Louis, 1 Dzerzhinsky, Felix, 1

E Eastern Christianity, 1 Eastern Orthodoxy American YMCA’s shifting attitude toward, 1 Banton’s policy of limited support for, 1 Colton, E., developing relationships with hierarchy of, 1 Mott supporting, 1 YMCA and, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Ebersole, Amos, 1 , 2

T The Echo (Ekho), 1

E economic hardship, 1 economic problems, 1 ecumenical movement, 1 , 2 Eddy, Sherwood, 1 , 2.1-2.2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Edinburgh Missionary Conference (1910), 1

L Les Editeurs Réunis (United Publishers), 1

“ “The Educated Man and the Gospel”, 1

E education, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Ekho (The Echo), 1 Elchaninov, Kirill, 1

É émigrés, 1 in Harbin, China, 1 Orthodox Church contributions of, 1 Paris and, 1 preparatory engineering courses for, 1

of RSCM, 1 , 2 , 3 Russian Civil War causing, 1 Russian Orthodox Church role in, 1 Russian press of, 1 Russia’s residential culture reintegration with, 1 YMCA’s program for, 1.1-1.2 YMCA working with Eastern Orthodox, 1

E engineering courses, 1 EON See National Youth Organization Episcopal missionaries, 1 Eremin, Nikolai, 1 Estonia, 1.1-1.2 European Student Relief, 1 Evangelical Protestantism, 1 , 2 , 3 evangelistic services, 1

T The Evangelization of the World in This Generation (Mott), 1

E Evlogy, Metropolitan, 1 , 2 , 3 seminary building purchase request of, 1 YMCA and Masonry connection addressed by, 1 , 2 YMCA contributions compliments of, 1 Evtuhov, Catherine, 1

T The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks, 1

E Ezova, L. D., 1

F Facing Young Men with the Living Christ (Mott), 1 faculty members, 1 famine aid, 1 February Revolution, 1 , 2 , 3 Federal Council of Churches of Christ, 1 Fedotov, G., 1 , 2 , 3

Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1 Feodorovna, Alexandra, 1 Feofan of Sofia, archbishop, 1 Ferhmann, H., 1 financial gift, 1 financial support, 1 First Evangelical Church, 1 First Russian Legion, 1 Fisher, George, 1 Fisk, Pliny, 1 Florensky, Pavel, 1 , 2 Florovsky, Georges, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Foglesong, David, 1 food programs, 1 Foreign Affairs, 1 Foreign Committee of the International Committee, 1 Fosdick, Harry, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 France, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Fraternal Herald (Bratskii Vestnik), 1 Fredericks, Vladimir, 1 freedom, 1 , 2 freemasonry, 1 Free Philosophical Academy, 1 Freeze, Gregory, 1 French Orthodox Institute, 1 , 2 French Orthodoxy, 1

T The Friend of the Bridegroom (Bulgakov, S.), 1

F funding of Bulgarian YMCA, 1 for Mayak program, 1.1-1.2 Mott’s leadership, 1 Orthodox Theological Institute and, 1 , 2 Russian pastoral training, 1 YMCA’s POW, 1 fundraising campaign, 1

T The Future Leadership of the Church (Mott), 1

G Gates, Edith, 1 Gaylord, Franklin A., 1 , 2 low profile kept by, 1 Mayak program led by, 1 , 2.1-2.2 Orthodox church’s liberal wing comments of, 1 Russian political situation comments of, 1 as first YMCA worker living in Russia, 1 Geffert, Bryn, 1 Germaize, Anna Georgievna, 1 German Protestants, 1 Germany, 1 , 2 , 3 Gerrare, Wirt, 1 Gershenzon, Mikhail, 1 Giannuli, Dimitra M., 1 Gibbon, Edward, 1 Ginsburg, M. A., 1 Gladden, Washington, 1 global outreach, 1

“ “The Goal of Higher Education”, 1

G God-a Faithful Servant of Capital (Bog-vernyi sluga kapital), 1

T The Godless (Bezbozhnik), 1 , 2

G Gospel of Mark textbook, 1 Gott, Herbert, 1.1-1.2 , 2 government, U.S., 1 Grace Astounding in Bolshevik Russia (McCaig), 1 Great Words of Life (Rubakin), 1 , 2 Greece, 1 , 2 Greene, Robert H., 1 Gregory, Herbert, 1 Gromov, A. A., 1 gymnastic exhibition, 1 gymnastics hall, 1

