The Methodist Church in Poland: Activity and Political Conditions, 1945-1989 1032014261, 9781032014265

Citation preview

Routledge Methodist Studies Series

THE METHODIST CHURCH IN POLAND ACTIVITY AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS, 1945–1989 Ryszard Michalak

The Methodist Church in Poland

This book explores the development and activity of the Methodist Church in Poland, focusing on the political conditions under which it functioned after 1945. In particular it considers the role of party and state power, and the nature and impact of religious policy towards the Church. The chapters touch on organizational issues, missionary activity, and key figures in the recent history of the Church. Drawing on more than 20 years of research on Polish Methodism and the increasing availability of archival material, this volume will be of interest to scholars of religion, politics and history. Ryszard Michalak is a Professor in the Institute of Political Science at the University of Zielona Góra, Poland.

Routledge Methodist Studies Series Series Editor: William Gibson, Director of the Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History, Oxford Brookes University, UK

Methodism remains one of the largest denominations in the USA and is growing in South America, Africa and Asia (especially in Korea and China). This series spans Methodist history and theology, exploring its success as a movement historically and in its global expansion. Books in the series will look particularly at features within Methodism which attract wide interest, including: the unique position of the Wesleys; the prominent role of women and minorities in Methodism; the interaction between Methodism and politics; the ‘Methodist conscience’ and its motivation for temperance and pacifist movements; the wide range of Pentecostal, holiness and evangelical movements; and the interaction of Methodism with different cultures. Editorial Board: Ted A. Campbell, Professor of Church History, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, USA David N. Hempton, Dean, Harvard Divinity School, Harvard University, USA Priscilla Pope-Levison, Associate Dean, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, USA Martin Wellings, Superintendent Minister of Oxford Methodist Circuit and Past President of the World Methodist Historical Society, UK Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, Professor of Worship, Boston University, USA Thomas Wride and Wesley’s Methodist Connexion Clive Murray Norris The Practice of Mission in Global Methodism Emerging Trends from Everywhere to Everywhere Edited by David W. Scott and Darryl W. Stephens The Methodist Church in Poland Activity and Political Conditions, 1945–1989 Ryszard Michalak For more information and a full list of titles in the series, please visit: https:// www.routledge.com/religion/series/AMETHOD

The Methodist Church in Poland

Activity and Political Conditions, 1945–1989 Ryszard Michalak

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Ryszard Michalak The right of Ryszard Michalak to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 9781032014265 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032034652 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003187417 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417 Typeset in Times New Roman by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

In memory of the Methodist Rev. Antoni Liszkiewicz and his granddaughter Olga Kwiatkowska-Kuszyk

Contents

Introduction 1 The theory of religious policy

1 5

2 The ideological basis of religious policy in communist-type regimes

18

3 The origin and essence of Methodism

30

4 Methodists in Poland until 1945

35

5 The organization and ownership of the Methodist Church, 1945–1989

40

6 The most important figures of the Methodist Church, 1945–1989

54

7 Agents of religious policy towards the Methodist Church

64

8 The legal status of the Methodist Church in 1945

72

9 The Methodist mission in Masuria

75

10 From the world to local politics: Operation “Moda”

84

11 “Conservatives” and “democrats”: Factional fights within Methodism

100

viii Contents

12 “The Masurian Case”: Second stage

118

13 From liquidation to rationing policy: Operation “Methodius” (Metody)

124

14 The religious policy of the Polish state towards religious minorities, 1945–1989

135

Conclusions Annex Index of names Geographic index

141 143 196 200

Introduction

The aim of this book is to analyze the activity of the Methodist Church in Poland in the conditions of the antireligious – towards both the largest, Roman Catholic, church and minority communities – politics of the communist party and state apparatus. The problem is presented through the prism of religious politics in the Cold War context. Institutional subjects of consideration are centers of state power implementing religious policy towards Methodists, and the religious association known until 1952 as the Methodist Church in the Republic of Poland, and from 1952 to 1989 as the Methodist Church in the Polish People’s Republic. The non-institutional subjects of study are personal decision-makers of religious policy and the people forming a methodological ecclesial community. The “religious policy of the state” is understood in this book as a set of conceptual, programmatic, operational and executive activities undertaken by complex entities of party and state power in relation to entities representing and creating religious life (religious associations and people).1 Religious policy very often determines the functioning of religious communities – in a universal and timeless dimension. Therefore, it was necessary to develop an extensive theoretical description of this phenomenon in the chapter preceding the studies on Methodism itself. The topic also required consideration of the ideological basis of religious policy in communist-type regimes. The main research problem of the book is to determine the scale of the impact of religious policy and its specific solutions on the situation of the Methodist Church. The key research questions can be formulated as follows: ·· ·· ·· ··

What was the nature of the religious policy of the Polish state towards the Methodist Church? Was it a clearly defined and consistently implemented policy throughout the entire period of the People’s Republic of Poland? Which centers of power had the greatest influence on religious policy towards Methodists? Was the policy of the authorities towards the Methodist Church based on unique assumptions and plans in comparison with the policy towards other religious associations? DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-101

2

Introduction

··

Was religious policy the main phenomenon determining the functioning of the Methodist Church? What other factors, apart from religious policy, influenced the functioning of the Methodist Church – its successes and crises?

··

The periodization of religious policy towards the Methodist Church proposed in the book assumes – on the basis of a hypothesis verified during the research – its complexity and the multiplicity of stages. The study takes into account the years 1945–1989, however, it has a primarily thematic, rather than a chronological, structure. Contextual discussion outlines methodological doctrine and selected issues from the history of the Methodist Church in Poland. Therefore, there are references here to the organizational issues of Polish Methodism (also before 1945) and to the directions and manifestations of the greatest missionary activity of Methodists. An attempt is also made to indicate the most important people in the recent history of this church, using representative examples judged according to qualitative criteria. Since Methodists performed the most important functions in the Polish Ecumenical Council (in the 1970s and 1980s), the final part of the book also refers to issues related to that organization. Exploring the detailed areas of religious policy of the People’s Republic of Poland, including the policy towards Methodists, is possible due to the increased availability of archival materials. Until recently, researchers based their conclusions on relations between state authorities and Methodists, mainly on the basis of documentation prepared in the Office for Religious Affairs (UdSW) and made available in the Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw (AAN), as well as documentation of Voivodeship Offices (UW) and Presidiums of Voivodeship National Councils (PWRN), available in regional state archives. Currently, the increasing availability of materials produced by the special services of the People’s Republic of Poland and made available in the Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance (AIPN) provides an opportunity to deepen knowledge. Apart from the indicated archives, the book also draws on materials published in the journal Pielgrzym Polski (Polish Pilgrim) and memoirs. Studies on the history of Methodism in Poland after 1945 have been conducted by individual researchers, among whom the most important work was published by the Kraków scholar Professor Kazimierz Urban.2 Also worth mentioning is the book of popular science by Janusz Borowiak.3 For contextual analysis, studies devoted to the religious policy towards other minority religious communities were important.4 Among them, the most significant work is a monumental monograph by Professor Stefan Dudra on state policy towards the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church.5 It is also worth mentioning the studies by professors Olgierd Kiec,6 Jarosław Kłaczkow7 and Grzegorz Jasiński8 on the Evangelical-Augsburg Church. The systematization of knowledge contained in these and other studies – contained in bibliography – was an important element in the processes of analysis and inference. This also applies to studies treating the theory of relations between religion and politics.9 The book is also a summary of my more than 20 years of research on Polish

Introduction 3 Methodism, and more broadly on religious minorities. I was directly encouraged to prepare a monograph by the great interest and positive reactions sparked by my article on relations between the Polish communist authorities and the Methodist Church during the Stalinist period (1945–1956), which was published in 2018 in Review of Nationalities.10 The theses and formulations which I included in the article are significantly expanded and enriched in this book with findings concerning subsequent decades of the People’s Republic of Poland. The book is addressed to political scientists (primarily researchers of religious policy), historians (mainly researchers of state–Church relations) and religiologists (researchers of political determinants of religious phenomena). The book is also addressed to Methodist confessional environments in Poland, Great Britain and the United States, from which countries this Protestant denomination originated, and whose citizens formed Church leadership in Poland for many years. A special circumstance justifying the creation of this publication is the centenary of Methodism in Poland. Zielona Góra, 15 August 2020

Notes 1 R. Michalak, Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego wobec mniejszości religijnych w latach 1945–1989, Zielona Góra 2014; R. Zenderowski, R. Michalak, Polityka wyznaniowa. Aspekty teoretyczne i egzemplifikacje, Zielona Góra 2018; R. Michalak, “Polityka wyznaniowa. Zakres zjawiska”, Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie Skłodowska, Sectio K: Politologia 26(1) (2019), 23–35, DOI: 10.17951/ k.2019.26.1.23–35. 2 K. Urban, Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2000. 3 J. Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, Warsaw 1999. 4 K. Krzysztofek, Położenie prawne i działalność nierzymskokatolickich Kościołów i związków wyznaniowych w Krakowie w latach 1945–1970, Kraków 2018. 5 S. Dudra, Polski Autokefaliczny Kościół Prawosławny w obszarze polityki wyznaniowej i polityki narodowościowej Polski Ludowej i III Rzeczypospolitej, Warsaw 2019. 6 O. Kiec, “Die Protestantischen Kirchen in Polen unter kommunistischer Herrschaft. Die Phase der Errichtung der kommunistischen Herrschaft 1945–1949”, in Zwischen den Mulsteinen. Protestantische Kirchen in der Phase der Errichtung der kommunistichen Herrschaft im östlichen Europa, Hg. P. Maser, J.H. Schjørring (eds), Erlangen 2002; O. Kiec, “Protestantische Kirchen in Polen in der Phase des Zusammenbruchs der kommunistischen Herrschaft (1980–1990)”, in Wie die Träumenden? Protestantische Kirchen in der Phase des Zusammenbruchs der kommunistischen Herrschaft im östlichen Europa, Hg. P. Maser, J.H. Schjøerring (eds), Erlangen 2003; O. Kiec, Historia protestantyzmu w Poznaniu od XVI do XXI wieku, Poznań 2015. 7 J. Kłaczkow, Kościół Ewangelicko-Augsburski w Polsce w latach 1945–1975, Toruń 2010; J. Kłaczkow, The Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Poland in the Years 1945–1989, Toruń 2014. 8 G. Jasiński, “Diecezja Mazurska Kościoła Ewangelicko-Augsburskiego w latach 1945– 2017”, in W 500-lecie Reformacji (1517–2017). Z dziejów Kościołów ewangelickich w dawnych Prusach Królewskich i Książęcych: Tereny dawnych Prus Książęcych, J. Kłaczkow, G. Jasiński, P. Birecki (eds), Toruń 2017, 393–715.

4

Introduction

9 J. Fox, An Introduction to Religion and Politics: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn, London and New York 2018. 10 R. Michalak, “The Methodist Church in Poland in Reality of Liquidation Policy: Operation ‘Moda’ (1949–1955)”, Przegląd Narodowościowy – Review of Nationalities 8 (2018), 199–224, DOI: 10.2478/pn-2018–0013.

Bibliography Borowiak, J., Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, Warsaw 1999. Dudra, S., Polski Autokefaliczny Kościół Prawosławny w obszarze polityki wyznaniowej i polityki narodowościowej po II wojnie światowej, Warsaw 2019. Fox, J., An Introduction to Religion and Politics. Theory and Practice, 2nd edn, London and New York 2018. Jasiński, G., “Diecezja Mazurska Kościoła Ewangelicko-Augsburskiego w latach 1945– 2017”, in W 500-lecie Reformacji (1517–2017). Z dziejów Kościołów ewangelickich w dawnych Prusach Królewskich i Książęcych: Tereny dawnych Prus Książęcych, J. Kłaczkow, G. Jasiński, P. Birecki (eds), Toruń 2017. Kiec, O., “Die Protestantischen Kirchen in Polen unter kommunistischer Herrschaft. Die Phase der Errichtung der kommunistischen Herrschaft 1945–1949”, in Zwischen den Mulsteinen. Protestantische Kirchen in der Phase der Errichtung der kommunistichen Herrschaft im östlichen Europa, Hg. P. Maser, J.H. Schjørring (eds), Erlangen 2002. Kiec, O., “Protestantische Kirchen in Polen in der Phase des Zusammenbruchs der kommunistischen Herrschaft (1980–1990)”, in Wie die Träumenden? Protestantische Kirchen in der Phase des Zusammenbruchs der kommunistischen Herrschaft im östlichen Europa, Hg. P. Maser, J.H. Schjøerring (eds), Erlangen 2003. Kiec, O., Historia protestantyzmu w Poznaniu od XVI do XXI wieku, Poznań 2015. Kłaczkow, J., Kościół Ewangelicko-Augsburski w Polsce w latach 1945–1975, Toruń 2010. Kłaczkow, J., The Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Poland in the Years 1945–1989, Toruń 2014. Krzysztofek, K., Położenie prawne i działalność nierzymskokatolickich kościołów i związków wyznaniowych w Krakowie w latach 1945–1970, Kraków 2018. Michalak, R., Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego wobec mniejszości religijnych w latach 1945–1989, Zielona Góra 2014. Michalak, R., “The Methodist Church in Poland in Reality of Liquidation Policy: Operation ‘Moda’ (1949–1955)”, Przegląd Narodowościowy: Review of Nationalities 8 (2018), 199–224, DOI: 10.2478/pn-2018–0013. Michalak, R., “Polityka wyznaniowa. Zakres zjawiska”, Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie Skłodowska, Sectio K: Politologia 26(1) (2019), 23–35, DOI: 10.17951/k.2019.26.1.23–35. Urban, K., Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957, Kraków 2000. Zenderowski, R., Michalak, R., Polityka wyznaniowa. Aspekty teoretyczne i egzemplifikacje, Zielona Góra 2018.

1

The theory of religious policy

Religious policy (confessional policy) – part of political science of religion For years, studies of religious policy have been the domain of representatives of the legal sciences, who have explored its nature in relation to subjective religious law. Most often in contextual research, such studies also appeared in the works of historians, who in the analysis of state–religious relations sought to explain wider phenomena. Such a tendency concerned both world and Polish science. In Poland, following the Soviet model, additionally, religious policy as a subject of research has attracted the attention of philosophers and religious experts (including practitioners – decision-makers from the Office for Religious Affairs) in the 1970s, who closely associated conceptualization in its area with Marxist ideological determinants, as a result of which this work is often perceived as a service in the face of the then absolutely binding ideological monism. Relatively recently, religious policy has become an area of growing interest for researchers representing political sciences. Representatives of political science of religion have played a special role in this respect.1 Political science of religion (or politology of religion) is, according to the most popular interpretation, a body of research taking into account various interrelations between religious phenomena and politics based on the merging of many disciplines of science and their methods, in particular: political science, religiology, theology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology of culture, cultural studies, history, law, economics and geography.2 In the social sciences, it is defined as a subdiscipline of political science, the essence of which is a political analysis of the phenomenon of religion or any of its components (doctrine, cult, religious organization). In such a case, the basic assumption is to perceive religion as a political phenomenon (analogous to the assumptions of sociology of religion, which sees a social phenomenon in religion).3 Another exegesis referring to the position of the political science of religion among the sub-disciplines of political science assumes that its content includes the issues of permeability or mutual influence of religious and political phenomena, and the initial research perspective is the findings of political science when referring to the methods and achievements of other disciplines of science. Political science of religion in the narrowest sense is in turn political research on DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-1

6

The theory of religious policy

religion based on the paradigm of the function of the political factor in religion. It should also be emphasized that the political science of religion is also developing as a sub-discipline of religious studies.4 The most important research issues in the field of political science of religion include: 1. Studies in the field of religion teaching, which has a direct political content and message of the religious legitimacy of power; religious justification of authority and social/political leadership; religious explanations/justifications of political processes; religious justification of the existing political order; religious visions of political order; justification of theocracy and primacy of religious law over secular law; the principle of symphony (synergy, symbiosis); religious justification of political activity; the question of the politicization of religion and religious politics; the phenomenon of political theology; politics as an expression or consequence of religiousness; 2. Research in relation to functional or destructive influence (direct and indirect) of a religious factor in the political sphere – e.g. religion and the issue of war and peace; religious conflict transformed into political conflict or vice versa – religion as a factor mitigating/resolving another conflict; socially integrating role of religion; socially disintegrating role of religion; processes of transforming religious fundamentalisms into political expressions; religious movements creating ideologies; ethnophyletism; religious dimension of political transformations; relations between religion and democracy – in the dimension of national states, in the dimension of individual civilization circles and under the conditions of crossing territorial and national borders by religions; a religious factor as a determinant of specific state policies; 3. Studies on religious terrorism and extremism and their social and cultural background – e.g. relations between religious extremism and religious terrorism; classification of religious terrorism/extremism among other types of terrorism/extremism and comparisons of terrorism/extremism; classification and comparisons of religious terrorisms/extremisms; Islamic terrorism/ extremism – logistics and social facilities; Hindu and communalist terrorism/ extremism; Sikh terrorism/extremism; Judaistic terrorism/extremism; the socalled Judeo-Christian anti-abortion terrorism; paramilitary organizations and religious militias; terror/terrorism state; 4. 4.Search for religious behavior and religious practice, which has no direct political content and message, but has direct political consequences – e.g. social and political conflicts as a consequence of building/limiting the construction of sacred buildings; the presence of religious symbols in public space; place of religion in the public sphere; participation of politicians in religious ceremonies; 5. Explaining the attitudes of political actors towards religious people and religious organizations – for example, the state’s religious policy; religious policy of the European Union; positions of the state authority apparatus, political

The theory of religious policy 7

6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

parties, ideological and political groups, pressure groups on religion and religious organizations; open or veiled implementation of religious and philosophical-religious content and principles in the political sphere; the question of the institutionalization of dialogue in relations between state authorities and religious organizations; Researching the relations between religious subjects when these relate to political matters – for example, relations that make religious organizations de facto political actors; Inquiring about theoretical categories, phenomena and matters remaining in the circle of independent (and differently perceived) interests of the world of religion and the world of politics – e.g. political and religious interpretations of truth, loyalty, freedom, upbringing, good and evil; determinants of emotionality in people’s behavior; the issue of human development; issues of secularization, privatization and deprivatization of religion; the question of religious and political ritualism; theodicies and anomies; religious and political conditions for cultural change in international relations; Studies of what is apparently within the limits of a secular society, which has no religious motivations but has religious consequences – e.g. the phenomenon of nationalism becoming similar to religion; ethnic mythology; national iconography; racist mythology; the phenomenon of “sacralization” of Marxism-Leninism; quasi-religious meaning of values, e.g. tradition for political entities; the phenomenon of deification of political leaders within the individual cult; political missionism and messianism; civic religion; religious transformations as a result of economic migration or political refugees; Research on religious sources of shaping collective memory – e.g. religious narratives about the past; religious communities of memory; influence of religiously conditioned memory policy on political decisions; religions and religious communities towards contemporary historical debates; functions, goals and strategies of religiously conditioned memory policies; religious determinism in the processes of shaping collective identity; Studies on the theory of political science of religions – e.g. politicization of religious narration; conceptualization of key notions describing matters related to conjunctions of religious and political factors, especially those that are commonly used but not in accordance with the essence of the described phenomenon. For example, the term “Islamophobia” is commonly transferred from the world of medicine – where, while remaining in the depository of psychiatrists, it acts as a description of a particular anxiety disorder – and to the social sciences and humanities, where the analyzed phenomenon is in fact “Islamoscepticism” (a critical attitude towards Islam or any element characteristic of this religion or any phenomenon generated by it – e.g. ideology, social movement, political party – which results from rational reflection and skeptic doubts about the possibility of achieving a state of permanent and harmonious co-existence of Muslims with non-Muslims, due to the axiological contradictions existing between them).5

8

The theory of religious policy

Religious policy (confessional policy) – definition and extent From the perspective of religious politics, religious policy is primarily a detailed type of public policy of the state, which is aimed at the activity of religious associations (or religious organizations).6 According to Michał Pietrzak, a religious union is, in turn, “a specific type of organized human community, having a specific internal system, capable of creating bodies of power, fulfilling internal functions and representing the union outside and entitled to determine the rights and duties of its members”.7 Its purpose is to meet the “religious needs” of its followers. Religious associations “differ in the distinctness of their dogmas of faith, rites and religious practices”.8 The essence of religious policy is therefore to shape the relationship between the state and individual religious associations, but also to influence relations between them. A broad view of the religious policy allows for a perspective in which the state apparatus undertakes specific actions towards entities directly or indirectly connected with religious organizations, precisely because of this connection. These may be religious parties (e.g. the Israeli Miflaga Datit Leumi, the French Union des Démocrates Musulmans, the Indian Bharatiya Janata Party), parties referring to religion in the name, program or ideological declaration (e.g. the German Christlich Demokratische Union and Christlich Soziale Union), as well as associations, foundations, publishers and editorial offices of magazines and other organized forms of social activity (e.g. the Polish charities Roman Catholic Caritas, Orthodox Eleos and Evangelical Diakonia) which have a religious connotation and, perhaps more important, are perceived as religious in public space. In special cases, individual people connected with religious life may also be party to religious policy. As Józef Krukowski points out, after the principles and goals “which the state authorities follow in relation to religion and religious denominations”, the second pillar of religious policy is “the methods (means) they use to implement them in social life”.9 Furthermore, Maria Libiszowska-Żółtkowska stresses that “religious policy fulfills the functions: normative control over religious institutions, defines the nature of relations between the state and churches and religious associations present on its territory”.10 Developing these views, it can therefore be assumed that the religious policy of the state consists of activities of a conceptual, programmatic, operational and executive nature, carried out by specialized state authorities towards religious entities. In the conditions of a democratic state, these are administrative institutions (independent, for example in the form of an office or ministry, or as part of a wider structure, such as a department within a ministry) and special services (e.g. monitoring the activities of religious fundamentalists or destructive sects). In authoritarian and totalitarian states, the entity pursuing a religious policy may be more complex, as party structures usually have decisionmaking status alongside the state structures, and extended special services also play a greater role.11 Political conceptualization in the area of religious policy is connected with the findings of other disciplines of science,12 in particular the legal sciences with

The theory of religious policy 9 regard to religious law and the definition of a model relationship between the state and religious organizations appropriate for this field. It is also an optic that takes into account the diversity of competences – legal and political – of decision-makers responsible for the sector of religious policy. A complementary research perspective, combining the methods of the legal sciences with those of the political and administrative sciences, seems indispensable for exploring this area, since, on the one hand, religious law is generally the expression of a certain policy and, on the other hand, real religious policy does not always fit into the formal and legal order exclusively.13

Conditions of religious policy Religious policy is conditioned by a number of factors, which can be grouped into internal and external ones. The key internal factors are: (1) the specificity and religious and denominational structure of the state; (2) the proportion of the population declaring atheism, agnosticism, apathy or religious indifference; (3) the proportions of sacralization and secularization of public space; (4) the state and political system, and ideology in force or prevailing in the state; (5) pragmatics of political rivalry allowing for instrumentalization/politicization of religion; (6) the legal and systemic religious model of the state; (7) the potential of religious associations to influence state decision-makers; (8) the need for religious legitimacy of power by decision-makers; (9) personal beliefs and religious involvement of state decision-makers; (10) interdependencies between identities: ethnocultural and religious identifications. Among the external factors are: (1) state security considerations (variously defined and instrumentalized); (2) the nature of religions (single or plural) occurring in the vicinity of the country; (3) the religious structure of neighboring countries (including the status of minorities associated with the country in question); (4) the nature of religious policy in the international environment; (5) geopolitical conditions of the region (the presence or absence of “sacred geopolitics”, “mosque policy”, etc.); (6) the international legal norms in which the country in question participates or on which it bases its influence; (7) the scale and nature of the international “networking” of the religious community concerned; (8) the existence or absence of religious conflicts in the international environment; (9) the existence or absence of pro-ecumenical tendencies among the religious entities of the region; (10) the actual, and not merely declared, importance of irenology in the transmission of religious associations in the region. In the modern world, new migration trends are the most recent factor, and affect the religious policies of almost all countries.14 In these cases, religious policy is most often closely related to national or ethnic policy.15 The state’s religious policy is most often considered as a component of domestic policy, but it is also a successful component of foreign policy, which is nowadays convinced by the “mosque policy” of Turkey16 or the Russian policy of promoting the idea of Moscow as the Third Rome.17

10

The theory of religious policy

Subjects and agents of religious policy Religious policy is the domain of the state, but it may also concern other types of entity. Analyzing, for example, the law and actions of the European Union18 or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation19 in relation to the religious sphere, it is possible to specify the category of religious policy of an international organization. In the opposite direction, not externally, but within the structure of the state, regional/local/self-governing religious policy can be seen.20 In conditions of religious pluralism, a given religious association may also create its own religious policy towards other religious associations, for example by entering into coalitions and alliances with some religious organizations and/or by competing with others – at national and international level.21 In this case, the religious policy of the religious association is referred to. In the specific circumstances of a state hierocracy or total theocracy, the religious policy of the state and the religious policy of the dominant religious association are convergent in practice. Remaining in the perspective of a religious association as a conceptual and operational entity in the area of its influence, its religious policy can also be discussed in relation to actions created, for instance, for the purpose of resolving disputes that may arise in relations between representatives of different inter-confessional entities. The latter (factions, interest groups, individuals) are de facto also subjects of religious policy in such a context.22 Taking into account such circumstances, a religious policy may therefore mean a policy of any social actors towards religious associations (or religious organizations). These social entities then become, nolens volens, political entities.

Religious policy orientations Research on religious policy based on the criterion of the state’s approval or disapproval of religious associations allows us to distinguish three clear directions (profiles, varieties). These are: (a) religious policy of concession, which means religious associations are practically unlimited and supported or at least accepted by the state and free of interference from it; (b) religious policy of rationing, which entails the consent of the state to the activities of religious associations, aimed at the faithful of its own community and – in a non-restrictive version – consent to limited external activity; in the radical version, there is deep rationing, which means permission for only a small part of religious practice or for religious teaching that excludes content contrary to the line of the state; (c) liquidation religious policy, which includes actions of the state aimed at counteracting negatively assessed trends and phenomena occurring in the activities of a religious organization, or even striving for legal prohibition and full liquidation of the religious organization. It seems that the most important challenge faced in this context by religious political science is to establish the relationship between these directions and the religious structure, the systemic and political basis of states, the type of political regime and the model of the state and religious associations. In this combination,

The theory of religious policy 11 ten categories of states can be proposed (in the perspective of the 20th and 21st centuries) – as an alternative to other typologies: 1. Democratic, secular and friendly state towards religious associations in the formula of soft separation or coordinated separation (e.g. contemporary Germany); 2. Democratic state, secular and fully distanced from the phenomenon of religion in the formula of hostile separation (e.g. contemporary France); 3. Democratic and at the same time religious state de iure (e.g. contemporary Denmark, Cyprus, Greece, Great Britain); 4. Democratic and at the same time religious state de facto (the most speculative category, based on presumption, e.g. modern Israel); 5. Hybrid and religious country de facto (e.g. contemporary Russia, Armenia, Turkey); 6. Autocratic and religious state (e.g. Spain during Franco’s rule, Portugal during Salazar’s rule, contemporary Myanmar, Saudi Arabia); 7. Autocratic and secular state (e.g. Turkey during the Ataturk rule, modern China); 8. Theocratic/hierocratic state (e.g. modern Iran, Vatican City); 9. Total theocracy (e.g. Islamic State, Caucasian Emirate); 10. Totalitarian state creating a parareligion (e.g. former Soviet Union, Mao-era China, modern North Korea).23

Recurring features of religious policy Analysis of detailed examples in the area of religious policy allows us to capture several recurring features: 1. Confessional policies: concessions, rationing and liquidation occur simultaneously in all countries. This happens regardless of their political system and regime, and even regardless of the general model of relations between the state and religious associations. 2. Systemic factors, however, influence the scale and level of intensity of each denomination policy. With regard to the basic division into democratic and non-democratic states, the dominance of concessional policies of acceptance and rationing in the first group and the predominance of concessional policies of support and liquidation in the second can be observed. 3. The central solutions – based on acceptance and non-restrictive rationing – are a kind of barometer of social balance in a country where believers and non-believers are equal hosts of the same public space. 4. The coincidence of extreme policies – boundless support and absolute elimination – occurs in extremely undemocratic types of state: total theocracies and totalitarian states, which simultaneously create parareligious phenomena. 5. Profound religious rationing policies are often used as a pretext for the state to reject accusations of persecution and religious intolerance. Deep rationing usually does not differ from the policy of liquidation.

12

The theory of religious policy

6. The prevailing direction of religious policy in a given state is also determined by the nature of the religions themselves, which dominate it, as well as the profile of the religious organizations which are the carriers of these religions. 7. The compatibility or collision of the aims of states and religious associations is to a large extent the effect of unity or collision of axiological orders – convergent or competing – represented by both types of entity. 8. Apart from ideological conditions, the reason for choosing a particular direction of religious policy is the position of state decision-makers, most often resulting from their assessment of religious organizations, made through the prism of two subjectively defined dichotomies: (a) socially positive religious relationship vs. (b) socially destructive religious relationship and/or in another variant (c) politically desirable religious affiliation vs. (d) politically undesirable religious affiliation Compliance as defined by the simultaneous occurrence of features (a) and (c), leads decision-makers to a religious policy of support concessions, meaning virtually unlimited and minimally counteracted activities of a religious association. An assessment of (a), but without (c), may give rise to a religious policy of acceptance concessions and a religious rationing policy. Under options (b) and (d) the solution adopted by policy makers is inevitably a liquidation religious policy. 9. A tendency towards polarization of the systemic solutions taken by the state towards religious associations is noticeable. The processes of renouncing the model of a religious state (visible primarily in Western Europe, in the Protestant cultural-religious circle) proceed parallel to the solutions towards a distinct religious state (in the non-European or borderline cultural-religious circle, on the grounds of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Orthodoxy). 10. Cultural and religious determinants increasingly activate the foreign policies of contemporary states, and this requires that religious policy be seen beyond its classical functions and framework, i.e. beyond internal politics. Summarizing the above observations, it should be particularly emphasized that religious policy is commonly found as a detailed type of public policy of the state, which is directed at the activity of denominational associations (religious associations, religious organizations). Increasingly, however, it also concerns other types of entity, for example, religious policy of an international organization, and regional/local/self-governing religious policy. Given the subjective (causal) criterion, religious policy can therefore be understood as a policy of social actors which is directed towards religious associations. In the broadest definition, the religious policy of a given entity includes activities of a conceptual, programmatic, operational and executive nature. Most often, such possibilities are available to the state apparatus, which has recourse to both administrative institutions and special services.

The theory of religious policy 13 Though the political conceptualization of religious policy is closely connected with the findings of legal science, it is necessary that we extend this perspective to include the scientific apparatus proper to religiology, sociology or economics. So doing allows us to grasp the numerous conditions (internal and external) of religious policy, and also creates the basis for finding patterns in its area. This, in turn, argues in favor of a perception of political science of religion that takes the findings of the political sciences as an initial research perspective, but also makes reference to the methods and achievements of other scientific disciplines.

Notes 1 See: B. Grott (ed.), Religia i polityka, Kraków 2000; M. Marczewska-Rytko, Religia i polityka w globalizującym się świecie, Lublin 2010; M. Marczewska-Rytko (ed.), Czynnik religijny w polityce wewnątrzpaństwowej i międzynarodowej na przełomie drugiego i trzeciego tysiąclecia, Lublin 2016; P. Burgoński, M. Gierycz (eds), Religia i polityka. Zarys problematyki, Warsaw 2014, 19–24; R. Michalak (ed.), Religijne determinanty polityki, Zielona Góra 2014, 5–11; D. Góra-Szopiński, “Czym może, a czym nie powinna być politologia religii?”, in Polityka jako wyraz lub następstwo religijności, R. Michalak (ed.), Zielona Góra 2015, 13–31; M. Marczewska-Rytko, “Politologia religii jako subdyscyplina religioznawstwa i/lub nauk o polityce”, in Politologia religii, M. Marczewska-Rytko, D. Maj (eds), Lublin 2018, 17–33. 2 See: M. Jevtić, “Political Science and Religion”, Politics and Religion Journal 1 (Belgrade, 2007), 59–69; M. Jevtić, Religion and Power. Essays on Politology of Religion, Belgrade 2008. 3 See: M. Weber, The Sociology of Religion, Boston 1963; M. B. Hamilton, The Sociology of Religion. Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives, London and New York 2012. 4 See: K. Banek, “Politologia religii jako dziedzina badań religioznawczych”, Przegląd Religioznawczy (1999, nos 3–4), 77–82; B. Grott, O. Grott (eds), Wiedza religioznawcza w badaniach politologicznych, Warsaw 2015, 7; Marczewska-Rytko, Politologia religii, 17–33; P. Mazurkiewicz, “What Should a Political Scientist Know about Religion?”, Chrześcijaństwo – Świat – Polityka 23 (2019), 11–30; M. Potz, Political Science of Religion. Theorising the Political Role of Religion, Cham 2020. 5 See: R. Michalak, “Political science of religion”, in The Dictionary of Political Knowledge, J. Marszałek-Kawa, D. Plecka (eds), Toruń 2019, 364–368. 6 See: R. Michalak, “Religious policy”, in The Dictionary of Political Knowledge, J. Marszałek-Kawa, D. Plecka (eds), Toruń 2019, 410–411; G. Fagan, Believing in Russia – Religious Policy after Communism, London and New York 2013; D. Gerster, V. Van Melis, U. Willems (eds) Religionspolitik heute. Problemfelder und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Freiburg 2018. 7 See: M. Pietrzak, Prawo wyznaniowe, Warsaw 1995, 9. 8 See: A. Tunia, “Polityka państwa w zakresie ustalenia jednolitej siatki pojęć stosowanych w przepisach prawa wyznaniowego”, in Polityka wyznaniowa a prawo III Rzeczypospolitej, M. Skwarzyński, P. Steczkowski (eds), Lublin 2016, 34–35. 9 See: J. Krukowski, “Polityka wyznaniowa państw postkomunistycznych. Główne linie”, Roczniki Nauk Prawnych 12(2) (2002), 5–19. 10 See: M. Libiszowska-Żółtkowska, “Polityka wyznaniowa”, in Nauki o polityce publicznej. Monografia dyscypliny, J. Kwaśniewski (ed.), Warsaw 2018, 266. 11 See: P. A. Leszczyński, “Administracja wyznaniowa wybranych państw współczesnych – zarys zagadnienia”, in Prawo wyznaniowe w systemie prawa polskiego, A. Mezglewski (ed.), Lublin 2004, 347–356.

14

The theory of religious policy

12 See: S. Dudra, R. Król-Mazur, D. Maj, Polityka wyznaniowa. Wschodnia i ekumeniczna perspektywa eklezjalna, Zielona Góra 2018. 13 See: M. Pietrzak, “Polityka wyznaniowa III Rzeczypospolitej w latach 1990–2001 (próba diagnozy)”, Prawo 311, no. 3270 (2010), 365–377. 14 See: M. Gierycz, “Polska debata o imigracji w perspektywie politologii religii”, Chrześcijaństwo–Świat–Polityka 20 (2016), 73–84; P. Pochyły, “Polska polityka zagraniczna w reakcji na trzy kryzysy w Europie – analiza ‘mini’ exposé ministra Witolda Waszczykowskiego z 2016 r.”, in Pomiędzy mythos i logos społecznej zmiany, J. Golinowski, S. Sadowski (eds), Bydgoszcz 2017, 113–128; W. Husar-Poliszuk, B. Secler, P.S. Ślusarczyk, Polityka wyznaniowa. Konteksty innych polityk publicznych. Austria, Katalonia, Polska, Zielona Góra 2018. 15 See: R. Zenderowski, Religia a tożsamość narodowa i nacjonalizm w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej. Między etnicyzacją religii a sakralizacją etnosu (narodu), Wrocław 2011; R. Zenderowski, “Konflikt etniczny, konflikt religijny, konflikt etnoreligijny jako konflikty polityczne”, in Religia w konfliktach etnicznych we współczesnym świecie, vol. 1: Zagadnienia teoretyczne. Europa i obszar poradziecki, A. Szabaciuk, D. Wybranowski, R. Zenderowski (eds), Lublin 2016, 29–51; S. Dudra, Lemko Identity and the Orthodox Church, preface by P. J. Best, New Haven, CT 2018; R. Zenderowski, Polski Autokefaliczny Kościół Prawosławny w obszarze polityki wyznaniowej i polityki narodowościowej po II wojnie światowej, Warsaw 2019. 16 See: R. Michalak, “The Significance of the Religious Factor in the Internal and External Policies of Turkey”, Review of Nationalities 9 (2019), 167–176, DOI: 10.2478/ pn-2019–0013. 17 See: R. Michalak, “Powrót koncepcji Trzeciego Rzymu”, Doctrina – Międzynarodowy Przegląd Humanistyczny 1 (2004), 91–105. 18 See: K. Orzeszyna, Podstawy relacji między państwem a kościołami w konstytucjach państw członkowskich i traktatach Unii Europejskiej. Studium porównawcze, Lublin 2007; P. Mazurkiewicz, R. Ptaszek, Ł. Młyńczyk, Polityka wyznaniowa. Perspektywa Unii Europejskiej, Zielona Góra 2018. 19 See: A. Gieryńska, Organizacja Współpracy Islamskiej Geneza, charakterystyka i działalność w regionie Bliskiego Wschodu, Warsaw 2017; M. Woźniak-Bobińska, A. M. Solarz (eds), Wprowadzenie do polityki zagranicznej muzułmańskich państw Bliskiego Wschodu i Afryki Północnej, Warsaw 2018. 20 See: J. Mierzwa, “‘Między starostą a plebanem’. Relacje między państwem a związkami wyznaniowymi na szczeblu administracji ogólnej I instancji w okresie Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej – zarys problematyki”, in Państwo – religia. Instytucje państwowe i obywatele wobec religii w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej w XX wieku, J. Durka (ed.), Kalisz 2014, 7–22. 21 See: S. Górzna, “Polityczny wymiar dialogu Kościoła katolickiego z judaizmem w wybranych dokumentach Kurii Rzymskiej”, Studia Oecumenica 15 (2015), 291–312; D. Maj, Konferencja Kościołów Europejskich wobec integracji europejskiej, Lublin 2016; J. Kulska, “Religijne budowanie pokoju (religious peacebuilding): rola religii w rozwiązywaniu konfliktów”, in Religia w konfliktach etnicznych we współczesnym świecie, vol. 1: Zagadnienia teoretyczne. Europa i obszar poradziecki, A. Szabaciuk, D. Wybranowski, R. Zenderowski (eds), Lublin 2016, 81–101; M. Abdalla, “Unickie Kościoły Bliskiego Wschodu: polityka Watykanu wobec chrześcijan nierzymskich”, in Polityczne uwarunkowania religii – Religijne uwarunkowania polityki, S. Dudra, R. Michalak, Ł. Młyńczyk (eds), Zielona Góra 2017, 193–207. 22 See: M. Potz, Teokracje amerykańskie. Źródła i mechanizmy władzy usankcjonowanej religijnie, Łódź 2016; K. Kowalczyk, Między antyklerykalizmem a konfesjonalizacją. Partie polityczne wobec Kościoła katolickiego w Polsce po 1989 roku, Toruń 2016. 23 See: R. Zenderowski, R. Michalak, Polityka wyznaniowa. Aspekty teoretyczne i egzemplifikacje, Zielona Góra 2018, ch. 3, pp. 67–151.