H Haag, Howard L., 1 Hague Conventions of 1899, 1 Hapgood, Isabel F., 1 Harbin, China, 1 Harbin YMCA, 1 , 2 Harnack, Adolf, 1 , 2 Harper, William Rainey, 1 Harte, Archie, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Hatfield, C. C., 1 Heald, Edward T., 1 Hecker, J. F., 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Hedda, Jennifer, 1 Henderson, H. A., 1 Herald of the Russian Christian Movement, 1 Hibbard, C. V., 1 Hibbard, Darrell O., 1 Hicks, Clarence, 1 Hinze, S. A., 1 History of Russian Philosophy (Zenkovsky), 1

A A History of the Christian Church (Walker), 1

H History of the Christian Church (Fisher), 1 Hollinger, Ralph Wall, 1 , 2 Hoover, Herbert, 1 Hopko, Thomas, 1 Horton, George, 1 Hruby, Blahoslav, 1 Hughes, Thomas, 1 humanitarian activities, 1

I Iashchenko, Aleksandr Semenovich, 1 IMKA TISK (YMCA Publishers), 1 imperialism, 1 imperialist zaslon, 1 independent internationalism, 1 indigenous leadership, 1

indigenous student ministry, 1 Individual Work for Individuals (Mott), 1 intercollegiate YMCA, 1 interconfessional ministry, 1 , 2 , 3.1-3.2 , 4 , 5 interdenominational ministry, 1 Isaac the Syrian, 1 Ivanov, Vyacheslav, 1 , 2 Ivanova, L., 1 Iz pod glyb (From Under the Rubble) (Solzhenitsyn, A.), 1

J Jacob’s Ladder (Bulgakov, S.), 1 Jesus Christ, 1 , 2 , 3 Jews, 1 , 2 Joasaph II, patriarch, 1 Johannot, Henri, 1 Johnston, Robert C., 1 Journal of Church and State, 1 Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, 1

K Kandidov, Boris, 1 Kandinsky, Vasily, 1 Karev, Aleksandr, 1 Karpovitch, M. M., 1 Kartashev, A. V., 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 nondenominational movement debate presented by, 1 Radstock ministry comparison of, 1 YMCA Press comments of, 1 Kassow, Samuel, 1 Keeny, S. M., 1 Khilkov, Ivanovich, 1 Khristianin journal, 1 Kiev, 1 , 2 Kingdom of God, 1 Kingsley, Charles, 1 Kirill, Metropolitan, 1 Kivelson, Valerie A., 1 Kizenko, Nadieszda, 1 Klepinin, Dimitri, 1 , 2 Kniazev, Aleksei, 1

Kokutsov, Vladimir, 1 Koni, Anatolii Fedorovich, 1 Koshkin, S. I., 1 Kostikov, Viacheslav, 1 Kotva (Anchor) youth association, 1 Koulomzin, Sophie, 1 , 2.1-2.2 Krutchkov, I. S., 1 Kuleshov, Lev, 1 Kuleshova, Olga Ivanovna, 1 Kullmann, Gustave Gerard, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 confessional approach of, 1 with émigré RSCM, 1 Harte recruiting, 1 Orthodox vision championed by, 1 Russian Orthodoxy conversion of, 1 Russian work in Germany led by, 1 Kuprin, Aleksandr, 1 Kuropatkin, Aleksei Nikolaevich, 1 Kurtz, J. H., 1

L Lagovsky, Ivan Arkadievich, 1

T The Lamb of God (Bulgakov, S.), 1

L Lansdale, Herbert P., Jr., 1 , 2.1-2.2 Latimer, Robert Sloan, 1 , 2 Latvia, 1.1-1.2 leadership Anderson, P. B., influential in, 1 , 2 Bulgakov, S., Russian Orthodox, 1 Hecker expelled from, 1 indigenous, 1 Mott and, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 St. Sergius Theological Academy training of, 1 YMCA Press, 1 League of Militant Godless, 1 lecture series, 1 Lenin, Vladimir, 1 , 2 Levin, I. D., 1

Lewis, Brackett, 1 , 2 liberal Christian social service organization, 1 liberal Protestants, 1 , 2 Library of Foreign Literature, 1.1-1.2 Life (Zoe), 1