The theory of religious policy 15

Bibliography Abdalla, M., “Unickie Kościoły Bliskiego Wschodu: polityka Watykanu wobec chrześcijan nierzymskich”, in Polityczne uwarunkowania religii: Religijne uwarunkowania polityki, S. Dudra, R. Michalak, Ł. Młyńczyk (eds), Zielona Góra 2017. Banek, K., “Politologia religii jako dziedzina badań religioznawczych”, Przegląd Religioznawczy (3–4) (1999), vols 193–194, 77–82. Burgoński, P., Gierycz, M. (eds), Religia i polityka. Zarys problematyki, Warsaw 2014. Dudra, S., Lemko Identity and the Orthodox Church, preface by P. J. Best, New Haven, CT 2018. Dudra, S., Polski Autokefaliczny Kościół Prawosławny w obszarze polityki wyznaniowej i polityki narodowościowej po II wojnie światowej, Warsaw, 2019. Dudra, S., Król-Mazur, R., Maj, D., Polityka wyznaniowa. Wschodnia i ekumeniczna perspektywa eklezjalna, Zielona Góra 2018. Fagan, G., Believing in Russia: Religious Policy after Communism, London and New York 2013. Gerster, D., Van Melis, V., Willems, U. (eds), Religionspolitik heute. Problemfelder und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Freiburg 2018. Gierycz, M., “Polska debata o imigracji w perspektywie politologii religii”, Chrześcijaństwo–Świat–Polityka 20 (2016), 73–84. Gieryńska, A., Organizacja Współpracy Islamskiej Geneza, charakterystyka i działalność w regionie Bliskiego Wschodu, Warsaw 2017. Góra-Szopiński, D., “Czym może, a czym nie powinna być politologia religii?”, in Polityka jako wyraz lub następstwo religijności, R. Michalak(ed), Zielona Góra 2015. Górzna, S., “Polityczny wymiar dialogu Kościoła katolickiego z judaizmem w wybranych dokumentach Kurii Rzymskiej”, Studia Oecumenica 15 (2015), 291–312. Grott, B. (ed), Religia i polityka, Kraków 2000. Grott, B., Grott, O. (eds), Wiedza religioznawcza w badaniach politologicznych, Warsaw 2015. Hamilton, M. B., The Sociology of Religion. Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives, London and New York 2012. Husar-Poliszuk, W., Secler, B., Ślusarczyk, P. S., Polityka wyznaniowa. Konteksty innych polityk publicznych. Austria, Katalonia, Polska, Zielona Góra 2018. Jevtić, M., “Political Science and Religion”, Politics and Religion Journal 1 (Belgrade 2007), 59–69. Jevtić, M., Religion and Power. Essays on Politology of Religion, Belgrade 2008. Kowalczyk, K., Między antyklerykalizmem a konfesjonalizacją. Partie polityczne wobec Kościoła katolickiego w Polsce po 1989 roku, Toruń 2016. Krukowski, J., “Polityka wyznaniowa państw postkomunistycznych. Główne linie”, Roczniki Nauk Prawnych 12(2) (2002), 5–19. Kulska, J., “Religijne budowanie pokoju (religious peacebuilding): rola religii w rozwiązywaniu konfliktów”, in Religia w konfliktach etnicznych we współczesnym świecie. Tom 1: Zagadnienia teoretyczne. Europa i obszar poradziecki, A. Szabaciuk, D. Wybranowski, R. Zenderowski(eds), Lublin 2016. Leszczyński, P. A., “Administracja wyznaniowa wybranych państw współczesnych–zarys zagadnienia”, in Prawo wyznaniowe w systemie prawa polskiego, A. Mezglewski (ed), Lublin 2004. Libiszowska-Żółtkowska, M., “Polityka wyznaniowa”, in Nauki o polityce publicznej. Monografia dyscypliny, J. Kwaśniewski(ed), Warsaw 2018.

16

The theory of religious policy

Maj, D., Konferencja Kościołów Europejskich wobec integracji europejskiej, Lublin 2016. Marczewska-Rytko, M., Religia i polityka w globalizującym się świecie, Lublin 2010. Marczewska-Rytko, M. (ed), Czynnik religijny w polityce wewnątrzpaństwowej i międzynarodowej na przełomie drugiego i trzeciego tysiąclecia, Lublin 2016. Marczewska-Rytko, M., “Politologia religii jako subdyscyplina religioznawstwa i/lub nauk o polityce”, in Politologia religii, M. Marczewska-Rytko, D. Maj (eds), Lublin 2018. Mazurkiewicz, P., “What Should a Political Scientist Know about Religion?”, Chrześcijaństwo–Świat–Polityka 23 (2019), 11–30. Mazurkiewicz, P., Ptaszek, R., Młyńczyk, Ł., Polityka wyznaniowa. Perspektywa Unii Europejskiej, Zielona Góra 2018. Michalak, R., “Powrót koncepcji Trzeciego Rzymu”, Doctrina–Międzynarodowy Przegląd Humanistyczny 1 (2004), 91–105. Michalak, R. (ed), Religijne determinanty polityki, Zielona Góra 2014. Michalak, R., “Political Science of Religion”, in The Dictionary of Political Knowledge, J. Marszałek-Kawa, D. Plecka (eds), Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, Toruń 2019a. Michalak, R., “Religious policy”, in The Dictionary of Political Knowledge, J. MarszałekKawa, D. Plecka (eds), Toruń 2019b. Michalak, R., “The Significance of the Religious Factor in the Internal and External Policies of Turkey”, Review of Nationalities 9 (2019c), DOI: 10.2478/pn-2019–0013, 167–176. Mierzwa, J., “‘Między starostą a plebanem’. Relacje między państwem a związkami wyznaniowymi na szczeblu administracji ogólnej I instancji w okresie Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej–zarys problematyki”, in Państwo–religia. Instytucje państwowe i obywatele wobec religii w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej w XX wieku, J. Durka (ed), Kalisz 2014. Orzeszyna, K., Podstawy relacji między państwem a kościołami w konstytucjach państw członkowskich i traktatach Unii Europejskiej. Studium porównawcze, Lublin 2007. Pietrzak, M., Prawo wyznaniowe, Warsaw 1995. Pietrzak, M., “Polityka wyznaniowa III Rzeczypospolitej w latach 1990–2001 (próba diagnozy)”, Prawo 311(3270) (2010), 365–377. Pochyły, P., “Polska polityka zagraniczna w reakcji na trzy kryzysy w Europie–analiza ‘mini’ exposé ministra Witolda Waszczykowskiego z 2016 r.”, in Pomiędzy mythos i logos społecznej zmiany, J. Golinowski and S. Sadowski (eds), Bydgoszcz 2017. Potz, M., Teokracje amerykańskie. Źródła i mechanizmy władzy usankcjonowanej religijnie, Łódź 2016. Potz, M., Political Science of Religion. Theorising the Political Role of Religion, Cham 2020. Tunia, A., “Polityka państwa w zakresie ustalenia jednolitej siatki pojęć stosowanych w przepisach prawa wyznaniowego”, in Polityka wyznaniowa a prawo III Rzeczypospolitej, M. Skwarzyński and P. Steczkowski (eds), Lublin 2016. Weber, M., The Sociology of Religion, E. Fischoff (trans.), T. Parsons(introd.), Boston 1963. Woźniak-Bobińska, M., Solarz, A. M. (eds), Wprowadzenie do polityki zagranicznej muzułmańskich państw Bliskiego Wschodu i Afryki Północnej, Warsaw 2018. Zenderowski, R., Religia a tożsamość narodowa i nacjonalizm w Europie ŚrodkowoWschodniej. Między etnicyzacją religii a sakralizacją etnosu (narodu), Wrocław 2011.

The theory of religious policy 17 Zenderowski, R., “Konflikt etniczny, konflikt religijny, konflikt etnoreligijny jako konflikty polityczne”, in Religia w konfliktach etnicznych we współczesnym świecie, vol. 1: Zagadnienia teoretyczne. Europa i obszar poradziecki, A. Szabaciuk, D. Wybranowski, R. Zenderowski (eds), Lublin 2016. Zenderowski, R., Michalak, R., Polityka wyznaniowa. Aspekty teoretyczne i egzemplifikacje, Zielona Góra 2018.

2

The ideological basis of religious policy in communist-type regimes

In the late twentieth century the French sociologist Patrick Michel claimed that: a situation in which all studies into conflicts between religion and Soviet-type regimes in Central Europe are limited to the usual analysis of the relationship between the institutionalized church and state has existed far too long. Without excluding this extremely important approach, we need to construct some other approaches.1 In this way Michel criticized the perception that the confrontation between the states and churches in Central and Eastern Europe existed only on the political and institutional level. In his view, religion cannot be reduced to an institutional form and shows a remarkable tendency to escape from the area in which formalized factors would like to place and isolate it.2 Among other things, this very nature of religion caused the authorities to react in strong opposition to its free development and adaptation in society.3 Today experts on religious policy commonly refer to Michel’s paradigm and recognize the crucial role of ideology in the religious policy of communists under direct Soviet authority or influence.4 This trend incorporates the findings of Polish authors. Michał Pietrzak, stating that the religious policy of the communist regime in Poland was determined by two main premises, pointed out first the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, and then “the changing political reasons and considerations”.5 In addition, Jan Żaryn, who wrote about the relationship between the state and the Roman Catholic Church in Poland in the years 1945–1950,6 identified the “fields of conflicts” between the two sides and noted that the original “field of conflict” was of an ideological nature, and the subsequent “fields” were its consequence. Similar comments and observations can be also found in the works of other researchers studying the religious policy of the USSR and its satellite states. Most of these studies attempt to outline the ideological nature of the confrontation. Pietrzak further notes that an integral part of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine adopted by communist parties was materialist philosophy, which rendered “the materialist concept of the world and human life antagonistic to the idealistic concept advocated by religions. It defined the hostile attitude of Marxism-Leninism to religion and religious associations”.7 The materialist vision generated a tendency DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-2

The ideological basis of religious policy 19 to build a system conceived in opposition to religious systems, focusing on activities aiming at human “reconstruction”, the ideological homogenization of society and, finally, creating a new model of culture. As Piotr Osęka points out, under Soviet and Stalinist conditions “communism made a holistic interpretation of the world, pretending to be a finite system of philosophy, and did not recognize any competition. Stalinism sought to replace religion – so much that it became like it.”8 In the hierarchy of authorities communists placed Karl Marx in the highest position. In fact, they had a religious belief that “the works of the master contain at least implicitly answers to all possible questions”, and they gave Marxism the status of “timeless truth, which is sufficient to be revealed if necessary”.9 The religious (or quasi-religious) perception of communism is known on the basis of studies into communist ideology and sovietological studies from the time the Bolshevik Party aspired to power. In 1911 the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev formulated his opinion in this regard.10 In his first great work, Philosophy of Freedom, he wrote of Marx and Marxists that: these people rejected faith with their consciousness, but believed in different things, often as invisible as the objects of the true faith. Are socialism or progress visible objects […] and can these things be objects of knowledge? These are all psychological objects of faith. It is possible that the selected objects are unworthy of faith, it is possible that idolatry is committed here, the living God is replaced with limited and relative things, but the psychological condition of faith is not annulled, it remains in force.11 In later works Berdyaev stated explicitly that the communist utopia is nothing more than a “secular attempt to implement the Kingdom of God on earth”12 based on the creation of “their own dogma, catechism, worship and calls for sacrifices”.13 Similar observations were formulated in the late 1920s by Konstanty Grzybowski: Bolshevism is a struggle with mysticism fought in this way that it is transforming itself into mysticism. For the Cromwellian revolution God was the rationale and justification for the activities of the dictator, and in the Bolshevik revolution the dictatorial proletariat seeks its justification in the materialistic philosophy of history that is dogmatically, uncritically, religiously accepted. The proletariat plays the role of the savior and redeemer, and the revolution, revolutionarity substitute religious inspiration, ecstasy.14 Lenin distanced himself from such associations,15 but admitted that “religious” attitudes to the ideology and the party itself occurred: “the notion of socialism being a religion for some people is a form of transition from religion to socialism, for others – from socialism to religion.”16 As Richard Pipes said: Primitive atheists wanted to attack it [religion] by all possible means, especially with mockery; the more subtle ones followed the French proverb that

20

The ideological basis of religious policy one cannot destroy something if it is not replaced and wanted to make socialism a substitute religion.17

Leszek Kołakowski also pointed out the “religious” character of Marxism, first (in 1956) postulating its “secularization”: All petrification of the doctrine inevitably leads to its transformation into mythology, surrounded by ritual cult and made an object of veneration, free from all criticism […]. Communist intellectual circles are facing the task of fighting for the secularization of thinking, fighting against mythology, pseudo-Marxist bigotry, and religious and magical practices;18 and then formulating a critical diagnosis: Marxism performs essential religious functions and its effectiveness is of religious character; however, it is a grotesque religion lined with bad faith, because it is trying to portray its worldly eschatology as a scientific achievement, which is not done by religious mythologies.19 Father Jan Piwowarczyk presents an interesting comparison of Marxism and religion, and the issue has been studied in depth by Marcin Kula, Rafał Imos and father Józef Maria Bocheński.20 The theses in their works are similar: the Soviettype communism is “religion-like” (Kula), “religious” (Imos) or “fully religious” (Bocheński). Bocheński emphasizes the presence of the category of the “absolute” in communist practice: Everything that serves the objectives of the party is good, what works to its detriment – evil. The victory of the party is absolute good […] The party is the incarnation of the absolute: God. This is why the party can never be wrong. This is why everyone should devote all their energy, all their lives to the party.21 The explanation of the ideological ground of the dispute between MarxismLeninism and religion was the primary objective of Bocheński’s research on religious policy of Soviet type. In his opinion “religious policy is so far dependent on the theory that it cannot be fully understood without an adequate knowledge of the theory”.22 The focal point of his studies was the analysis of Engels’s dialectical materialism and Marx’s historical materialism, which Bocheński called “the two pillars of the edifice of ideological communist science”, and only after that analysis did he attempt to determine the relationship between Marxism-Leninism and ethics and religion. According to Bocheński, communist ideology associated the fundamental question of philosophy with establishing the relation of “thought” and “being”, “spirit” and “nature”, and wondering which is primordial – “nature” or “spirit”? This basic question contained at least three further problems:

The ideological basis of religious policy 21 ·· ·· ··

Metaphysical problem: is there a creator of the world? Epistemological problem: does thought create what is thought, or does it merely grasp something that already exists? Psychophysical problem: what are the relations between body and soul, or between the physiological and psychological processes in man?23

The basic theses of dialectical materialism connected with the study of “matter” (the world) assumed that it has neither beginning nor end in time and is unlimited in space. Moreover, “matter is a source of infinite number of forms and shapes appearing in individual things” – it is growing increasingly to higher levels and “at a certain point it forms consciously thinking beings who develop further”.24 “After the thousand-year struggle” – Engels was convinced – when differentiation between the arm and leg finally became established, and the upright gait became established – men became distinguished from apes and there was a basis for the development of articulate speech and the mighty development of the brain, which henceforth founded the unbridgeable gap between men and apes.25 Dialectical materialism excluded the creation of the world, because there was nothing outside it. Nature was supposed to be the only creative force. As Engels claimed: we must either resort to the Creator, or declare that the incandescent material from which the solar system of our island in the universe was formed, was created in a natural way, as a result of movement changes that are naturally appropriate to moving matter, and therefore the conditions of which must be also repeated by matter, even after many millions of years, more or less by accident, but with the need, which also lies in a coincidence. The possibility of this transformation is increasingly recognized.26 God, according to Engels, was the product of people.27 Moreover, Leszek Kołakowski (already critical of Marxism) pointed out that “Engels considers religion as a fetus of ignorance or mental incompetence”.28 Analysis of the works of Engels fully confirms this statement. He wrote that “the first gods” were created “by the personification of the forces of nature” and: in the course of further development of religion they took on the form of increasingly transcendent beings, and finally as a result of the process of abstraction, which occurs naturally in the course of mental development – I would say almost the distillation process – from many more or less limited and mutually limiting gods the idea of the sole exclusive god of monotheistic religions was created in human minds.29 A practical conclusion for mankind was therefore to give up “hope for life in the hereafter”, and instead “cherish life on earth and strive to improve it”.30 This did

22

The ideological basis of religious policy

not mean the rejection of the concept of “spirit” by Engels’s dialectics. On the contrary, “spirit” was exposed in it, but as a “product of matter”: Psyche is the result of the material activity of the brain. Thought, impression is a function, a feature of the brain. There is no soul, consciousness cannot be separated from the brain, its bodily organ; it dies together with the human body.31 The application of dialectical materialism to society gave the basic thesis of Marx’s historical materialism:32 “It is not consciousness that determines human beings, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness.”33 Marx assumed that “just like an individual’s consciousness is a function, a product of the brain, the political and spiritual life of society is a function, a product of its economic life”.34 Marx captures the essence of historical materialism, explaining the structure of society. He introduced the distinction of four planes. As the primary factor of this structure he noticed “productive forces”, that is “tools of production, means of work, with which material goods are produced, and people who implement the manufacturing process based on a particular production experience”. Another plane of the social structure, according to Marx, were “relations of production” also referred to as the “base” on which the next plane arose. That next plane is the “legal and political superstructure” consisting of legal and political relationships. The final plane in the structure of society is “social forms of consciousness”, understood as “ideological forms in which men […] realize social processes”.35 As Bocheński stated, Marx assumed that: productive forces determine the process of life in general, namely: a) from the point of view of the relations of production which determine social life; b) from the point of view of legal and political superstructure which forms political life; c) from the point of view of social forms of consciousness, identified with the spiritual life of society.36 Society itself, with its “relations of production”, “base” and “superstructure”, is defined as a “socio-political formation”. Throughout history, Marx noticed four formations (primitive community, the order of slave owners, feudal order, the capitalist order) and he anticipated the arrival of a fifth (communist order). Inside the formations (except the first and fifth ones) “classes” of exploiters and exploited occur at different places in the system of social production. The economic, ideological and political “struggle of the classes” was to lead to the elimination of their causes, i.e. private ownership of the means of production, and thus to the formation of the “classless society”.37 Marx predicted in this regard a unique historical role to be fulfilled by the proletariat, namely, the liquidation of all economic exploitation once and for all. Capitalists are replaced not by a new class of private owners, but by a community of free producers. The means of production are socialized, and social classes are abolished.

The ideological basis of religious policy 23 “Public consciousness” and the “ideological forms” it includes – legal and political ideology, philosophy, science, art, ethics and religion – are important elements of historical materialism. In the context of this study and further consideration the most essential assumption of historical materialism is the one which says that religion is “always connected with exploitation and, therefore, it is to disappear in socialism – as opposed to other forms of social consciousness that only change”.38 This assumption was further developed by Marx himself and other theorists. They claimed that religion: was established in the first formation, first as a result of human helplessness against the forces of nature: it was the fantastic reflection of these forces in human minds (Engels). Then it became an expression of the same helplessness against social forces. In a class society religion is always a tool of oppression of the exploited by the exploiters, [a] means of subjugation of working masses. It teaches the exploited to be patient, tells them to wait for the illusory happiness in the afterlife, and thus it prevents a struggle against exploiters.39 “God (as he was shaped by history and life)” – wrote Lenin – “is primarily a complex of ideas born of humans’ numbing sense of being overwhelmed by both the surrounding nature and class oppression – ideas that preserve this sense of the overwhelming, lull to sleep class struggles.”40 Development of history and the scientific progress connected with it were to lay bare the falsity of religion, and revolution was to destroy its “base”: religion can no longer be a rampart of the capitalist society. If our legal, philosophical and religious ideas are closer or further products of economic relations prevailing in a given society, these ideas cannot permanently remain after a thorough change of economic relations.41 If, according to major theorists, material interests (all that brings economic and political benefits to an individual or a group) were the foundation of social action, religious ideas acquired the status of only epiphenomena that justified or camouflaged the actual behavior of people.42 It was accepted that religion would not have to disappear immediately, as it “still had a base in capitalist countries” and “like any superstructure, it had a relative independence”, which would allow it to survive for some time after the destruction of the “base”.43 The communist order, created in the theory by Marx, Engels and Lenin, rejected religion for two main reasons: first, religion was fundamentally a false doctrine, and second it was a socially harmful ideology. Its harmfulness resulted from two motives. Marcel Neusch commented that according to Marx: on the one hand, it [religion] is an expression of real poverty, a sign of poorly functioning society. If everything went well in the world, man would not go to imaginary spheres. On the other hand, religion is a protest against this

24

The ideological basis of religious policy poverty, the revelation of the heartless world, but also its accusation. However, this accusation remains false, because instead of mobilizing humans to transform the world it makes them escape into the direction of another world.44

Although these comments concerned religion in general, the “evidence of evil” was presented using the example of Christianity, for which there were no “extenuating circumstances”.45 According to Engels, Christianity knew: only one equality of all people, equality in original sin, which completely corresponded to the nature of Christianity as a religion of slaves and the oppressed. Apart from this it knew just the freedom of the chosen ones, but it was stressed only at the very beginning. Traces of a community of goods […] can be explained with solidarity of the oppressed rather than the true views of real equality. Even this beginning of Christian equality was soon stopped with the establishment of the priest and the secular opposition.46 Engels did not hide his contempt for Protestantism,47 claiming that Reformation was the “ideological costume which the bourgeoisie put on when they realized that they were a leaving class”.48 According to Lenin no ideological compromise between religion and materialism could be possible: “Marxism is materialism. And as such it is relentlessly hostile to all religion, just like the materialism of the encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century and the materialism of Feuerbach.”49 Marx claimed that dialectical materialism is “an absolutely atheistic materialism and hostile to all religion”.50 And religion itself: is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. Religion is the opium of the people. True happiness of the people requires [therefore] the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people.51 A similar message that merely used different terms is found in Lenin’s work “Socialism and Religion”: Religion is a form of spiritual oppression, which weighs heavily on the masses destroyed by poverty, isolation and ceaseless toil for others. A sense of powerlessness of exploited classes in their struggle against exploiters gives birth to faith in a better life after death, just like as a sense of powerlessness against natural forces felt by primitive men give birth to faith in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Religion taught those who toil their whole lives and suffer poverty humility and patience in the earthly life, comforting them with hope of reward in heaven. And it teaches those who live off the work of others charity on earth offering the opportunity to purchase a ticket to heavenly bliss for an affordable price. Religion is a kind of fusel – spiritual moonshine in which the slaves of capital drown their human face and the desire to have just half decent, human life.52

The ideological basis of religious policy 25 Whether religion is described as “opium” or “fusel” its impact on humans deprives them of their Promethean vocation: “it takes away the status of the sole creator of the world, making a human being a tool of a higher being”, and in the case of class differentiation it takes away revolutionary activity from the exploited. In its miracular edition it also shamefully contrasts with modernity. Thus, the “base” on which religion grew, and religion itself as a “superstructure”, are bad. This thinking was characteristic primarily of Lenin, who saw an enemy in the very religion, not the clergy. In one of his letters to Gorky he wrote: Millions of sins, filthy deeds, acts of violence and physical defilement are more noticeable for the crowd, and therefore significantly less dangerous than the subtle spiritual concept of god in the most elegant ideological clothing. A Catholic priest seducing girls is much less dangerous to democracy than a priest without his cassock, a priest without a primitive religion, a democratic and full of ideas priest, a priest who preaches the creation of the world by god.53 This leads to the conclusion that for Lenin “the higher the degree of purity a religion achieves, the more selfless it is, the more dangerous it is”. Despite this approach Lenin did not recommend a sudden offensive against religion. Nor did he reject the possibility of cooperation with people of faith, provided, however, that this cooperation would lead to the self-destruction of their own “base”. Naturally, the cooperation was temporary and passing, and the destruction of the “base” would inevitably be followed by the destruction of the “superstructure”. The first and practical manifestation of this situation was the cooperation of the Bolsheviks with “working Muslims” who in 1918 formed the Workers’ and Peasants’ Muslim Red Army.54 Parallel to these moves, Lenin promoted atheistic propaganda: Masses must be supplied with a range of different materials of atheistic propaganda, they must be familiarized with facts from various fields of life, and approached in one way or the other so that they become intrigued, waken from religious sleep, moved from different angles, in different ways.55 Both the theory and the tactical guidance of Marx, Engels and Lenin were “guidelines” in the practical religious policy of communists in the Soviet Union and in the countries of the Soviet Bloc.56 The process of atheization began in Russia shortly after the Bolshevik seizure of power, and the successor to Lenin, Joseph Stalin, clearly decided to “use force to destroy religion and churches, use the Orthodox Church instrumentally and he introduced the principle of divide and rule with regard to the hierarchy and the faithful”.57

Notes 1 P. Michel, Kościół katolicki a totalitaryzm, Warsaw 1995, 29 (the first edition was published in French in 1988).

26

The ideological basis of religious policy

2 See: P. Michel, Polityka i religia. Wielka przemiana, Kraków 2000. 3 The ideas included in this chapter have been previously published in the article R. Michalak, “The Ideological Basis of the Religious Policy in Soviet-Type Regimes”, in Between Western and Eastern Europe. Political Studies: Past and the Present, S. Dudra, P. Pochyły (eds), Burbank, IL 2015, 143–154. 4 See: M. S. Mazgaj, Church and State in Communist Poland. A History, 1944–1989, Jefferson, NC and London 2010; F. A. Adamski, The Church in Poland in the Mirror of the Press, Ružomberok 2012. 5 M. Pietrzak, Prawo wyznaniowe, Warsaw 1995, 156; W. Wysoczański, M. Pietrzak, Prawo kościołów i związków wyznaniowych nierzymskokatolickich w Polsce, Warsaw 1997. 6 See: J. Żaryn, Kościół a władza w Polsce (1945–1950), Warsaw 1997. See also: Ł. Marek, M. Bortlik-Dźwierzyńska, Za Marksem bez Boga. Laicyzacja życia społecznego w Polsce w latach 1945–1989, Katowice 2014; A. Dziurok (ed.), Relacje Kościół – państwo na Górnym Śląsku w latach 1945–1989. Konflikt ideologiczny, Katowice and Warsaw 2019. 7 Pietrzak, Prawo wyznaniow, 156. 8 P. Osęka, Rytuały stalinizmu. Oficjalne święta i uroczystości rocznicowe w Polsce 1944–1956, Warsaw 2007, 52–53. 9 J. Szacki, Historia myśli socjologicznej. Wydanie nowe, Warsaw 2002, 213. 10 On Berdyaev see: R.-O. Bodea, “Nikolai Berdyaev’s Dialectics of Freedom: In Search for Spiritual Freedom”, Open Theology 5(1) (2019), 299–308, DOI: 10.1515/opth2019–0023. 11 M. Bierdiajew, Filozofia wolności, Białystok 1995, 25 (the first edition was published in Russia in 1911). 12 A. Raźny, “Początek nowej fazy mesjanizmu religijnego w Rosji XX wieku”, in Religia chrześcijańska a idee polityczne, B. Grott (ed.), Kraków 1998, 163. 13 P. Fiktus, “Religia i Kościół a komunizm w myśli politycznej Mikołaja Bierdiajewa”, in Religia a prawo i państwo, M. Sadowski and P. Szymaniec (eds), Studia Erasmiana Wratislaviensia 5, Wrocław 2011, 163. 14 K. Grzybowski, Ustrój Związku Socjalistycznych Sowieckich Republik. Doktryna i konstytucja, Kraków 1929, 5. 15 Lenin criticized the concept of bogostroitielstwo – and was in favor of the idea of creating a Promethean religion of the proletariat and the deification of man – represented among the Bolsheviks by Alexander Bogdanov and Anatolij Lunaczarski, see: J. Ochman, “Korzenie bogotwórstwa czyli żydowskie korzenie rosyjskiego ‘bogostroitielstwa’”, in Koncepcje integracyjne w myśli narodów słowiańskich, Z. Stachowski (ed.),Warsaw and Tyczyn 1999, 84–99; see also J. Tomasiewicz, “Osmoza komunizmu i nacjonalizmu w Rosji: geneza hybrydy”, Historia i Polityka 4 (11) (2010), 139. 16 W. I. Lenin, Dzieła wszystkie, vol. XVII, Warsaw 1984, 119. 17 R. Pipes, Rosja bolszewików, Warsaw 2005, 362. 18 L. Kołakowski, “Intelektualiści a ruch komunistyczny”, Nowe Drogi 9 (1956), 22–31. 19 L. Kołakowski, Główne nurty marksizmu, part III, Warsaw 1989, 524. 20 See: J. Piwowarczyk, Wobec nowego czasu, Kraków 1985, 99–100; M. Kula, Religiopodobny komunizm, Kraków 2003; R. Imos, Wiara człowieka radzieckiego, Kraków 2007; J. M. Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, Warsaw 1996. 21 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 294. 22 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 359. 23 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 111. 24 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 112. 25 F. Engels, “Dialektyka przyrody”, in K. Marks, F. Engels, W. Lenin, O materializmie dialektycznym. Wybór, Warsaw 1985, 90–91. 26 Engels, “Dialektyka przyrody”, 96.

The ideological basis of religious policy 27 27 See: T. Carver, Friedrich Engels: His Life and Thought, Basingstoke 1989; T. Hunt, Marx’s General: The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels, New York 2010. 28 L. Kołakowski, Główne nurty marksizmu, part I, Warsaw 1989, 335. 29 F. Engels, “Ludwik Feuerbach i zmierzch klasycznej filozofii niemieckiej”, in K. Marks, F. Engels, W. Lenin, O religii. Wybór, Warsaw 1984, 262–263. 30 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 113. 31 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 120. 32 On Marx’s historical materialism see: I. Berlin, Karol Marks. Jego życie i środowisko, Warsaw 1999, 105–136; F. Mehring, Karl Marx: The Story of his Life, London and New York 2003; J. Sperber, Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life, New York and London 2013. 33 K. Marks, “Przyczynek do krytyki ekonomii politycznej”, in K. Marks, F. Engels, Dzieła, vol. XIII, Warsaw 1966, 9. 34 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 127. 35 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 128. 36 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 127. 37 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 134–137. 38 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 141. 39 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 142. 40 W. Lenin, “Do A. M. Gorkiego”, in Marks et al., O religii. Wybór, 463. 41 F. Engels, “O materializmie historycznym”, in K. Marks, F. Engels, O materializmie historycznym, Warsaw 1949, 54. 42 See: M. McGuire, Religia w kontekście społecznym, Kraków 2012, 285. 43 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 142. 44 M. Neusch, U źródeł współczesnego ateizmu. Sto lat dyskusji na temat Boga, Paris 1980, 88. 45 This was due to the fact that Marx and Engels knew Christianity from their own religious experiences, see: A. Walicki, Marksizm i skok do królestwa wolności. Dzieje komunistycznej utopii, Warsaw 1996, 125. 46 F. Engels, “Anty – Dühring”, in K. Marks, F. Engels, W. Lenin, O sprawiedliwości społecznej. Wybór, Warsaw 1986, 90–91. 47 See: J. Green, Engels: A Revolutionary Life, London 2008. 48 Neusch, U źródeł współczesnego ateizmu, 77. 49 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 300. 50 Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 300. 51 K. Marks, “Przyczynek do krytyki heglowskiej filozofii prawa”, in K. Marks, F. Engels, O religii, Warsaw 1962, 29; see: B. Drozdowicz, “Karol Marks wobec poglądów filozoficznych Hegla i młodoheglistów. Idealistyczna teoria religii we wczesnych pracach Karola Marksa”, Słupskie Studia Filozoficzne 5 (2005), 17–36; J. Luchte, “Marx and the Sacred”, The Journal of Church and State 51(3) (2009), 413–437. 52 Cited after Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 301. 53 Cited after Bocheński, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, 302. 54 See: Tomasiewicz, “Osmoza komunizmu i nacjonalizmu w Rosji”, 142. 55 Cited after J. Szymański, “Procedury ideologiczne wobec religii w ZSRR”, in Polityka a religia, P. Jaroszyński et al. (eds), Lublin 2007, 337. 56 See: The Church and State under Communism: A Special Study of the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate. Part 1: The U.S.S.R., Washington, DC 1964. 57 K. Białecki, “Podstawowe założenia polityki wyznaniowej władz PRL wobec mniejszościowych wspólnot religijnych”, in Władze Polski Ludowej a mniejszościowe związki wyznaniowe, T. J. Zieliński (ed.), Warsaw and Katowice 2010, 13–16. Repressive policy towards the Orthodox Church in Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union

28

The ideological basis of religious policy was a consequence of ideological determinants, but also an expression of retaliation for criticizing the Bolshevik order formulated by the hierarchs in 1917–1918, see: K. Pawełczyk-Dura, “‘Gorzkie słowo prawdy’, czyli członkowie Rosyjskiej Cerkwi Prawosławnej naocznymi świadkami narodzin państwa komunistycznego”, Doctrina. Studia Społeczno-Polityczne 9 (2012), 241–251; M. M. Balzer (ed.), Religion and Politics in Russia, London and New York 2010.

Bibliography Balzer, M. M. (ed), Religion and Politics in Russia, London and New York 2010. Białecki, K., “Podstawowe założenia polityki wyznaniowej władz PRL wobec mniejszościowych wspólnot religijnych”, in Władze Polski Ludowej a mniejszościowe związki wyznaniowe, T. J. Zieliński (ed), Warsaw and Katowice 2010. Bierdiajew, M., Filozofia wolności, Białystok 1995. (The first edition was published in Russia in 1911.) Bocheński, J. M., Lewica, religia, sowietologia, Warsaw 1996. Bodea, R.-O., “Nikolai Berdyaev’s Dialectics of Freedom: In Search for Spiritual Freedom”, Open Theology 5(1) (2019), DOI: 10.1515/opth-2019–0023, 299–308. The Church and State under Communism: A Special Study of the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, part 1: The U.S.S.R., Washington, DC 1964. Drozdowicz, B., “Karol Marks wobec poglądów filozoficznych Hegla i młodoheglistów. Idealistyczna teoria religii we wczesnych pracach Karola Marksa”, Słupskie Studia Filozoficzne 5 (2005), 17–36. Dziurok, A. (ed), Relacje Kościół–państwo na Górnym Śląsku w latach 1945–1989. Konflikt ideologiczny, Katowice and Warsaw 2019. Engels, F., “O materializmie historycznym”, in O materializmie historycznym, K. Marks, F. Engels (eds), Warsaw 1949. Engels, F., “Ludwik Feuerbach i zmierzch klasycznej filozofii niemieckiej”, in O religii. Wybór, K. Marks, F. Engels, W. Lenin (eds), Warsaw 1984. Engels, F., “Dialektyka przyrody”, in O materializmie dialektycznym. Wybór K. Marks, F. Engels, W. Lenin (eds), Warsaw 1985. Engels, F., “Anty–Dühring”, in O sprawiedliwości społecznej. Wybór, K. Marks, F. Engels, W. Lenin (eds), Warsaw 1986. Fiktus, P., “Religia i Kościół a komunizm w myśli politycznej Mikołaja Bierdiajewa”, in Religia a prawo i państwo, M. Sadowski and P. Szymaniec (eds), vol. 5, Studia Erasmiana Wratislaviensia, Wrocław 2011. Green, J., Engels: A Revolutionary Life, London 2008. Grzybowski, K., Ustrój Związku Socjalistycznych Sowieckich Republik. Doktryna i konstytucja, Kraków 1929. Imos, R., Wiara człowieka radzieckiego, Kraków 2007. Kołakowski, L., “Intelektualiści a ruch komunistyczny”, Nowe Drogi 9 (1956), 22–31. Kołakowski, L., Główne nurty marksizmu, part III, Warsaw 1989. Kula, M., Religiopodobny komunizm, Kraków 2003. Lenin, W. I., “Do A. M. Gorkiego”, in O religii. Wybór, K. Marks, F. Engels, W. Lenin (eds), Warsaw 1984a. Lenin, W. I., Dzieła wszystkie, vol. XVII, Warsaw 1984b.

The ideological basis of religious policy 29 Luchte, J., “Marx and the Sacred”, The Journal of Church and State 51(3) (2009), 413–437. Marek, Ł., Bortlik-Dźwierzyńska, M., Za Marksem bez Boga. Laicyzacja życia społecznego w Polsce w latach 1945–1989, Katowice 2014. Marks, K. “Przyczynek do krytyki heglowskiej filozofii prawa”, in, O religii, K. Marks, F. Engels (eds), Warsaw 1962. Mazgaj, M. S., Church and State in Communist Poland. A History, 1944–1989, Jefferson, NC and London 2010. McGuire, M., Religia w kontekście społecznym, Kraków 2012. Michalak, R., “The Ideological Basis of the Religious Policy in Soviet-Type Regimes”, in Between Western and Eastern Europe. Political Studies: Past and the Present, S. Dudra, P. Pochyły (eds), Burbank, IL 2015. Michel, P., Kościół katolicki a totalitaryzm, Warsaw 1995. (The first edition was published in French in 1988.) Michel, P., Polityka i religia. Wielka przemiana, Kraków 2000. Neusch, M., U źródeł współczesnego ateizmu. Sto lat dyskusji na temat Boga, Paris 1980. Ochman, J., “Korzenie bogotwórstwa czyli żydowskie korzenie rosyjskiego ‘bogostroitielstwa’”, in Koncepcje integracyjne w myśli narodów słowiańskich, Z. Stachowski (ed), Warsaw and Tyczyn 1999. Osęka, P., Rytuały stalinizmu. Oficjalne święta i uroczystości rocznicowe w Polsce 1944– 1956, Warsaw 2007. Pawełczyk-Dura, K., “‘Gorzkie słowo prawdy’, czyli członkowie Rosyjskiej Cerkwi Prawosławnej naocznymi świadkami narodzin państwa komunistycznego”, Doctrina. Studia Społeczno-Polityczne 9 (2012), 241–251. Pietrzak, M., Prawo wyznaniowe, Warsaw 1995. Pietrzak, M., Wysoczański, W., Prawo kościołów i związków wyznaniowych nierzymskokatolickich w Polsce, Warsaw 1997. Pipes, R., Rosja bolszewików, Warsaw 2005. Piwowarczyk, J., Wobec nowego czasu, Kraków 1985. Raźny, A., “Początek nowej fazy mesjanizmu religijnego w Rosji XX wieku”, in Religia chrześcijańska a idee polityczne, B. Grott (ed), Kraków 1998. Szacki, J., Historia myśli socjologicznej. Wydanie nowe, Warsaw 2002. Szymański, J., “Procedury ideologiczne wobec religii w ZSRR”, in Polityka a religia, P. Jaroszyński et al. (eds), Lublin 2007. Tomasiewicz, J., “Osmoza komunizmu i nacjonalizmu w Rosji: geneza hybrydy”, Historia i Polityka 4 (11) (2010), 135–155. Walicki, A., Marksizm i skok do królestwa wolności. Dzieje komunistycznej utopii, Warsaw 1996. Żaryn, J., Kościół a władza w Polsce (1945–1950), Warsaw 1997.