T The Light of Russia (Lowrie), 1

L Likhachev, Dmitry Sergeevich, 1 Lindenmeyr, Adele, 1 Liperovsky, Lev, 1 , 2 , 3 Litvinov, Maxim, 1 Living Church, 1 Lowrie, Donald A., 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 with émigré RSCM, 1 indigenous student ministry goal of, 1 The Light of Russia by, 1 “A Method of Bible Study for Orthodox Groups” by, 1 Moscow civilian city YMCA opened by, 1 POW work of, 1 YMCA Press and, 1 , 2 Lubianka, 1 , 2 Lucaris, Cyril, 1 Lunacharsky, Anatoly, 1 , 2 Lvov, V. N., 1

M MacNaughten, Edgar, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4.1-4.2 , 5 magazine (Niva), 1 Makarov, N. P., 1 Maksimovskaya, Varvara, 1

T The Manhood of the Master (Fosdick), 1 , 2 , 3

M manliness, 1 Martens, Cornelius, 1 martial law, 1

Martsinkovsky, Vladimir, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 arrest of, 1 exile of, 1 interconfessional ministry work of, 1.1-1.2 as movement leader, 1 Orthodoxy and evangelical elements combined by, 1 Marxism, 1 Masonry, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Master and Margarita (Bulgakov, S.), 1 Mathews, Shailer, 1 Mayak program, 1 American staff forced to leave Petrograd of, 1 first facility for, 1 Foreign Committee of the International Committee directing, 1 full state registration received by, 1 funding for, 1.1-1.2 Gaylord leading, 1 , 2.1-2.2 gymnastics hall built for, 1 with Jews, 1 Khilkov’s founding assistance for, 1 membership participation in, 1 non-Christian membership forbidden in, 1 as official YMCA organization, 1 Orthodox clergy cooperation with, 1 participation in, 1.1-1.2 , 2 prerevolutionary club study of, 1 records lost of, 1 Russian perception of, 1 sense of community created by, 1 in St. Petersburg, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 staff additions to, 1 Stokes and, 1 , 2 student participation and, 1 temporary permit issued to, 1 in Vladivostok, 1 YMCA sponsoring, 1 McCaig, A., 1

T The Meaning of Faith (Fosdick), 1 The Meaning of Prayer (Fosdick), 1

M

Mefody, Archbishop, 1 Melancthon, Philip, 1 men, 1 , 2.1-2.2 Men, Alexander, 1 Mencken, H. L., 1 Mennonites, 1 Meredith, Frederic Charles, 1 , 2 , 3 Merezhkovsky, Dmitry, 1 Meshchaninov, Ivan Vasilievich, 1 , 2 Messenger (Vestnik) journal, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Messenger of Self-education (Viestnik samoobrazovaniia), 1 Messenger of the Russian Christian Movement (Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia), 1 Metaxas, Ioannis (John), 1 Methodism, 1

“ “A Method of Bible Study for Orthodox Groups” (Lowrie), 1

M Meyendorff, John, 1 Middle East Protestants, 1 ministry plans, 1 Minneapolis YMCA, 1 Mirovozzrenie Dostoevskogo (The Worldview of Dostoevsky), 1 missionaries, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5.1-5.2 , 6

T The Missionary Review of the World, 1 , 2

M modern Christianity, 1 , 2 Moody, Dwight L., 1 Moraller, Erich, 1 , 2 , 3 Morgan, William H., 1 Morozov, Ivan, 1 , 2 Moscow, 1 , 2 Moscow Bureau of Physical Culture, 1 Mott, John R., 1 , 2 , 3 arrest of, 1 Civil Wars impact message of, 1 criticism of, 1

Eastern Orthodox theology support from, 1 ecumenical movement encourage by, 1 The Evangelization of the World in This Generation by, 1 Facing Young Men with the Living Christ by, 1 financial gift arranged by, 1 five priorities of, 1 funding leadership of, 1 The Future Leadership of the Church by, 1 Hecker expelled from leadership by, 1 Individual Work for Individuals by, 1 as influential leader, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 meetings led by, 1 as modern Christianity exemplar, 1 philosophical and organizational direction from, 1 Rockefeller meeting, 1 Russian diplomatic mission of, 1 Russian students spiritual condition comments of, 1 Stefan meeting, 1 Wilson and, 1 , 2 Moxom, Philip S., 1 Mt. Hermon Hundred, 1 muscular Christianity, 1.1-1.2 Muslims, 1 , 2 , 3

N Nabokov, Vladimir, 1 Naismith, James A., 1 National Council of Churches, 1 National Youth Organization (EON), 1 , 2 Near East, 1 Neill, Stephen, 1 Neopatristic Revival, 1 Nestor, bishop, 1 Neulsen, John L., 1

T The New Russian Book (Novaia russkaia kniga), 1

N New Theology, 1 , 2 New York Times, 1 Nicholas (emperor), 1

Nicholas II (emperor), 1 , 2 Nicolay, Pavel, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4.1-4.2 , 5 , 6 Niederhauser, James, 1 Nikitin, Aleksandr, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Nikitin, C. A., 1 Nikodim, bishop, 1 Nikolai, bishop, 1 , 2 Nikolai, Metropolitan, 1 Niva (magazine), 1 Nobel, Emmanuel Ludvigovich, 1 , 2 non-Christian membership, 1 nondenominational movement, 1 Novaia russkaia kniga (The New Russian Book), 1 Novikov, Nikolai, 1 Novitsky, A. F., 1 Novoe vremia, 1 , 2 Novyi grad journal, 1 , 2 Nystrom, Joel, 1

O Objectives, Principles, and Programme of Y.M.C.A.’s in Orthodox Countries, 1 Obolensky, Alexei Dmitrievich, 1 Obolensky, Platon Sergeevich, 1 October Revolution, 1 , 2 , 3 Oldenburg, Prince, 1 Orthodox Christian culture, 1 Orthodox Theological Institute, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Orthodox theology, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Orthodox Thought (Pravoslavnaia mysl’), 1 Orthodox Youth Movement, 1 Orzhevskaia, Natalia Ivanovna, 1 Osnovy khristianskago soiuza molodykh liudei booklet, 1 Ottoman Empire, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Overseas Training School, 1

P Panina, Sophia, 1 Pankhurst, Jerry G., 1 Paris, France, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Pashkov, Vasily, 1 Pashkov movement, 1

Patenaude, Bertrand M., 1 patriarchal church, 1 Penkin, Nikolai Nikolaevich, 1 Penningroth, Louis P., 1 People, Church and State in Modern Russia (PCSMR) (Anderson, P. B.), 1 Peters, Yakov Kristoforovich, 1 Petrograd, 1 , 2 Petrovich, Aleksandr, 1 , 2 , 3 Phelps, George Sidney, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 philanthropic programs, 1 , 2 , 3 philhellenic movement, 1 physical culture, 1 , 2 Pianov, Fyodor, 1 , 2 Platonov, Andrei, 1 Platonov, Sergei Feodorovich, 1 Pobedonostsev, Konstantin, 1 , 2 political persecution, 1 Poole, DeWitt Clinton, Jr., 1 , 2 Popular Temperance Committee, 1 Poverty Is Not a Vice: Charity, Society, and the State in Imperial Russia (Lindenmeyr), 1 POWs prisoner condition as, 1 soldiers and civilians as, 1 YMCA secretaries and, 1 , 2.1-2.2 YMCA’s funding for, 1 Pravoslavnaia mysl’ (Orthodox Thought), 1 prerevolutionary club study, 1 prerevolutionary leaders, 1 Prerov, Czechoslovakia, 1 printing plant, 1 Problems of the Russian Religious Mind (Problemy russkogo religioznogo soznaniia), 1 , 2

A A Prodigal Saint: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian People (Kizenko), 1

P professional society, 1 Prokhanov, Ivan, 1 Protestants Christianity, 1 , 2.1-2.2 , 3 Evangelical, 1 , 2 , 3

German, 1 liberal, 1 , 2 Middle East, 1 modernism, 1.1-1.2 Orthodox common ground and, 1 philanthropic program perspective of, 1 Russian, 1 Russian Orthodox Church and responses of, 1 See also Evangelical Protestantism Puti russkogo bogosloviia (Ways of Russian Theology) (Florovsky), 1 Put’ journal, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5

Q Quakers, 1

R Radstock, Lord, 1 , 2 Raeff, Marc, 1 , 2 , 3 Russia Abroad by, 1 , 2 , 3 Russia Abroad life span estimated by, 1 St. Sergius Theological Academy endorsed by, 1 Rakhmaninov, Sergei, 1 Rauschenbusch, Walter, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Razumovsky, G. I., 1 Red Cross, 1 Redding, Tracy, 1 Reed, Jack, 1 refugees, 1 , 2 , 3 Religiia v ideologicheskoi bor’be (Belov and Shilkin), 1 religion, 1 educational programs on, 1 freedom of, 1 nationalism of, 1 repentant Marxists accusations and, 1 restrictions of, 1 Russian émigrés needs of, 1 Soviet Russia’s opposition to, 1 Religion in Communist Dominated Areas, 1 Religion in the Service of American Capital (League of Militant Godless), 1