3

The origin and essence of Methodism

The genesis of Methodism is connected with the teaching and thought of the Anglican clergyman John Wesley (1703–1791), who in the 1730s made “methodical renewal” of the Church of England1 (the First British Evangelical Awakening2). Renewal was understood as a search for the real presence of God and a desire to reduce ritualized forms. The goal thus defined was inspired by Pietism, i.e. the teaching current in Lutheranism, which was formed confessionally and ecclesially in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, mainly in the German Reich. The Pietists emphasized the search for religious experience through prayer and Bible study. They preached the doctrine of the need to return to the original ideal of the Church, while criticizing all manifestations of ecclesial formalism. The leading representatives of Pietism were Philipp Jacob Spener, August Herman Francke and the leader of the Moravian Brethren Herrnhut, Nikolaus Ludwig Zinzendorf.3 The Wesleyan renewal was also inspired by the Armenian thought cultivated in Dutch Calvinism of the seventeenth century, whose supporters rejected the doctrine of double predestination and preached the doctrine of salvation resulting from the grace that God offers to every human being. Humans, endowed with free will, could, according to the Armenians, decide their own fate in the present and in eternity. Armenians were also referred to as Semipelagians, crypto Pelagians, or Remonstrants. The main representatives of Armenianism were Jacob Armenszoon (Arminius) and Huig de Groot (Grotius).4 The term “Methodists” initially had a pejorative meaning, and was coined by Wesley’s opponents, who criticized the exaggerated, in their opinion, rigorism and methodical fulfillment of religious duties. Wesley’s followers, however, considered this name to be a glorious one and in the structure of the Anglican Church they established so-called Methodist associations (following the example of Pietist gatherings for exercises in piety – exercitium pietatis), understood as a “church in the Church” (ecclesiola in ecclesia). After this activity was questioned by the authorities of the Anglican Church, they formed an independent Church (ecclesia vera), based on churches resembling those of German Pietists (Collegia pietatis).5 The first Methodist parishes, not recognized in the legal system of the monarchy, were established in England, Wales and Ireland. The leading pastors of the churches were also supported by lay preachers, who were most often also itinerant evangelists, preferring “the preaching of the open space”.6 In addition DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-3

The origin and essence of Methodism 31 to John Wesley, his brother Charles Wesley (1707–1788) and George Whitefield (1714–1770) were among the first leaders of the movement. The latter, together with Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) is considered to be the main leader of the American First Great Awakening.7 In addition to strictly evangelizing work, Methodists took many steps to promote education and access to health care. Their activity was also visible in extensive aid and charity actions, which remains a feature of Methodism to this day.8 According to Janusz Borowiak, John Wesley gave 52,400 sermons and travelled more than 352,000 km during his long life.9 With the creed, “I consider the whole world to be my parish, and it is my right and duty to preach the good news of salvation to anyone who listens to me”, he travelled through hundreds of towns in the British Isles and America. The religious events in which he participated in Britain are commonly referred to as the “First British Evangelical (Wesleyan) Awakening”.10 In the second half of the eighteenth century, Methodism became firmly established on both sides of the Atlantic. In the newly established United States (1776), the religious movement became a regular Methodist Episcopal Church in 1784, with Francis Asbury as its first head. This happened in the British Isles several years later (1797), after the death of John Wesley. Methodists initially established the Wesleyan Methodist Church there, and soon afterwards they organized themselves into three independent, non-episcopal (so-called conferential) religious associations (their unification took place only in 1939). “In this way, the spontaneous movement of a religious awakening was transformed into an ecclesial structure, which, as the Church, did not forget its roots in living folk preaching and joyful experience of the gift of conversion.”11 From 1881, the Churches cooperated in an international organization called the World Methodist Council. The principles of Methodism12 – accepted by Wesley’s followers around the world to this day – were expressed in confessions, 24 Articles of Faith, personally developed by John Wesley himself.13 They emphasize the Trinitarian character of the Church (art. I), reject monophysitism in favor of faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God who became man (“One is Christ, true God and true man”, art. II), and embrace his salvific death on the Cross, his resurrection and the Last Judgment (art. III).14 The only norms that determines a person’s life and faith are those of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments: The Scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation. What is not in it, or cannot be proven in Scripture, cannot be binding on man as an article of faith, nor can it constitute a desirable or indispensable condition of salvation. (art. V) Like in other branches of Protestantism, in Methodism the primacy of grace and faith over the meaning of works is defined (arts. VIII–XI), with the consequence that the doctrine of Purgatory is negated (“The Roman doctrine of Purgatory, indulgences, worshiping and adoration, of images and relics, and the invocation of saints is a naive and freely invented thing not confirmed in Scripture, contrary

32

The origin and essence of Methodism

to the Word of God”, art. XIV). The Wesleyan science of the sacraments (art. XV) was also constructed in opposition to Roman Catholic interpretation, recognizing only Baptism (given to infants, art. XVII) and Holy Communion, which is received by the faithful in two forms, bread and wine, while rejecting its Roman Catholic interpretation of transubstantiation (arts. XVIII–XIX). The full incorporation of the faithful into the Church takes place through confirmation. As Andrzej M. Komraus notes: Methodism emphasizes the need to return to the sources of Christianity: Christ and the Gospel, calls for personal conversion and sacrifice of life to God, and therefore for sanctification. Accepting all the fundamental doctrines of primitive Christianity, Methodism emphasizes that it is not so much the dogmatic formulations that are important and credible as the practical effects: the experience of faith and the witness of life. Christians must be conscious disciples and followers of Christ.15 The Methodist Path leading man to salvation contains four essential stages and experiences. The duty of all Methodists (“universal priesthood”) is to proclaim the idea of salvation, which is enshrined in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.16 The missionary and evangelizing activity of the Methodist Churches, especially the Churches in Great Britain and the United States of America, stemmed from this obligation. The doctrinal directive gave rise to the presence of Methodist missions in Poland.

Notes 1 About the genesis and the first stage of development of Methodism, see: D. W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, London 1989; W. Gibson, The Church of England 1688–1832: Unity and Accord, London and New York 2001; J. Kent, Wesley and the Wesleyans, Cambridge 2002; J. M. Turner, John Wesley: The Evangelical Revival and the Rise of Methodism in England, Epworth 2003. See also the periodical Wesley and Methodist Studies. 2 T. J. Zieliński, “Geneza i istota Aliansu Ewangelicznego”, Myśl Ewangeliczna 5–6 (1990), 28. 3 See: J. Wallmann, Der Pietismus. Ein Handbuch, Stuttgart 2005; M. A. Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism. The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys, Downers Grove 2003; S. Pawłowski, “Pietyzm XVII wieku jako forma nowej ewangelizacji”, Roczniki Teologiczne 65(7) (2018), 119–127, DOI: 10.18290/rt.2018.65.7–9. 4 See: J. M. Pinson, “The Nature of Atonement in the Theology of Jacobus Arminius”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53/54 (December 2010), 773–785; F. L. Forlines, J. M. Pinson, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, Nashville, TN 2011. 5 See: M. Matthias, “Collegium pietatis und ecclesiola”, Pietismus und Neuzeit 19 (Göttingen 1993), 46–59. 6 See: K. Karski, Symbolika. Zarys wiedzy o Kościołach i wspólnotach chrześcijańskich, Warszaw 1994, 117.

The origin and essence of Methodism 33 7 See: M. Pomarański, Współczesny amerykański fundamentalizm protestancki, Lublin 2013, 90. 8 See: J. Pritchard, Methodists and their Missionary Societies 1760–1900, London and New York 2016; J. Pritchard, Methodists and their Missionary Societies 1900–1996, London and New York 2016. 9 See: J. Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, Warsaw 1999, 10. 10 T. J. Zieliński, “Geneza i istota Aliansu Ewangelicznego”, 28. 11 A. Kleszczyński, “Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny”, Wiedza i Życie 3 (1997). 12 See: T. Spoeri, Teologia metodyzmu, Warsaw 1987. 13 See: E. Puślecki, “Homo unius libri – Człowiek jednej księgi”, Methodos. Przegląd Teologiczno-Społeczny Wyższego Seminarium Teologicznego im. Jana Łaskiego w Warszawie 2 (2003). 14 The 24 Articles are quoted from http://metodysci.pl/czytelnia/artykuly-wiary/artykulywiary/ 15 A. M. Komraus, “Metodyści”, Jednota (1991, nos 8–9). 16 See: D. Zuber, “Eklezjologia ks. Jana Wesleya”, Studia Oecumenica 11 (2011).

Bibliography Bebbington, D. W., Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, London 1989. Borowiak, J., Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, Warsaw 1999. Forlines, F. L., Pinson, J. M., Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, Nashville 2011. Gibson, W., The Church of England 1688–1832: Unity and Accord, London and New York 2001. Karski, K., Symbolika. Zarys wiedzy o Kościołach i wspólnotach chrześcijańskich, Warsaw 1994. Kent, J., Wesley and the Wesleyans, Cambridge 2002. Kleszczyński, A., “Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny”, Wiedza i Życie 3 (1997), 45–48. Komraus, A. M., “Metodyści”, Jednota (8–9) (1991), vol. 35, 7–9. Matthias, M., “Collegium pietatis und ecclesiola”, Pietismus und Neuzeit 19 (Göttingen 1993), 46–59. Noll, M. A., The Rise of Evangelicalism. The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys, Downers Grove 2003. Pawłowski, S., “Pietyzm XVII wieku jako forma nowej ewangelizacji”, Roczniki Teologiczne 65(7) (2018), 119–127, DOI: 10.18290/rt.2018.65.7–9. Pinson, J. M., “The Nature of Atonement in the Theology of Jacobus Arminius”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53/54 (December 2010), 773–785. Pomarański, M., Współczesny amerykański fundamentalizm protestancki, Lublin 2013. Pritchard, J., Methodists and their Missionary Societies, 1760–1900, London and New York 2016a. Pritchard, J., Methodists and their Missionary Societies, 1900–1996, London and New York 2016b. Puślecki, E., “Homo unius libri–Człowiek jednej księgi”, Methodos. Przegląd TeologicznoSpołeczny Wyższego Seminarium Teologicznego im. Jana Łaskiego w Warszawie 2 (2003), 97–109. Spoeri, T., Teologia metodyzmu, Warsaw 1987.

34

The origin and essence of Methodism

Turner, J. M., John Wesley: The Evangelical Revival and the Rise of Methodism in England, Epworth 2003. Wallmann, J., Der Pietismus. Ein Handbuch, Stuttgart 2005. Zieliński, T. J., “Geneza i istota Aliansu Ewangelicznego”, Myśl Ewangeliczna 5–6 (1990), 28–29. Zuber, D., “Eklezjologia ks. Jana Wesleya”, Studia Oecumenica 11 (2011), 275–286.

4

Methodists in Poland until 1945

The first Poles to come into contact with Methodism were émigrés to the United States of America and Great Britain. Missionary activity among the inhabitants of the Prussian partition (from 1871, the German partition) – Germans and Poles – was developed by the German Methodists. They established the first Methodist centers in the second half of the nineteenth century.1 The centers of their activity were initially Grudziądz and Chodzież,2 followed by Gdańsk and Wrocław.3 In independent Poland, the activities of the American Methodist mission began in 1920.4 The decision was made by Bishop William B. Beauchamp, president of the Mission Council (based in Brussels) of the Southern Episcopal Methodist Church in the United States of America. Major Leslie G. White stood at the head of the “Methodist Mission of America Committee for Poland” and was accompanied by Margaret Quayle, Dr D. A. Sloan, Prof. Ernest B. McKnight and George W. Twynham.5 In 1921 the group was joined by Hiram K. King, Dr Martin Price, Bruno W. Welsh, Fred C. Woodard and Thomas J. Gamble. The following joined in the next years: Edmund Chambers, Gaither P. Warfield, Dr Jürgen Rasmussen, Dr Charles G. Hardt, and also Poles born in the United States such as Józef Szczepkowski. The Southern Episcopal Methodist Church held its First Conference of the Mission to Poland and the Gdańsk in Warsaw on 24–27 August 1922, with the participation of 61 people. It was chaired by Bishop Beauchamp and the Secretary of the Mission Council, E. H. Rowlings. Two church districts were established during this debate: Gdańsk-Pomerania and Warsaw. Later, two more were created: Poznań-Śląsk and Wilno. In addition to providing religious content, American Methodists established and ran numerous orphanages, boarding schools, schools, cheap kitchens and free eateries, drug distribution points and health centers. They provided care for the homeless and the unemployed, and conducted multi-profile further education courses.6 It is worth noting that many missionaries played a leading role in this activity.7 All these forms of assistance were – nolens volens – an excellent promotion of Methodism itself as a new type of Christianity, clearly defined by the principle of facta non verba. However, the Polish state did not appreciate these actions, seeing the American denomination as competition for Roman Catholicism. The content of the “Memorandum” which the Methodist Church in Poland sent to the state authorities is meaningful in this context: “we, the Poles – Methodists, feel DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-4

36

Methodists in Poland until 1945

beyond the limits of our civic powers. We feel handicapped in our own homeland, we feel ourselves being spent on the people of evil will, on the prey of reactionary and fanatical elements, often even on the lower level of official factors”.8 Despite the unfriendly denomination policy of the Polish state towards Methodism (consistent refusal of legalization, administrative harassment, closure of orphanages, indifference to attacks against clerics and the faithful, arrest and imprisonment of pastors9), the Southern Episcopal Methodist Church in the United States of America organized congregations in several large cities in the Second Polish Republic – Warsaw, Łódź, Katowice, Lvov, Vilnius – and also in smaller towns, among others in Klarysewo and Odolanów. In 1925 the Methodist Church in Poland had 2,500 congregation members and supporters, served by 15 clergymen and preachers.10 Methodism was promoted through direct evangelization and strong publishing activity. The most important publication was the magazine Pielgrzym Polski (Polish Pilgrim), on which Michał Kośmiderski was editor-in-chief, supported by editors and co-workers including the well-known writers Czesław Lechicki and Paweł Hulka-Laskowski. It was humbling for the Methodists that the hostile religious policy of the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Enlightenment,11 as well as hostile activities undertaken in the Roman Catholic environment, it was necessary for them to operate under the company name Polish-American Joint Stock Company “Southern Trade”, or as the Society for Education and Culture of Supporters of Methodism.12 From 1926, Bishop Urban V. Darlington took care of the Polish Methodists. He made a priority of preparing staff, composed of Polish activists, pastors and preachers. During this period, the representatives of the Church in dealings with the state authorities were Poles (Władysław Dropiewski, Kazimierz Ihnatowicz, Michał Kośmiderski). In 1934, Bishop Arthur J. Moore became the head of the Methodist Church in Poland, and the former Roman Catholic priest Rev. Konstanty Najder (1899–1993) became the first Pole to number among the county superintendents and the Executive Committee.13 One of the leading figures of Polish Methodism in the 1930s was Rev. Józef Naumiuk (1900–1965), who as a parish priest of the reformed Old Catholic parish in Warsaw, submitted the accession to the Methodist Church in 1932.14 In the period of decline of the Second Polish Republic, the Methodist Church in Poland consisted of 18 congregations and 49 employees (pastors, preachers, deacons, helpers), 18 of whom were American citizens.15 The decisive participation of the Americans in the creation of the Church in Poland, as well as their great influence on its functioning, were curtailed after the outbreak of World War II on account of the occupation authorities’ religious policy and perception of Methodists, and after its end by the religious policy of the communist authorities. After the outbreak of the war and the collapse of Polish defense in September 1939, the Germans interned Rev. Edmund Chambers, Pastor Superintendent Gaither Warfield16 and deacon Ruth Lawrence. The position of supreme

Methodists in Poland until 1945 37 superintendent of the Church was taken over by Rev. Konstanty Najder.17 In the areas of both German and Soviet occupation, the Methodists lost the right to conduct their religious activities in their current shape. In the Soviet area this meant the banning and liquidation of Methodism. The Third Reich, by contrast, respected the legal status (obtained in 1930) of the Episcopal Methodist Church in Germany (Bischofliche Methodistische Kirche) and as a result, in 1939, Germans and Poles from areas incorporated into the Reich were allowed to join this religious association. The clergy of these congregations, who wanted to preserve their Polish character (including the Polish language of the liturgy), decided to work covertly (the congregation in Poznań being one example).18 From 1 May 1941, the Polish Methodist Church obtained a license to operate in the General Government, subject to its independence from any foreign authority.19 After the outbreak of the German–Soviet war and the inclusion of the district of Galicia in the General Government, it was possible to reactivate the Methodist congregation in Lvov.20 The main centers of Methodism were the Higher Bible School in Warsaw – the only Polish college21 legally operating in the General Governorship – and the capital’s congregation on 12 Mokotowska Street. The importance of this second place exceeded the confessional dimension. Informal ecumenical meetings were held there from 1940, in which Lutherans, reformed, Evangelical Christians, Mariavites and National Catholics took part alongside the hosts. In March 1944, the Polish Confession, an ecumenical confession of faith, was signed in the Mokotowska chapel.22 It should be added that the legal recognition of the Methodist Church served not only Methodists but also Pentecostals and even Anti-Trinitarian Bible scholars, who took up their activities in the methodical formula (while preserving denominational autonomy).23

Notes 1 Extensively about the origins of the Methodist Church on Polish soil and in Poland see: E. Puślecki, Powracająca fala. Działalność Południowego Episkopalnego Kościoła Metodystycznego w Polsce w latach 1920–1924. Studium historyczno-teologiczne, Warsaw 2001, chs 3–5. See also: E. Puślecki, “Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny”, in W drodze za Chrystusem. Kościoły chrześcijańskie w Polsce mówią o sobie, H. Tranda, M. Patalon (eds), Kraków 2009, 75–104. 2 See: W. Gastpary, Protestantyzm w Polsce w dobie dwóch wojen światowych, część I: 1914–1939, Warsaw 1978, 271. 3 See: K. Wolnica, “Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w RP w latach 1989–2006”, in Nierzymskokatolickie Kościoły chrześcijańskie we współczesnej Polsce, Z. J. Winnicki, T. Dębowski (eds), Toruń 2007, 75. 4 E. Puślecki, “Early Understanding of the Methodist Church in Poland by the Mission of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South”, in Working Group Papers at The Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies, 2007, https://oxford-institute.org/2007twelfth-institute/working-groups/ 5 See: E. Chambers, Z dziejów ruchu metodystycznego w Polsce, Warsaw 1948, 11; W. Winniczek, Kościół Metodystyczny w Polsce w latach 1920–1939, Chylice 1962, manuscript of master’s thesis in the collection of the ChAT Library in Warsaw, pp.

38 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23

Methodists in Poland until 1945 7–8; J. Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, Warsaw 1999, 28–29. See: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, pp. 30–33; U. Schuler, “Methodism in Northern and Continental Europe”, in T&T Clark Companion to Methodism, Ch. Yrigoyen Jr (ed.), London and New York 2014, 177. See: P. W. Chilcote, U. Schuler, “Methodist Women Pioneers in Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Poland”, in Women Pioneers in Continental European Methodism 1869–1939, P. W. Chilcote, U. Schuler (eds), London and New York 2019, 122–141; P. Pope-Levison, “Pioneers in American Women’s Theological Education: Methodist Deaconess Training Schools”, Methodist Review 10 (2018), 73–91. J. Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 45. See: E. Puślecki, Powracająca fala, passim; J. Borowiak, Kościół EwangelickoMetodystyczny w Polsce, 38–45. W. Gastpary, Protestantyzm w Polsce w dobie dwóch wojen światowych, p. 271. See: P. A. Leszczyński, Centralna administracja wyznaniowa II RP. Ministerstwo Wyznań Religijnych i Oświecenia Publicznego, Warsaw 2006. See: S. Grelewski, Wyznania protestanckie i sekty religijne w Polsce współczesnej, Lublin 1937, 580; E. Chambers, Z dziejów ruchu metodystycznego w Polsce, 19, 27–28; J. Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 46. See: P. Szczudłowski, “Powojenne dzieje wspólnoty metodystycznej w Gdańsku”, in Nierzymskokatolickie Kościoły i grupy wyznaniowe w Gdańsku, W. Pałubicki, H. Cyrzan (eds), Gdańsk and Koszalin 1998, 135. See: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 35, 45. See: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 49–50. According to Rev. Józef Naumiuk “at the outbreak of World War II, Polish Methodism consisted of 13 parishes and about 2 thousand members”, Central Archives of Modern Records (AAN), Office for Religious Affairs (UdSW), sign. III 4a/35/53, c. 1–4. See: G. Warfield, H. Warfield, Call us to Witness: A Polish Chronicle, Chicago 1945. In the tradition and practice of Polish Methodism, the supreme superintendent represented the Church outside, managed the work of the Executive Committee, and also supervised the implementation of resolutions of the General Conference without supervision over it itself. See: G. Pełczyński, “Ugrupowania ewangelikalne na Ziemiach Polskich”, Zwierciadło Etnologiczne. Rocznik Katedry Etnologii i Antropologii Kulturowej Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego 2 (2013), 111. See: J. Sziling, Kościoły chrześcijańskie w polityce niemieckich władz okupacyjnych w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie (1939–1945), Toruń 1988, 115–116. See: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 51–55. See: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 58–59. See: E. Jóźwiak, “Osobno czy razem? Dążenia ekumeniczne wewnątrz polskiego ewangelicyzmu–perspektywa reformowana (do 1945 roku)”, Rocznik Teologiczny 56 (2014), 183–203. See: H. R. Tomaszewski, Wyznania typu ewangeliczno-baptystycznego wchodzące w skład Zjednoczonego Kościoła Ewangelicznego w latach 1945–1956, Warsaw 1991, 42. The theme of methodical help for other denominations was repeatedly mentioned in the documentation of the Ministry of Public Security (MBP), see: The Archives of the Institue of National Remeberance (AIPN), sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 476, “Extract from the WUBP report in Gdańsk for November 51”, AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 590, “Extract from the protocol of interrogation of the suspect [Stefan Osadca from the Christian Church of the Evangelical Faith] of 21 December 1950”.

Methodists in Poland until 1945 39

Bibliography Archiwum Akt Nowych w Warszawie (AAN Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw). AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/35/53, c. 1–4. Archiwum Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej (AIPN Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance). AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 476, 590. Borowiak, J., Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, Warsaw 1999. Chambers, E., Z dziejów ruchu metodystycznego w Polsce, Warsaw 1948. Chilcote, P. W., Schuler, U., “Methodist Women Pioneers in Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Poland”, in Women Pioneers in Continental European Methodism 1869–1939, P. W. Chilcote, U. Schuler (eds), London and New York 2019. Gastpary, W., Protestantyzm w Polsce w dobie dwóch wojen światowych, część I: 1914– 1939, Warsaw 1978. Grelewski, S., Wyznania protestanckie i sekty religijne w Polsce współczesnej, Lublin 1937. Jóźwiak, E., “Osobno czy razem? Dążenia ekumeniczne wewnątrz polskiego ewangelicyzmu–perspektywa reformowana (do 1945 roku)”, Rocznik Teologiczny 56 (2014), 183–203. Leszczyński, P. A., Centralna administracja wyznaniowa II RP. Ministerstwo Wyznań Religijnych i Oświecenia Publicznego, Warsaw 2006. Pope-Levison, P., “Pioneers in American Women’s Theological Education: Methodist Deaconess Training Schools”, Methodist Review 10 (2018), 73–91. Puślecki, E., Powracająca fala. Działalność Południowego Episkopalnego Kościoła Metodystycznego w Polsce w latach 1920–1924. Studium historyczno-teologiczne, Warsaw 2001. Puślecki, E., “Early Understanding of the Methodist Church in Poland by the Mission of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South”, in Working Group Papers at The Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies, 2007, https://oxford-institute.org/2007twelfth-institute/working-groups/ Puślecki, E., “Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny”, in W drodze za Chrystusem. Kościoły chrześcijańskie w Polsce mówią o sobie, H. Tranda, M. Patalon (eds), Kraków 2009. Schuler, U., “Methodism in Northern and Continental Europe”, in T&T Clark Companion to Methodism, Ch. Yrigoyen Jr (ed), London and New York 2014. Szczudłowski, P., “Powojenne dzieje wspólnoty metodystycznej w Gdańsku”, in Nierzymskokatolickie Kościoły i grupy wyznaniowe w Gdańsku, W. Pałubicki, H. Cyrzan (eds), Gdańsk and Koszalin 1998. Sziling, J., Kościoły chrześcijańskie w polityce niemieckich władz okupacyjnych w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie (1939–1945), Toruń 1988. Tomaszewski, H. R., Wyznania typu ewangeliczno-baptystycznego wchodzące w skład Zjednoczonego Kościoła Ewangelicznego w latach 1945–1956, Warsaw 1991. Warfield, G., Warfield, H., Call us to Witness: A Polish Chronicle, Chicago 1945. Wolnica, K., “Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w RP w latach 1989–2006”, in Nierzymskokatolickie Kościoły chrześcijańskie we współczesnej Polsce, Z. J. Winnicki, T. Dębowski (eds), Toruń 2007.

5

The organization and ownership of the Methodist Church, 1945–1989

At the end of World War II, the Executive Committee of the Methodist Church was formed in Warsaw. Its chairman was Rev. Superintendent Konstanty Najder, its Secretary Rev. Michał Kośmiderski, and other members Rev. Józef Szczepkowski and Rev. Jan Kalinowski.1 According to Serafin Kiryłowicz, one of the most important state policy makers in the field of religious policy towards nonRoman Catholic congregations, the actual leadership of the Church was “in the hands of delegates of the American headquarters”, i.e. Rev. Edmund Chambers2 (a Canadian citizen) and Rev. Werner Theodor Wickstrom3 (a citizen of Sweden and the United States of America). The latter actually took over the leadership of the Church on 1 February 1948. The Church authorities’ priority at the time was to obtain legal recognition by the state. After quickly achieving this goal in October 1945, they began to think about the directions of missionary work. This was the key topic of the Annual Church Conference held in Katowice on 9–11 November 1945 (numbered XXIV– XXV). And although it was held in the south of Poland, the attention of the participants was concentrated in the west, and even more in the north of the country, because the shifting of the Polish state borders to the west, as well as the inclusion of the southern part of East Prussia in its territory, opened new possibilities for the development of Methodism. Those Methodists who decided to leave the Eastern Borderlands and settle in the Western Lands created congregations, either from scratch or building on existing German foundations, in Międzyrzecz (the then Poznań province, later Gorzów),4 Wołów (then the Wrocław province), Koszalin, Wrocław, Szczecin, Gliwice, Bytom,5 and Żary (then the Wrocław province, and later in Zielona Góra).6 However, the greatest opportunities for Methodist activity occurred in Masuria, where the Evangelical Church of the Old Prussian Union ceased to function.7 In March 1945 Jan Sczech and Edward Małłek – native activists of the gromadkarski movement (the Small Group Movement in Masuria)8 – asked the authorities of the Methodist Church for help in organizing Church life from scratch. They had previously petitioned the authorities of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church,9 but the Methodists were more willing to accept the Masurians: Methodism’s Pietist traditions (and still practiced Pietist devotion) had affinities with the gromadkarze, as did the important role of lay people in the Methodist Church. Methodists DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-5

Organization and ownership of the Church 41 Table 5.1 Members of the Methodist Church in the Olsztyn Province: District structure, 1948 District

Believers

Bartoszyce Braniewo Biskupiec Giżycko Górowo Ił. Kętrzyn Lidzbark Warm. Morąg Mrągowo Nidzica Olsztyn pow. Olsztyn m. Ostróda Pasłęk Pisz Szczytno Susz Węgorzewo Total

– – – – 11 – – 105 15 – – 365 5,612 – – – – – 6,108

Source: The State Archive in Olsztyn (APO), The Voivodeship Offices (UW), sign. 391/303, c. 201

also offered Masurians much greater logistic support (personnel and material), which also helped establish their own influence.10 The Evangelical-Augsburg Church, however, did not resign from taking up work in Masuria, and over time the Methodists and Lutherans entered a path of conflict. The dynamic development of Methodism in Masuria was interrupted in the 1950s, and the Methodist Church itself was included in the list of church entities covered by the liquidation policy. In 1945 the Methodist Church had almost 2,000 believers. As a result of intense missionary and evangelizing activity over the next three years, it recorded the greatest growth of all Protestant churches in Poland. Data collected by the Voivodeship Office in Olsztyn showed that in 1948 the Methodist Church, which until then had only slight influence in Warmia and Masuria,11 acquired in a short time as many as 6,108 members in the Olsztyn voivodeship, of whom 5,612 lived in the district of Ostróda.12 Noticeable, though not so impressive, was the growth of the congregation in other parts of Poland. The Church was divided into four districts: CentralSouth, Silesian, Pomerania–Greater Poland and Masurian. In 1950 or 1951 the Central-South District decided to separate and the Southern and Central Districts were created.13 In no way did this change the fact that the Masurian District had

42

Organization and ownership of the Church

Table 5.2 The Methodist Church in Poland: Central-South District, 1950 Parish

Pastor

Believers

Warsaw Klarysew – branch Konstancin – branch Warsaw-Praga Łódź Piotrków Kielce Chmielnik Podstoły – branch Dezyderów – branch Kraków Tarnów Przemyśl Sanok – branch Dunkowice – branch Brylińce – branch Brzeżawa – branch Zamość Krasnystaw – branch Chełm Total

Witold Benedyktowicz

1,515

Leonid Jesaków Marian Lubecki Henryk Zalewski Jerzy Biczemski vacat Jerzy Harzyński

147 87 113 72 196

Lucjan Zaperty Aleksander Piekarski Brunon Raszkiewicz

89 119 383

Andrzej Kustodowicz Mikołaj Duchniak Włodzimierz Sobolew

70

Bazyli Koziej Superintendent – Józef Naumiuk

68 2,859

Source: The Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw (AAN), The Office for Religious Affairs (UdSW), sign. 131/300, c. 2

more than twice as many believers as all the others put together. According to incomplete data (not all parishes were taken into account), in the early 1950s the Masurian Methodist congregations numbered 9,766 members,14 while the others had 4,443 believers between them.15 At the beginning of the 1950s, the number of the faithful (members of the congregations) was therefore just over 14,200 people. According to the statistics from the beginning of 1952, the number was even higher and amounted, according to various sources, to 16,17716 or 16,468.17 The missionary and pastoral work was directed by clergymen and secular preachers, who usually earned their living by working in another profession. Most of those who lived in the out-of-town provinces were engaged in agriculture, craft or industrial work.18 It was a kind of reference to the ideal and style of preaching in the era of the First American Awakening. Around the success of evangelization, the conviction of living in unusual times, as if Wesleyan, pervaded them. Christianity, however, knows in its history the repetition of not only successes. The time of persecution came in the 1950s. The state authorities implemented repressive and liquidation measures against Methodism and its structures. This circumstance, the emigration of the Methodist Masurians to the German states (which was closely related to the anti-Methodist activities of the authorities) and the struggle of factions within the

Organization and ownership of the Church 43 Table 5.3 The Methodist Church in Poland: Silesian District, 1950 Parish

Pastor

Believers

Katowice Ochojec – branch Wapienica – branch Bytom Miechowice – branch Prudnik Gierałcice Głuchołazy – branch Wałbrzych Kamienna Góra – branch Dzierżoniów – branch Jelenia Góra Podgórzyn – branch Lwówek Śl. – branch Wrocław Brzeg – branch Ścinawka Średnia – branch Legnica Wołów Wińsko Lipka – branch Zaborowszczyzna – branch Góra Śląska Żary Sieniawa Żarska – branch Total

Jan Kalinowski

297

Wilhelm Śniegoń Mieczysław Ostrowski Ludwik Robota Wawrzyniec Korczowy Wawrzyniec Korczowy Włodzimierz Husak Vacat Jan Madziarz Vacat Kazimierz Jakimowicz Paweł Musiał Michał Rudź (Rud) Franciszek Ruprich Superintendent – Jan Kalinowski

136 14 25 41 ? 70 20 In statu nascendi 63 9 20 695

Source: The Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw (AAN), The Office for Religious Affairs (UdSW), sign. 131/300, c. 3

Table 5.4 The Methodist Church in Poland: Pomerania–Greater Poland District, 1950 Parish

Pastor

Believers

Poznań Czarny Las Chodzież Międzyrzecz Bydgoszcz Inowrocław – branch Grudziądz Kwidzyn – branch Elbląg Gdynia Gdańsk-Wrzeszcz – branch Bytów Słupsk Ustka – branch Koszalin Szczecin Total

Jan Kus Vacat Józef Murdoch Michał Podgórny Stanisław Słotwiński

262 – 43 99 52

Michał Jamny Zygmunt Karczewski Thomas J. Gamble Janusz Ostrowski Janusz Ostrowski

91 In statu nascendi 152 38 24

Janusz Ostrowski 21 Włodzimierz Timofiejew 107 Superintendent – Gustaw Burchart 889

Source: The Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw (AAN), The Office for Religious Affairs (UdSW), sign. 131/300, c. 4

44

Organization and ownership of the Church

Table 5.5 The Methodist Church in Poland: Masurian District, 1950 Parish

Pastor

Believers

Kalinowo Piętki – branch Ełk Grabnik Juchy – branch Klusy – branch Bajtkowo – branch Zalewo Szwalewo – branch Szymanowo – branch Kandyty Lipowo Duży Szmigwałt – branch Olsztyn Ostróda Liwa Miłomłyn – branch Ukta Kroplewo Stare Jabłonki – branch Kurki Jabłonka – branch Glaznoty Gierkowo Dąbrówno Osiekowo – branch Leszcz – branch Total

Longin Trojanowicz

In statu nascendi

Edward Małłek Julian Miśków

1,454 1,016

Rafał Rumiński

97

Piotr Wityk Antoni Liszkiewicz

46 1,370

Bazyli Kustodowicz Zdzisław Grzybek Tadeusz Dzierko

92 1,838 845

Tadeusz Dzierko Maksymilian Cybulla

In statu nascendi 780

Wincenty Winniczek

In statu nascendi

Eliasz Babieczko Fryderyk Hebisz Paweł Fibich

286 947 995

Superintendent: Gustaw Burchart

9,766

Source: The Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw (AAN), The Office for Religious Affairs (UdSW), sign. 131/300, c. 5–6

Table 5.6 The Methodist Church in Poland, 31 December 1952 District

Pastors Parishes Branches Chapels Believers Superintendent

Central Southern Mazurian Pomerania– Greater Poland Silesian Total

9 5 19 12

9 5 20 13

4 5 17 3

11 9 33 15

2,150 618 8,722 1,213

8 53

13 60

10 39

19 87

735 13,438

Józef Naumiuk Brunon Raszkiewicz Gustaw Burchart Jan Kus Jan Kalinowski

Source: The Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw (AAN), The Office for Religious Affairs (UdSW), sign. III 4a/11/153, c. 24, sign. III 2a/34/54, c. 108

Organization and ownership of the Church 45 Table 5.7 Methodist pastors in Poland, 1955 Voivodeship

Pastor

Warszawskie

Witold Benedyktowicz Gustaw Burchart Henryk Ciszek Zdzisław Grzybek Leonid Jesaków Józef Naumiuk Aleksander Sulikowski Józef Szczepkowski Bazyli Kustodowicz Julian Langner Edward Małłek Julian Miśków Eliasz Babieczko Lucjan Zaperty Mieczysław Ostrowski Mikołaj Duchniak Andrzej Kustodowicz Zenon Pirożyński Brunon Raszkiewicz Jan Kalinowski Adam Kuczma Ludwik Robota Wilhelm Śniegoń Jan Kus Janusz Ostrowski Michał Podgórny Kazimierz Najmałowski Henryk Zalewski Paweł Fibich Gerhard Fröhlich Michał Jamny Kazimierz Milewski Henryk Konieczny Jan Madziarz Franciszek Ruprich Włodzimierz Sobolew Franciszek Drozdek Tadeusz Dzierko Adam Hercuń Henryk Hukisz Eugeniusz Mroczyński Karol Napierski Piotr Wityk Wincenty Adamski Jerzy Biczemski Wincenty Winniczek Sergiusz Winniczek

Białostockie

Krakowskie Rzeszowskie

Katowickie

Poznańskie Łódzkie Gdańskie Bydgoskie Wrocławskie Lubelskie Olsztyńskie

Koszalińskie Szczecińskie

Source: The Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw (AAN), The Office for Religious Affairs (UdSW), sign. 131/300, c. 114–115

46

Organization and ownership of the Church

Table 5.8 Departures of the native and German population of the Olsztyn and Białystok voivodeships (EGO) to East Germany and West Germany, 1956–1959 Year 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total

East Germany

West Germany

olsztyńskie

białostockie (EGO) olsztyńskie

białostockie (EGO)

1,121 1,581 1,245 – 3,947

71 200 2 – 273

128 1,445 288 3 1,864

1,897 13,204 11,447 5,775 32,323

Source: A. Sakson, Stosunki narodowościowe na Warmii i Mazurach 1945–1997, Poznań 1998, 245. EGO – districts: ełcki, gołdapski i olecki

Table 5.9 Parishes of the Methodist Church in Poland: Masurian District, 1957–1960 Parish

Pastor

Believers 1957/1960

Ełk

Edward Małłek (1957–1958) 427/107 Bazyli Kustodowicz (1959–1960) Piętki Antoni Liszkiewicz 275/94 Grabnik Zenon Pirożyński 54/20 Klusy Julian Langner (1957) 84/53 Zenon Pirożyński (1958–1960) Stare Juchy Bazyli Kustodowicz 135/94 Olsztynek Karol Napierski (1957) 329/144 Eliasz Babieczko (1958–1960) Ostróda Adam Hercuń 1,100/682 Dąbrówno Tadeusz Dzierko 322/277 Duży Szmigwałd (Smykowo) Franciszek Drozdek 280/270 Lipowo Wincenty Winniczek (1957–1958) 645/83 Jan Paska (1959–1960) Gierzwałd Henryk Hukisz 425/344 Kurki Eliasz Babieczko 280/40 Kroplewo Franciszek Drozdek 624/602 Glaznoty Wincenty Winniczek (1957–1958) 105/121 Jan Paska (1959–1960) Ukta Eugeniusz Mroczyński 262/191 Słonecznik Gerhard Samulowicz (1957) 86/100 Eugeniusz Mroczyński (1958–1960) Mrągowo Bazyli Kustodowicz (1957) 90/10 Rafał Rumiński (1957–1960) Siemiany (1958–1959) Jan Paska (1958) 44 Jan Redzel (1959) Kandyty (from 1960) B. Banaszkiewicz 30 Source: K. Urban, Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2000, 483–486

Organization and ownership of the Church 47 Table 5.10 Believers in the Methodist Church in Poland: Masurian District, 1948–1961 Year

1948

1950

1951

1952

1955

1958

1961

Believers

6,108a

9,766b

10,577c

8,722d

7,133e

4,059f

2,935g

Source: a – APO, UW, sign. 391/303, c. 201; b – AAN, UdSW, sign. 131/300, c. 5–6; c – K. Urban, “Z zagadnień polityki wyznaniowej władz PRL wobec ‘kwestii mazurskiej’ w początkach lat pięćdziesiątych”, Zapiski Historyczne 1 (1995), 89; d – AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/153, c. 24, sign. III 2a/34/54, c. 108; e, f, g – A. Sakson, Mazurzy – społeczność pogranicza, Poznań 1990, table 28, p. 227

Table 5.11 The Methodist Church in Poland, 1970 Superintendent

District

Witold Benedyktowicz Adam Kuczma Gerhard Fröhlich Jan Kus Adam Hercuń Lucjan Zaperty