“

“Religious Movements among Students of Different Lands” (lecture), 1

R Religious-Philosophical Academy, 1 , 2 repentant Marxists, 1 revolutionary situation, 1 Richter, Julius, 1 Riess, Lewis W., 1 Robbins, Raymond, 1 Rockefeller, John D., Jr., 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Romania, 1 , 2 , 3 Root, Elihu, 1 Root Mission, 1 , 2 RSCM See Russian Student Christian Movement Rubakin, N. A., 1 , 2 , 3 rue-de-la-Montagne-Sainte-Geneviève facility, 1 Russia Allied intervention and YMCA’S participation in, 1 American YMCA and, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Anderson, H. D., promoting physical education in, 1 Bible translation into language of, 1 Bolshevism or democracy in, 1 Davis, J., work in, 1 , 2 émigré and residential culture reintegration in, 1 émigré press in, 1 freemasonry appearing in, 1 Gaylord comments on political situation in, 1 Gaylord first YMCA worker living in, 1 higher education in, 1 Kullmann working in Germany with, 1 Methodism established in, 1 Mott’s diplomatic mission to, 1 nine-month training programs in, 1 RSCM’s dual purpose in, 1 student population growth in, 1 U.S. rehabilitation work in, 1 Wheeler wartime work goals in, 1.1-1.2 World War I publishing efforts of, 1 YMCA and, 1 , 2 , 3.1-3.2 , 4 , 5 YMCA Associate secretaries working in, 1 YMCA Press and, 1 , 2 YMCA publishing challenges in, 1 YMCA’s work in, 1 , 2.1-2.2 , 3

See also Soviet Russia Russia Abroad, 1 Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919-1939 (Raeff), 1 , 2 , 3 Russians American presence resentment of, 1 Bolshevik objections of, 1 economic hardship and political persecution of, 1 Masonic word used by, 1 Mayak program perception of, 1 pastoral training for, 1 religious thought textbooks of, 1 Russian Civil War, 1 Russian Correspondence School, 1 , 2 , 3 Russian Culture at the Crossroads (Pankhurst), 1 Russian émigrés, 1 donations from within community of, 1 in Germany, 1 publishers of, 1 religious needs of, 1 RSCM work opposed by clergy of, 1 Russian Expeditionary Force, 1 Russian Far East, 1 Russian Fascists, 1 Russian Orthodox Church Anglo-Catholic theologians dialogue with, 1 Bible society serving alongside, 1 Bulgakov, S., and, 1 , 2 , 3 challenges facing, 1 Colton, E., comments on, 1 Colton, E., Living Church work for, 1 as condemned ecclesiasticism, 1 émigré culture’s role of, 1 Gaylord’s liberal wing comments of, 1 Meredith’s message on doctrine of, 1 Middle East Protestants encountering, 1 in modern imperial period, 1 Pobedonostsev supervising, 1 Protestant responses to, 1 religious restrictions enforced by, 1 spiritual crisis in, 1 YMCA and, 1 , 2 , 3

“ “The Russian Orthodox Church - A Spiritual Liability or Asset?” (Colton), 1

R Russian Orthodoxy American YMCA and, 1 , 2 Anderson, P. B., addressing conflicts between YMCA and, 1.1-1.2 Bulgakov, S., and, 1 , 2 , 3 Colton, E., and Protestant common ground with, 1 defining, 1 Hecker’s disregard of, 1 Kullmann converting to, 1 Martsinkovsky combining elements of evangelical with, 1 Mayak program’s cooperation with, 1 RSCM and, 1 , 2.1-2.2 YMCA and, 1 , 2 YMCA Press contributions to, 1 See also Eastern Orthodoxy See also Russian Orthodox Church Russian Polytechnical School, 1 Russian Protestantism, 1 Russian Student Christian Movement (RSCM), 1 , 2 American YMCA working with, 1 Anderson, P. B., reporting participants exiled of, 1 annual conferences of, 1 Belgrade circle withdrawing from, 1 Berdyaev explaining experience of, 1 Bible study organized by, 1 budget of, 1 central ideas of, 1 churchification disagreements of, 1 controversies developing within, 1 cross-cultural work of, 1 discriminatory restrictions on, 1 economic problems of, 1 émigrés of, 1 , 2 , 3 fundraising campaign of, 1 Karev’s experience and training from, 1 Kullmann and Lowrie with émigré, 1 lecture series of, 1 martial law restricting large meetings of, 1 Moscow’s spreading of, 1 Orthodoxy students attracted to, 1 Paris headquarters of, 1

prerevolutionary leaders of, 1 Russian émigrés clergy opposing work of, 1 Russian Orthodoxy and, 1 , 2.1-2.2 Russia’s dual purpose of, 1 Samara conference of, 1 Soviet writers commemorating, 1 Stalin’s regime and, 1 Studencheskii listok of, 1 student community growth and, 1 united movement of, 1 western organizations philosophy of, 1 World War I decline of, 1 World War II creating challenges for, 1 YMCA and, 1 , 2 YMCA Press ownership transferred to, 1 , 2 YMCA Press responsibilities transferred to, 1 YMCA secretaries fulfilling purpose of, 1.1-1.2 Zernova, M., conference memories of, 1 Russian students Anderson, H. W. analysis of conflict with, 1 Day’s work with, 1 financial support to, 1 ministry plans developed by, 1 Mott’s comments on spiritual condition of, 1 Nicolay sensing moral and spiritual needs of, 1 Prerov conference of, 1 YMCA secretaries conflict with, 1 Zenkovsky sensing deficiencies of, 1 Russian Superior Technical Institute, 1 , 2 Russian Textbook Fund, 1 Russian Theology: 1920-1965 (Schmemann), 1 Russian Universities, 1

T The Russian Voice (Russkii golos), 1

R Russian YMCA Anderson, P. B., supervising staff members of, 1 Bolsheviks closing offices of, 1 “men” term used in, 1 revolutionary situation influencing, 1 Russkii golos (The Russian Voice), 1

Russkii Put’, 1 Ryall, Bryant, 1

S Sakharov, Constantine, 1 Sakharov, Sofrony, 1 Samara, 1 Samara Pedagogical Institute, 1 Sawatsky, Walter, 1 Schenkel, Albert F., 1 Schmemann, Alexander, 1 , 2 , 3 scientific atheism, 1 Scott, Roderick, 1 sectarianism, 1 secularization, of YMCA, 1 seminary building purchase, 1 Sheremetieva, A. S., 1 Shevzov, Vera, 1 Shilkin, A. D., 1 Siberia, 1 , 2 Siberia and Central Asia (Bookwalter), 1 Sidarov, Petr Apollonovich, 1 Simons, George Albert, 1 Skobtsova, Maria, 1 , 2 Slavic Review, 1 Slavonic and East European Review, 1 Slezkin, Petr Rodionovich, 1 , 2 Slobodskoy, Ivan, 1 Smith, Harvey G., 1.1-1.2 Smith, William Orr, 1.1-1.2 Social Gospel, 1 socialism, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7

T The Social Principles of Christ (Rauschenbusch), 1 The Social Principles of Jesus (Rauschenbusch), 1 , 2

S Society “Mayak” (Lighthouse) See Mayak program Sofia, Bulgaria, 1.1-1.2 Soloviev, Vladimir, 1 Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, 1 , 2 , 3.1-3.2

Solzhenitsyn, Natalia, 1 Soviet Russia interdenominational ministry goal in, 1 religious opposition of, 1 writers from, 1 YMCA and, 1 , 2 YMCA Press publications interest of, 1 Zenkovsky explains orientation toward, 1

“ “The Spirit of the Grand Inquisitor” (Berdyaev), 1

S spiritual crisis, 1 sports, 1 , 2 Springfield Training School, 1 , 2 St. Ignatius, 1 St. Petersburg, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 St. Sergius Theological Academy, 1 books written by faculty of, 1 Bulgakov, S., teaching at, 1 faculty list of, 1 faculty member philosophical debates of, 1 goals achieved of, 1 leadership training by, 1 religious education programs of, 1 Schmemann and Raeff’s endorsement of, 1 value of, 1 YMCA support of, 1 St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary, 1 , 2 Stalin, Joseph, 1 state registration, 1 Steeves, P. D., 1 Stefan, Metropolitan, 1 , 2 Steuer, K. A., 1 , 2 , 3 Stevens, Frank E., 1 Stokes, James, 1 , 2 , 3 death of, 1 Feodorovna meeting with, 1 financial contributions of, 1 Mayak program and, 1 , 2 Protestant Christianity defended by, 1 , 2.1-2.2 , 3 Stolypin, Petr, 1