Poland Central Mazurian Pomerania-GreaterPoland Silesian Southern

Believers: 4,155 Parishes: 45 Pastors: 24 Source: K. Karski, “50 lat metodyzmu w Polsce”, Rodzina. Tygodnik Katolicki 43 (536), 25 October 1970, p. 4

Table 5.12 Members of the Methodist Church in Poland, 1954–1988 Year

Believers

1954 1956b 1958c 1961d 1963e 1966f 1968g 1970h 1971i 1974j 1980k 1982l 1985m 1988n a

13,226 12,934 8,727 5,970 5,311 4,603 4,330 4,155 4,133 3,824 3,800 4,250 4,250 4,280

Source: a – AAN, UdSW, sign. 131/300, c. 7, 113; b, c, d, e – AAN, UdSW, sign. 131/15, c. 40; f, g, h, i, l, n – K. Urban, Mniejszości religijne w Polsce 1945–1991 (Zarys statystyczny), Kraków 1994, table 34, p. 68, table 50, p. 118; j – AIPN, sign. Kr 034/34, c. 38.; k, m – Atlas wyznań w Polsce, J. Kozłowski, J. Langner, T. Zagajewski (eds), Kraków 1989, table 17, p. 41

48

Organization and ownership of the Church

Methodist Church19 were factors that influenced a decrease in the number of the faithful, statistically first apparent in late 1952.20 The statistics on the number of followers of Methodism in the following years show a systematically deepening crisis in the Church, which in part meant a relative success of the policy of liquidation pursued by the authorities in the years 1951–1956, stopped only at the beginning of the 1970s, and overcome in the next decade. The documentation prepared in 1955 by the Office for Religious Affairs also takes into account the effects of the state authorities’ attack on the Methodist clergy, and specifically the withdrawal of some clergymen’s permission to conduct pastoral work (Zygmunt Karczewski, Antoni Liszkiewicz, Józef Harzyński, Jan Rudź, Jan Waszk and Włodzimierz Timofejew).21 The decline in the number of followers of Methodism in Masuria was at the same time part of the failure of the national policy of the People’s Republic of Poland, since among the emigrants to German states there were also Masurian autochthons (Lutherans and Methodists) who declared their belonging to the Polish nation directly after the war. Along with a progressive decline in the number of believers in Masuria, there was also a risk of destabilization in relation to the material possessions of the Church. The legal regulation of matters concerning the ownership of sacred real estate took place together with the Act of 23 June 1971 on the transfer to legal persons of the Roman Catholic Church and other Churches and religious associations of ownership of certain real estates located in the Western and Northern Territories.22 The deficiencies related to the decreasing number of believers were compensated by the Methodist Church, starting from the 1960s, by the high quality of its work, which was reflected in its publishing activity (notably the non-confessional significance of the Pielgrzym Polski (Polish Pilgrim) magazine, especially once Rev. Witold Benedyktowicz took up the post of editor-in-chief in 1958) and the growing influence of its clergy on the Polish Ecumenical Council (during the presidencies of Benedyktowicz and Rev. Adam Kuczma) and in the Christian Theological Academy (where Benedyktowicz held the Chair of Systematic Theology), the National Committee of the Biblical Society in Poland (chaired by Benedyktowicz) and non-religious bodies (membership in the Main Council of Higher Education, again Benedyktowicz), as well as the activity of many clergymen on the international forum. After 1968, when the centralized and largest ecclesial structure of world Methodism was established, i.e. the United Methodist Church, the Polish Methodist Church systematically increased its presence during international meetings of this denomination – despite the fact that under Polish law the Polish Methodists remained outside the jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church until the end of the People’s Republic of Poland. Polish Methodists were also a growing presence in the work of the World Methodist Council, the European Council of Methodist Churches, the World Council of Churches and the Christian Conference on Peace. Bishops of the Diocese of Geneva of the United Methodist Church – Bishop Ferdinand Sigg, Bishop Franz Schäfer, Bishop Heinrich Bolleter – were frequent guests at the annual General Conferences of the Methodist Church in Poland (until 1969 called the Annual

Organization and ownership of the Church 49 Conferences). “Fraternal relations with Methodist Churches all over the world” were already emphasized in the first paragraph of the Statutes of the Methodist Church, approved by the Office for Religious Affairs on the 25 June 1969.23 The higher quality of work also meant searching for new ways to develop the faithful at the parish level, which included not only Sunday and holiday services, but also weekly Bible study, women’s meetings, youth meetings, meetings of choirs and music bands, pastoral visits and catechization of schoolchildren and youth. In addition, individual Parish Boards (made up of a pastor, a lay manager, syndicates, curators, a secretary, a treasurer, lay preachers and Sunday school teachers) and Parish Conferences (all adult members of the parish) organized more and more charitable activities for the benefit of the local community. Each of them tried at least twice a year to carry out a public, open evangelization, which would result in conversions to Methodism by making a membership declaration to the pastor. Meanwhile, a kind of evangelization aimed at the faithful, stimulated by multilateral exchanges of clergy from different churches for Sunday ministry during meetings, was to serve as an internal revitalization. The LXV General Conference in 1986 recommended the organization of prayer groups in parishes that were directly related to Wesley’s tradition of so-called classes, 12-person house groups.24 The Methodist Church prepared future clergymen in its own Jan Łaski Higher Theological Seminary in Warsaw (the name was adopted in 1949) and in the Evangelical Theology Section of the Christian Theological Academy (established in 1954) in Chylice and then in Warsaw. The activity of the English Language College in Warsaw (with breaks from 1921), which supplemented the language skills of the clergy, was also of great educational importance.25 In accordance with the tenth paragraph of the 1969 Statutes of the Methodist Church, clergy – men only – were divided into deacons and priests (senior clergy). A deacon could be (as defined in paragraph 11) any member of the Church who is 21 years of age or older and has graduated from the theological studies in the above-mentioned schools or other schools recognized by the General Conference (the highest ecclesiastical authority under the leadership of the chief superintendent, composed of all the clergy and one lay delegate from each parish, paragraphs 25–27) and successfully completed a two-year conference study. The direct usefulness of such a person was verified by a theologicalpastoral exam before the Pastoral Education Council, an auxiliary organ of the General Conference. Another condition was good reputation, and candidates’ moral qualifications were evaluated by the Committee for Qualifications and Priestly Orders, another auxiliary body of the General Conference. The status of auxiliary organs of the General Conference, as defined in the 1969 Statutes, was also determined by the Charitable Committee, the Youth Committee, the Women’s Labor Committee, the Missionary Committee, the Educational Committee, the Research and Judicial Commission and the Diaconis Council (paragraph 29). The final stage was the decision made by the Church’s Congregation of Spirituals. The presbyter could be a deacon (paragraph 13) who completed a two-year candidate study with a good grade and passed the same

50

Organization and ownership of the Church

procedure as in the case of the application for a deaconate. Both deacons and pastors were eligible to the title of priest. After his retirement (normally at the age of 70), the clergyman could still be appointed as a lay preacher and pastor of the parish (paragraph 12). In special and exceptional cases, every adult member of the parish could receive such a vocation (paragraphs 14 and 15). For women there was a role for deacons and missionaries. Their tasks included charitable, educational, administrative and missionary support work (paragraph 16). At the end of the People’s Republic of Poland, the Methodist Church began to consider changing its name to “Evangelical-Methodist Church”. This finally happened in 1991. It was not a cosmetic or secondary correction. In this way, a turn was made away from free Church identity26 and towards unequivocally Evangelical identification.27 Attempts at such a reorientation – from non-episcopalism to episcopalism – had been made several times. This is how we can read, for example, the declaration of close cooperation which in June 1950 was adopted by the XXIX Annual Conference of the Methodist Church and the Synod of the Reformed Evangelical Church,28 and the endeavors of Masurian pastors (in the years 1945–1954) led by Rev. Antoni Liszkiewicz to promote the name “Evangelical-Methodist Church”, which, by the way, was on their seals.29 It should be remembered, however, that the quality of Methodism was determined more by “awakening” phenomena than by ecclesialism. At the end of the 1980s the Security Service operation “Orthodox” – established on 6 July 1977 by the “C” Department of the KWMO (Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia) in Suwałki, and implemented until 19 September 1989 by the Voivodeship Office of Internal Affairs in Suwałki – noted a clear revival of Methodist youth activity.30 In the course of exploring this phenomenon in northeastern Poland, it was discovered that this was not the only region (Podbeskidzie was mentioned), where young people looked for a Wesleyan model of Church renewal in the form of “youth groups”. It was rightly predicted that activists from the Youth Committee of the Methodist Church offered “direct support for new vocations”. The twilight of the People’s Republic of Poland contained phenomena full of hope among the new generation of Methodists. Pastor Zbigniew Chojnacki, observing these changes, abandoned his plans to emigrate and decided instead to strengthen the Methodist religious life in Stare Juchy and Ełk. He also announced that he would fight for a councilor’s seat in the next elections.

Notes 1 See: AAN, Ministry of Public Administration (MAP), sign. 1062, c. 9, “Consistory of the Methodist Church” [n.d.]. 2 See: Z. Kamiński, “W 40. rocznicę zgonu”, Pielgrzym Polski 762 (2003, no. 4), 9–10. 3 See: AAN, UdSW, sign. III 2a/34/54, c. 105, Note (Serafin Kiryłowicz): “Methodist Church in P.R.L.”, 1/10/1953. 4 See: A. Chabasińska, “Zarys historii parafii ewangelicko-metodystycznej w Międzyrzeczu od roku 1945”, Nadwarciański Rocznik Historyczno-Archiwalny 16 (2009). 5 See: J. Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, Warsaw 1999, 61–62.

Organization and ownership of the Church 51 6 See: R. Michalak, “Polityka wyznaniowa władz partyjno-państwowych w powiecie żarskim w latach stalinizmu”, Studia Zachodnie 5 (2000), 97–123. 7 None of its very few priests (among whom were F. Rzadtki, P. Czekay and P. Schwede) attempted to rebuild this church, see: K. Urban, Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2000, 18; A. Sakson, “Działalność kościołów i wyznań protestanckich na Mazurach”, Euhemer. Przegląd Religioznawczy (1987, no. 1), 98; Okręg Mazurski w raportach Jakuba Prawina. Wybór dokumentów. 1945 rok, ed. T. Baryła, Olsztyn 1996, 153. About Rev. Fryderyk Rzadtki’s work (including in 1945) see: E. Kruk, “Superintendent Rzadtki”, Kwartalnik Społeczno-Kulturalny Myśl Protestancka 1 (2000); see also: R. Michalak, “Kościół metodystyczny na Warmii i Mazurach w latach stalinizmu”, Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie (2000, no. 2), 245– 254; see: K. Bielawny, “Kościół metodystyczny na Mazurach po II wojnie światowej”, in Polski protestantyzm w czasach nazizmu i komunizmu, J. Kłaczkow (ed.), Toruń 2009, 476–502. 8 About the gromadkarski movement and its pietist identity in Masuria see: G. Jasiński, “U źródeł gromadkarstwa: o grupie ‘świętych’ na Mazurach”, Komunikaty MazurskoWarmińskie (1996, no. 3); G. Jasiński, Kościół ewangelicki na Mazurach w XIX wieku (1817–1914), Olsztyn 2003, 309–350; G. Jasiński, “Neopietyzm a postawy narodowe. Ruch gromadkarski na Mazurach w XIX i XX w. Część II (1945–1956)”, Gdański Rocznik Ewangelicki 9 (2015), 84–114. 9 According to the memories of priest Edward Malłek, bishop of the EvangelicalAugsburg Church, Rev. Jan Szeruda refused this help, and he agreed to give it to Rev. Superintendent Konstanty Najder, see: E. Małłek, Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016, 419–421. 10 See: R. Michalak, “Kościoły protestanckie wobec kwestii repolonizacji ludności rodzimej Warmii i Mazur w latach 1945–1956”, Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie (1999, no. 3), 361–379; Z. Karczewski, “Kościoły i konfesje w Prusach Wschodnich. Doznania byłego pastora metodystów na Mazurach”, Pielgrzym Polski 768 (2004), 12–19. 11 Strong Methodist clusters were located in the northern part of East Prussia (after World War II within the USSR). The Methodist teaching reached the inhabitants of the southern part of East Prussia (Masuria) at the end of the nineteenth century, enjoying recognition in the communities of “gromadkarze” (including in Ostróda and Olsztynek). Formally, however, until 1945 there was not a single Methodist parish there, see: E. Puślecki, Działalność Kościoła Metodystycznego w PRL na Mazurach w latach 1945– 1985, Olsztyn 1985, manuscript belonging to the author, p. 1. 12 See: State Archive in Olsztyn (APO), Voivodeship Offices (UW), sign. 391/303, c. 201, “Religious statistics in the Olsztyn voivodeship on 31 December 1948”. 13 The next change, consisting in the formation of a new structure of the District, was made by the LXIII General Conference of the Church on 4–7 October 1984. Three districts were created: 1) Pomerania, Wielkopolska and Mazowsze, 2) Masuria and Powiśle, 3) Silesia and Małopolska, see: Puślecki, Działalność Kościoła Metodystycznego, 4; see: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 82. 14 AAN, UdSW, sign. 131/300, c. 5–6. 15 AAN, UdSW, sign. 131/300, c. 2–4. 16 See: AAN, UdSW, sign. 131/11, c. nnb. 17 See: K. Urban, Mniejszości religijne w Polsce 1945–1991 (Zarys statystyczny), Kraków 1994, table 15, p. 44. 18 AIPN, sign. Rz 055/59 vol. 3, c. 68, “List of Methodist congregations in the Rzeszów voivodeship” [characteristics of pastors: Bruno Raszkiewicz, Andrzej Kustodowicz, Mikołaj Duchniak and activists in Przemyśl, Brylińce, Brzeżawa, Duńkowiczki near Jarosław and Sanok, n.d.]. 19 See: R. Michalak, Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego wobec mniejszości religijnych w latach 1945–1989, Zielona Góra 2014, passim.

52

Organization and ownership of the Church

20 It is 13,438, AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/153, c. 24, sign. III 2a/34/54, c. 108. 21 It should be added that three people (Marian Lubecki, Aleksander Piekarski, Stanisław Słotwiński) were not included in this list due to the fact that they were deprived of the status of clergyman by the then Executive Committee of the Methodist Church in connection with the ongoing struggle of Church factions. 22 See: Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland (Dz. U.) 1971, no. 16/156. 23 See: Statut Kościoła Metodystycznego w Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej, Warsaw 1969, 34; see: W. Wysoczański, Prawo wewnętrzne nierzymskokatolickich Kościołów i wyznań w PRL, Warsaw 1971, 215–229. Minor changes to the Statute were introduced by LV General Conference in July 1976. In this form it was in force until 1991. See: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 80. 24 See: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 84. 25 See: P. Stephens, “The Methodist Church of Eastern Europe”, Religion in Communist Lands 5(1) (1977), 17, DOI: 10.1080/09637497708430798. 26 Almost all publications of the period of the People’s Republic of Poland dealing with the issue of the classification of non-Roman Catholic and Protestant religions placed the Methodist Church in the free movement. This was not a mistake, because the new term in Evangelism began to mature in Polish Methodism only at the end of the 1980s. See: S. Kiryłowicz, M. T. Staszewski, “Mniejszości wyznaniowe w PRL”, in Polityka wyznaniowa. Tło – warunki – realizacja, W. Mysłek, M. T. Staszewski (eds), Warsaw 1975, 408–410. In simple terms: the free Church trend emphasizes conscious and voluntary participation in the life of the ecclesial community, while Evangelism promotes the idea of “inheriting” the confession of children from their parents. For Evangelism, the principle of “apostolic succession”, which Methodists – from the position of free churches – marginalized for many years, is also of considerable importance. For example, Rev. Józef Szczepkowski proclaimed distance from this principle, AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 167–168, “Agent report” source “Rej”, 5.07.1951. 27 In the spring of 1990, the Synod of the Evangelical-Reformed Church and the Annual Conference of the Evangelical-Methodist Church in Poland announced a joint declaration on mutual recognition of the ordinances of clergy, pulpit and altar. In 1994, the Synod of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church and the Annual Methodist Conference adopted a similar declaration. In 1996, the Polish Annual Conference, together with Methodists from other European countries, submitted the accession to the Leuenberg Concordia, which was concluded in the 1970s and expressed the community of Lutheran, Reformed and Union Churches in Europe. See: K. Wolnica, “Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w RP w latach 1989–2006”, in Nierzymskokatolickie Kościoły chrześcijańskie we współczesnej Polsce, Z. J. Winnicki, T. Dębowski (eds), Toruń 2007, 79. 28 See: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 92–93. 29 See: AAN, UdSW, sign. 19/202; Puślecki, Działalność Kościoła Metodystycznego, 4; Urban, Luteranie i metodyści, 370. 30 See: AIPN, sign. Bi 01/77, c. 32–34, “Agent report” source “Zbych”, 19.01.1988.

Bibliography Archiwum Akt Nowych w Warszawie (AAN Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw). AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 9; AAN, UdSW, sign. III 2a/34/54, c. 105, 108, III 4a/11/153, c. 24, 19/202, 131/11, c. nnb., 131/15, c. 40, 131/300, c. 2–7, 111–115. Archiwum Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej (AIPN Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance). AIPN, sign. Bi 01/77, c. 32–34, BU 01283/1609/J, c. 167–168, Kr 034/34, c. 38, Rz 055/59 vol. 3, c. 68. Archiwum Państwowe w Olsztynie (APO State Archive in Olsztyn). APO, UW, sign. 391/303, c. 201.

Organization and ownership of the Church 53 Baryła, T. (ed), Okręg Mazurski w raportach Jakuba Prawina. Wybór dokumentów. 1945 rok, Olsztyn 1996. Bielawny, K., “Kościół metodystyczny na Mazurach po II wojnie światowej”, in Polski protestantyzm w czasach nazizmu i komunizmu, J. Kłaczkow (ed), Toruń 2009. Borowiak, J., Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, Warsaw 1999. Chabasińska, A., “Zarys historii parafii ewangelicko-metodystycznej w Międzyrzeczu od roku 1945”, Nadwarciański Rocznik Historyczno-Archiwalny 16 (2009), 245–253. Jasiński, G., “U źródeł gromadkarstwa: o grupie ‘świętych’ na Mazurach”, Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie (3) (1996), 369–377. Jasiński, G., Kościół ewangelicki na Mazurach w XIX wieku (1817–1914), Olsztyn 2003. Jasiński, G., “Neopietyzm a postawy narodowe. Ruch gromadkarski na Mazurach w XIX i XX, Część II (1945–1956)”, Gdański Rocznik Ewangelicki 9 (2015), 84–114. Kamiński, Z., “W 40. rocznicę zgonu”, Pielgrzym Polski 762(4) (2003), 9–10. Karczewski, Z., “Kościoły i konfesje w Prusach Wschodnich. Doznania byłego pastora metodystów na Mazurach”, Pielgrzym Polski 768 (2004), 12–19. Kozłowski, J., Langner, J., Zagajewski, T. (eds), Atlas wyznań w Polsce, Kraków 1989. Kruk, E., “Superintendent Rzadtki”, Kwartalnik Społeczno-Kulturalny Myśl Protestancka 1 (2000), 70–74. Małłek, E., Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016. Michalak, R., “Kościoły protestanckie wobec kwestii repolonizacji ludności rodzimej Warmii i Mazur w latach 1945–1956”, Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie (3) (1999), 361–379. Michalak, R., “Kościół metodystyczny na Warmii i Mazurach w latach stalinizmu”, Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie (2) (2000a), 245–254. Michalak, R., “Polityka wyznaniowa władz partyjno-państwowych w powiecie żarskim w latach stalinizmu”, Studia Zachodnie 5 (2000b), 97–123. Michalak, R., Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego wobec mniejszości religijnych w latach 1945–1989, Zielona Góra 2014. Puślecki, E., Działalność Kościoła Metodystycznego w PRL na Mazurach w latach 1945– 1985, Olsztyn 1985. Sakson, A., “Działalność kościołów i wyznań protestanckich na Mazurach”, Euhemer. Przegląd Religioznawczy (1) (1987), 95–115. Statut Kościoła Metodystycznego w Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej, Warsaw 1969. Stephens, P., “The Methodist Church of Eastern Europe”, Religion in Communist Lands 5(1) (1977), 15–18, DOI: 10.1080/09637497708430798 Urban, K., “Mniejszości religijne w Polsce 1945–1950. Wybrane elementy stanu posiadania”, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie 424 (1994a), 33–50. Urban, K., Mniejszości religijne w Polsce 1945–1991 (Zarys statystyczny), Kraków 1994b. Urban, K., “Z zagadnień polityki wyznaniowej władz PRL wobec ‘kwestii mazurskiej’ w początkach lat pięćdziesiątych”, Zapiski Historyczne 1 (1995), 79–96. Urban, K., Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2000. Wysoczański, W., Prawo wewnętrzne nierzymskokatolickich Kościołów i wyznań w PRL, Warsaw 1971.

6

The most important figures of the Methodist Church, 1945–1989

The procedure of selecting the persons who, over nearly half a century, were the most important in shaping the face of the Methodist Church requires consideration of two key points: the qualitative significance of their activities and the time over which those activities were carried out. Not always does the satisfaction of both determinants reflect the real significance of human achievements. The publisher and translator of a book which, in high circulation over several dozen years, has found countless readers and won many followers to the directives and religious recommendations contained in it – although he himself exercised his ecclesiastical function for only a few years – in an almost outstanding way meets the quality requirements for identification as one of “the most important figures of the Methodist Church in Poland”. The quantitative determinant (short period of work) seems to be of secondary importance here. Since such a scheme describes the activity and achievements of a real person – Rev. Edmund Chambers1 – it seemed reasonable to give primacy to qualitative over quantitative factors in the search for the leading figures of Polish Methodism. His is not the only case of this kind, as the following examples prove. One further circumstance remains to be taken into account. The example of Rev. Chambers refers to unequivocally positive activity. However, one can find in post-war Polish Methodism short-term and qualitatively significant destructive activity – regardless of the motivation – towards the Church. If Marian Lubecki’s activity contributed to the ecclesial crisis of Methodism, then this clergyman too, although it sounds grotesque, must be one of “the most important persons of the Methodist Church in Poland”. In light of these assumptions, the criterion of time – long-term or short-term engagement in a decision-making function in the Church – does not determine the particular significance and influence (positive or negative) of a given person on the fate of the denomination. The chief superintendents in the period of the People’s Republic of Poland were: Konstanty Najder (in office 1945– 1948), Werner Theodor Wickstrom (1948–1949), Józef Naumiuk (1949–1954), Gustaw Burchart (1954–1956), Janusz Szczęsny Ostrowski (1956–1957), Józef Szczepkowski (1957–1969), Witold Benedyktowicz (1969–1983) and Adam Kuczma (1983–1989). Because of the position they occupied, each of these people was clearly one of the most important in Polish Methodism. However, their DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-6

Important figures in the Methodist Church 55 level of involvement in Church matters varied: Rev. Wickstrom was considerably more active in this area than Rev. Burchart. What is more, during his time as the chief superintendent, Burchart was not the most important figure among the then Methodist leaders, who were organized in factions, and so he was perceived by the decision-makers of shaping religious policy in the Office for Religious Affairs. Methodist clerics themselves (e.g. Rev. Jan Kalinowski), favorable to Burchart, saw him not so much as an organizer of church life as a “preacher’s master”.2 The positive role of Wickstrom as superintendent in the Polish Methodist Church should also be remembered in the context of his later career. After he left for Sweden for a short time in 1949 and the Polish authorities refused to allow him to return to Poland (the Polish ambassador in Stockholm refused to issue a visa),3 he soon became one of the most important figures in world Methodism. Having been a preacher, lecturer and missionary in Africa,4 he later gained great popularity in the United States of America, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway. Press releases announcing his lectures and sermons in the largest American churches served as reminders of his work in Poland and the circumstances of its interruption. In this way he neutralized the propaganda messages of the People’s Republic of Poland about the alleged “religious freedom in Poland”. During his time in Poland, his wife, the well-known Methodist activist Hjordis ForsstromWickstrom (1898–1972), was also heavily involved in the issues of Methodism in the country.5 Rev. Józef Szczepkowski was already very active as an organizer in the first half of the 1950s, as an informal leader of the so-called “committee group” faction (“conservatives”). The important role he played in defending Methodism against attempts to transform it into a pro-communist quasi-ecclesial organization – as the de facto competitive faction of “pastor democrats” was aiming for – is a sufficient reason to distinguish him as among the most important people of the Methodist Church in its post-war history.6 Szczepkowski’s position was determined in the 1960s, during his time as chief superintendent, by the search for independence from the Office for Religious Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior and the desire to create a field of ecclesial autonomy within the conditions of necessary cooperation with the favorites of the state authorities and the Church’s management. Szczepkowski’s authority was also determined by his academic status. Parallel to his involvement in the Church’s affairs, he was also a professor in the faculties of English Philology at three renowned universities: Jagiellonian University, Nicolaus Copernicus University and Warsaw University. On behalf of the Nicolaus Copernicus University, for two years (1947–1949) he was engaged in scientific research in the United States of America.7 With such experience he then built up his prestige as a rector and lecturer at the Seminary in Klarysew. Szczepkowski, being the head of the Methodist Church, had to resist the influence of Rev. Witold Benedyktowicz, a former “pastor democrat” at that time. The latter was the de facto leader of the Methodist Church before his official appointment as such, from at least three years before the end of Szczepkowski’s term of office. Interestingly, after Rev. Adam Kuczma took up the post of chief superintendent, Benedyktowicz, as an honorary superintendent general, was still

56

Important figures in the Methodist Church

the real leader of Polish Methodists. This was reflected, among other things, in his appointment (and not Kuczma’s) to the Consultative Council at the Chairman of the State Council in 1986. Benedyktowicz remained a consultant to General Wojciech Jaruzelski until 1989. Therefore, taking into account the involvement of superintendents in the affairs of the entire ecclesial community, while at the same time comparing their authority with the influence of contemporary ecclesiastical activists, the highest position among all superintendents was held by Benedyktowicz. When this assessment is accompanied by merits in the field of creativity popularizing Methodist teaching,8 Benedyktowicz – despite all the controversies connected with his quasi-political activity in the first half of the 1950s and his ambiguous reception as president of the Polish Ecumenical Council in the 1970s – becomes not only “the most important among superintendents”, but will be recognized by his co-confessionals, with a clear mythologization of his person, as an icon of post-war Methodism.9 Rev. Józef Naumiuk could not claim such a significant achievement. However, his period as chief superintendent came at the most difficult time in the post-war history of Methodism in Poland. He took the highest church position on 4 March 1949, after the authorities expelled foreign clergy (Wickstrom, Chambers), and soon afterwards he had to face the liquidation, anti-Methodist course of the state’s religious policy. This was particularly evident in Masuria, where Naumiuk – despite the fact that several months earlier the authorities had de facto dismissed him from the position of chief superintendent – made a desperate attempt, in unequal competition with the Office for Religious Affairs and the Ministry of Public Security (MBP), to defend Methodism. This consisted in announcing a new program of re-Polonization of the Masurian population, which was delivered at the conference of Masurian clergy in the autumn of 1955. The attempt did not meet expectations (which will be discussed later in this book) – and rescue for Methodism came with the October 1956 breakthrough – but the very undertaking of such actions must be recorded as positive activity undertaken by Rev. Naumiuk. After his removal from the office of chief superintendent, he was still subject to thorough surveillance.10 In 1957, around the conflict with the deputy superintendent, Rev. Witold Benedyktowicz,11 he left the Methodist Church without accepting allegations of having acted to the detriment of the community during his superintendence. Soon after, Naumiuk headed the Warsaw congregation of the Church of Christ, which was primarily made up of Campbellist and Pentecostal congregations, and former members of Methodist churches sympathizing with Naumiuk himself.12 (Active in Warsaw, Gdańsk, Łódź, Poznań and Tarnów, the Christ-Campbellists were an Evangelical community derived, in the same way as Methodism, from the Church of England, strengthened by Presbyterian influence. The Christ Movement was born at the turn of the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries and developed under the leadership of Thomas Campbell in the United States of America, with the first congress of the disciples of Christ taking place in January 1838 in Syracuse. The only visible difference between Methodists and Campbellists was the age of baptism: the Campbellists baptized only conscious and adult persons.) These congregations did not recognize the forced incorporation

Important figures in the Methodist Church 57 of the Union of Churches of Christ in the United Evangelical Church in 1953, and therefore were not recognized by the Office for Religious Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior. On 11 January 1959, the security service arrested Pastor Naumiuk during a service in his private apartment, and held him for a month,13 announcing the final ban on the community that was to have headquarters in Dallas.14 News of Naumiuk’s arrest spread widely in Western Europe and the United States of America, where Senator Lyndon Johnson, the future US president, intervened.15 Despite media coverage and protests in the West, the Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment against Naumiuk with the court accusing him of running an illegal association.16 At the trial, Benedyktowicz was a witness testifying against him.17 By a court decision, the former Chief Methodist Superintendent was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended for two years.18 On 12 October 1961, in the following trial, and on the same charges, he was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for three years.19 In the following years, he was detained and harassed many times for his religious activities. Another of the most important people in Polish Methodism, although this time in a destructive dimension, was Pastor Marian Lubecki,20 who had his roots in the Quaker tradition. In creating a faction of “pastor democrats”, Lubecki gathered around him in the first half of the 1950s at least a dozen of influential priests, with whom he not only attempted to seize power in the Church, but also strived for ideological syncretism between Methodism and Marxism. His publications also brought the Methodist Church into unnecessary confrontation with the Roman Catholic Church. Lubecki gained a significant position in the Church thanks to his good education and his authority as a lecturer on prestigious subjects (psychology, logic, ethics, philosophy and comparative history of religion) at the Higher Theological Seminary in Klarysew. From such a perspective, he submitted his thoughts for publication in Pielgrzym Polski (The Polish Pilgrim). A peculiar manifesto of the faction of “pastor democrats” appeared in this Methodist magazine in the second half of 1949.21 In the following years Lubecki addressed at least a dozen “memoranda” to the Office for Religious Affairs, in which he presented, among other things, proposals for the reorganization of Polish Protestantism in its entirety, and even of the wider non-Russian Catholic community, in a “democratic spirit”. The “agent’s reports” submitted by a secret collaborator of the Ministry of Public Security, alias “Nowator”, suggests that Lubecki was hiding behind this identity.22 His turbulent activity in the Methodist Church lasted until 1956. For a short time he then took up a job in the anti-Trinitarian Unity of Polish Brethren,23 after which he moved to free-thinking positions and joined the Association of Atheists and Free Thinking, becoming an active journalist on Argumenty (Arguments) and Rocznik Wolnej Myśli (Yearbook of Free Thought) and writing articles of a religious nature in Euhemer.24 At the end of his life (he died in 1968), Lubecki made another turning point by founding the Panmonist Church in Warsaw in 1967, a religious community with deistic features.25 In the search for the most important figures of post-war Methodism in Poland, it is also worth considering the parish perspective – if only because, in the post-war history of religious minorities in Poland, it happened that seemingly peripheral

58

Important figures in the Methodist Church

issues with the participation of their representatives became much more important with time.26 When considering the efficacy of pastoral work in parishes, expressed for example by the number of members of individual parishes, we can assume that the quantitative factor was conditioned by and resulted from the qualitative factor. At the turn of the 1940s and 1950s, some congregations recorded a great increase in the number of believers, growing to about 1,500 adults. This was the case in Ełk, where the pastor was Edward Małłek (1907–1995), and Lipowo near Ostróda, where the faithful were taught and cared for by Pastor Antoni Liszkiewicz (1902–1996). It should be added that the scope of work of these two priests crossed the boundaries of the parishes themselves.27 The Masurian towns, which they both reached with pastoral ministry, were seldom included in the reporting and statistics. In the case of Rev. Liszkiewicz, these were trips by bicycle within 50 km of Lipowo, and later by motorbike even 150 km from Lipowo to Kandyty. The parish in Lipowo had 483 adult members and 179 children (up to the age of 12) at the time of its embrace by Liszkiewicz in 1946. In 1949 it was already the largest methodological unit in Poland. Together with its branches in Glaznoty, Smykowo, Rudno, Pietrzwałd, Turznica, Sambor, Franciszkowo, Szymonowo and Kurki, it had 1,426 adult members and 436 children under 14.28 The outstanding commitment and dedication of Liszkiewicz to pastoral work is also evidenced by the fact that his activities were administratively stopped by the state authorities in 1954, during the period when the state’s policy of liquidating Methodism was already underway. That the accusations of his favoring “German revisionism”29 during the period of animating Methodism in the Ostróda region (i.e. before 1948) were ridiculous, and fabricated at that time, is confirmed by the fact that Liszkiewicz received a very high grade for the same work from the district authorities. In September 1948, the starost of Ostróda distinguished the Methodist pastor from Lipowo as one who had “great merits in the re-Polonization of indigenous peoples”.30 In the report of the Voivodeship Public Security Office in Olsztyn of March 1950, the only reservations about him resulted from his contacts with the American charity mission.31 The communists did not know about his participation in the Polish-Soviet War (1919–1921) and his service in the Polish Army.32 The struggle and confrontation between Rev. Antoni Liszkiewicz and Rev. Zygmunt Michelis from the Evangelical-Augsburg Church was not without significance in this context. The latter came to Lipowo in 1953 in order to carry out the tasks assigned to him not only by the Church, which he represented, but also by the Office for Religious Affairs. This task was aimed at convincing parishioners that not Methodism but Lutheranism corresponded to the character of the Union Church, to which the Masurians had previously belonged.33 Michelis did not win the whole parish in Lipowo for the Evangelical-Augsburg Church, but he did lead to its division. This was because, among other things, the superintendent Józef Naumiuk came to defend the parish himself, which gave the Lipowo cause a national and even wider significance.34 When the parish in Lipowo was divided into Methodist and Evangelical-Augsburg parishes, the latter numbered 224 people. After harassment and the administrative order to leave the parish

Important figures in the Methodist Church 59 in Lipowo,35 Liszkiewicz could not lead an active pastoral ministry for almost two years. At that time he moved with his family to Piętki in Ełk County (then Białystok Province). Only after the October breakthrough in 1956 could he take up a job there as pastor of a small Methodist congregation. He led his pastoral work there until 1972. The parish in Lipowo was first taken over by Rev. Wincenty Winniczek and then by Rev. Jan Paska. It was then, however, that Church members began to leave for Germany in large numbers. In 1960 the church in Lipowo had only 83 members. The role of Liszkiewicz as a soldier and pastor was appreciated by the Polish state after the fall of communism. At that time, in 1991, the former pastor was awarded a high state distinction and promoted to the rank of second lieutenant.36 Rev. Edward Małłek’s contribution to Methodism was based on his twin work similar to the pastoral effort of Rev. Liszkiewicz, but in the eastern part of Masuria, in the Ełk Land.37 His memoirs – which were in themselves a great contribution to shaping and cultivating Methodist identity38 – written when already in exile in Germany in the 1980s, reveal the gloomy realities of the national and religious policies of the People’s Republic of Poland. The work, consisting of over 700 pages, enriched with valuable photographs, was known among Methodists and Methodist researchers (including the author of this book) in the 1990s in various electronic versions. The first fragments, concerning the episode at the position of starost in Nidzica, were published in Kartki Mazurskie (Masurian Cards).39 The memoirs contain rich factography and commentaries – sometimes extremely controversial – largely based on polemics and accompanied by the memoirs of his more famous brother Karol, the “King of Masuria”.40 This is probably the reason why Małłek’s family did not publish them in book form until 2016. Although the parish activities of Małłek and Liszkiewicz were very varied, and unfolded over a short period, it is impossible not to include both priests among the most important figures in the post-war history of the Methodist Church in Poland. Naturally, it was easier to win converts to Methodism among Protestant gromadkarze (members of the Masurian religious minority) in Masuria than among Roman Catholics, for example in Kielce, Łódź or Lublin. But this does not change the fact that the daily workload (including the distances traveled) of Liszkiewicz and Małłek, in comparison with the pastoral tasks of Methodist clergy in, for example, the South-Central District, was incomparably greater. It should also be remembered that it was in Masuria that the greatest group dramas took place, the character of which is best reflected in Małłek’s written memoirs. The work of Masurian pastors was appreciated by Methodist clergy in other parts of Poland. During the “thaw” of 1956, Małłek was even a candidate for the position of superintendent of the Methodist Church in Poland.41 Everything changed in November 1959, when Małłek was approached by the counterintelligence services but refused to become a collaborator.42 In the same year, he was deprived of his concession for the position of a clergyman in the Methodist Church. In 1960, the Office for Religious Affairs prevented him from taking up pastoral work in the Reformed Evangelical Church. However, after exactly one year’s unemployment (during which he supported a family of six only from his apiary), the authorities

60

Important figures in the Methodist Church

allowed him to work once again: in the grain and livestock purchasing point, the poultry and egg department of the cooperative, the railway unloading point and the wagon cleaning crew in Ełk. An outstanding Masurian activist (a prewar teacher in the Dzialdowski region, co-founder of the Association of Masuria Region), hero of the September campaign (lieutenant, commander of one of the rolling stock columns in the Independent Operational Group “Polesie” of Gen. Franciszek Kleeberg), a prisoner of German oflags (from Dęblin to Laufen near Salzburg), an anti-Hitler conspiracy activist (the Secretary of the secret Mazurian Institute under the pseudonym Stanisław Łopatowski43), a leading defender and pastor of the native Evangelical population in Masuria after 1945 (as a pastor and creator of an old people’s home) was deprived by People’s Poland of basic respect and dignity. In 1966 the authorities of the Methodist Church refused his request to return to the group of clergy. In such conditions, after years of efforts, Edward Małłek emigrated to Canada in 1973, and then to the Federal Republic of Germany.44 After 1989 he often visited Masuria. He died during one such visit, in Olsztyn on 24 June 1995. Sermons at the funeral in Hamburg were given by two former Masurian Methodist pastors: Jan Waszk and Zygmunt Karczewski.

Notes 1 The book and publishing cooperative Pochodnia, created by Rev. Edmund Chambers, published in high circulation a number of titles promoting Methodism among the Mazurians, as well as outside the Methodist environment itself. This was the significance of, among others, three books published in 1948: Droga do zbawienia (The Road to Salvation) by Pastor Frank Mangs (translation from Swedish in 20,000 copies); Istota metodyzmu (The Essence of Methodism) by Gilbert T. Rowe, Professor of the Faculty of Theology at the University of North Carolina (translation from English, two editions of 10,000 copies each); and Z dziejów ruchu metodystycznego w Polsce (The History of the Methodist Movement in Poland), by Chambers himself. 2 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 607, Katowice 8.10.1951. 3 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 527, WUBP in Olsztyn “Report 1–31.3.49”. 4 See: E. L. Megill, Return to Africa: A Journal, Bloomington, IN 2008, 111, 141. 5 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 407, letter from Basil Koziej to Hjordis Wickstrom – a record of the correspondence intercepted by the MBP, Chełm 24.02.1949. 6 For discussion of these factions, see Chapter 11. 7 AIPN, sign. By 069/242 t. 6, c. 397, UBP in Toruń, “Agent report”, Toruń 3.12.1953. 8 See: Z. Kamiński, “Bibliografia prac Księdza Profesora Witolda Benedyktowicza za lata 1946–1990”, Rocznik Teologiczny ChAT 40(1–2) (1998), 15–42. 9 See: E. Puślecki, “Szlachetny Mistrz”, Rocznik Teologiczny ChAT 40(1–2) (1998), 7–14. 10 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1614/J, c. 372–373, “Agent report” source “Jawor”, Warsaw 14.05.1955; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1614/J, c. 374–376, “Agent report” souce “Żebrowski”, Warsaw 14.05.1955. 11 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1615/J, c. 35, “Agent report” source “Andrzej”, Warsaw 21.01.1959. 12 See: H. R. Tomaszewski, Kościół Chrystusowy w Polsce w latach 1921–1953, Warsaw 1992, 10–12. 13 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1615/J, c. 27–28, “Note”, Warsaw 12.01.1959. 14 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1615/J, c. 33–34, “Special Report”, Warsaw 19.01.1959. 15 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1615/J, c. 57–60, “Note”, Warsaw 7.04.1959.