T The Story of Moscow (Gerrare), 1

S Stravinsky, Igor, 1 Strong, A. H., 1 Strong, Anna Louise, 1 Struve, N. A., 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Studencheskii listok (Student Leaflet), 1 studenchestvo (student community), 1 , 2 Student Christian Circle, 1 Student Christian Movement, 1 student community (studenchestvo), 1 , 2 Student Leaflet (Studencheskii listok), 1 student movements, 1 , 2 student population, 1 Student Relief Service, 1 Student Volunteer Movement (SVM), 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Sullivan, Thomas, 1 Sunday, Billy, 1 SVM See Student Volunteer Movement Swartz, Philip A., 1 , 2 , 3 Swift, John, 1 , 2 Systematic Theology (Strong, A. H.), 1

T Taft, William Howard, 1 Tagantsev, Nikolai Stepanovich, 1 Tatiana, Evgenievna Desen, 1 technical courses, 1 theological modernism, 1 Tikhon, Patriarch, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Trani, Eugene P., 1 , 2 Trubetskoy, E. N., 1 Tsvetaeva, Marina, 1 , 2 Turchaninov, I. N., 1 Turpeinen, Iakov Grigorievich, 1 The Two-headed Eagle, 1

U Under the Sign of the Red Triangle (Hecker), 1

United Publishers (Les Editeurs Réunis), 1 United States (U.S.) capitalist tool, 1 first YMCA in, 1 Germany’s diplomatic relations with, 1 missionaries, 1 Russian rehabilitation work of, 1 Russian’s resenting presence of, 1 Uzzell, Thomas H., 1.1-1.2

V Vaisey, Samuel B., 1 Vasiliev, Nikolai Vasilievich, 1 Venizelos, Eleftherios, 1 Vestnik (Messenger) journal, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5.1-5.2 Vestnik RSKhD, 1 Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia (Messenger of the Russian Christian Movement), 1 Viestnik samoobrazovaniia (Messenger of Self-education), 1 Visser ‘T Hooft, W. A., 1 Vladivostok, 1 , 2 , 3 vocational school, 1.1-1.2 Voinovich, Vladimir, 1 Volga Expedition, 1 Volinsky, Antony, 1 volunteerism, 1 , 2 Vostokov, Vladimir, 1 Vvedensky, Aleksandr Ivanovich, 1 Vyborg, Finland, 1

W Walker, Williston, 1 Wanamaker, John, 1 Ward, Harry, 1 Warfield, B. B., 1 Ways of Russian Theology (Puti russkogo bogosloviia) (Florovsky), 1 western organizations, 1 Wheeler, Crawford, 1.1-1.2 , 2 Wilder, Robert P., 1 Williams, George, 1 , 2 Williams, Rhys, 1

Williams, Robert C., 1 Wilson, Woodrow, 1 , 2 , 3 Wishard, Luther, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 With Christ in Russia (Latimer), 1 World’s Student Christian Federation, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5

T The Worldview of Dostoevsky (Mirovozzrenie Dostoevskogo), 1

W World War I, 1 RSCM decline during, 1 Russian publishing efforts during, 1 student movements disrupted by, 1 YMCA’s advance undermined by, 1 World War II Romanian YMCA challenges from, 1 RSCM challenges created by, 1 YMCA Press and, 1 , 2 Wrangel, Petr, 1

Y YMCA, 1 Allied intervention participation of, 1 Allied soldiers services from, 1 American capitalist tool portrayal of, 1 American YMCA funding Bulgarian, 1 Anderson, P. B., addressing conflicts between Russian Orthodoxy and, 1.1-1.2 in Athens, Greece, 1 , 2 Balkans vision of, 1 , 2.1-2.2 Bolshevisms ideological struggle and, 1 Bulgarian, 1 Bulgaria’s programs of, 1 Christianity’s expansion and role of, 1 citizens’ salvation focus of, 1 criticisms of, 1.1-1.2 cross-cultural work of, 1 dilemma faced by, 1.1-1.2 early criticism of, 1 Eastern Orthodoxy and, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 émigré program of, 1.1-1.2 evangelism early focus of, 1