Important figures in the Methodist Church 61 16 17 18 19 20

21 22

23

24 25

26

27 28 29

30 31 32

AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1615/J, c. 65–69, Warsaw 29.04.1959. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1615/J, c. 80–83, “Note”, Warsaw 3.06.1959. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1615/J, c. 84, Warsaw 17.06.1959. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1615/J, c. 134–135, “Note”, October 1961. As established in the Office for Religious Affairs, Marian Lubecki began “religious and social activities” after the World War I in the Quaker Mission. Then in 1922 he founded the Freedom Community (later renamed the Church of Love). It was not until after World War II that “citizen Lubecki appeared in Warsaw as a pastor of the Methodist church in Praga (Jagiellońska Street)”, AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 93–94, Serafin Kiryłowicz, “Note”, 12.10.1951. M. Lubecki, “O duchowe oblicze metodyzmu polskiego”, Pielgrzym Polski (1949, nos 7–8). See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 40–41, “Agent report” source “Nowator” no. 17/53, Warsaw 27.11.1953; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 46, “Agent report” source “Nowator” nr 23/53, Warsaw 18.12.1953; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 335–337, “Agent report” source “Nowator” nr 6/53, Warsaw 7.10.1953. AAN, UdSW, sign. 131/14, c. 172, 27.02.1956; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 47, “Agent report” source “Nowator”, Warsaw 18.12.1953; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 347–348, “Agent report” source “Nowator” no. 1/54, Warsaw 8.01.1954. See: M. Lubecki, “Rola liturgii w chrześcijaństwie”, Kalendarz Wolnej Myśli 1960; M. Lubecki, “Miesięcznik Sumienie Społeczne (1936–1939)”, Euhemer. Przegląd Religioznawczy (1968, no. 2). It was probably a return to the concept considered by Lubecki and his friends in the 1920s. The partners of the Panmonist Church in Warsaw were the Unity of Polish Brethren – Unitarians (the congregation in Poznań) and the Freemasonry-Universalist Unity of Polish Brethren in Cracow, See: J. Kozłowski, J. Langner, T. Zagajewski (eds), Atlas wyznań w Polsce, Kraków 1989, 34–35; J. S. Ostrowski, “Marian T. Lubecki jako prekursor ekumenizmu w Polsce”, Studia i Dokumenty Ekumeniczne 26(2) (1989). During the period of the People’s Republic of Poland, this situation also affected other non-Roman Catholic Churches besides the Methodist Church. The most spectacular were “parish matters” related to the Polish Catholic Church (Bolesław, Gądków Wielki) and the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Zimna Woda), See: R. Michalak, Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego wobec mniejszości religijnych w latach 1945–1989, Zielona Góra 2014, passim; S. Dudra, Polski Autokefaliczny Kościół Prawosławny w obszarze polityki wyznaniowej i polityki narodowościowej po II wojnie światowej, Warsaw 2019, passim. See: E. Małłek, Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016, passim. The author’s interview with Olga Kwiatkowska-Kuszyk, the granddaughter of Pastor Antoni Liszkiewicz, Iłowa 11.11.2014. See: T. Reichelt, “Historia mazurskiej parafii w Lipowie”, Pielgrzym Polski 708 (1998, no. 10), 13–15, 17; T. Reichelt, “Historia mazurskiej parafii w Szmigwałdzie Dużym (obecnie Smykowo)”, Pielgrzym Polski 714 (1999, no. 4), 15–18. Fragment of the application of the Department of Religion Affairs in Olsztyn to the Office for Religious Affairs “on the removal of Rev. A. Liszkiewicz” from 12 January 1954: “He is mentioned as a co-founder of the Methodist Religion Association in this area, whose members he gained not only by distributing American clothes, but also by lying claims that the Methodist Church is the closest to the Union’s Church, thus acting in favor of German revisionism” (AAN, UdSW, sign, 19/202; K. Urban, Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2000, 370). APO, UW, sign. 391/303, Ostróda 08.09.1948. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 508–512, “Report”, Olsztyn 4.03.1950. Letter from Elżbieta Gawlik, granddaughter of Pastor Antoni Liszkiewicz, to the author, Ostróda 14.05.2015.

62

Important figures in the Methodist Church

33 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 2a/17/55, c. 4–7, Rev. Z. Michelis “Report 21–22 XI 1953 r.”, Warsaw 03.12.1953. 34 After consultation with Serafin Kiryłowicz, Rev. Michelis established contact with the former Union pastor Rev. Gajel, who was the parish priest in Lipowo, and in 1945 left for West Germany. At the end of 1953 he sent a telegram to one of the former parishioners in which he declared that the Evangelical-Augsburg Church was the “proper” Church, See: K. Urban, Luteranie i metodyści, 283–287. 35 For the deputy director of the Office for Religious Affairs, Roman Darczewski, the key opinion in this respect was that of Serafin Kiryłowicz, and he categorically ruled: “remove him from the clergy and do not allow to stay in Masuria”, AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 573, S[erafin] K[iryłowicz], “Liszkiewicz”. 36 B. Dzięciołowska, “Gdy zacząłem nabożeństwo” [interview with Rev. Antoni Liszkiewicz], Trybuna Opolska, 14 May 1991, p. 9. 37 Apart from Ełk, Rev. Edward Małłek worked as a pastor in several smaller towns and villages. In addition, he was the founder and guardian of the old people’s home in Piętki and the Masurian Bursa in Ełk. See: E. Małłek, Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna?, passim; K. Sychowicz, Władze komunistyczne wobec Kościołów i związków wyznaniowych w województwie białostockim w latach 1944–1975, Białystok 2013, 211–212. 38 Equally important in this respect are the achievements of the former pastor in Mazury, Zygmunt Karczewski, who in the 1990s and in the first decade of the twenty-first century edited Nasze Bractwo (Our Brotherhood) – a periodical of former Mazurian pastors with a reminiscence and identity character. See: Z. Karczewski, “Kościoły i konfesje w Prusach Wschodnich. Doznania byłego pastora metodystów na Mazurach”, Pielgrzym Polski 768 (2004), 12–19. 39 See: E. Małłek, “Jestem starostą powiatowym w Niborku”, Kartki Mazurskie 89 (2011, no. 1). 40 Full edition of Karol Małłek’s memoirs from the period after 1945 see: K. Małłek, Mazury polskie. Pamiętniki, Olsztyn 2011, 443. The materials of the MBP show that the confessional-identity dispute between the brothers Karol and Edward Małłek also had a direct and public dimension. The confrontation of their views was supposed to take place during the meeting of the representatives of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical-Augsburg Church on 28 December 1951 in Ełk. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 187–188, “Agent report” source “Jacek”, 21.01.1952. 41 See: E. Małłek, Gdzie jest moja Ojczyzna?, 540–545. 42 In his memoirs, Rev. Edward Małłek informs about the forced signing of his cooperation, a few forced conversations and a categorical refusal to continue such meetings, see: Małłek, Gdzie jest moja Ojczyzna?, 396–399. 43 He did not return to his real name until 1 January 1948. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 348, “Agent report” source “Strzała”, Białystok 31.01.1948. 44 See: Małłek, Gdzie jest moja Ojczyzna?, 584–589.

Bibliography Archiwum Akt Nowych w Warszawie (AAN Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw). AAN, UdSW, sign. III 2a/17/55, c. 4–7. AAN, UdSW, sign, 19/202. AAN, UdSW, sign. 131/14, c. 172. Archiwum Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej (AIPN Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance). AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 40–41, 46, 47. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 93–94, 187–188, 335–337, 347–348, 407, 508–512, 527, 573. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 348, 607. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1614/J, c. 372–376. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1615/J, c. 27–28, 33–35, 57–60, 65–69, 80–84,134–135. AIPN, sign. By 069/242 t. 6, c. 397.

Important figures in the Methodist Church 63 Archiwum Państwowe w Olsztynie (APO State Archive in Olsztyn). APO, UW, sign. 391/303. Chambers, E., Z dziejów ruchu metodystycznego w Polsce, Warsaw 1948. Dudra, S., Polski Autokefaliczny Kościół Prawosławny w obszarze polityki wyznaniowej i polityki narodowościowej po II wojnie światowej, Warsaw 2019. Dzięciołowska, B., “Gdy zacząłem nabożeństwo” [interview with Rev. Antoni Liszkiewicz], in Trybuna Opolska, 14 May 1991, p. 9. Kamiński, Z., “Bibliografia prac Księdza Profesora Witolda Benedyktowicza za lata 1946– 1990”, Rocznik Teologiczny ChAT 40(1–2) (1998), 15–42. Karczewski, Z., “Kościoły i konfesje w Prusach Wschodnich. Doznania byłego pastora metodystów na Mazurach”, Pielgrzym Polski 768 (2004), 12–19. Kozłowski, J., Langner, J., Zagajewski, T. (eds), Atlas wyznań w Polsce, Kraków 1989. Lubecki, M., “O duchowe oblicze metodyzmu polskiego”, Pielgrzym Polski (7–8) (1949), 7–8. Lubecki, M., “Rola liturgii w chrześcijaństwie”, Kalendarz Wolnej Myśli (1960), 335–341. Lubecki, M., “Miesięcznik Sumienie Społeczne (1936–1939)”, Euhemer. Przegląd Religioznawczy (2) (1968), 92–94. Małłek, E., “Jestem starostą powiatowym w Niborku”, Kartki Mazurskie 89(1) (2011), 1–2. Małłek, E., Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016. Małłek, K., Mazury polskie. Pamiętniki, Olsztyn 2011. Mangs, F., Droga do zbawienia, Warsaw 1948. Megill, E. L., Return to Africa: A Journal, Bloomington, IN 2008. Michalak, R., Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego wobec mniejszości religijnych w latach 1945–1989, Zielona Góra 2014. Ostrowski, J. S., “Marian T. Lubecki jako prekursor ekumenizmu w Polsce”, Studia i Dokumenty Ekumeniczne 26(2) (1989), 26–45. Puślecki, E., “Szlachetny Mistrz”, Rocznik Teologiczny ChAT 40(1–2) (1998), 7–14. Reichelt, T., “Historia mazurskiej parafii w Lipowie”, Pielgrzym Polski 708(10) (1998), 13–15. Reichelt, T., “Historia mazurskiej parafii w Szmigwałdzie Dużym (obecnie Smykowo)”, Pielgrzym Polski 714(4) (1999), 15–18. Rowe, G. T., Istota metodyzmu, Warsaw 1948. Sychowicz, K., Władze komunistyczne wobec Kościołów i związków wyznaniowych w województwie białostockim w latach 1944–1975, Białystok 2013. Tomaszewski, H. R., Kościół Chrystusowy w Polsce w latach 1921–1953, Warsaw 1992. Urban, K., Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2000.

7

Agents of religious policy towards the Methodist Church

After 1945, religious policy was implemented in a heterogeneous and deconcentrated model in the area of competence of the party and state authorities. It was intentionally and conceptually liquidating, but in practice selectively liquidating and mostly regulatory. The intention and strategic goal of the party-state authorities was the annihilation of all religious organizations and the total disappearance of religious life. Selective liquidation policy consisted of sustained repressive actions against two religious communities (Greek Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses) in the years 1945–1989 and four others in the years of Stalinism, 1945/48–1956 (Adventists, Evangelical Protestants, Polish Catholics and Methodists). Most religious associations were covered by the regulative policy throughout the time of the People’s Republic of Poland – including those located on the “background” of interests (among others, Muslims, Old Believers, Mormons and Irvingians). After 1956, the religious groups that had been added to the liquidation agenda under Stalinism were transferred to the regulative policy. It was not until the end of the 1980s that the erosion of the political system brought about the affiliate model of positive co-operation between state authorities and most of the non-Roman Catholic communities. The main measure leading to the achievement of the objectives of religious policy was the staffing of managerial positions in religious associations, and the primary purpose of religious organizations became their propaganda commitment of a state character (in the international and national spheres) and anti-Roman Catholic attitude. The most important center of religious policy towards non-Roman Catholic religious denominations,1 and therefore also the Methodist Church, was the Office for Religious Affairs (UdSW), created in 1950, and in particular its Department III. The first Director of the UdSW was Antoni Bida, who held this post until August 1954. His successors were, in turn: Jan Izydorczyk (Director 1954–1955), Marian Zygmanowski (Director 1955–1956), Jerzy Sztachelski (Minister-Manager 1956–1961), Tadeusz Żabiński (Director 1961–1966), Aleksander Skarżyński (Director, and then Undersecretary of State – Manager 1967–1974), Kazimierz Kąkol (Undersecretary of State – Manager, then Minister – Manager 1974–1980), Jerzy Kuberski (Minister-Manager 1980–1982), Adam Łopatka (MinisterManager 1982–1987) and Władysław Loranc (Minister-Manager 1987–1989). DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-7

Agents of religious policy towards the Church 65 Czesław Skoniecki was the direct organizer of the UdSW and the one who completed its staff.2 He represented the management of the Polish United Workers’ Party at the conferences convened by the UdSW, and his actual authority over the Office was exercised from the position of Head of the Department of Clergy Affairs at the Secretariat of the Central Committee, whose head was Franciszek Mazur. The latter, together with Zenon Nowak, was responsible for the clergy departments of the Central Committee, while Józef Cyrankiewicz and Aleksander Zawadzki were to take care of the high level of work over the Departments for Religious Affairs in the national councils. From 1953, the party’s control of the UdSW was held within the framework of the work of the Department of Mass Organizations of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party. At the voivodeship level, the role was played by the units of mass organizations of the Voivodeship Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party, and at the poviat level by the meetings of the mass organizations’ teams (the first Secretary of the Poviat Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party, the Head of the Unit for Religious Affairs and an officer of the Public Security Office). At the end of 1959, the UdSW became dependent on the Sector for Religious Affairs and the Commission for Clergy and Religious Associations at the Administration Department of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party.3 In the 1970s, Stanisław Kania headed the Commission, then called the Group of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party for Religious Policy. It held only a few meetings.4 In addition to party structures, the Office for Foreigners had to include in its activities: the Ministry of Public Security Department V (later XI5) and Department I (counterintelligence6), the Committee for Public Security (Department VI), and then the Ministry of the Interior (Department III, and from 1962 Department IV).7 Without depriving the security apparatus of its key role in combating the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that it was apparently the UdSW that was to create more detailed concepts for non-Roman Catholic communities. The UdSW saw in each religious community, even the smallest, a political and ideological enemy. This was the sense of the activities of UdSW Department III. The position of the UdSW at the threshold of its activity was clearly and aptly defined by Adam Dziurok: “The Office for Religious Affairs was responsible for many actions against minority churches, which was a kind of political and official incarnation of the Security Office in the religious field.”8 The UdSW was conceived as a specialized institution of power, whose employees of the central structure, in addition to people experienced in working in the Ministry of Public Security (and later the Committee for Public Security and the Ministry of the Interior), would also be experts in all matters related to the essence of churches and religious associations. They were experts in law, history, philosophy of religion, religion and dogmatics – professionals who would be able to interfere with texts written in religious circles (proclamations from church and inter-church management, declarations of collegial church bodies, press articles of not only a social and political, but also a theological, nature). They were to be

66 Agents of religious policy towards the Church experts in ecumenical issues and intricate trends in contemporary theology, able to draw practical conclusions, for example, from Bultmann’s biblical hermeneutics on the grounds of Evangelical theology, from Cox’s theology of secularization on the grounds of Baptist theology, and from the fact that there are fine differences between – apart from cosmology and soteriology – the three main denominational trends within Christianity. The area into which the UdSW entered required much more knowledge than that which was normally required from the operational staff of the security services.9 It would be an exaggeration to idealize the scope and level of knowledge of all UdSW employees, but most of them did have high and specialized competencies. First of all, we should emphasize the high level of professional qualifications of all the heads of the UdSW team. This is a crowning proof of the authorities’ awareness of how demanding and particularly challenging religious policy was. Most of the main decision-makers in the field of religious affairs were engaged in research work, including work at universities or the Polish Academy of Sciences. Six (out of ten) directors had a PhD degree or a title of professor. Some of them had publications directly related to religious policy or issues related to it. In their works, they also raised other important research issues. Numerous deputy directors, heads of departments and senior officials also proved their competence and suitability for work at the UdSW. Among these, the following stood out in this respect: Professor of Philosophy Wiesław Mysłek, an analyst from the UdSW and the group’s most prolific author on religious policy, after 1956 “one of the most influential officers of the Office for Religious Affairs”;10 Dr Aleksander Merker (among others, Advisor at Faculty III, Head of Faculty II, Deputy Director and General Director), author of numerous articles and reviews of scientific and journalistic character, as well as translator of texts from German, and creator of the 1971 “Memorandum” concerning “principles and directions of the religious policy of the People’s Republic of Poland” – one of the most important analyses in this field; Aleksander Wołowicz (among others, Head of Department III in the years 1959–1965; in the 1970s he moved to Department II, and in the 1980s he became Director of the Group for the Affairs of the Roman Catholic Church at the University of Warsaw), who was mentioned by Antoni Klinger among scientists and publicists who brought new elements to the secular philosophical culture through “criticism of Catholic philosophy and the socio-political doctrine of Catholicism”;11 Adam Piekarski (advisor to the UdSW), known primarily as the author of the plan of action towards cardinals Stefan Wyszyński and Karol Wojtyła, and who was also an expert in the non-Roman Catholic issues; and Grzegorz Rydlewski (specialist in the UdSW, and from 1986 Director of the Group for the Affairs of Non-Roman Catholic Churches and Religious Associations), whose constructive and substantive activities led to the formation of an affiliate model in relations between state authorities and non-Roman Catholic communities. In 1983 he was awarded a doctorate for his thesis titled “Relations between the State and the Roman Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of Poland in the 1970s”, and he was one of the co-authors of the Act of 17 May 1989 guaranteeing freedom of conscience and religion; he is currently a professor, specializing in decision-making processes in institutions of

Agents of religious policy towards the Church 67 power. Substantive analyses were also created for the UdSW by Alicja Sadownik, Irena Krutikowa, Jerzy Janitz and Eryk Sztekker. The latter first taught the party staff (some of his lectures were published), and in 1969 he began working at the UdSW, where during the period of Loranc’s rule he was his right hand. Among his numerous publications, the ones from the 1980s are worth mentioning. The close collaborators of the UdSW included the former Director of the Religious Department of the Ministry of Public Administration, Jarosław Jurkiewicz. In March 1956 he had participated as a scientist (professor at the Polish Institute of International Affairs) in the international conference in West Berlin, after which he provided detailed information about the organization Kirchendienst Ost.12 Also in close cooperation with the UdSW was Professor Henryk Świątkowski (an Evangelist according to the register), who in 1956, in the process of de-Stalinization, was deprived of the position of Minister of Justice and took up duties as Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Warsaw; he was co-founder of the Polish Religious Studies Society and an activist of the Association of Atheists and Free Thinking. As a specialist in the field of religious law, he often contacted the UdSW management. The formal expression of cooperation between the specialists and the UdSW was the establishment in April 1972 of the secret UdSW Legal Commission, with the task of preparing a “legal opinion on the general legal status and place of churches in the socialist system of the People’s Republic of Poland” and other detailed expert opinions. It was headed by the Deputy Director of the UdSW, Aleksander Merker, and its members were the law professors Wacław Dawidowicz, Jerzy Jodłowski and Adam Łopatka, assistant professor Michał Pietrzak, and Dr Janusz Osuchowski and Dr Michał Staszewski.13 On the basis of archival documentation, the remaining deputy directors and heads of the UdSW – Roman Darczewski, Jan Lech, Józef Siemek, Jan Bohdan, Tadeusz Dusik, Zygmunt Wereszczyński and Walentyna Walkiewicz – must also be credited with specialist knowledge. So too must many voivodeship Heads of Units or Departments for Religious Affairs: Tadeusz Płuciennik (Koszalin), Edmund Kędzierski (Poznań), Leon Piotrowski (Gdańsk), Mieczysław Żywicki (Zielona Góra), Stefan Pachołek and Leon Król (Kraków), Witold Skórczyński and Mieczysław Prajsner (Wrocław), Marian Kapalski and Jan Duda (Rzeszów) or Bolesław Węclewski and Henryk Kołodziejek (Szczecin). Many specialists (senior advisors) working in the UdSW “headquarters” signed their substantive opinions only with initials, and remain anonymous to this day.14 Serafin Kiryłowicz was a person of particularly high competence and knowledge in matters concerning non-Roman Catholic denominations. In Kazimierz Urban’s opinion, he belonged to the group of “very few people at that time […] who had insight into the complicated layout of religious relations in Poland, both before the war and during the occupation, and especially after liberation”.15 He gained his competence in religious matters through, among other things, theological studies (including the subject of “sectology”) at the Institute of Orthodox Theology at the University of Warsaw (which he graduated from in 1929), work as an assistant in the Department of Christian Archaeology and as Head of the Department of Liturgy at the same Institute, and through studies (in the years

68 Agents of religious policy towards the Church 1935–1936) in the history of ecclesiastical art at the Jagiellonian University. Even before the war, Kiryłowicz co-edited two specialist theological periodicals: Elpis and Wiestnik Bractwa Prawosławnych Bogosłowow. He was an active member of the Brotherhood of Orthodox Theologians. His scientific work (besides popular and journalistic) was realized simultaneously with his work in the Ministry of Public Administration and the UdSW. After all, most of his publications were issued after 1971, i.e. after his retirement. To the full picture of Kiryłowicz’s competences, it is necessary to add his knowledge of several foreign languages. That he was also the most important figure in relation to state policy towards minority religions is evidenced by the fact that the UdSW formulated its most expressive concepts and actions in this area during his time as Head of the Department of Non-Roman Catholic Denominations (1950–1959 and 1965–1971). A comparison of the historical, legal and, in particular, religious knowledge among the UdSW employees in relation to minority denominations, with the knowledge available to the employees of the security apparatus, shows a definite asymmetry. Equipped with a team of top-class specialists, the UdSW was able to implement a religious policy taking into account the widest possible perspective of interests. This had an impact on the decision-making mechanisms. The experience, skills and knowledge of its employees, advisors and experts was of great importance in the decision-making process taking place within the UdSW’s structures. Most of the UdSW’s specific decisions resulted from the strategic vision of the religious policy. In the decision-making model we can see first of all the deductive procedure, i.e. the transition from general decision-making to specific decisions concerning particular objectives. The harmonization of inductive and deductive approaches began at the end of the 1980s.

Notes 1 See: R. Michalak, Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego wobec mniejszości religijnych w latach 1945–1989, Zielona Góra 2014. There, too, references to literature on the subject, especially see: S. Dudra, Polski Autokefaliczny Kościół Prawosławny w obszarze polityki wyznaniowej i polityki narodowościowej po II wojnie światowej, Warsaw 2019, 82–91; B. Noszczak, “Antykościelna międzynarodówka. Współpraca polskiego Urzędu do spraw Wyznań z jego odpowiednikami w państwach ‘demokracji ludowej’ (1954–1962)”, Pamięć I Sprawiedliwość 33 (2019), 406–437; B. Wójcik, “Tworzenie i wykorzystanie akt osobowych duchownych w działalności Urzędu do spraw Wyznań i jego agend”, in Urząd do spraw Wyznań. Struktury – Działalność – Ludzie, vol. 1: Struktury wojewódzkie i wybrane aspekty działalności, R. Łatka (ed.), Warsaw 2020, 311–343. 2 See: B. Fijałkowska, Partia wobec religii i Kościoła w PRL, vol. 1: 1945–1955, Olsztyn 1999, 104. 3 See: T. Gajowniczek, “Przyczyny powstania i główne cele działalności Urzędu ds. Wyznań jako narzędzia realizacji polityki wyznaniowej władz w początkach Polski Ludowej”, Rocznik Dobromiejski 1 (2007), 251–252; K. Kowalczyk, W walce o rząd dusz. Polityka władz państwowych wobec Kościoła katolickiego na Pomorzu Zachodnim w latach 1945–1956, Szczecin 2003, 21. 4 See: A. Friszke, PRL wobec Kościoła. Akta 1970–1978, Warsaw 2010, 13.

Agents of religious policy towards the Church 69 5 In Ryszard Terlecki’s opinion, in 1950 the relations between the Ministry for Public Safety and the Office for Religious Affairs included “cooperation”, see: R. Terlecki, Miecz i tarcza komunizmu. Historia aparatu bezpieczeństwa w Polsce 1944–1990, Kraków 2007, 106. Konrad Białecki, on the other hand, assumes that at the beginning of its activity, the Office for Religious Affairs was “in fact a branch of the V Department”, see: K. Białecki, “Najważniejsze założenia polityki wyznaniowej państwa i ich realizacja w latach 1945–1956”, in Władze wobec Kościołów i związków wyznaniowych w Wielkopolsce w latach 1945–1956, K. Białecki (ed.), Poznań 2008, 26. 6 See: P. Pleskot, “Tarcza partii i narodu”. Kontrwywiad Polski Ludowej w latach 1945– 1956. Zarys struktur i wybór źródeł, Warsaw 2010. 7 See: A. Paczkowski, “Aparat bezpieczeństwa”, in Instytucje państwa totalitarnego. Polska 1944–1956, A. Paczkowski (ed.), Warsaw 1994, 59–72; see: L. Murat, “Service with Body and Soul: The Institutionalized Atheism of the Security Service Officers in Communist Poland, 1944–1989”, in Religion and the Cold War: A Global Perspective, Ph. E. Muehlenbeck (ed.), Nashville, TN 2012, 247–274; T. Jaskułowski, Przyjaźń, której nie było. Ministerstwo Bezpieczeństwa Państwowego NRD wobec MSW 1974– 1990, Warsaw 2014, 284–305. 8 A. Dziurok (ed.), Metody pracy operacyjnej aparatu bezpieczeństwa wobec Kościołów i związków wyznaniowych 1945–1989, Warsaw 2004, 41. See also: B. Noszczak, Polityka państwa wobec Kościoła rzymskokatolickiego w Polsce w okresie internowania prymasa Stefana Wyszyńskiego 1953–1956, Warsaw 2008; A. Dziurok, “Actions against the Catholic Church in Polish People’s Republic till 1953”, The Person and the Challenges 9(2) (2019), 41–52, DOI: 10.15633/pch.3449. 9 This is confirmed, for instance, by the material on religious minorities created by the security services in Poznań after the end of the Millennium Confrontation. The study, intended to serve as reference material, contains many errors and is at a very low level. Some of his opinions do not bear scrutiny. The representative of the authority appealing to atheism had to prove on the basis of religious statistics that the stereotype “Pole– Catholic” was untrue: “The church’s millennium program tried to prove that Poland is the Church, and the Pole is a Catholic. However, according to various statistics, Poland is not a country with a uniform religious faith. In our country there are 24 Christian denominations and associations and 3 non-Christian religious associations”, AIPN, sign. Po 05/22, c. 1–52, may 1967. 10 Antoni Dudek, Państwo i Kościół w Polsce 1945–1970, Kraków 1995, 54. 11 Antoni Klinger, Problematyka świeckiej kultury socjalistycznej w Polsce Ludowej w latach 1957–1973, Zielona Góra 1976, p. 151. 12 See: K. Urban, Zbory niemieckie Kościoła Ewangelicko-Augsburskiego w Polsce 1948–1970. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2003, 319–322. In another publication, Kazimierz Urban quotes a 1979 “note” of the Office for Religious Affairs, which refers to the Office’s cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Polish Institute of Public Affairs in order to prepare church employees for their foreign trips, see: K. Urban, “Tendencje ekumeniczno-łącznościowe w Polsce 1945–1990 (zarys problematyki)”, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Studia Religiologica 27 (1994), 123. 13 See: Michalak, Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego, passim; K. KrzysztofekStrzała, “Stosowanie prawa wobec Kościołów i związków wyznaniowych przez Urząd do spraw Wyznań. Wybrane zagadnienia”, in Urząd do spraw Wyznań. Struktury – Działalność – Ludzie, vol. 1: Struktury wojewódzkie i wybrane aspekty działalności, R. Łatka (ed.), Warsaw 2020, 401–414. 14 See: R. Łatka (ed.), Urząd do spraw Wyznań. Struktury – Działalność – Ludzie, vol. 1: Struktury wojewódzkie i wybrane aspekty działalności, Warsaw 2020, passim. 15 K. Urban, “Serafin Kiryłowicz (1903–1986)”, Euhemer – Przegląd Religioznawczy (1987, nos 3–4), 246–247.

70 Agents of religious policy towards the Church

Bibliography Archiwum Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej (AIPN Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance). AIPN, sign. Po 05/22, c. 1–52. Białecki, K., “Najważniejsze założenia polityki wyznaniowej państwa i ich realizacja w latach 1945–1956”, in Władze wobec Kościołów i związków wyznaniowych w Wielkopolsce w latach 1945–1956, K. Białecki (ed), Poznań 2008. Dudek, A., Państwo i Kościół w Polsce 1945–1970, Kraków 1995. Dudra, S., Polski Autokefaliczny Kościół Prawosławny w obszarze polityki wyznaniowej i polityki narodowościowej po II wojnie światowej, Warsaw 2019. Dziurok, A. (ed), Metody pracy operacyjnej aparatu bezpieczeństwa wobec Kościołów i związków wyznaniowych 1945–1989, Warsaw 2004. Dziurok, A., “Actions against the Catholic Church in Polish People’s Republic till 1953”, The Person and the Challenges 9(2) (2019), 41–52, DOI: 10.15633/pch.3449. Fijałkowska, B., Partia wobec religii i Kościoła w PRL, vol. 1: 1945–1955, Olsztyn 1999. Friszke, A., PRL wobec Kościoła. Akta 1970–1978, Warsaw 2010. Gajowniczek, T., “Przyczyny powstania i główne cele działalności Urzędu ds. Wyznań jako narzędzia realizacji polityki wyznaniowej władz w początkach Polski Ludowej”, Rocznik Dobromiejski 1 (2007), 239–256. Jaskułowski, T., Przyjaźń, której nie było. Ministerstwo Bezpieczeństwa Państwowego NRD wobec MSW 1974–1990, Warsaw 2014. Klinger, A., Problematyka świeckiej kultury socjalistycznej w Polsce Ludowej w latach 1957–1973, Zielona Góra 1976. Kowalczyk, K., W walce o rząd dusz. Polityka władz państwowych wobec Kościoła katolickiego na Pomorzu Zachodnim w latach 1945–1956, Szczecin 2003. Krzysztofek-Strzała, K., “Stosowanie prawa wobec Kościołów i związków wyznaniowych przez Urząd do spraw Wyznań. Wybrane zagadnienia”, in Urząd do spraw Wyznań. Struktury–Działalność–Ludzie. Tom 1: Struktury wojewódzkie i wybrane aspekty działalności, R. Łatka (ed), Warsaw 2020. Łatka, R. (ed.), Urząd do spraw Wyznań. Struktury – Działalność – Ludzie. Tom 1: Struktury wojewódzkie i wybrane aspekty działalności, Warsaw 2020. Michalak, R., Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego wobec mniejszości religijnych w latach 1945–1989, Zielona Góra 2014. Murat, L., “Service with Body and Soul: The Institutionalized Atheism of the Security Service Officers in Communist Poland, 1944–1989”, in Religion and the Cold War: A Global Perspective, Ph. E. Muehlenbeck (ed), Nashville, TN 2012. Noszczak, B., Polityka państwa wobec Kościoła rzymskokatolickiego w Polsce w okresie internowania prymasa Stefana Wyszyńskiego 1953–1956, Warsaw 2008. Noszczak, B., “Antykościelna międzynarodówka. Współpraca polskiego Urzędu do spraw Wyznań z jego odpowiednikami w państwach ‘demokracji ludowej’ (1954–1962)”, Pamięć I Sprawiedliwość 33 (2019), 406–437. Paczkowski, A., “Aparat bezpieczeństwa”, in Instytucje państwa totalitarnego. Polska 1944–1956, A. Paczkowski (ed), Warsaw 1994. Pleskot, P., “Tarcza partii i narodu”. Kontrwywiad Polski Ludowej w latach 1945–1956. Zarys struktur i wybór źródeł, Warsaw 2010. Terlecki, R., Miecz i tarcza komunizmu. Historia aparatu bezpieczeństwa w Polsce 1944– 1990, Kraków 2007. Urban, K., “Serafin Kiryłowicz (1903–1986)”, Euhemer–Przegląd Religioznawczy (3–4) (1987), 246–252.

Agents of religious policy towards the Church 71 Urban, K., “Tendencje ekumeniczno-łącznościowe w Polsce 1945–1990 (zarys problematyki)”, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Studia Religiologica 27 (1994), 105–140. Urban, K., Zbory niemieckie Kościoła Ewangelicko-Augsburskiego w Polsce 1948–1970. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2003. Wójcik, B., “Tworzenie i wykorzystanie akt osobowych duchownych w działalności Urzędu do spraw Wyznań i jego agend”, in Urząd do spraw Wyznań. Struktury– Działalność–Ludzie, vol. 1: Struktury wojewódzkie i wybrane aspekty działalności, R. Łatka (ed), Warsaw 2020.

8

The legal status of the Methodist Church in 1945

The Methodist Church, as one of the few religious associations in Poland, was included in the state’s repressive liquidation policy. This course was founded and implemented by the authorities during the Stalinist period in Poland, usually dated 1948/49–1956. The period preceding Stalinism, the so-called people’s democracy (1945–1948), was characterized by the apparent tolerance of party and state decision-makers towards all phenomena of religious life, including Methodism. The most important task that the authorities of the Methodist Church set for themselves after the end of World War II was to obtain legal recognition by the Polish state. The Methodists decided on original tactics, expressing their ambitions in a remarkably forthright ultimatum. In the very opening of a letter to the Minister of Public Administration dated 24 August 1945, the Methodist authorities referred to high-ranking fellow members from the United States (Roosevelt, Truman – allegedly Methodists), Great Britain (the Labor Party leadership – Lansbury and Carter) and China (Chiang Kai-Shek – a secular Methodist preacher), to finally make a categorical demand: We expect to quickly settle our rights [i.e. legal recognition], because we do not want to reach for the support of our brothers in America and Great Britain, and in particular our brother President Truman, although we fear [that], if this state lasts longer, they will learn about our wrongs.1 In the changed geopolitical situation in the following years, and in connection with the escalating tension of the Cold War, the Methodist Church in Poland withdrew from its links with Methodists in the West. Yet immediately after the war, such tactics brought the expected results. Soon after this declaration, the Polish state granted “full denominational rights”2 to the Methodist Church in Poland. It was the first non-Roman Catholic Church to obtain such a significant legal position in Poland. The legislative path consisted of the Ministry of Public Administration (MAP) rescript (5 September 1945), the decree of the Council of Ministers (16 October 1945), the opinion of the Religious and National Committee of the State National Council (formulated between 29 December 1945 and 3 January 1946), delivering DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-8

The legal status of the Church in 1945

73

an opinion on behalf of the Committee in the Council by MP Mieczysław Rogalski (3 January 1946), and approval of the decree by the State National Council (3 January 1946). In practice, the decree of 16 October was in force from the date of its announcement in the Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws), which took place on 29 October 1945.3 The decree consisted of seven articles. Article 1 emphasized the “equality” of the Methodist Church with other religions, as well as “full freedom” of religion and religious worship. Article 2 defined the “self-reliance” and “independence” of the Church from any foreign and international structures. The internal affairs of the Church were to constitute its “own statute”, which was to be approved – in accordance with Article 3 – by the Council of Ministers. Prestigious and, at the same time, practical significance was given to Article 4, which in addition to emphasizing the legal subjectivity of the entire Methodist Church, also granted such status to individual parishes. They could on this basis “acquire movable and immovable property, dispose of or encumber it and manage it”. Article 5 enshrined the Methodist clergy’s privilege of keeping civil status books. Articles 6 and 7 set out the entities responsible for implementing the decree (the Minister of Public Administration and the Minister of Justice) and the date of its entry into force. Signatures under the decree were submitted by the President of the State National Council, Bolesław Bierut; the Vice President of the Council of Ministers, Władysław Gomułka; the Minister of Public Administration, Władysław Kiernik; and the Minister of Justice, Henryk Świątkowski. This laconic document for the next 40 years set the basis for the activities of the Methodist Church in Poland. In 1949, the MAP approved the Statute4 as referred to in Article 3. The reason for the submissiveness of the state authorities, expressed by the issue of the decree and the promotion of the Methodists, despite the claims of the Church authorities, could have been prosaic. It must be assumed that at least for some of the officials the material help that the American Methodists had promised for Poland did not seem to be an illusion. In the Department of Religious Affairs of the MAP there were specialists who remembered the real and substantial support of the American Methodist mission for Polish society in the 1920s.5 MP Mieczysław Rogalski, a pre-war Ministry of Foreign Affairs employee and diplomat, who successfully applied in the State National Council for adoption of the decree, also knew about it. Of course, he was reminded of the importance of those activities by Rev. Superintendent Konstanty Najder. The repetition of the help scenario with the American Methodists in the leading role suited the communists. They were able to write their concessions to the Methodists in a pragmatic opportunism scheme,6 and thereby ignore the fact of the privileged, nolens volens, legal status of the Methodist Church in the General Governorship. This last circumstance was revoked only in the 1950s. Thus, the Methodist Church obtained very quickly the status of a publiclegal religious association, and in three years Poland received assistance from American Methodists estimated at 100 million zlotys per year. For this reason, in June 1947 President Bolesław Bierut awarded Paul Neff Garber, Bishop of the Diocese of Geneva of the United Methodist Church, the Commander’s

74

The legal status of the Church in 1945

Cross with the Star of the Order of Polonia Restituta.7 Another distinction for the Church came with Polish Radio’s broadcast of its service during the XXVII Annual Conference on 4 July 1948.8

Notes 1 AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 20, a letter from the Polish Methodist Church in Poland to the Minister of Public Administration, Warsaw 24.08.1945. In fact, President Harry Truman was not a Methodist but a Baptist. Truman’s confessional identity (belonging to the Northern Baptist Convention) was reported to the authorities by the Baptist preacher in Łódź, and from 1950 a Methodist pastor, Kazimierz Najmałowski, see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 336. 2 See: J. Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, Warsaw 1999, 66–72. 3 See: Journal of Laws (Dz. U.) 16 October 1945, No. 46 pos. 259. See the comments in: J. Dziobek-Romański, Uznawanie związków religijnych w Polsce (1944–1989) narzędziem dyskryminacyjnej polityki władz, Lublin 2004, 221. 4 See: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 73. Attempts to change the Statute were made in the Methodist Church in 1954 around internal factional struggles (which will be discussed in Chapter 11). The new, referred to above, Statute was approved by UdSW in 1969. 5 The first Director of the Department of Religious Affairs of the MAP was MA / Dr Jarosław Demiańczuk-Jurkiewicz. In the group of his closest collaborators were pre-war specialists in religious matters (lawyers, religious scholars) – Dr Kazimierz Fromm (first deputy director, lawyer), Leonard Kędra-Hodorski (second deputy director, lawyer), Dr Tadeusz Wolfenburg (before 1939 counselor of the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Education, lawyer), Dr Teodor Swinarski (after the war known mainly from studies in the field of social insurance, lawyer) and prewar theologian and religious scholar Serafin Kiryłowicz – future long-time head of the Department of Non-Roman Catholic Confessions of UdSW. About the post-war administration for religious affairs see: R. Michalak, Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego wobec mniejszości religijnych w latach 1945–1989, Zielona Góra 2014, passim. 6 See: M. Karwat, “O pojęciu kompromisu”, in Interpretacje polityki. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana prof. Mariuszowi Gulczyńskiemu w 80. rocznicę urodzin, R. Bäcker et al. (eds), Toruń 2010. 7 See: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 66. 8 The next broadcast did not take place until 21 January 1982, see: Borowiak, Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, 85.