Evlogy compliments contributions of, 1 evolution of, 1 fourfold purpose of, 1 Gaylord first worker living in Russia from, 1 global outreach decline of, 1 Greece and challenges of, 1 Harbin, 1 , 2 imperialist zaslon description of, 1 intercollegiate, 1 Jesus Christ as great teacher and, 1 Judeo-Masonic conspiracy charges against, 1 Lansdale efforts on behalf of, 1.1-1.2 Lowrie opening Moscow civilian city, 1 Masonry connection and, 1 , 2 Mayak program as official organization of, 1 Mayak program sponsored by, 1 Minneapolis, 1 Orthodox émigrés work of, 1 Orthodox expansion influenced by, 1 Orthodox leaders meeting with, 1 , 2 Orthodox Russian Church working closely with, 1 philanthropic programs of, 1 POW services funding and, 1 publishers, 1 , 2 Rockefeller, John D., Jr., financial supporter of, 1 Romania as weaker movement of, 1 Romanian work of, 1 RSCM and, 1 , 2 Russia and, 1 , 2 , 3.1-3.2 , 4 , 5 Russian development participation of, 1 Russian Expeditionary Force worked with, 1 Russian Far East intervention role of, 1 Russian history viewpoint and, 1 Russian Orthodox Church appreciation of, 1 , 2 , 3 Russian pastoral training funding by, 1 Russian publishing challenges of, 1 Russian reorganization of, 1 Russian wartime program of, 1 Russian work of, 1 , 2.1-2.2 , 3 Russia with Associate secretaries from, 1 Saint Petersburg and arrival of, 1 secularization of, 1 Soviet Russia and, 1 , 2

soviet strategy against, 1 St. Sergius Theological Academy support of, 1 theological modernism and, 1 Tikhon’s endorsement of, 1 U.S. first, 1 vocational school of, 1.1-1.2 World War II challenges for Romanian, 1 World War I undermining advance of, 1 YMCA Press accomplishments of, 1 Yugoslavian work begun by, 1 See also American YMCA See also Mayak program See also Russian YMCA

“ “The YMCA and the Russian Orthodox Church” (Anderson, P. B.), 1

T The YMCA at Work (Hecker), 1

Y YMCA Press, 1 Anderson, P. B., and, 1 Berdyaev and, 1 , 2 controversy in, 1 goals changing of, 1 Kartashev’s comments on, 1 leaders of, 1 Lowrie and, 1 , 2 post-World War II impact of, 1 Problems of the Russian Religious Mind from, 1 RSCM responsible for, 1 RSCM’s ownership of, 1 , 2 rue-de-la-Montagne-Sainte-Geneviève facility of, 1 Russia and, 1 , 2 Russian Orthodoxy contributions of, 1 Russian religious thought textbooks from, 1 Solzhenitsyn, N., praising work of, 1 Soviet Russia’s interest growing in publications of, 1 World War II interrupting, 1 YMCA accomplishments through, 1 YMCA secretaries Anderson, H. W. analysis of conflict with, 1 Corcoran support as, 1 European POWs difficulties facing, 1.1-1.2

Kullmann and Lowrie with émigré RSCM and, 1 Orthodox confessional approach problem for, 1 POW camps visited by, 1 RSCM fulfilling purpose and, 1.1-1.2 Russian students conflict with, 1 YMCA War Prisoners Aid program, 1 Young Communists International, 1 Young Men’s Christian Association See YMCA

T The Young Men’s Christian Association and the Russian Orthodox Church (Meredith), 1

Y Yugoslavia, 1 , 2

Z Zaitsev, Boris, 1 Zander, Lev, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Zankov, Stefan, 1 Zaria (Dawn), 1 Zebrowski, Piotr T., 1 Zenkovsky, Vasily V., 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Orthodox Theological Institute comments of, 1 Russian student deficiencies sensed by, 1 Soviet orientation not allowed explanation of, 1 Zernov, Nikolai (Nicolas), 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Zernova, Maria Mikhailovna, 1 Zernova, Militsa, 1 Zhuk, Sergei, 1 Zoe (Life), 1 Zoe Brotherhood, 1

About the Author Matthew Lee Miller is assistant professor of history at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has studied at Miami University (BA), Wheaton College (MA), Moscow State University, and the University of Minnesota (PhD). As a specialist in the cultural history of late imperial and Soviet Russia, his research explores two primary themes: Russian-American and Orthodox-Protestant relations.