Bibliography Archiwum Akt Nowych w Warszawie (AAN Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw). AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 20. Archiwum Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej (AIPN Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance). AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 336. Borowiak, J., Kościół Ewangelicko-Metodystyczny w Polsce, Warsaw 1999. Dziobek-Romański, J., Uznawanie związków religijnych w Polsce (1944–1989) narzędziem dyskryminacyjnej polityki władz, Lublin 2004.

9

The Methodist mission in Masuria

Another source and manifestation of the success of the Methodists – though it turned out not to be durable – was their activity in Masuria.1 It must be admitted that originally the state authorities created a similar opportunity in missionary activity in this region for all the churches of the Protestant tradition. On 27 May 1945, at the Congress of Voivodes in Warsaw, the Religious Department of the Ministry of Public Administration announced that, in contrast to the EvangelicalUnion Church:2 other Evangelical Church organizations, especially the largest EvangelicalAugsburg Church among them, both in terms of the national composition and the spirit prevailing in it, was the Polish Church and with dignity continued the traditions of the former Evangelical Church in the post-partition period.3 In such circumstances, the Evangelical-Augsburg Church and the Methodist Church were included in the process of re-Polonization of the indigenous people.4 Between 1945 and 1946 the relationship between the Evangelical-Augsburg Church and the Methodist Church was completely regular;5 the Ministry of Public Administration actually considered the unification of the Reformed, Lutheran and Methodist Churches.6 On 28 June 1946, the representatives of the latter two Churches even concluded an agreement in which, among other things, it was stated that none of them should open a pastoral institution in a place where there was already an institution of the other, unless “rules of cooperation” were agreed. Some documents show that under this agreement the Methodist Church was to operate in the Ostróda district, and the Evangelical-Augsburg Church in the remaining “Masurian” districts. Other documentation, however, indicates that the agreed area of Methodist activity between the Churches was larger. Senior Rev. Edmund Friszke from the Evangelical-Augsburg Church declared at the religious conference in the Voivodeship Office in Olsztyn on 21 June 1946 that: there are no fundamental differences between the Evangelical-Augsburg Church and the Methodist Church; so as not to interfere with each other everywhere where the Methodist Church has already started work in the first place in the districts of Nidzica and Ostróda, the Evangelical-Augsburg DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-9

76

The Methodist mission in Masuria Church will not undertake any work, agreeing to take up temples and abandoning the faithful in a way.7

Regardless of whether the borders agreed for the activity of the Methodists included the area of one or two districts, it is a fact that they tried to create a pastoral network also in other Masurian districts. Taking advantage of the lack of Evangelical-Augsburg clergy on the one hand, and of material support from abroad on the other, the Methodist Church was the most dynamically developing Church in the region. Breaking the agreement, however, over time led to a sharp conflict with the Evangelical-Augsburg Church.8 The analysis of data from the Voivodeship Office in Olsztyn for 1948 shows that in three years the Methodist Church gained significantly more than 6,000 believers in the Olsztyn voivodeship. The vast majority of them lived in the Ostróda district. All the clergy of the Church received a very good opinion from the local starost. In November 1948 he reported that Henryk Zalewski, Tadeusz Dzierko, Maksymilian Cybulla, Paweł Fibisch, Wilhelm Hebisch and Antoni Liszkiewicz “are following the political line of the state, they are making great contributions to the re-Polonization of indigenous peoples”. The chief superintendent of the Church, Pastor Konstanty Najder, also took care to formulate assurances about the re-Polonization work of the clergy subordinate to him.9 He also served the authorities with his conclusions from the observation of religious– national relations, suggesting solutions which in his opinion were right, “from the point of view of the Polish interest”. For example, he claimed that one of the main reasons for the emigration of the Masurians was their fear of “aggression of Roman-Catholic exclusivism”, and that the state should therefore provide them with special religious care.10 The central authorities, however, were no longer convinced that the Methodist Church was acting in accordance with its declared intentions. On 25 November 1947, the Head of the Religious Section of the Department of Public Administration of the Ministry of Regained Territories, Jan Konic, informed his superior, Władysław Gomułka, that Najder was dishonest, accusing him of falsifying the numbers of the faithful “in order to obtain real estate for the Methodist Church”. In this situation, the authorities began to doubt everything that the superintendent declared. The alleged protection of Gomułka, which was to be provided to Najder in exchange for the help given during the German occupation,11 lost its significance. With time the authorities became concerned that the Methodist Church had begun to present the doctrine and liturgy of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church as not “Lutheran” and alien to the spirit of the Masurian Gospels.12 At the beginning of 1948, Najder went to the United States of America “to deepen his theological studies”. He never returned to Poland. Shortly after the Office for Religious Affairs was established in 1950, the authorities began to verify the usefulness of the Churches in the process of rePolonization of the native population in the Olsztyn voivodeship. Among other things, the leaders of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church and the Methodist Church were asked for materials on the state of possession of both Churches, data on the

The Methodist mission in Masuria

77

clergy, as well as opinions on the Masurian problem. The Office also collected materials prepared by provincial (Olsztyn, Białystok) and district offices for religious affairs, as well as public security bodies.13 In addition, a special inspection of these areas was carried out on 4–8 September 1951 by the Head of the Department of Non-Roman Catholic Denominations, Serafin Kiryłowicz. He was also the coauthor (together with the Deputy Director of the Office, Roman Darczewski) of a comprehensive report in which detailed conclusions and postulates concerning the participation of the Churches in the “Masurian action” were formulated. The Kiryłowicz and Darczewski reports contained information on the number and professional structure of the native population in the Olsztyn voivodeship.14 It also pointed to the widespread desire among the Masurian population to travel to the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. The authors of the report devoted much attention to the moods of this population. The observations of one of the Olsztyn officials were treated particularly seriously. He reported to inspector Kiryłowicz: whispering propaganda is in operation. There is talk of an outbreak of war, stating that the Polish population should not be afraid because the Germans will come under the leadership of the Americans and they will not allow hurt to Poles. The main part of the report, devoted to the Churches, contained detailed data on the ownership of the Churches and the characteristics of Lutheran, Methodist and Roman Catholic priests (in the latter case only those of local origin). There was also a mass influx of religious literature from Germany, sent, among others, by Pastor Richard Kammel, and lively correspondence between the Masurian population and their families in Germany. In conclusion to the findings made, the following recommendations were formulated: 1. Increase the staffing of Evangelical-Augsburg priests in Masuria, while personnel moves should be agreed with the authorities; 2. Eliminate competitive tendencies between the Evangelical Augsburg and Methodist Churches; 3. Increase the circulation of Evangelical religious literature and send it into Masuria; 4. Draw the attention of Department II (for the Affairs of the Roman Catholic Office of Religious Affairs) to hostile activities of the Roman Catholic indigenous priests; 5. Consider the issue of using a German language at services and make appropriate conclusions in this matter.15 These conclusions became the basis for the implementation of a new direction of religious policy in Masuria, i.e. limiting the influence of the Methodist Church in

78

The Methodist mission in Masuria

this region, strengthening the Evangelical-Augsburg Church and eliminating the German language from pastoral ministry. Further specific goals were to be reduced to the socio-political activation of the faithful and neutralization of the attitudes of the German priests, as well as to the issue of to Germany. The whole undertaking was given its own name (codename) – “Akcja mazurska” (Masurian Action).16 The successful development of Methodists in Masuria began to be programmatically hampered by the state authorities in 1951. The policy of eliminating “competitive tendencies” between the Evangelical-Augsburg Church and the Methodist Church in practice meant actions aimed at eliminating Methodist churches in this region.17 Efforts to expand the influence of Methodism in Central Pomerania – and the inevitable confrontation that brought with the EvangelicalAugsburg Church – were consciously abandoned, and the care of the faithful in Słupsk, Koszalin and Bytów was for a long time in the hands of the older churches. In the opinion of the authorities, the rivalry between these Churches curtailed their effectiveness in re-Polonization work. In this situation, it was decided to opt for the larger one, i.e. the Lutheran Church, in every manifestation of its activity. It was decided to “use the positions of religion teachers in schools where there are Methodists who should be replaced by Lutherans”.18 On behalf of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church, the “Masurian action” was supervised by Rev. Robert Fiszkal. On 20 February 1953, he sent a memorandum to the Office for Religious Affairs devoted to the “Methodist problem”. In the first part of this document, he meticulously listed Methodist speeches and activities that were hostile to the Lutheran Church and the re-Polonization effort. In the main conclusions he stated: 1. The Methodist Church, not having its own followers in Masuria, conducts its activities among the Polish Evangelical population under a foreign banner, referring to the German past of the Union Church. 2. To document this past, the Methodist Church often speaks German and conducts services according to the rite of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church and uses the liturgical attire of the Evangelical Church. 3. The Methodist Church conducts a subversive work directed against the Evangelical-Augsburg Church, entering parishes organized and served by the clergy of our Church and introducing confusion, which adversely affects the formation of the national consciousness of Masuria. 4. The Methodist Church leads in Poviat of Mrągów pastoral work usually in private homes, in Masurian villages, which makes it difficult not only for the Evangelical-Augsburg Church to effect prevention, but also does not allow the appointed authorities to view the type of work they carry out and control the means they use.19 According to Fiszkal, all these practices led to a number of destructive and undesirable phenomena, and above all:

The Methodist mission in Masuria

79

1. Breaking up the religious unity of the Polish Evangelical population in Masuria, giving Masurians the opportunity to win the inter-church conflict to create demands to obtain language concessions; 2. Stopping the Evangelical Augsburg Church from bolder liquidation of the remains of the German language in liturgy and songs of the church, so as not to cause more serious escape of the Masurians to the Methodist Church, appearing as a successor of the Union Church; 3. Preventing a more serious action to raise national awareness of Masurians, by promoting Polish identity in special readings about Poland, the Polish past of Masuria, the civil duties of the indigenous population, in order not to give the Methodists defense that the Evangelical Augsburg Church is a political Church and an instrument of re-Polonization.20 Fiszkal’s conclusions, apart from the attack on “religious competition”, partly served as a justification for the use of German by the faithful and clergy during the services of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church. Fiszkal ended his argument as follows: we draw attention to the need to remove the artificial obstacle to effective rePolonization action in the form of the Methodist Church in Masuria. In fact, this action amounts to the removal of the Methodist Church’s 17 employees,21 who in any case do not carry out any positive social and national work, because they do not have appropriate educational qualifications and the Methodist Church does not have a social attitude. Moreover, the number of the Methodist Church employees in Masuria is disproportionate to the real needs of the land and the parish’s ability to support them.22 The allegations of the representative of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church against the Methodist Church – i.e. that it had no connection with the Union Church – were refuted by Methodists, who reminded the faithful that before 1945 Masurians were “Union” and not “Augsburg”. However, argument was no longer of any great importance. At this stage of its Masurian activity, the Methodist Church found itself dependent on the will and grace of the Office for Religious Affairs and the Evangelical-Augsburg Church. The question of what might have inspired the state authorities to consider the liquidation of Methodism remains unanswered. From the “agent’s report” of the source codenamed “Rej” it appears, however, that the Lutheran priest Zygmunt Michelis not only informed Rev. Gustaw Burchart and Rev. Leonid Jesakow (in the context of the vague offer to move to the Evangelical-Augsburg Church submitted to the Methodists23) that the Office for Religious Affairs might adopt a liquidation policy towards Methodism, but was also the one who suggested such a solution to Kiryłowicz: in this church, Methodists as one of the seniority (called: the Methodist seniority) they will have complete autonomy […] the Methodist Church may be

80

The Methodist mission in Masuria liquidated because it is not autocephalous […] in general, Michelis suggested the liquidation of the Methodist Church by the authorities and therefore proposes joining the Augsburg Confession.24

The examples of the influence of Rev. Zygmunt Michelis,25 and even more so of the actions of Rev. Robert Fiszkal, show these clergy, and thus also the Evangelical-Augsburg Church, as de facto agents – and not only tools – of religious policy towards the Methodist Church.

Notes 1 See: R. Michalak, “Kościół Metodystyczny w polityce wyznaniowej państwa polskiego”, in Religia i polityka, B. Grott (ed.), Kraków 2000; R. Michalak, Kościoły protestanckie i władze partyjno-państwowe w Polsce (1945–1956), Warsaw 2002, 169–201; K. Bielawny, “Kościół metodystyczny na Mazurach po II wojnie światowej”, in Polski protestantyzm w czasach nazizmu i komunizmu, J. Kłaczkow (ed.), Toruń 2009, 476–502; G. Jasiński, “Diecezja Mazurska Kościoła Ewangelicko-Augsburskiego w latach 1945–2017”, in W 500-lecie Reformacji (1517–2017). Z dziejów Kościołów ewangelickich w dawnych Prusach Królewskich i Książęcych: Tereny dawnych Prus Książęcych, J. Kłaczkow, G. Jasiński, P. Birecki (eds), Toruń 2017, passim; A. Kopiczko, “Kościoły mniejszościowe i związki wyznaniowe na Warmii i Mazurach (1945–1989). Stan badań”, in Warmińsko-Mazurskie studia z historii najnowszej, vol. 1, D. Krysiak (ed.), Olsztyn 2016, 153–177; G. Jasiński, “Mniejszości narodowe na Warmii i Mazurach (1945–1989). Stan badań”, in Warmińsko-Mazurskie studia z historii najnowszej, vol. 1, D. Krysiak (ed.), Olsztyn 2016, 115–152. 2 By decision of the Ministry of Public Administration (Dz. U. 1946, no. 54, pos. 304) Old Lutheran, Evangelical-Lutheran parishes, belonging to the Union Church in the Western Lands and Upper Silesia, and the Evangelical-Augsburg and Helvetic Confessions were incorporated into the Evangelical-Augsburg Church. The “Western Lands” mentioned here meant the Polish lands, which were under Prussian (German) rule, and after the Treaty of Versailles became part of the Second Polish Republic. 3 APO, PWRN, sign. 444/110, c. 1, Warsaw 27.05.1945. 4 See: A. Sakson, “Kościół mazurski po II wojnie światowej”, Mrągowskie Studia Humanistyczne 6–7 (2004/2005), 165. 5 An individual dispute concerned the activity of the Lutheran priest Otto Wittenberg, who was to deceitfully take over the chapels in Szczytno and Pasym used by Methodists (see: E. Małłek, Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016, 440). At the beginning of the 1950s, Rev. Wittenberg was involved in anti-Methodist activities in Jabłonka, see: G. Jasiński, “Akcja represyjna wobec ludności niemieckiej w województwie olsztyńskim przed wyborami do Sejmu w 1952 roku”, Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie (2012, no. 1), 57–58. 6 See: K. Urban, Mniejszości religijne w Polsce 1945–1991. Zarys statystyczny, Kraków 1994, 30, 200; Information on this case was found (and thus confirmed) by Bernd Krebs in the Archives of the World Council of Churches in Geneva, see: B. Krebs, “Niemieccy i polscy protestanci pod hegemonią sowiecką – pierwsze lata powojenne i czasy polskiego stalinizmu (1945–1955)”, in Kościoły zakładnikami czasów. Kościoły protestanckie Niemiec i Polski w XX wieku. Z prac Komisji Historii Kościoła PRE i EKD 1989–1999, B. Krebs, A. Wójtowicz (eds), Warsaw 2003, 148–149. 7 APO, UP, sign. 390/91, c. 35–38, “Report” 21.06.1946. 8 The most famous dispute in Lutheran-Methodist relations was the so-called “Olsztynek case”, when almost the entire Lutheran parish passed to the Methodist Church. Extensive documentation concerning this conflict was published by K. Urban,

The Methodist mission in Masuria 9

10 11

12 13

14

15

81

Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2000, 107–133, 215–219. In the memorandum to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Regained Territories, Władysław Gomułka argued that the Methodist Church “paid special attention to the Regained Territories, assuming that its activities, including not only religious and charitable work, but also expanding the knowledge of the Polish language and awakening and deepening the sense of Polish national consciousness among the indigenous peoples, will strengthen and consolidate the new democratic reality of Poland on these Territories”. He also argued that the Methodist Church “through the lips of its most eminent representatives in every circumstance develops abroad a vigorous action aimed at making individual nations, and in particular the American nation, aware of Poland’s historical rights to the Regained Territories, their lasting connection with the Motherland and their religious freedom and tolerance”, AAN, MZO, sign. 516/O, Warsaw 6.10.1947. APO, PWRN WdSW, sign. 444/115, c. 182, Warsaw 11.01.1946. See: E. Małłek, Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna?, ch. 161 “Delegacja Mazurów u Władysława Gomułki”, ch. 162 “‘Zamach stanu’ w Kościele Metodystycznym”. Still a few years after these events, some Methodists believed that Najder’s departure “came at the request of some ministers of the present Government with whom he was supposed to carry out a financial and foreign exchange transaction, and he left in order not to cause a scandal and not to discredit himself and them”. This was the opinion of pastor Jerzy Biczemski, passed on to the Koszalin secret police by the informant, pseudonym “Bemol”. See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 673–674, “Charakterystyka po linii Kościoła Metodystycznego za okres od dnia 1.IV.52 r. do dnia 30.VI.1952 r.”, Koszalin 4.07.1952. See: K. Urban, “Z zagadnień polityki wyznaniowej władz PRL wobec ‘kwestii mazurskiej’ w początkach lat pięćdziesiątych”, Zapiski Historyczne 1 (1995), 90. The Voivodeship Office of the Public Security Office in Olsztyn and Białystok had a large number of agents in the Methodist environment. The most important ones included informants with pseudonyms: “Rybałt”, “Sobota”, “Stach”, “Lipa”, “Sreik”, “Orzeł”, “Powaga”, “Sokół”, “Żubr”, “Fryc”, “Rak”, “Wanda”, “Wenus”, “Pług”, “Sarna”, “Lustro”, “Wydra”, “Saper”, “Popławski”, “Wicher”, “Brzózka”, “Czerwiński”, “Kwiat”, “Wiślanka”, “Dudek”, “Wtyczka”, see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 508–512; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 400–401, 411–414, 419–425. See also: K. Sychowicz, “Wydział do spraw Wyznań w Białymstoku 1950– 1975. Zarys zagadnienia”, in Urząd do spraw Wyznań. Struktury – Działalność – Ludzie, vol. 1: Struktury wojewódzkie i wybrane aspekty działalności, R. Łatka (ed.), Warsaw 2020, 53–68. At that time, 100,055 people of local origin were supposed to live in 18 poviats of the Olsztyn voivodeship. The largest clusters were in the Olsztyn and Mrągowo poviats. Statistics showed 30,254 verified families and 3,106 unverified families. The native population dealt mainly with agriculture (41%), and also work in industry and crafts (5.5%), in offices and institutions (2.2%) and in trade (1.2%), see: Urban, “Z zagadnień polityki wyznaniowej”, 83. The preserved draft report contains more precise phrases such as “not to persecute the use of the German language” or “allow where the entire population demands the use of the German language in the church”. In the final version, this wording was abandoned. Neither was there any other postulate in the final conclusions – expressing fears that the pre-war German Evangelical Union Church would not be reactivated in Masuria. According to Kazimierz Urban, the softening of the final conclusions could have resulted from the fears of the authors of the report “before formulating radical (politically controversial) written judgments, the willingness to formulate general opinions that would justify various moves (even extremely different) towards one church or another”, Urban, “Z zagadnień polityki wyznaniowej”, 95–96.

82

The Methodist mission in Masuria

16 See: K. Urban, Luteranie i metodyści, 134–193, 242–276; R. Michalak, “Rywalizacja Kościołów ewangelicko-augsburskiego i metodystycznego na Mazurach po II wojnie światowej”, Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie (2001, no. 4), 621–639. 17 This was reflected in the activities of the Presidium of Voivodeship National Council referees in Olsztyn in 1952, who gave the clergy of the Methodist Church in Ostróda and Olsztyn administrative orders to leave the chapels and hand over the keys to the clergy of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church, AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 555– 556, Warsaw 13.09.1952. 18 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1541, c. 33, “Report” 14.11.1951. 19 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 2a/64/53, c. 10–14 and III 2a/34/54, c. 136–138, Rev. R. Fiszkal “Memorandum”, Chorzów 20.02.1953. 20 K. Urban, “Przyczynek do historii ‘akcji mazurskiej’ Kościoła EwangelickoAugsburskiego w 1952 roku”, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie 571 (2001), 16. 21 Rev. Fiszkal gave the first and last names of Methodist priests, deacons, lay preachers, deacon candidates and apprentices – students of the Seminary in Klarysew. He also added the names of the institutions in which they worked to their names. 22 Urban, “Przyczynek do historii”, 16. 23 Michelis himself – treated by the Ministry of Public Security (MBP) as a source with the nickname “Jacek” – informed the MBP that efforts to unite the churches were initiated by Rev. Naumiuk and Rev. Burchart, source: AIPN, sygn. BU 01283/1609/J, pp. 187–188, “Doniesienie agenturalne” źródła “Jacek” – “Zagadnienie metodystyczne”, 21.01.1952. 24 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1537, c. 325–327, “Agent report” source “Rej”, 15.03.1952. 25 It should be added that Rev. Zygmunt Michelis conducted a task-based research on American donations to Methodists. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 37, “Wyciąg z doniesienia agencyjnego z dnia 19.9.50 r. Źródło ‘Doktór’”. Informal collaborator “Jacek”, however, equally accused with his “characteristics” Masurian priests both of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical-Augsburg Church. See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 325, “Agent report” source “Jacek” Warsaw 19.09.1953.

Bibliography Archiwum Akt Nowych w Warszawie (AAN Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw). AAN, MZO, sign. 516/O. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 2a/34/54, c. 136–138. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 2a/64/53, c. 10–14. Archiwum Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej (AIPN Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance). AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1537, c. 325–327. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1541, c. 33. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 37, 187–188, 325, 508–512, 555–556. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 400–401, 411–414, 419–425, 673–674. Archiwum Państwowe w Olsztynie (APO State Archive in Olsztyn). APO, PWRN, sign. 444/110, c. 1. APO, PWRN WdSW, sign. 444/115, c. 182. APO, UP, sign. 390/91, c. 35–38. Bielawny, K., “Kościół metodystyczny na Mazurach po II wojnie światowej”, in Polski protestantyzm w czasach nazizmu i komunizmu, J. Kłaczkow (ed), Toruń 2009. Jasiński, G., “Akcja represyjna wobec ludności niemieckiej w województwie olsztyńskim przed wyborami do Sejmu w 1952 roku”, Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie 1 (2012), 33–77. Jasiński, G., “Mniejszości narodowe na Warmii i Mazurach (1945–1989). Stan badań”, in Warmińsko-Mazurskie studia z historii najnowszej, vol. 1, D. Krysiak (ed), Olsztyn 2016. Jasiński, G., “Diecezja Mazurska Kościoła Ewangelicko-Augsburskiego w latach 1945– 2017”, in W 500-lecie Reformacji (1517–2017). Z dziejów Kościołów ewangelickich

The Methodist mission in Masuria

83

w dawnych Prusach Królewskich i Książęcych: Tereny dawnych Prus Książęcych, J. Kłaczkow, G. Jasiński, P. Birecki (eds), Toruń 2017. Kopiczko, A., “Kościoły mniejszościowe i związki wyznaniowe na Warmii i Mazurach (1945–1989). Stan badań”, in Warmińsko-Mazurskie studia z historii najnowszej, vol. 1, D. Krysiak (ed), Olsztyn 2016. Krebs, B., “Niemieccy i polscy protestanci pod hegemonią sowiecką – pierwsze lata powojenne i czasy polskiego stalinizmu (1945–1955)”, in Kościoły zakładnikami czasów. Kościoły protestanckie Niemiec i Polski w XX wieku. Z prac Komisji Historii Kościoła PRE i EKD 1989–1999, B. Krebs, A. Wójtowicz (eds), Warsaw 2003. Małłek, E., Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016. Michalak, R., “Kościół Metodystyczny w polityce wyznaniowej państwa polskiego”, in Religia i polityka, B. Grott (ed), Kraków 2000. Michalak, R., “Rywalizacja Kościołów ewangelicko-augsburskiego i metodystycznego na Mazurach po II wojnie światowej”, Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie 4 (2001), 255–274. Sakson, A., “Kościół mazurski po II wojnie światowej”, Mrągowskie Studia Humanistyczne 6–7 (2004/2005), 164–178. Sychowicz, K., “Wydział do spraw Wyznań w Białymstoku 1950–1975. Zarys zagadnienia”, in Urząd do spraw Wyznań. Struktury–Działalność–Ludzie, vol. 1: Struktury wojewódzkie i wybrane aspekty działalności, R. Łatka (ed), Warsaw 2020. Urban, K., Mniejszości religijne w Polsce 1945–1991 (Zarys statystyczny), Kraków 1994. Urban, K., “Z zagadnień polityki wyznaniowej władz PRL wobec ‘kwestii mazurskiej’ w początkach lat pięćdziesiątych”, Zapiski Historyczne 1 (1995), 79–96. Urban, K., Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór Materiałów, Kraków 2000. Urban, K., “Przyczynek do historii ‘akcji mazurskiej’ Kościoła EwangelickoAugsburskiego w 1952 roku”, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie 571 (2001), 5–20.

10 From the world to local politics Operation “Moda”

As well as watching the activity of certain Methodist clerics in Masuria, and against the background of intensification of the Cold War, the state authorities were growing more interested in the Church as a whole, which was founded and led by the citizens of the “imperialist world” states. The security police wrote in its reports about Rev. Werner T. Wickstrom – inter alia on the basis of talks with his secretary, Rev. Witold Benedyktowicz, their informer with the pseudonym “A”1 – that “there are some reservations about his attitude to democracy, because he searches for people with a high intellectual level to cooperate with him”.2 In another “Note”, it was recorded that Wickstrom had extensive contacts among Western diplomats residing in Poland.3 In turn, the Secretary of the Executive Committee, Rev. Edward Chambers, was watched by an informer known as “Paweł”.4 The documents of the Provincial Public Security Office (WUBP) in Kraków show that they regarded Rev. Jan Kulak, the leading spiritual Union of Seventh-day Adventist Congregations, as the informant pseudonym “Paweł”. According to him, Chambers was: a staunch opponent of the present reality, he can pretend to be a democrat, but in confidential talks he always emphasizes that only in the creation of the United States of Europe can all religions count on religious freedom, because in the communist regime they are doomed.5 As Kulak claimed, Chambers also used to say that “wanting to have American help, you have to have a head on your shoulders and some courage. […] Polish intelligence has not grown up to be able to properly control the activities of Americans in Poland”.6 Agents also gave ominous reports about “secret”, “evening” meetings with American citizens at the main office of the Methodist Church in Poland.7 The arguments of the Rev. Superintendent were in vain. He argued that: the opinion and will of several thousand Methodists in America affects seeking friendly ways of understanding and solving problems between the two great states [the USSR and United States] […] the attitude of our fellow believers in America is peaceful and democratic. A similar attitude is also characteristic of the Methodist Church in Poland.8 DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-10

From the world to local politics 85 The article published on 15 July 1948 in the Methodist letter The Churchman, which was translated and submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by Wickstrom, was supposed to prove this state of affairs. In a key passage, it stated that: the Methodists want peace […] they run the risk of being imprisoned in the [American] prison and paying a fine of 10,000 dollars […] The World Peace Commission at the Methodist Church sent a telegram to President Truman, in which the Methodists demand diplomatic talks to settle American–Russian problems.9 The Polish state authorities did not accept such explanations. At the beginning of 1949, the superintendents Wickstrom and Chambers left Poland. Shortly thereafter, the Gdańsk pastor Thomas J. Gamble, a British citizen, left for Canada. He was questioned mainly because he lived in the Swedish consulate in Gdynia.10 Gamble’s situation was additionally complicated by the WUBP in Gdańsk discovering that his closest collaborator, preacher Jan Wojnowski, cooperated with the Quaker Mission in the illegal transfer of religious literature to the USSR.11 The situation urgently required – in the absence of Geneva representatives of world Methodism – the appointment of new church authorities, with Rev. Superintendent Józef Naumiuk at their head.12 His responsibility for the Church, in turn, forced the radical and public separation of the Polish Methodists from ecclesiastical structures in the West. The statement of the Executive Committee of the Methodist Church of 4 March 1949 was significant: The anti-peace propaganda of the imperialists of the West […] grew in strength. […] Recently, it has come to our attention that certain few American Methodists have succumbed to this propaganda and have even gone so far as to provide services to anti-peace activists. […] we Polish Methodists condemn the errors of these co-religionists, regardless of their offices and church dignities, and declare that we do not want to communicate with them. […] we Polish Methodists will be persevering the position of peace and brotherhood of peoples, and loyalty to and cooperation with our state, which along with other Slavic states stands guardian of peace.13 The Okólnik of the new church leadership reported the changes that took place in the Church: In recent days, foreign church workers have left Poland and those who remained resigned from their positions. […] The moment came when we Poles […] had to take over leadership and responsibility for the overall work of the Church in Poland.14 In the following moves, Naumiuk was looking for a way to be financially selfsufficient and to sever the Church completely from material support by Western

86

From the world to local politics

confessional centers.15 (According to the Ministry of Public Security (MBP) informer “Orzeł”, a member of the Methodist Finance Committee, material help flowed to Polish Methodists from the USA, Sweden, England, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland.16) This was behind the necessity of raising the Church contribution paid by members, a demand that brought many controversies revealed during parish meetings. In the Kraków congregation, for example, it was felt that “instead of increasing contributions to the Central Fund, it would be preferable to increase the remuneration for the cleaner and the gatekeeper of the Congregation”.17 The international context of the departure of Wickstrom, Chambers and Gamble from Poland is revealed in a telegram from the Consul of the Polish embassy in Washington, Edward Bartol, who informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Public Administration (MAP), of a conversation in February 1949 with G. E. Hopkins, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Foreign Missions of the Methodist Church. In Bartol’s opinion: “Hopkins’s point is to show the Polish government how difficult it is in America for the Methodist Church towards its own fellow-believers as a result of the pastors’ process in Bulgaria”. On 25 February 1949, the trial of 15 Protestant clergy began in Sofia. They were accused of collaborating with the Anglo-American intelligence service. Among the defendants were Baptists, Pentecostals, Congregationalists, Christians and Methodists.18 Hopkins points out that the formal accusation of Bulgarian pastors, and especially the Superintendent Ivanov, exchanges his contacts with the Geneva bishop Paul N. Garber. This matter is directly related to Poland. Bishop Garber is the head of the Methodist Church throughout Eastern and Central Europe. In this capacity he is leading even presently Polish Methodists. Recognizing the relations of the national Methodists with Bishop Garber as reprehensible by the Bulgarian court may put the Polish Methodists under the auspices of the bishop in a difficult situation. Mr. Hopkins stressed that bishop Garber, after visiting the countries of Eastern Europe, and, among others, Poland, publicly stated in America about religious freedoms in these countries. He was strongly fought against and called communist.19 In May 1949, shortly after ousting clerical foreigners from Poland and on the basis of the “Bulgarian affair”,20 the MBP set up operation “Moda”.21 Its goal was to surveille the Methodist people in Poland more diligently than ever, due to their possible espionage activity. The justification for establishing a nationwide operation came from activities carried out in the years 1947–194922 by certain Public Security Offices (UBPs) to monitor all non-Catholic churches. The operations had various codenames depending on the Section in charge. For example, in the Białystok voivodeship the codenames were “Apostołowie”, “Pomorzanie” and “Beduini”.23 The WUBP in Gdańsk used the codename “Słoń”,24 and that in Kraków – the codename “Poszukiwacz”.25 In turn, the WUBP in Katowice gathered materials under the unambiguous codename “Methodists”, which was used interchangeably with the codename “Moda”.26

From the world to local politics 87 On 6 December 1949, specific expectations and directives of the Ministry were formulated for provincial UBPs: Conducting further development of a given object officers should: 1. Put special emphasis on the active investigation of individual members suspected of intelligence activities, and thus maintaining contact with foreign countries, with representatives of the Headquarters, with foreigners, with a blurred political past, etc. / The whole Church will be under surveillance of the Division V/. 2. From this environment, select candidates and prepare for recruitment. 3. Draw attention to executive members of the Sect, and those employed in various branches of the national economy, and include them in the development plan, because these people can be used by foreign intelligence. After confirming this fact, it is necessary to consult with the relevant Divisions of your Office to coordinate further surveillance.27 In the instructions directed the county security offices, a rich set of arguments justifying the need to monitor the Methodist Church was included. So the “Methodist Sect” was “connected with abroad, with the USA, where it receives all funds and propaganda materials, and all instructions regarding its activities”: The Methodist sect brings together many people who are hostile to the current reality and production cooperatives in the countryside, which makes it difficult for others to rebuild People’s Poland and continue their march to socialism. Besides, they have the chance to deal with espionage.28 Yet another motive accompanying the anti-Methodist action was the assumption state authorities’ assumption that the Methodist Church “was always the domain of influences of international freemasonry” and “therefore its influences undoubtedly existed also in Poland, especially at this time when this church was strongly associated with centers of foreign, Anglo-Saxon disposition”.29 Admittedly, the Methodists themselves had provided material evidence that their ties with the West consisted not only in American founding and leadership , but also in public friendliness towards the United States. The “AngloSaxon views” appeared in the characteristics of the Methodist clergy drafted by security officers.30 In the materials exchanged between the Ministry of Public Education and the UBP, a photo from the Annual Church Conference on 7 July 1946 in Katowice, in which delegates pose with an American flag in the background, was very often included. Visits of lesser-known foreign preachers such as Francis Patrick, a British citizen who visited the church in Jelenia Góra in May 1950, did not help the Polish Methodists.31 This visit resulted not only in the interrogation of the deaconess Helena Jasikówna by the local UBP and the Social and Political Section, but also in increased surveillance of the Lower Silesian congregations. As part of operation “Moda”, Ministry of Security officers monitored all clergymen (regarding their current activities and the smallest details of their past),32

88

From the world to local politics

secular preachers,33 deacons,34 church administration employees (particularly administrative employees of the secretariat of the Methodist Church in Warsaw),35 editors of the Pielgrzym Polski,36 students of the Theological Seminary,37 members of the Academic Youth Union of Methodists (as these were almost all students at the University of Lodz, this operation was conducted by the WUBP in Łódź as part of their activities codenamed “Zrzeszenie”; according to MBP materials, an informer known as “Dan” was the president of the Union),38 and the most active congregation members (an example is the exposure of Antoni Wróbel, a member of the Przemyśl congregation, based on a typewriter found in his home).39 Technically, security work in this area was based on agents, correspondence control40 and phone tapping.41 Agents could come from either inside or outside the Church. (In practice, the establishment of a nationwide operation forced the recruitment of agents in the Methodist Church; at the outset of operation “Moda” the WUBP in Lublin had only one informer, who was supposed to obtain information about clerics – Bazyli Koziej and Witold Sobolew – traveling from Chełm to Zamość, which in practice was unfeasible.42) Internally, the MBP’s most valuable collaborators in the study of clergy were other clergy; in the file on pastor Henryk Zalewski, the most useful intelligence was put forward by the informer known as “Jebi” – the pseudonym which the WUBP in Łódź registered to the pastor of the church in Piotrków Trybunalski, Rev. Jerzy Biczemski.43 From outside the Church one notes the unusual case of Władysław Kołodziej, whom the MBP referred to as “Henryk”; shortly after recruitment, he left the Methodist Church and gave information about this religious relationship as a member of the United Church of Christ and the editor of the community’s letter under the name “Jedność”; his information was treated as intraenvironmental.44 With a low level of substantive preparation in terms of the very essence and character of Methodism, the MBP had to use the professional support of the Department of Religious Affairs of the MAP, and from 1950, the Office for Religious Affairs (UdSW). Naturally, the functional and most influential people in this environment were first screened. The most important indicator for continuing an individual case was the person’s previous relationship with American citizens (or people from other Western countries) and the likelihood of their continuing such acquaintances. Such determinants of security actions arose around the investigation of Rev. Józef Szczepkowski. Although the Methodist leaders who were citizens of Western countries left Poland, there was still a Pole born in New York in the country. What is more, in the years 1947–1949, on behalf of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, he was on research in the United States of America. It was necessary to determine at all costs whether these were actually research activities and whether, after returning to Poland and the Nicolaus Copernicus University, Szczepkowski dealt only with his official area of study: English philology. The peak of operational activity was in the years 1953–1954. Although the operation concerned an “activist of the Methodist Church”, due to his work at the Nicolaus Copernicus University, the surveillance also included scientific and teaching staff close to Szczepkowski. It was assumed that, if they were not in the Church or seminary, the possible

From the world to local politics 89 “American contacts” could be among the university lecturers. It also worked the other way. Major Arkadiusz Liberman, Head of Division IV of Department XI of the MBP, ordered the search for a collaborator among the Toruń academic staff.45 He wanted someone who would contribute to the breakthrough and to “break” a person against whom nothing significant had yet been found. Hope for this breakthrough came when, on 23 January 1953, the usually calm Szczepkowski got into a fight with Rev. Lubecki. Szczepkowski was at that time an important figure in the “committee” faction of the Methodist Church; Lubecki, the leader of the pro-communist faction of “democrat pastors”. As established by the Research and Judiciary Committee of the Methodist Church, Szczepkowski accused Lubecki of being a “snooper”, a “viper” and a “destroyer”. Thus, the political background of the event was revealed, which the Commission was obliged to report to the UdSW and MBP.46 The consequence was Szczepkowski’s loss of the post of rector at the Seminary in Klarysewo. The Church commission decided that Lubecki provoked Szczepkowski to use offensive words. The case also went to court. Under the decision of the District Court in Piaseczno and the Provincial Court in Warsaw, Szczepkowski was found guilty of beating the plaintiff and sentenced to a month’s arrest and a fine of PLN 500.47 Roman Darczewski, on behalf of the UdSW, also forbade Szczepkowski (for an indefinite period) to fulfill his spiritual function.48 In these circumstances, Szczepkowski concentrated solely on his work at the Department of Angelology at the Nicolaus Copernicus University, and at that time the WUBP in Bydgoszcz and the County Public Security Office (PUBP) in Toruń were to undertake groundbreaking activities. Their result did not please Liberman. The first operational activities brought few satisfactory conclusions. It turned out that Szczepkowski maintained only official relations at the university. He was considered a valued professional by the staff, he was liked by students, but he was so distanced from his surroundings that it was difficult to penetrate into his circle of friends. It is as if he was expecting activities of security forces here as well. Because the WUBP had found no compromising materials, the whole matter began to lack purpose.49 In the international context of charges and suspicion, even the smallest Methodist congregations were subject to investigation. This was exemplified by church units in Kielce, Chmielnik and Busko Zdrój. Operation “Moda” was conducted against them based on the work of recruited informants (“Jawor”, “Janek”, “Obrączka”, “Jotka”, “Cement”, “Znachor”, “Myśliwy”50), through whom the WUBP in Kielce acquired knowledge about all forms of Methodist activity, including the Sunday content of sermons delivered by Feliks Waluszewski, Józef Długosz, Julian Miśków and Józef Harzyński,51 and later other pastors and preachers. The first conclusions appeared in February 1950. They maintained the existence of potential threats, however, without their visible manifestations: “The Methodist Board and active members are hostile to the current system, democratic parties and production cooperatives in the countryside, thus they can engage in espionage activities because they often travel through the villages to promote their faith.”52 In 1951, reports appeared combining the activities of the Kielce

90

From the world to local politics

Methodists with issues concerning fellow believers in other parts of the country based on the knowledge shared between them. In the “characteristics” of the situation in the congregation in Chmielnik for the first quarter of that year, WUBP in Kielce combined the knowledge of Rev. Józef Harzyński, not even a member of the Methodist Church, what with a supporter of Methodism. The case concerned a certain Piotr Łotocki (or Łotecki), a lawyer who was detained by the Zielona Góra WUBP and suspected of “cooperating with the Germans” after “being in the vicinity of Zielona Góra and attacking UB officers”. Because Łotocki was familiar with the Kielce congregations and was to be in close contact with Pastor Harzyński – in Henryk Kasowski’s opinion he was “directing the operation” – there arose “suspicion that Harzyński and other people could be on foreign intelligence services”.53 Suspicion increased when, based on reports from the informer known as “Cement”, it turned out that the influence of Methodists were greater than expected. Living evidence was to be found in the “dormant” Methodist (surname: Wałek), who was an important secretary of the Municipal National Council in Chmielnik. In addition, a mysterious figure arrived from the West: “a certain Borowiec who lives and stays at all the congregation members”.54 In January 1952, the WUBP received detailed, personal lists of the Methodists in Chmielnik, containing, among other things, information about the workplace of each of these people.55 Because, apart from Pastor Harzyński and the shoemaker Jan Czerwiński, the remaining people were farmers or remained “with their husband” and “with their parents”, the concept of a specialized spying or subversion network lost its rational basis. Surveillance conducted by the UBP, and the administratively hostile course against the Methodists, was partly responsible for the decrease in the number of the faithful in the Kielce voivodeship. In this way, the Cold War international policy brought its echo to a small Methodist community in a Polish province. “Cement” reported at the end of 1954 that there were so few people in the congregation in Chmielnik that public worship services had been replaced by home meetings. The policy of the authorities also forced the faithful to be fully submissive, which was manifested by the fact that all Methodists took part in the elections to national councils.56 One of the smallest church units in Poland included in operation “Moda” was a Methodist institution in Inowrocław which was subordinate to the congregation in Bydgoszcz. At the time of its official formation in 1946, it counted 20 members “from the working class”. They gathered for services only twice a month in the private apartment of the tailor Mieczysław Klonowski, who fulfilled the function of a secular preacher. They compensated for the low frequency of services by visiting the Inowrocław church of the Union of the Churches of Christ, and this circumstance strengthened the unfavorable perception of the community by the authorities. Campbell-Christians (for the members of the institution in Inowrocław, the difference between the Methodist and Campbell-Christians was a matter only of the age of baptism – as mentioned above, Campbell-Christians baptized only conscious and adult people), like other Evangelical Protestants, had been described around the time of the “Bulgarian case” as a particularly “dangerous element”.

From the world to local politics 91 Stanisław Bąk, a senior clerk of the Section I of the PUBP in Inowrocław, emphasized in July 1949 that parcels with clothing, food and religious writings from the United States of America were coming to the institution. In his opinion, the literature could contain “political elements” and therefore it was necessary to assume that “this sect could become the base of foreign intelligence”.57 During the next three years, all Inowroclaw Methodists were thoroughly surveilled.58 There were five names in the “List of persons passing through agent data”,59 and up to ten (nearly 1/3!) members of the institution were listed as people who were an “uncertain element”.60 Klonowski was subjected to a special surveillance, especially when it turned out that before the war, “despite being persecuted as a sectarian, his political attitude to the Sanacja government was favorable”.61 The first recognition of his contacts brought about the finding that they concerned only religious issues.62 The operational activities undertaken in the following years did not change the findings in this respect. Also disappointing for the PUBP officers, and from 1954 the County Office for Public Security (PUdsBP), was the fact that they could not demonstrate counterintelligence successes – despite the efforts of informer “Żelazny” – concerning other Methodists.63 The spies in Inowroclaw had still not been on 30 September 1955, when these activities were abandoned.64 They were also not in Bydgoszcz65 or nearby Grudziądz,66 and the assumed “ties with America” of pastors Aleksandr Piekarski, Włodzimierz Timofiejew, Michał Jamny and Stanisław Słotwiński consisted in practice – as was determined by agents “Gorczyca”, “Wiara”, “Zosia”, “Stefan” and “Zbigniew” both before and during operation “Moda” – only in the distribution of American gifts among the faithful just after the war.67 In 1955, the UBP officers were more interested in the content of the sermons,68 but they were not able to make any procedural allegations against anybody. Similar results of the “Moda” operation could be seen in other parts of Poland. Across the country, as intensely as in Kielce or Bydgoszcz, potential spies were sought (around this search arose at the provincial level “Lists of people maintaining contacts with Methodist Church activists abroad or in the country”),69 as too were – in the Rzeszów region, for instance – sympathizers of Ukrainian nationalism.70 In the Rzeszów voivodeship, Methodists were surveilled in addition to the stability of religious beliefs and, in the case of converts, the possibility of returning to the Roman Catholic Church.71 None of the well-surveilled clerics and members of the congregations were, however, open to such allegations.72 In Masuria – where, among others, informers “Orzeł”, “Streik” and “Irena” operated in the environment of the Methodist Church and obtained information about the influence of “West German revisionism”73 – the effectiveness of investigations was also unsatisfactory. Although findings of the agents allowed for periodic and individual arrests (among the Methodist clergymen the be arrested were Gustaw Libuda – preacher of the Methodist institution in the village of Zofy, Ełck county – and pastor Aleksander Sulikowski),74 or supported decisions of the Presidium of the National Voivodeship Council (PWRN) in Olsztyn to the UdSW to dismiss some of the Methodist clerics from this region,75 they did not ultimately serve as procedural arguments. However, the

92

From the world to local politics

message from Katowice to the MBP must have sounded surprising. The local WUBP, after a detailed agents’ reconnaissance (from “Maj”, “Kwiecień” and “Konstanty”), informed the ministry that “a large part of Methodists in Upper Silesia is organized in the Polish United Workers’ Party (PZPR) and are its quite active members”.76 In the light of subsequent reports, the Methodist environment in this region was considered exemplary. In 1952, for example, they expressed enthusiasm for the draft new constitution, positively contrasting it with the “Sanacja constitution”.77 Probably only to blur this too good impression of the personal characteristics of Rev. Jan Kalinowski, it was written that “he masks his real face very much”.78 It should also be noted that the activities of officers and agents in the framework of operation “Moda” often caused a specific domino effect, because in each case, side issues appeared, and around them the need to expand the agential network. Such were, for example, the circumstances of recruiting agents “Wtyczka” and “Zachwiany”, who were to help reveal the “pro-American element” in the Methodist Church.79 For example, around the investigation into possible relations with Americans on the part of Rev. Jan Łęcki – the pastor of a small branch in Krasnystaw – it was established that a bigger problem was one of the serial Methodists. The special report of the Lublin WUBP stated: The symptoms of hostile activity include spreading hostile anti-democratic and anti-Soviet propaganda by the Methodist faith teacher Janczewski Janusz, who informs , and criticizes the Soviet Union, claiming that Soviet Russia murdered Polish officers in 1939. Then he said that the Russian army was going to Czechoslovakia hiding in railway wagons. He says that one should expect a war. […] In connection with the above […] it was decided to set up a record-keeping case for the abovementioned case.80 There were also unforeseen situations that revived previously closed cases. When it seemed that the pastor from Zamość, Włodzimierz Sobolew, would be excluded from further investigation, the MBP received a letter from the head of one of the districts of the Military Information Administration informing them that the clergyman was in contact with his military co-religionists from the local garrison.81 In such circumstances, an even more intense surveillance of his person was resumed, in the course of which it turned out that “the relation of the mentioned to the present reality [is] positive”, but “is indifferent to the production cooperative”.82 At the same time, clerics were required to explicitly support all the assumptions of the six-year plan. Further findings of the PUBP in Zamość sounded even more sensational and ominous for Sobolew. It turned out that in the past he had held Trotskyist views,83 which in the authorities’ interpretation was identical to questioning the MarxistLeninist interpretation of communism. The main goal of the study in terms of possible cooperation with American intelligence was not achieved. MBP actions towards the Methodists as part of an action codenamed “Moda” were part of the liquidation course of religious policy, but they were not as drastic as the actions taken by the security services against the Evangelical-Baptist churches.84

From the world to local politics 93 Deep repressive action also began to be uncomfortable for the authorities, due to the legal, recognized status of the Methodist Church and – paradoxically – the material support from the West, which was used not only by Polish Methodists, but also by the Polish state. Reasons for mass arrests and personal lawsuits were ultimately not provided by individual investigations. Operation “Moda” was practically given up in 1955, when the Department VI of the Committee for Public Security (KdSBP) took over supervision of matters related to Methodism. However, its effect on Methodism was long felt. Documentation drafted in 1955 by the UdSW85 also takes into account the consequences of the state authorities’ attack on the Methodist clergy, namely the withdrawal of permission for pastoral work from some of the clergy (Zygmunt Karczewski, Antoni Liszkiewicz, Józef Harzyński, Jan Rudź, Jan Waszk and Włodzimierz Timofiejew). It should be added that three people (Marian Lubecki, Aleksander Piekarski, Stanisław Słotwiński) were not included on this list due to their clerical status having been taken away by the then Executive Committee of the Methodist Church in connection with the ongoing struggle between Church factions. The surveillance of the Methodist Church was continued after 1956 by Division V of Department III of the Ministry of the Interior, and from 1962 by Department IV of the Ministry of the Interior within the remit of “Metody”.86

Notes 1 A summary of information from Section 5 of Division V of the WUBP in Kraków leads to such conclusions, see: AIPN, sign. Kr 039/1 vol. 1, c. 136, 139, 143. 2 AIPN, sign. Kr 039/1 vol. 1, c. 139, “Characteristics of the object of the sect” for the period 1–30 June 1948; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 517. 3 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 58, Rychter, “Methodist Church” [n.d.] 4 See: AIPN, sign. Kr 039/1 vol. 1, c. 239 and AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 682, Krzysztof Srokowski head of Section V, Division V, WUBP in Kraków, Zygmunt Jędrys, senior clerk, “Characteristics of the object of the sect. Report for the period 1–31.49” – information from the source with the pseudonym “Paweł”. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 134, “Agent report” source “Max”, 20.06.1947. 8 AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 105–106, a letter from the chief superintendent of the Methodist Church in the Republic of Poland Werner T. Wickstrom to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Warsaw 19.08.1948. 9 Ibid. In the following years, the Methodists also referred to other Western publications that contained positive assessments of Polish state authorities. 10 See: P. Szczudłowski, “Powojenne dzieje wspólnoty metodystycznej w Gdańsku”, in Nierzymskokatolickie Kościoły i grupy wyznaniowe w Gdańsku, W. Pałubicki, H. Cyrzan (eds), Gdańsk AND Koszalin 1998, 138–140; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 118, note of the head of Section V of Division V of the Ministry of Public Music Józef Michalski [n.d.]; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 183, “Agent report” of source “Jodła”, 11.07.1951. 11 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 471, Lt.-Col. Jurkowski head of the WUBP in Gdańsk to the head of the Division V Department I of MBP, Gdańsk 12.05.1949. 12 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 152, “Ag[ential] Report” of the source “Powaga”, Olsztyn 15.07.1949; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 443, “Agential Report” of the source “Piec”, Łódź 8.04.1949.

94

From the world to local politics

13 AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 108, “Statement of the Executive Committee of the Methodist Church in Poland”, Warsaw 04.03.1949. 14 AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 109–110, “Okólnik” of the Executive Committee of the Methodist Church in Poland No. 1, Warsaw 4.03.1949; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 530, “Okólnik” of the Executive Committee of the Methodist Church in Poland No. 1, Warsaw 4.03.1949. On another occasion it was pointed out that, in contrast to the Polish Methodist Church, the problem of foreign dependence occurs in the Roman Catholic Church (AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 122). 15 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 184–185, note by Zygmunt Konicki from Section III of Division V of the UBP for the capital city of Warsaw based on source information about pseudonym “Godos”, 12.12.1951; see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 186, “Agent report” of source “Jacek”, 20.12.1951. 16 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 407–408, “Ag[ent] report” of source “Orzeł”, 26.06.1951. 17 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 366–367, “Report on the completion of the III and IV quarter conference”, Kraków 13.04.1951. 18 See: H. R. Tomaszewski, Wyznania typu ewangeliczno-baptystycznego wchodzące w skład Zjednoczonego Kościoła Ewangelicznego w latach 1945–1956, Warsaw 1991, 82–84. 19 AAN, MAP, reference number 1062, c. 119, telegram from the Consul of the Polish embassy in Washington inż. Edward Bartol to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw, Washington, 21.02.1949. 20 This connection is confirmed by adding information from the Bulgarian process to correspondence between the MBP and voivodeship UBP, see AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 48–57. 21 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609 / J, c. 444, letter from the deputy head of Department V to the Head of Department I of the WUBP in Łódź, Łódź, 23.04.1949. 22 See e.g. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608 / J, c. 111, letter from the head of Division V of Department V of MBP to the head of Department V of MBP in Łódź, Warsaw, 25.09.1947; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608 / J, c. 15, letter from the head of Division V of Department V of MBP to the head of Department V of MBP in Wrocław, Warsaw, 23.02.1949. 23 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 409, the head of Division I of the WUBP to the head of Division V Departamen I of the MBP, Białystok 18.08.1949; see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 354, Second Lieutenant Załuski, head of Section V, Division V of the WUBP in Białystok “Characteristics of the object Apostołowie”, Białystok 3.07.1949; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 356–357, Second Lieutenant Kozioł head of Section III, Faculty 5 of the WUBP in Białystok “Characteristics of the object Methodist Church codename Pomorzanie”, Białystok 1.10.1950. 24 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 479. 25 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 687–688, “Report on the initiation of an objectoriented case codename Poszukiwacz”, Kraków 22.03.1950. 26 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 568–569, “Characteristics of the Methodist object for the period 1.1.51–1.4.51”, Katowice 2.05.1951. 27 Ibid. 28 AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 31–32, letter from the head of the Section I WUBP in Kielce to the PUBP in Busko Zdrój, Kielce 28.12.1949. 29 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609 / J, c. 233–237, Bolesławski, “Christian Confessions in Poland in 1945–52 from the point of view of some penetration into their environment of faithful influences of occult freemasonry” [n.d.]. 30 For instance, AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609 / J, c. 86, letter from the head of the PUBP in Piotrków to the head of Division V of the WUBP in Łódź, Piotrków 25.08.1949. 31 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610 / J, c. 613, deacon’s letter of Helena Jasikówna to the regional superintendent, Rev. Jan Kalinowski – a record of correspondence intercepted by the Ministry of Public Security, Jelenia Góra, 1.08.1950.

From the world to local politics 95 32 See e.g. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 425–426, Second Lieutenant. Dyszkiewicz, warrant officer Pietruszewski Section V, Division V of the WUBP in Łódź “Methodist Church – Characteristics”, Łódź [n.d.]. The information about relatives of these people was also very important for MBP. For example, a charge that is incriminating Henryk Zalewski was that his brother was a high officer in the United Kingdom army, see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 451–457, Capt. Gajewski head of Department I of WUBP in Lodz to the head of Division V of Department I of the MBP “Report on the course of development of the object codename Zrzeszenie”, Łódź 26.10.1949. 33 E.g. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 83, “Agent report” source “Rej”, 18.10.1951. 34 E.g. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 87, “Report of the deaconess Helena Jasikówna at the Annual Missionary Conference of the Women’s Association at the Methodist Church” – record of correspondence between Helena Jasikówna and Wanda Biczemska intercepted by the Ministry of Public Affairs, 1.09.1949; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 85, Characteristics of the deaconess Wanda Piotrowska – information of the source “Rej”, 18.10.1951. 35 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 18, “Agential Report” from the source “Nowator” about Adam Zabłotny, 16.09.1952. 36 E.g. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 105, “Agential Report” from the source “Stańczyk” about Czesław Lechicki, Kraków 23.04.1951; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 106, “Agential Report” from the source “Powaga” about Czesław Lechicki, Kraków 11.06.1951; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 107–108, “Agential Report” from the source “Graba” about Czesław Lechicki, Kraków 18.10.1951. 37 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 34, report on the intelligence interview (“Sojusznik” and “Czarny”) on the subject of Aleksandra Dolej, a student of the Methodist Theological Seminary, 27.01.1948; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 38, “Agential report” of the source “Mietek” on the subject of Aleksandra Dolej, student of the Methodist Theological Seminary, 9.10.1948; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 86–87, “Students of the Methodist Seminary in Klarysewo near Warsaw” – information of the source “Rej”, 18.10.1951. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 51, characteristics of students of the Methodist Theological Seminary 1952/1953; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 52–54, characteristics of students of the Methodist Theological Seminary 30.09.1953; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 57–58, “Agential Report” from the source “Nowator” No. 3/53, Warsaw 7.10.1953. As part of the “Wywrotowcy” case, the IV MBP Division conducted in 1953 operational activities against three students of Methodists, suspected of “conducting organized revisionist activity in Masuria”, AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 321–322, “Report about the Methodist Church for August [19]53”. 38 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 447–449, Cpt. Gajewski head of Division I of WUBP in Lodz to the head of Division V of Department I of the MBP “Report on the course of development of the object codename Zrzeszenie” Łódź 1.08.1949. 39 See: AIPN, reference number BU 01283/1609/J, c. 397, extract from the WUBP report in Rzeszów for the month of July 1952. 40 See numerous entries (including translations from foreign languages) of correspondence in: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J and AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J. Of particular importance was the capture of these letters, whose senders or addressees were people on the list entitled “Outstanding Methodists in the USA”. Forty names appeared on it, see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 217–219, “Outstanding Methodists in the USA” [n.d.]. 41 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1612/J – the entire folder concerns eavesdropping on telephone conversations. 42 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 389–391, Lt.-Col. A. Jastrzębski Head of the WUBP in Lublin to the MBP Division I Department V, “Report on the initiation of object surveillance of Moda”, Lublin 24.12.1949. After two months, the report already reported the work of two informers, see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 393, “Extract from the monthly report of WUBP Lublin for the period from 26.I. – 25.II.50”.

96

From the world to local politics

43 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 465–468, Capt. Gajewski head of Division I of WUBP in Lodz to the head of Division V of Department I of the MBP “Report on the course of development of the object crypt. Zrzeszenie”, Łódź 28.03.1950. 44 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 450, “Extract from the report No. 9 WUBP from 25.8 to 20.9.49”. 45 AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 401, Major Arkadiusz Liberman, head of Division IV of Department XI of the MBP to the head of Department XI of the WUBP in Bydgoszcz, Warsaw 15.10.1953. 46 At the request of the MBP, the course of the case and the opinion about Lubecki and Szczepkowski had to be expressed in writing by the superintendent Naumiuk, see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1614/J, c. 256–258. 47 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/5/53, c. 1–20, “Case Józef Szczepkowski – Marian Lubecki”. 48 AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 290. 49 AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 397, head of UBP on the city and county of Toruń, “Data from an interview about Józef Szczepkowski”, Toruń 3.12.1953. 50 See: AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 5, Włodzimierz Teter – head of the Section III of the Division V of the WUB in Kielce, note: “Following the line of the Methodist sect” [1949]; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 651, Włodzimierz Teter – head of Section III of the Division V of the WUB in Kielce, “Annex to the quarterly report for the period od 1.VII do 1.X.1950 roku”, Kielce 7.10.1950; AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 9, Source “Jotka” – “Agential Report” [n. d.]; AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 58, Source “Cement” – “Agent report” [n.d.]; AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 60–61, Lieutenant T. Ciosek, head of the PUBP in Busko Zdrój “Special Report on the Methodist denomination sect” to the head of Department V of the WUBP in Kielce, Busko Zdrój 27.02.1951; AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 62, letter of the WUBP in Kielce to the head of the Division III of the Department V of the MBP,Kielce 8.03.1951; AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 67, “Plan of operational ventures [Section III of Division V of the WUBP in Kielce] following the Methodist Church line for the month of April 1952”, Kielce 29.03.1952. In 1952, “Janek” was excluded from the group of informers, who confessed to pastor Harzyński for cooperation with the UB, AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 68–69, “Report [Section III of Division V of the WUBP in Kielce]”, Kielce 18.04.1952. In June 1954, an unsuccessful attempt was made to re-integrate “Janek” into the network of informants, AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 74–75, W. Płaza referent, Section IV, Division XI of the WUBP in Kielce “Plan to go to Busko regarding the agency working on the line of the Methodist church”, Kielce 17.06.1954; AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 76–77, W. Płaza referent, Section IV, Division XI of the WUBP in Kielce “Report on the activities carried out in the area of Buskers”, Kielce 18.06.1954. 51 AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 28, “List of Methodist Churches in the province Kielce”, Kielce 1.12.1949. 52 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 660–662, head of Department I of the WUBP in Kielce to the head of Division V of Department I of the MBP, Kielce 22.02.1950. 53 AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 63, Henryk Kasowski “Characteristics of the person along the line of the Methodist sect for the period January, February and March 1951”, Kielce 5.04.1951. 54 AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 64, Source “Cement” – “Agent report”, 25.06.1951. 55 AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 66, “Name list of Methodist followers in Chmielnik, county Busko”, 9.01.1952. 56 AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 81, Source “Cement” – “Agent report”, Kielce 17.12.1954. 57 AIPN, sign. By 069/1163, c. 1, “Decision on introducing an object case into a religious sect Methodists in Inowrocław”, Inowrocław 15.07.1949. 58 The personal list of members of the institution in Inowrocław, which had to be provided by the pastor of Bydgoszcz, Rev. Michał Jamny, already contained 35 names, AIPN, sign. By 069/1163, c. 6, “List of members of the Methodist Church in Inowrocław”, Bydgoszcz 2.02.1952.

From the world to local politics 97 59 AIPN, sign. By 069/1163, c. 11, “List of persons [members of the Methodist institution in Inowrocław] passing through the agency data” [n.d.]. 60 AIPN, sign. By 069/1163, c. 12, “List of people [members of the Methodist institution in Inowrocław] presenting an uncertain element” [n.d.]. 61 AIPN, sign. By 069/1163, c. 15–16, PUBP in Inowrocław to the head of Division I of the WUBP in Bydgoszcz “Report on the initiation of object-oriented development”, Inowrocław 15.07.1949. 62 AIPN, sign. By 069/1163, c. 17–18, PUBP in Inowrocław to the head of the Division I of the WUBP in Bydgoszcz “Report No. 1 on the course of object surveillance”, Inowrocław 24.02.1950. 63 AIPN, sign. By 069/1163, c. 22, PUBP in Inowrocław to the head of the Division I of the WUBP in Bydgoszcz “Characteristics of the object Methodists for the period from 30.IX.1951 to 31.XII.1951”, Inowrocław 10.01.1952; AIPN, sign. By 069/1163, c. 19, PUBP in Inowrocław to the head of the Division I of the WUBP in Bydgoszcz “Characteristics of the object Methodists for the period from 1 IV.1952 to 30.V.1952”, Inowrocław 17.07.1952. 64 AIPN, sign. By 069/1163, c. 143, PUdSBP w Inowrocławiu “Report on the transfer of materials to the Department Xth of the WudSBP in Bydgoszcz”, Inowrocław 30.09.1955. 65 Surveillance of the church in Bydgoszcz proves that MBP monitored the phenomenon of the inflow of converts to the Methodist Church, AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 44–45, letter from J. Gibski, head of Division IV of the WUBP in Bydgoszcz to the head of Division IV of the Department XII of the MBP with attached characteristics of Zdzisław Malicki, Bydgoszcz 4.12.1953. 66 AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 293–296, WUBP in Bydgoszcz to MBP “Report on the initiation of object surveillance”, Bydgoszcz 10.06.1949; AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 244, “Analysis of the situation on the object of the Methodist Church”, Bydgoszcz 29.11.1950. 67 AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 319, “Agent report” – source “Gorczyca”, Bydgoszcz 17.11.1948; AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 323, “Agent report” – source “Wiara”, Bydgoszcz 11.12.1948; AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 320, “Agent report” – source “Zosia”, Bydgoszcz 12.01.1949; AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 297–300, WUBP in Bydgoszcz to the head of Division V of the Department I of the MBP “Report No. 1 on the course of object development”, Bydgoszcz 20.08.1949; AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 301–305, WUBP in Bydgoszcz to the head of Division V of the Department I of the MBP “Report No. 2 on the course of object development”, Bydgoszcz 23.01.1950. 68 AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 339, “Agent report” – source “Piotrowski”, Bydgoszcz 15.01.1955. 69 E.g. AIPN, sign. Rz 055/59 vol. 3, c. 97–98, elaboration: Jan Pasternak, senior clerck of Section IV of the Division XI of the WUBP in Rzeszów, Rzeszów 20.10.1953. 70 AIPN, sign. Rz 055/59 t.3, c. 100, Jan Pasternak, senior clerk of the section IV of the Division XI of the WUBP in Rzeszów, “List of the agent and informational network on the line of the Methodist Church”, Rzeszów 14.09.1954. Information about agents pseudonym “Mars”, “Czeresznia”, “Wil” and “Wacław”. 71 AIPN, sign. Rz 055/59 vol. 3, c. 70–75, table “List of members of the Methodist Church in Przemyśl county”. 72 Instead, lists of the “enemy element” were created. Sixteen names were found in the Rzeszów voivodeship, AIPN, sign. Rz 055/59 vol. 3, c. 109. 73 See: A. Dziurok (ed.), Metody pracy operacyjnej aparatu bezpieczeństwa wobec Kościołów i związków wyznaniowych 1945–1989, Warsaw 2004, doc. 31, pp. 172–175; see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 49, “Agent report” of source “Irena” No. 3/53, Warsaw 8.01.1954. 74 See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 402, second lieutenant Kozioł head of Section III, Division V of the WUBP in Bialystok to the head of the Division III Department

98

75

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

85 86

From the world to local politics V of the MBP, “Special Report”, Białystok 3.10.1950; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 184–185, note by Zygmunt Konicki from Section III of Division V of the UBP on the capital city of Warsaw based on information from the source pseudonym “Eagle”, 12.12.1951. As shown by the investigation of Rev. Edward Małłek, they were not always effective, see: E. Małłek, Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016, ch. 173 “Stosunek władz państwowych do mnie”, 568–581; see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 182, “Agent’s report” source “Orzeł”, 13.08.1951. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610 / J, c. 574–579, J. Milka head of Section V, Division I of the WUBP in Katowice to the head of Division V of Department I, Katowice, 16 January 1950. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 580, “Note” based on information from the source “Konstanty”, January 1952. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 602–603, L. Pikuła head of Department XI of the WUBP in Stalinogród “Characteristics of Jan Kalinowski”, Stalinogród 10.03.1953. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 321–322, Report after the line of the Methodist Church for August [19]53”. See: Dziurok, Metody, doc. 34, pp. 186–187. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 384, captain Jan Leluch – head and Edward Popławski and the clerk of the Division V of WUB in Lublin, “Characteristics of the Methodist object”, Lublin 30.03.1949. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 396, a letter from the head of the Information of the Polish Army (district 9) to the director of Department V of the MBP, 25.03.1952. See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 327, letter from Lieutenant J. Nowak, head of the PUBP in Zamość, to the head of Division V of the WUBP in Lublin, Zamość 14.8.1952. See: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 328, Andrzej Paź – PUBP officer in Zamość, “Memo”, Zamość 20.10.1952. See: Tomaszewski, Wyznania typu ewangeliczno-baptystycznego, passim; H. R. Tomaszewski, Zjednoczony Kościół Ewangeliczny 1947–1987, Warsaw 2009, passim; R. Michalak, Kościoły protestanckie i władze partyjno-państwowe w Polsce (1945– 1956), Warsaw 2002, passim; J. Mironczuk, Polityka państwa wobec Zjednoczonego Kościoła Ewangelicznego w Polsce (1947–1989), Warsaw 2006, passim. AAN, UdSW, sign. 131/300, c. 114–115. See: M. Biełaszko, A. Piekarska, P. Tomasik, C. Wilanowski (eds), Plany pracy Departamentu IV MSW na lata 1972–1979, Warsaw 2007, passim.

Bibliography Archiwum Akt Nowych w Warszawie (AAN Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw). AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 105–106, 108–110, 119, 122. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/5/53, c. 1–20. AAN, UdSW, sign. 131/300, c. 114–115. Archiwum Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej (AIPN Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance). AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 15, 18, 34, 38, 44–45, 49, 51–54, 57–58, 83, 85–87, 105–108, 111, 118. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 58, 86, 87, 134, 152, 182–186, 217–219, 233–237, 321–322, 366–367, 384, 389–391, 393, 396, 397, 425–426, 443, 444, 447–457, 465–468, 530. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 354, 356–357, 327, 328, 402, 407–409, 471, 479, 517, 568–569, 574–580, 602–603, 613, 651, 660–662, 682, 687–688. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1614/J, c. 256–258. AIPN, sign. BU 0419/254, c. 5, 9, 28, 31–32, 48–58, 60–64, 66–69, 74–77, 81. AIPN, sign. By 069/242 vol. 6, c. 244, 290, 293–305, 319, 320, 323, 339, 397, 401. AIPN, sign. By 069/1163, c. 1, 6, 11, 12, 15–19, 22, 143. AIPN, sign. Kr 039/1 vol. 1, c. 136, 139, 143, 239. AIPN, sign. Rz 055/59 vol. 3, c. 70–75, 97–98, 100, 109.

From the world to local politics 99 Biełaszko, M., Piekarska, A., Tomasik, P., Wilanowski, C. (eds), Plany pracy Departamentu IV MSW na lata 1972–1979, Warsaw 2007. Dziurok, A. (ed), Metody pracy operacyjnej aparatu bezpieczeństwa wobec Kościołów i związków wyznaniowych 1945–1989, Warsaw 2004. Małłek, E., Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016. Michalak, R., Kościoły protestanckie i władze partyjno-państwowe w Polsce (1945–1956), Warsaw 2002. Mironczuk, J., Polityka państwa wobec Zjednoczonego Kościoła Ewangelicznego w Polsce (1947–1989), Warsaw 2006. Szczudłowski, P., “Powojenne dzieje wspólnoty metodystycznej w Gdańsku”, in Nierzymskokatolickie Kościoły i grupy wyznaniowe w Gdańsku, W. Pałubicki, H. Cyrzan (eds), Gdańsk and Koszalin 1998. Tomaszewski, H. R., Wyznania typu ewangeliczno-baptystycznego wchodzące w skład Zjednoczonego Kościoła Ewangelicznego w latach 1945–1956, Warsaw 1991. Tomaszewski, H. R., Zjednoczony Kościół Ewangeliczny 1947–1987, Warsaw 2009.

11 “Conservatives” and “democrats” Factional fights within Methodism

The issue which absorbed the attention of the Methodist clergy parallel to the Masurian issues and problems connected with surveillance by the Security Office was the internal crisis of the Church caused by the rivalry for power in Polish Methodism. At the end of the 1940s a faction of “pastor democrats” was formed – a group whose genesis was closely related to the process of formation of procommunist factions within the majority of Churches and religious associations in the Soviet bloc. The Board of the Methodist Church, from 1 March 1949, consisted of Superintendent and Chairman of the Executive Committee Rev. Józef Naumiuk, Vice-Chairman of the Committee Superintendent Rev. Jan Kalinowski, Secretary Rev. Leonid Jesaków, Deputy Secretary Rev. Witold Benedyktowicz, Treasurer Superintendent Rev. Gustaw Burchart, and Deputy Treasurer Rev. Aleksander Piekarski. Shortly afterwards, the “pastor democrats” came out personally. One “Note”1 produced by the Office for Religious Affairs mentioned Rev. Marian Lubecki as the leader of the faction. His closest circle was supposed to include the priests Witold Benedyktowicz, Jerzy Biczemski, Michał Jamny, Janusz Ostrowski, Aleksander Piekarski, Aleksander Sulikowski and Stanisław Słotwiński – already in conflict with Naumiuk before World War II. Pastor Ostrowski stood out in this group. Fascinated mainly by the Commission of Priests at ZBOWiD (the Union of Fighters for Freedom and Democracy), he sought to create a trade union of Methodist clergy whose aim was to develop “a sense of class proletarian community with the world of work and fight for the evangelical ideals of love, freedom, justice, including the fight for democracy, socialism and peace”.2 The most active “democratic pastor” was, however, Rev. Marian Lubecki, the author of at least a dozen treatises (“memoranda”) to the Office for Religious Affairs, in which he presented proposals and postulates for reorganization of the entire community of religious minorities in a “democratic spirit”, or proposals for changes in the Methodist Theological Seminary, at which he was a lecturer.3 A specific manifesto of the “pastor democrats” faction, written by Lubecki, was published in a Methodist magazine in the second half of 1949. In the introduction to this text, Rev. Lubecki focused on the Roman Catholic Church, stating that: DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-11

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

101

Catholicism always takes on a political rather than religious form, e.g. some anti-Semitism, some social conservatism […] Contrary to the most obvious historical testimonies, it tries to suggest that its interest is the interest of the nation. […] Penalties for common crimes and crimes, if they are met by individuals belonging to the clergy, are included in the same category [i.e. “act of persecution”]. Taking on the pose of a sufferer, it is ready at any moment to oppress with all means whatever does not suit it […] Our approach must be universalistic and synthetic. Unfortunately, they are a sect, not because of the number of believers, but because the rules are dogmatic and exclusive. Let us not be a sect! The central part of the article – the appeal – consisted of statements concerning atheism and materialism. Lubecki wrote that the atheists rejected: not the living God, who is the ideal of goodness, and whom they have never known, but his caricature prepared by priests, an arbitrary despot who, for his whims, violates the course of the affairs of nature, a cruel lover of condemned torments and an authority serving as a screen for all ecclesiastical and social reaction. In this situation Lubecki believed that: Our churches should do their best to enable such people to cooperate with us. It is necessary to remove from the official teachings and rites of the Methodist Church all relics of the Middle Ages, everything that a thinking person frightens out of the church. Our Church should be the area where Free Thought and religion are combined into one Free Religious Thought. A new man will be born here, radiating the brightness of reason, not bending over to any authority, but at the same time blooming with the fullness of affection, embracing all and running out into the afterlife. We must assimilate the wonderful achievements of modern physical, cosmological, biological, linguistic, historical and other knowledge. The Bible is a religious document, not a textbook of individual sciences, with which one can immediately judge theories that are the result of thorough experimental research.4 Undoubtedly, this article was intended to encourage the faithful of the Methodist Church to search for common features of Methodism and Marxism and to state that such features exist (although the word “Marxism” does not appear even once). The attack on the Roman Catholic Church was also clear here. Similar formulations would be the essence of the activities and speeches of Lubecki and other “pastor democrats” in the years that followed. However, the editorial staff of Pielgrzym Polski distanced themselves from this position, writing that “the theses of Rev. Lubecki are controversial”.5 It is difficult to state clearly in what circumstances Lubecki acquired other pastors for his faction. There are also no known motives behind his decision to

102

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

undertake pro-communist activities. Bożena Bankowicz, writing years ago about Catholic clergy who became “patriots”, states that there were four groups among them: “The first group consisted of career-oriented priests with personal ambitions, the second group consisted of materially oriented priests, the third group consisted of priests who were not very clean and who wanted to clear it by joining the Priests’ Commission, and the fourth group consisted of priests who joined the organization for ideological reasons”.6 It can be assumed that similar groups could be distinguished among the “pastor democrats”. Their rush to power in the Church makes us assume, however, that just as in the case of “patriotic priests”, the first group was the most numerous. Some of the “memoranda” created in the circle of “pastor democrats” that found their way to the Office for Religious Affairs were anonymous, but at least some of them can, with a high degree of probability, be regarded as treatises written by Lubecki.7 Such conclusions can be drawn after comparing these writings with others signed by him. What is striking is the convergence of views, or even identical phrases and formulations contained in both types of document. These arguments support the view that Lubecki could have been the author of the “Memorandum on the need for a church participating in social transformations”, dated 26 October 1950.8 Since the postulates contained in this program were to apply to all Protestantism in Poland, and perhaps all non-Roman Catholic Churches,9 it is necessary to quote from it at length. At the beginning of this “memorandum” one reads that “the main opponent of the new socialist system is the Roman Catholic Church in the world and especially in Poland”, and since “the existence of religious needs in many people is an undeniable fact, it is better for the state, that those who cannot agree to a simple negation of religion, satisfy their religious needs not in the Roman Church, joining in obedience to its orders – but in independent Churches. These independent Churches”, the author argued, “are useful to the state also because their ethical attitude is stronger than that of the old Church. In combating alcoholism, gambling, debauchery, lying and all dishonesty, they carry out the activities desired by the state”.10 While some Protestant circles might agree with some of these remarks, further postulates contained in the “memoranda” could be interpreted by the vast majority of them as an attempt to abandon the foundations of Protestant science (undermining the principle of Sola Scriptura), postulating the demythologization of dogmatics and politicization of this religious trend. The author of the “memorandum” argued that “these Churches do not fulfill their tasks to the extent that they would be expected to, and this is due to a lack of proper awareness”. In this situation the church “must fulfill a number of conditions”: First of all, such a church is indeed independent of any foreign authority; it is domestic and national. Its services are not the chewing of old forms, but they refer to our history and to the becoming reality, which is emphasized in the appropriate prayers and sermons, in the use not only of the Bible, but also of the works of our bishops. The Church maintains the closest loyalty

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

103

to the Government in its members, makes them aware of its achievements, especially in the field of religious law, fights against any disorganization of social life, sabotage, sympathy for underground and subversive tendencies, any reaction, nationalism, religious and racial discrimination. The key to religious freedom was to be the greatest possible secularization of social life, separation of the Church from the State, abolition of religious education at school, removal of religious emblems from public places. True religiousness, in turn, is one that has as a measure man’s conduct. That is why sectarian exclusivity is far from it. People who are concerned about it know very well that among the formal believers there is a great deal of injustice, and among the so-called non-believers, the atheists, there are noble people. With these noble people they are always ready to cooperate without any reservations for a good cause. They consider formal believers to be harmful. The next condition necessary for the correctness of the church is its democratic structure, meaning the abolition of the distinction between clergy and laity, the removal of the privileges of pastors at church meetings, the removal of hierarchies and titles, and the full equality of women. The church is a secular church. Criticism and self-criticism, tried in party life, finds its application in the church. The essence of the church, however, is to create the conditions for the mental development of the members. The church was meant to be an educational institution that fights illiteracy, [and] conducts awareness-raising lectures on comparative religious studies,11 natural sciences and social sciences. Members of such a church are made aware that the globe is no exception in the universe, that life has developed from inorganic matter and man comes from animal ancestors. Moreover, they are taught about historical materialism and the socialist ideal. This is possible when the community has a library and reading room, makes trips to museums. The educational process leads to the fact that religious ideology is progressive. Medieval dogmas about the sin of the first parents inherited by mankind, about substitute redemption and God’s incarnation, about the Trinity, about eternal punishments are no longer in force. There is no longer childish faith in the miracles of today as well as of the past: birth from a virgin, rising from the grave of the deceased, and others. The church thus refers to the meritorious activity of rationalistic and liberal Evangelism,12 so condemned by backward fundamentalists. The author of the “memorandum” predicted that in the future “sacramentalism will disappear from ecclesial practice, i.e. the attribution of the magical action to baptism and communion, as well as to all ordinances and emblems. The religion of the modern church will be universalistic, facilitating communication with believers of other views.” The considerations ended with the remark that: not everything can be told at once to everyone [and] people need to be gradually brought up to a higher level. Unfortunately, religious minorities are far from such a sophisticated understanding, which sometimes leads to a collision

104

“Conservatives” and “democrats” with the democratic state. However, they are ready to recognize the rights of the secular authorities to supervise and regulate their lives. In order to take advantage of this for the benefit of society and minorities themselves, it would be desirable to establish such a church as the one referred to here. This church, as the Church of Unity, would become a model for other churches and, having obtained proper influence through the Ecumenical Council, appropriately reorganized with the help of the authorities, it would bring them with it. Of course, it would have to be possible for the press to have an influence.

The same author returned to the concept of “a church participating in social transformations” in 1953.13 In the new “memorandum”, which contained the same theses as the previous ones, however, there was a widening of the “object of change” (now it was a matter of creating a great church “participating in social change”) and a clarification of the program: One of the Evangelical churches should be taken as an experimental starting point. The old, traditional churches, such as the Evangelical-Augsburg and Reformed churches, would not be suitable for this. On the other hand, it would be difficult to do it with sectarian churches, such as the Baptist one. Therefore, there would remain one church for this purpose, which is young in Poland, still in the process of becoming, which represents radical Protestantism, combines the features of both a more serious church and piety groups, and is burdened with the least ballast of tradition. It is the Methodist Church. According to the author of the above words, it would be better, though, if the Methodist Church changed its name, because “it sounds alien, incomprehensible and for many is embarrassing”, and merged with the Reformed Evangelicals (in fact, it was about absorbing the Evangelical-Reformed Church14), who “would bring their Polish traditions and the recognition they have in society”. In turn, “the merger of these two churches would be a prelude to further mergers. A united church would already have the seriousness, which would have to be taken into account more. If democratic elements had gained an advantage in the Evangelical-Augsburg Church” – the author of the “memorandum” continued – “the connection to it would be mature”. He also assumed a connection with the Evangelical-Baptist churches.15 The whole action would make Methodism: under whatever name it might be called, attractive, representing a certain strength towards the Roman Church, if not material, then moral. The ecumenism of churches would also be at least a little of this material strength. And the existence of a collective, progressive and pro-state Evangelical-Church would be of great importance for society.16 Indirect evidence suggests that the author of the second “memorandum” could also have been Rev. Marian Lubecki. In one place we read that progressive

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

105

reforms “were already carried out in the years 1947–1950 in the church in Praga in Warsaw with good results and to the satisfaction of the congregation members. After the pastor’s change, they were interrupted.” This pastor was Lubecki. His name can be found on a “memorandum” of 1953, but it is written in pencil – it is not known whether by the author himself or by an official from the Office for Religious Affairs. The first “memorandum” ended with the conclusion that “All this does not present any great difficulties in realization and the benefit for the homeland, democracy and progress is obvious.” In fact, both programs could be accepted only by a small group of priests. It is indeed doubtful that all “pastor democrats” would have signed up to them. It seems that even Rev. Zygmunt Michelis – a radical and the main proponent of the transformation of the Christian Ecumenical Council into a new religious association in 194917 – would not agree to treat the issue of faith as instrumentally as Lubecki proposed. Probably the Office for Religious Affairs also perceived these programs as extreme, utopian and impossible to implement. There is no indication that the authorities used any of the “memoranda”. The documents of the Office do not contain information about the creation – or any attempt to create – a church organized and “teaching” according to the model presented in the “memorandum” of 1950. Indeed, Serafin Kiryłowicz and Roman Darczewski made handwritten notes about the “tendencies to unite” they noticed in Evangelical circles. In the Office for Religious Affairs, the intention to “assassinate related religions” was even mentioned.18 Ultimately, this concept, as “immature” in relation to the Evangelical Churches, was not adopted. Kiryłowicz was also probably aware that no such action could be carried out if the elementary truths of the Christian faith were to be abolished, as Lubecki reported in practice. As for the question of forced joining of Evangelical and Baptist denominations into the United Evangelical Church, it should be emphasized that its implementation took place before the second “memorandum” was written, and in practice served to weaken Protestants, and not to create “moral strength towards the Roman Church”. In Lubecki’s proposals, Masonic elements, veiled and dangerous from the point of view of the security of the state and its ideological face, were also noticed in the Office for Religious Affairs and the Ministry of Public Security. The aforementioned expert report, signed with the name or pseudonym “Bolesławski”, stated: In the period of [19]45–[19]51 in the area of the [Methodist] Church, especially in the Praga commune in Warsaw, there were strong influences of occult freemasonry. These influences were also reflected in the official church organ the Pielgrzym Polski. […] The proponents of the Masonic ideology were at the same time advocates of the concept of the so-called direction of liberalization of the Methodist Church as opposed to the orthodox direction in this church. In the “Annex” personal references were included, and among them there was this information:

106

“Conservatives” and “democrats” The occult Mason is a professor of the Methodist Seminary in Klarysew, Marian Lubecki, a former pastor of the Praga commune in Warsaw. Together with his wife Jadwiga, he conducts a very serious pro-masonic action in the Methodist Church in Poland. He also had extensive contacts in churches of other Christian denominations and in the ecumenical movement, where he enjoyed the trust of the head of the movement, pastor Michelis.19

Regardless of the action of creating a new type of church or whole Church, the 1953 “Memorandum on religious relations” contained “guidelines for religious minorities in their relation to the People’s State”. This program would introduce “progressive clergy” in churches with the help of state authorities. The guidelines were set out in nine points: 1. The faithful are raised in a positive assessment of the current legal status of religions. They are reminded perseveringly that the deduction of the activities of civil registrars from the activities of clergy and the introduction of civil registers for the birth of civil vows, that the abolition of the obligation to teach religion in schools, etc., are huge steps forward in religious life. At the same time, they are fully in line with the principles of the gospel. 2. The declarations, to which occasionally there is an opportunity, enact not only the principal governing bodies of the churches, but also the individual churches after discussion, in order to promote social awareness. 3. Public Holidays on or after 1 May are recognized as Church Holidays. Accordingly, separate services are held on that day or on the eve at a time so fixed as not to interfere with general secular celebrations. 4. On public holidays, church buildings are decorated not only with national flags, but also with red flags. It is time to break with the fear of socialist emblems. 5. Churches proclaim the idea of peace and international cooperation. 6. Churches fight against all chauvinism and racism. They also clearly fight against anti-Semitism, which still persists in society and constitutes an excellent breeding ground for any reaction. 7. From an ethical point of view, [Churches] approve of the reforms carried out in the People’s Republic of Poland, support the National Front and the Six Year Plan. They show inconsistency of the elementary principles of religion with the capitalist exploitation of man and the undermining of neighbors, while emphasizing the deep harmony between the aims of socialism and evangelical ideals. 8. [Churches] support sobriety and the fight against alcoholism, encourage hard work, require the strictest respect for social property and absolute honesty in all proceedings. 9. At services there are prayers for society, government, other nations, for common goals, freely rather than formally. In the sermons, the motives contained in the above mentioned points occupy a serious place.20

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

107

The radical slogans that were written by Lubecki also concerned the seminary at which he was a lecturer. In a letter to the University of Warsaw dated 31 March 1953, he claimed, for example, that historical materialism is an essential subject and that it is a necessity to “assimilate basic natural knowledge to future preachers. I am thinking here, above all, of the theory of the evolution of species, the origin of life, the history of the earth, the achievements of modern astronomy”. In the remainder of this paper Lubecki revealed his interest in Soviet problems: The pastor who spreads darkness and backwardness should disappear from the People’s Republic of Poland. […] In boarding classes, the devotional element can be reduced […] In the field of state education, i.e. in the spirit of popular democracy and socialism, a great deal can be done with goodwill. […] Young people should be involved in the co-existence of events of a more significant social character. The death of the great leader of nations, Joseph Stalin, may serve as an example here. Immediately after Stalin’s health messages appeared, I read them in the classroom and included a request for Stalin’s health in my final prayer. I also read obituaries and related articles. I made sure that the Sunday service in Klarysew on 8 March included a remembrance of Joseph Stalin. On Monday 9 March I conducted a five-minute silence with the students at 10 a.m. At the Sunday service on 15 March I included once again a commemoration of J. W. Stalin as well as a prayer for blessing for his successor Malenkov and the whole USSR. Anyway, I consider the service as a powerful lever of state upbringing. That is why I often give sermons on a suitable topic, moving in them the idea of peace or quite clearly the attitude of Christians towards the state. At the meetings I pray for our society and government. Of course, I also pray for the brothers of nations, for peace, for the reconstruction of the country, intertwining these motives accordingly. Unfortunately, I have the impression that, in this consistent approach to this issue, I am isolated among the pastors. I have not heard, for example, that the death of J. W. Stalin found an echo in the services [of others], and yet in this crucial period it is not enough to simply obey the laws and regulations, but the churches should show their own initiative.21 The letter ended with complaints about other seminar lecturers. The most interesting thing about this letter was its emphasis on the author’s “isolation”, which could mean some moderation in the attitude of other “pastor democrats” or an attempt by the author to stand out from other clergy of the “democratic” faction in the eyes of the authorities. Perhaps this is how Lubecki’s earlier visit to the Office for Religious Affairs (26 April 1951) and his conversation with the head of the institution, Serafin Kiryłowicz, should be read.22 In this interview, Lubecki was to criticize the “monarchistic” draft of the Statutes of the Church and ask for the support of the superintendent Naumiuk and Witold Benedyktowicz. The latter was not only an active “pastor democrat” who participated in many initiatives to strengthen the “democratic line” in the Church, but also a competitor of Lubecki’s for leadership of the faction. In August 1952 one of the “pastor

108

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

democrats”, Rev. Aleksander Piekarski, saw Benedyktowicz as the future leader of the faction, and indeed of the Church. In a private letter, he sympathized with Benedyktowicz that he could not fully realize his proper ambitions: “You have a difficult situation, because the good of the Church requires you to oscillate between [chief superintendent] and aunt Marianna [Lubecki]”.23 According to Rev. Michał Jamny and Rev. Janusz Ostrowski, who were at the disposal of the Voivodeship Public Security Office in Bydgoszcz, Benedyktowicz practically became a leader in 1953, pushing Lubecki to second place in the group hierarchy.24 One of the “notes” of the Ministry of Public Security contains information contradictory to the above that Benedyktowicz and Lubecki had agreed that Benedyktowicz would strive for leadership in the Church in the Office for Religious Affairs. No enthusiasm for such a scenario was expressed, as “the person of Benedyktowicz raises many reservations” and “it is still difficult to say what lies behind this manoeuver”.25 Lubecki’s interest in and concern for the Soviet problems was also underlined in his next letter, of 12 May 1953. This time he reported that: an event such as the release of the accused doctors in Soviet Russia, which could become a motive for hostile propaganda, received proper elucidation from me: Statehood in the USSR has enough moral strength to correct the mistakes made. We can trust that over time any faults will be corrected by internal initiative, so that they lose even more of their basis for criminal reckoning for a new war.26 In Lubecki’s speeches in the church forum, radicalism was generally less visible. But here too the essence of the statements was that the Methodist Church needs a state that protects the rights of all citizens “and above all, workers”, that “Jesus Christ was not only a religious creator, but also a socialist”, and that “when preaching the truths of the gospel, we must accommodate it to contemporary life”, which “means a real concern for progress”.27 Lubecki and the “pastor democrats” are the manifestation of the most distinct pro-communist political attitudes in the Protestant environment. In comparison with Lubecki’s views, the radicalism of Adventists from Jan Kulak’s group, several leaders of the United Evangelical Church, or Pastor Michelis and his followers seems muted. Opposing the “pastor democrats” in their bid to take power in the Methodist Church, as well standing in the way of “progress”, was the “committee group”, i.e. the clergy associated with the Executive Committee. In the documents of the Office for Religious Affairs, this faction is usually referred to as the “committee group” or “conservatives”. Its members included, among others the priests Józef Naumiuk, Leonid Jesaków, Gustaw Burchart, Józef Szczepkowski, Jan Kalinowski and Jan Kus. According to an Office “Note” (most likely by Kiryłowicz), it was supposed to be a group “representing conservative elements and very much connected with its American protectors”.28 The “conservatives” also had sympathizers among an unspecified group of Methodist clergy in a distant province. Their distrust of the

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

109

“new reality” could be seen, for example, in the so-called “peace actions”, which they perceived unequivocally as pro-Soviet political actions. Pastor Franciszek Ruprich’s refusal to sign the Stockholm appeal – despite the official support of the church authorities for this action from the pastor of the Methodist Church in Żary – resulted in the expulsion of this clergyman from the area of the Żary poviat, which resulted in the collapse of the local Methodist church. His faithful found pastoral care in the local Lutheran church. Ruprich laid the foundations for Methodism in the Kłodzko Land.29 The Office for Religious Affairs also identified a group of undecided or “neutral” pastors. They included the priests Edward Małłek, Karol Napierski, Mieczysław Ostrowski, Eliasz Babieczko, Włodzimierz Timofejew, Brunon Raszkiewicz, Henryk Zalewski and Jan Madziarz. The commentary of the Office for Religious Affairs on the existing divisions indicates that the Office considered the Church as a hostile element – including the “patriotic” part.30 At that time, the Ministry of Public Security was sending photos with images of “committee group” and “neutral” to the Voivodeship Public Security Offices in order to support the surveillance of these people. The factional fight in the Methodist Church was dramatic and manifested itself not only in verbal duels.31 On 23 January 1953 the famous fight between Rev. Szczepkowski and Rev. Lubecki took place, which was settled before the Research and Judicial Commission of the Church and the District Court in Piaseczno and the Voivodeship Court in Warsaw (see Chapter 10). Soon afterwards, the Office for Religious Affairs withdrew Szczepkowski’s permission to act as a clergyman. Thus, the internal conflict went beyond the borders of the Church itself. Among the Methodists who were critical of the “socialist reality”, however, Szczepkowski’s authority did not suffer much. Because of these events, Rev. Jerzy Biczemski withdrew from the camp of “pastor democrats”. The “committee group” and “pastor democrats” were also in conflict over the Statute of the Church. As early as 1951, Lubecki pointed out to the Office for Religious Affairs that the Statute lacked democratic features, claiming that they made the chief superintendent “the Pope” and “says nothing about the autocephaly of the Methodist Church in the Republic of Poland and its independence from foreign authorities”. The Ministry of Public Security became interested in the matter of the Statutes. Their agents within the Church were supposed to provide information about discussions of this matter. Information came from all over Poland. An example is a report from the agent “Mars” in Rzeszów.32 According to the leader of the “democrats”, the Statutes, over which the Executive Committee “watched”, give rise to further “evil”. In a circular dated 30 June 1953 “the evil” was defined more precisely: The team of pastors–democrats […] opposed openly clique attitudes and cronyism, interrupting once and for all the scabby passivity and adoration of those who, through occasional efforts, stood at the helm […] The members of the Executive Committee aim to use a strong hand to accuse and remove critical pastors.33

110

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

The response of the Executive Committee came in September, suggesting that the circular of the “democrats” was taken seriously. In a letter addressed “To the employees of the Methodist Church in the People’s Republic of Poland”, it was stressed at the outset that the so-called “democrats” sent their appeal illegally – without approval from the Church authorities. This step was evaluated as an “opinion fallacy” introduced by “demagogy” and the authors of the circular “for those who were immature for the mission they want to fulfill”. Therefore, it was decided to “expose their actions”. First of all, the Committee questioned the very name “pastor democrats”: The mere naming of “pastor democrats”, which unjustifiably and recklessly casts a shadow on the democracy of the other members or workers of our Church, is unjustified. Our Church boasts that it is the Church of simple people. The aim of its creation is precisely to return to the period of primitive Christianity and extreme democratization of its organization. We associate the most democratic Christians. And our stray brothers, who call themselves democrats, have not only not distinguished themselves in their lives and activities to date from the general public by some exceptional democracy, but have rather, on the contrary, lagged behind in this respect. The letter concluded with thanks to all those who “assured of their loyalty”, and a request to pray for “reformers”. It was hoped that they would turn “away from the injurious way”, and set about “honest work”.34 This ending, however, brought no repentance from the attackers, as Rev. Lucjan Zaperty, for example, called for, but rather a further offensive. Benedyktowicz and Lubecki were particularly offended. They expressed their regret in a letter to the Chief Superintendent. First of all, they did not accept the Executive Committee’s claim that their circular was “illegality”. They argued that “it is a good right of every Methodist, if he deems it appropriate, to write letters to one or more persons in ecclesiastical matters”. The explanation of their group’s adoption of the name “pastor democrats” was very interesting. They argued that it did not mean a monopoly of the Lubecki group on “democracy and progress”. “After all, it is commonly known,” Benedyktowicz and Lubecki wrote: that the name of some trend does not include the removal of others from the ideal expressed by this name. Nobody from PZPR [The Polish United Workers’ Party] or SL [The People’s Party] can think of being angry with SD [the Democratic Party] that it uses such a title when they are not worse democrats.35 The exchange of letters (circulars) heralded an even greater crisis in the Methodist Church and an inevitable confrontation. On 29 June 1954 the chief superintendent, Rev. Naumiuk, sent a letter to the Office for Religious Affairs in which he informed them that on 1 July 1954 he intended to resign from his position, “due to poor health and the necessity of a few months’ rest from all activities,

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

111

both mental and physical”. In reality, however, Naumiuk was fine, and the letter was forced by the Office itself, which, using work carried out by the Ministry of Public Security, prepared the chief superintendent’s dismissal. According to the informant “Jawor”, Naumiuk believed that depriving him of the position of superintendent and liquidating part of the Methodist parishes in Masuria was not so much the result of Darczewski’s decision from the Office for Religious Affairs, but rather of Liberman’s decision from the Ministry of Public Security. It was to be a kind of punishment for the fact that the head of the Methodist Church did not agree to cooperate with the Security Office. The circumstances of Naumiuk’s resignation and the role of the state authorities in this matter are also revealed in a memo drawn up in 1956 by Kiryłowicz. It shows that “Rev. Naumiuk was delicately advised that his resignation due to illness would not be objected to at the Office”. It was not about any special support for the “pastor democrats”, but about the fact that “Naumiuk fought too hard in Masuria” and strengthened Methodism there, allegedly at the expense of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church and the re-Polonization of indigenous peoples. The same note records that Naumiuk’s deputy, Rev. Burchart, “after short hesitations took up the post”. With the nomination of the Office for Religious Affairs behind him, he headed the “temporary government of the Church to secure the continuity of the functioning of the legal authority of the Church”; he also led the preparation and convening of the General Conference, at which the new authorities of the Church were to be elected.36 In the new situation, “pastor democrat” Rev. Stanisław Słotwiński, who had previously undermined Naumiuk’s authority at every opportunity, provided “advice” to the Office.37 In an interview with Kiryłowicz on 4 August 1954, he informed the chief executive that: in principle about 75% of pastors have a negative attitude towards the Executive Committee, but they are afraid to say it openly, because Jesaków keeps everyone in his pocket. The moment the pastor takes over the commissioner’s authority, not from the surroundings of the Executive Committee, the unstable and fearful will join the democrats. According to Słotwiński, the group of “pastor democrats” already consisted of 30 people. Kiryłowicz’s interview notes continue: According to Słotwiński, Burchart has no authority over pastors and is unable to free himself from Jesaków’s influence. The most appropriate administrator of the church would be Pastor Benedyktowicz, who would be able to carry out a purge in the church together with the revision commission. In this conversation, Słotwiński was to “advise” against convening the General Conference in 1954, because Benedyktowicz as Forced Administrator should have time to “reveal the crimes” of Jesaków, Naumiuk and others. Finally, Słotwiński reported that “Naumiuk and his companions, by postponing the convocation of

112

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

the conference, blamed the Office for Religious Affairs and made themselves victims of persecution by the authorities”.38 Pastor Lubecki also made interesting comments on Church management. In his opinion, this body should include only those persons whose aim is: the good of the Church and the good of the democratic Polish society, while the good of the Church as a particularity should be subordinated decisively to the good of society. One of the guarantees of this would be a close and continuous contact with the Office for Religion Affairs […] Since the urgent issue is to ease the fire between the Evangelical-Augsburg and Methodist churches in Masuria, when considering candidates for the new board of directors it is important that they already have friendly contacts with leading representatives of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church. The activity of the new board would be connected with breaking the reaction in the Methodist Church. This reaction is maintained primarily against the background of the material dependence of the Church’s employees on the Executive Committee, or more precisely on its treasurer […] it is maintained as a result of the carefully cultivated authority of ecclesiastical authority while maintaining the faithful in complete passivity and thoughtlessness. Without breaking the reaction, there is no question of improving relations. Even the introduction of a genuinely democratic statute will be used by it to preserve its influence in the future in the face of its existing advantage. Therefore, appropriate support from the Office for Religious Affairs is necessary here. The new board should be such that not only should it accommodate [itself], even if only quite strictly, to the indications of the Office for Religious Affairs, but also that it should feel and think in a progressive and socialist manner and actively contribute its part in the great reconstruction of society. (emphasis added)39 In the same folder as the above “Note” there is also a “Draft Memorandum” signed by Benedyktowicz40, which may confirm that he, not Lubecki, was already the leader of the pro-communist faction. It shows that the concept of appointing the Forced Administrator came into being in the community of “democrats” and the authorities only used this idea. Of course, the motives behind this use were different from those of the “democrats”. The Office certainly did not want to rebuild the Methodist Church. However, the “pastor democrats” did not know this. Therefore, the resignation of Naumiuk and the appointment of a temporary board – although headed by Burchart – were interpreted as initial steps towards their final success. The “Draft Memorandum” is an important document also because it reveals other facts related to the rivalry between the “democrats” and the “committee group”. For example, it reports that the Executive Committee had repeatedly attempted to remove some “pastor democrats” from the Church, among them the priests Aleksander Sulikowski, Janusz Ostrowski and Stanisław Słotwiński. The Executive Committee was also supposed to have used the tactics of stopping paying the rent of premises where a “democrat” worked, or of concluding unfavorable housing contracts in places where a “progressive” clergyman

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

113

worked. The author of the letter also complained about the withholding of salary payments to “democrats”, with continuous payments to other clergy, including those “who were dismissed at the request of the state authorities (Grzybek, Rumiński)”. The “memoranda project” also contained the “democratic” clergy’s explanation of the Methodist Church crisis. They claimed that, despite the excellent conditions enjoyed by the Church since 1944, it had not used “all these opportunities […] detached from the life of the nation, did not develop […], having fallen, especially in recent years, into a profound ideological, material and personal crisis”, because “forces aiming at its [i.e. the crisis’], aversion and seeking to base the Church on new, democratic and socially creative principles – are consistently suppressed and fought by the current Church leadership clinging to power!”41 It was the Executive Committee that was guilty of stopping work in Masuria. The “pro-Augsburg” attitude of the authorities or the “removal” of Methodist pastors working in the Northern Territories, mentioned in the same letter, were completely ignored. The Acting Chief Superintendent, Pastor Gustaw Burchart, did not immediately succumb to the influence of the “democrats”. On the contrary, on 6 July 1954 the Executive Committee chaired by Burchart announced the suspension of lectures at the Methodist Theological Seminary in Klarysew for the academic year 1954/1955. On 17 August, Lubecki received notice that his contract would terminate on 30 September 1954. This decision was directed against the “pastor democrats”, as the seminary was then primarily under their influence. The Committee’s decision, of course, caused a great deal of indignation among the “democrats”. They asked the Office for Religious Affairs to “cause the withdrawal of the harmful decision”. They mainly stressed the difficult situation faced by the 66-year-old Lubecki, for whom work in the seminar was the only source of income. They also pointed out that Burchart fulfilled Naumiuk’s earlier announcement, who threatened Lubecki with losing his job. The “pastor democrats” did not know that the party and state authorities had previously considered the same thing, i.e. the liquidation of the seminary. On its basis, in 1951 a party school was to be established, “all the more so as there are no special reasons to defend the interests of the Methodist Church. Eventually, these plans were abandoned.”42 The list of “legal” clergy of the Methodist Church, which Rev. Burchart sent to the Office for Religious Affairs in February 1955, did not include some priests removed by the state and church authorities. Marian Lubecki, Aleksander Piekarski and Stanisław Słotwiński (removed by church management) were all omitted. Only some priests were included in the list of those who were not tolerated by the Office for Religious Affairs and the Committee for Public Security. And among the “former priests” the authorities included Zygmunt Karczewski, Antoni Liszkiewicz, Zdzisław Grzybek, Rafał Rumiński, Adam Kuczma, Zenon Pierożyński, Józef Harzyński, Jan Rudz, Jan Waszk and Włodzimierz Timofiejew (removed by decision of the Office for Religious Affairs or the Presidium of the Voivodeship National Council in Olsztyn).43 The published memoirs of Zygmunt

114

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

Karczewski show that these individuals could perhaps have remained in the group of clergy if they signed an agreement to cooperate with the Security Office. Nonetheless, the Executive Committee was only partially successful. On the one hand, it was able to exclude Lubecki from direct influence, because he did not receive the support of the Office for Religious Affairs; on the other, however, the attack on the former leader of the “democrats” consolidated this group more and made the intransigent fight with the “conservatives” under the already obvious leadership of Benedyktowicz last until the end of 1956. Kiryłowicz expressed skepticism about the ideological source of the dispute between the rival groups throughout the entire period of the factional battles. As early as 1953, he believed that clear action was needed to strike at the material foundations of the Church, since, in his opinion, the whole “divergence and struggle among Methodist pastors stemmed from the desire to get to the trough, to participate in the disposal of American gifts”. In the face of such a diagnosis, in his opinion, it was necessary to “halt the activity of the Methodist clique in Poland” by categorically cutting off the Church from financial support from the West. “In turn, when this help ceases the entire existence of Methodism will be questioned. The Office is in possession of data that already today individual pastors, taking into account this possibility, are looking for new jobs.”44 The Office for Religious Affairs was not interested in the development of the faction of “pastor democrats”. The officials were not impressed by Lubecki’s “memoranda” and presentations at the Church forum, nr by the reports and denunciations submitted by Słotwiński. All the Methodist clergymen, without exception, were to create an undesirable “clique” in Poland.45 Of course, the pro-government faction could not even guess at this assessment. In turn, the Ministry of Public Security and the Committee for Public Security officers had a very vague sense of the factional complexities. The fact that they were not even understood by some employees of the regional structures of the security services is confirmed by the embarrassing commentary of a clerk from Bydgoszcz, who observed in December 1954, in his comment on the report from agent “Piotrowski”, that it was necessary “to establish and specify what are the fundamental differences between the faction of democrats and the other one [he apparently did not know the term “committee members”], what was the reason for their creation [five years previously!], [and] which activity is carried out by one and which activity is carried out by the other.”46

Notes 1 See: AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 26–27, Serafin Kiryłowicz, Note: “Internal relations in the Methodist Church” [1953]. 2 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 36–39, Rev. Janusz Ostrowski, “Proclamation to Pastors of the Methodist Church in Poland”, 1953. 3 See: R. Michalak, Kościoły protestanckie i władze partyjno-państwowe w Polsce (1945–1956), Warsaw 2002, 203–208. 4 M. Lubecki, “O duchowe oblicze metodyzmu polskiego”, Pielgrzym Polski (1949, nos. 7–8).

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

115

5 Lubecki, “O duchowe oblicze metodyzmu polskiego”. 6 B. Bankowicz, “W imię Boga i ludowej ojczyzny. Z dziejów komisji Księży przy ZBOWiD 1949–1955”, Zeszyty Naukowe Zderzenia 5 (1990), 36. 7 The “ideological papers” read out by Lubecki during conferences and other church meetings are recorded in the minutes and reports of these meetings in 1950–1953, see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 303–307, Rev. superintendent Józef Naumiuk, “Report”, 11.07.1952. 8 See: AAN, UdSW, sign. III 5b/19, c. 41–43, “Memorandum on the need for a church participating in social transformations”, 26.10.1950. 9 The issue is ambiguous, since on the one hand, the term “Protestantism” is not mentioned once, and on the other hand, “religious minorities” are mentioned in general and on the other hand, the subject is the “church” (this term refers to the Protestant churches), which must imitate “rationalistic and liberal evangelism”. 10 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 5b/19, c. 41–43. 11 This is one of the subjects that Rev. Marian Lubecki taught at the Methodist Theological Seminar in Klarysew. 12 The fascination of the author of the “memorandum” with the direction of Evangelical theology, which propagated the demythologization of the Bible, is clear here. Its leading representatives were R. Bultmann and M. Dibelius. 13 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 50–66, “Memoriał o stosunkach wyznaniowych”, Warsaw, May 1953. 14 It should be emphasized that the then cooperation between the Methodist Church and the Evangelical Reformed Church was not only a courtesy. This was manifested by the meetings of young people from both Churches (information about one of such meetings in Zelów). AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 62, “Agent report” source “Żebrowski”; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 149–155, “Agent report” source “Zośka”, 12.07.1950. See: E. Jóźwiak, “Osobno czy razem? Dążenia ekumeniczne wewnątrz polskiego ewangelicyzmu–perspektywa reformowana (po 1945 roku)”, Rocznik Teologiczny 57 (2015), 245–266. 15 Perhaps the reason for this was the efforts made by some Pentecostalists, led by Józef Czerski, to cooperate closely with the Methodists at that time (see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 176–177, “Agent report” source “Orzeł”, 13.07.1951), the transition of the Evangelical church in Zarzecze near Żywiec to the Methodist Church (AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 685), cooperation between Methodists and Baptists in Łódź and Ełk (AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 427; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 350, The Voivodeship Public Security Office in Białystok on the basis of a report from the “Zając” [Hare] source), and above all, doctrinal and genetic proximity and cooperation with the Union of Christ Churches (see: AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 513; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 540). 16 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 50–66. 17 See: K. Urban, “Polska Rada Ekumeniczna (rys historyczny na tle dążeń unifikacyjnych mniejszości religijnych w Polsce)”, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Studia Religiologica 16 (1986), 126; K. Urban, “Chrześcijańska Rada Ekumeniczna w Polsce 1945–1950 (z historii i aktywności społecznej)”, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie 250 (1988), 42. 18 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 22/38/56, c. 1–8. 19 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 233–237, Bolesławski, “Christian denominations in Poland 1945–52”. 20 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 14–18 and AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 51–55; AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 50–66. 21 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 14–18; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 51–55. 22 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/1/51, c. 6, “Note” (Serafin Kiryłowicz), 27.04.1951. 23 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 357, epistle Rev. Aleksander Piekarski to Rev. Witold Benedyktowicz, Tarnów 19.08.1952.

116

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

24 AIPN, sign. By 069/242 t. 6, c. 290, WUBP in Bydgoszcz “Note”, Bydgoszcz 3.12.1953. 25 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 229–230, “Situation in the Methodist Church”. 26 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 28–29, Rev. Marian Lubecki “State and democratic education in the Methodist Theological Seminar”, Warsaw 12.05.1953. 27 See: AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/52, c. 9–24, Rev. Marian Lubecki, “The attitude of the Church to the People’s State. Speech for the General Conference of the Year 1952”, Warsaw 17.06.1952. 28 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 26–27. 29 See: R. Michalak, “Polityka wyznaniowa władz partyjno-państwowych w powiecie żarskim w latach stalinizmu”, Studia Zachodnie 5 (2000), 113; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 206, letter Rev. Franciszek Ruprich to Rev. Józef Naumiuk, Ścinawka Średnia 05.01.1952. 30 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 26–27. 31 See: R. Michalak, “Kościół Metodystyczny w polityce wyznaniowej państwa polskiego”, in Religia i polityka, B. Grott (ed.), Kraków 2000, 259–274. 32 AIPN, sign. Rz 055/59 t.3, c. 58, “Agent report” source “Mars”, Rzeszów 22.08.1953. 33 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 43–45, “Proclamation from Pastors-Democrats to Dear Brothers” (Rev. W. Benedyktowicz, Rev. M. Lubecki, Rev. A. Sulikowski), 30.06.1953. 34 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/26/53, c. 6–7, Executive Committee of the Methodist Church in the People’s Republic of Poland “To the Employees of the Methodist Church”, Warsaw 24.09.1953. 35 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/26/53, c. 2–5, letter Rev. Witold Benedyktowicz and Rev. Marian Lubecki to Rev. Józef Naumiuk, Warsaw 30.10.1953. 36 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/36/57, Note “The case of the Methodist Church in the People’s Republic of Poland” – S[erafin] K[iryłowicz], 8.06.1956. 37 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 318, “Agent report” source “Brzeski”, Warsaw 17.07.1953. 38 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/29/54, c. 18–19, “Note: Interview with Pastor Słotwiński” – S[erafin] K[iryłowicz], 5.08.1954. 39 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/29/54, c. 33, Rev. Marian Lubecki “Comments on the Commissariat of the Council of the Church”, Warsaw 29.06.1954; K. Urban, Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2000, 382. 40 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/29/54, c. 25–32, Rev. W. Benedyktowicz “Memoriał Project”, Warsaw 29.06.1954 (see memorandum in: Urban, Luteranie i metodyści, 376–381). 41 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/29/54, c. 25–32. 42 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/4/55, c. 12, the letter from the pastor-democrat team to UdSW (Rev. W. Benedyktowicz, Rev. J. Ostrowski, Rev. A. Sulikowski), Warsaw 29.09.1954; AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4b/1/51, c. 1–4, “Klarysew”. 43 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1537, c. 168–169; APO, PWRN WdSW, sign. 444/115. 44 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 26–27; sign. III 2a/34/54, c. 105–111. 45 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 160–161, “Agent report” source “Żebrowski”, 4.07.1950. 46 AIPN, sign. By 069/242 t. 6, c. 333, “Agent report” source “Piotrowski”, Bydgoszcz 1.12.1954.

Bibliography Archiwum Akt Nowych w Warszawie (AAN Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw). AAN, UdSW, sign. III 2a/34/54, c. 105–111. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/1/51, c. 6. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/4/55, c. 12. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/52, c. 9–24. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 14–18, 26–29, 36–39, 43–45, 50–66. AAN, UdSW,

“Conservatives” and “democrats”

117

sign. III 4a/26/53, c. 2–7. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/29/54, c. 18–19, 25–32, 33. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/36/57. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4b/1/51, c. 1–4. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 5b/19, c. 41–43. AAN, UdSW, sign. III 22/38/56, c. 1–8. Archiwum Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej (AIPN Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance). AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1537, c. 168–169. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1608/J, c. 51–55, 206. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 62, 149–155, 160–161, 176–177, 229– 230, 233–237, 303–307, 318, 357, 427, 513. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1610/J, c. 350, 540, 685. AIPN, sign. By 069/242 t. 6, c. 290, 333. AIPN, sign. Rz 055/59 t. 3, c. 58. Archiwum Państwowe w Olsztynie (APO State Archive in Olsztyn). APO, PWRN WdSW, sign. 444/115. Bankowicz, B., “W imię Boga i ludowej ojczyzny. Z dziejów komisji Księży przy ZBOWiD 1949–1955”, Zeszyty Naukowe Zderzenia 5 (1990), 36–45. Jóźwiak, E., “Osobno czy razem? Dążenia ekumeniczne wewnątrz polskiego ewangelicyzmu–perspektywa reformowana (po 1945 roku)”, Rocznik Teologiczny 57 (2015), 245–266. Lubecki, M., “O duchowe oblicze metodyzmu polskiego”, Pielgrzym Polski (7–8) (1949). Michalak, R., “Kościół Metodystyczny w polityce wyznaniowej państwa polskiego”, in Religia i polityka, B. Grott (ed), Kraków 2000. Michalak, R., Kościoły protestanckie i władze partyjno-państwowe w Polsce (1945–1956), Warsaw 2002. Michalak, R., “Polityka wyznaniowa władz partyjno-państwowych w powiecie żarskim w latach stalinizmu”, Studia Zachodnie 5 (2000), 97–123. Urban, K., “Polska Rada Ekumeniczna (rys historyczny na tle dążeń unifikacyjnych mniejszości religijnych w Polsce)”, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Studia Religiologica 16 (1986), 111–137. Urban, K., “Chrześcijańska Rada Ekumeniczna w Polsce 1945–1950 (z historii i aktywności społecznej)”, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie 250 (1988), 35–53. Urban, K., Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2000, 11–12.

12 “The Masurian Case” Second stage

In 1954, after an inspection in Warmia and Masuria to assess the relationship between the Methodist Church and the Evangelical-Augsburg Church, Serafin Kirylowicz reported that Methodists presented their Church as “the continuation of the Prussian Union Church”, and deprived the Evangelical-Augsburg Church of the right to succession after it. The latter, according to the superintendent Rev. Józef Naumiuk, would be “the bridge that will lead them [i.e. Masurians] to Catholicism”.1 The comment of the author(s) of the analysis on this sentence was very interesting: “Because Catholicism is connected with Polish identity in the consciousness of many Masurian revisionists, we must treat this argument as an argument against the re-Polonization activity among Masurians.” This was a clear over-interpretation of Naumiuk’s thoughts and words, which threatened the indigenous people with Catholicism and saw it as the eternal and current enemy of Protestantism, and not a symbol of Polish identity. It is enough to mention the occupation of Evangelical churches by Catholics, the actions of forced conversion of Evangelicals to Catholicism, the assaults of the Catholic population on Methodist services and the arson of the Methodist old people’s home in Piętki.2 However, the activity of the Methodists was perceived as a reference to the “spirit of German revisionism”. This was also supported by the fact that Methodist pastors wore togas, once used by Union pastors, and carefully imitated the order of the Union Evangelical services. Contrary to the positive opinions of the clergy in the 1940s and the merits they received for the work of re-Polonization, it was stated in 1954 that “in churches and outside of churches, Methodist priests spoke German”. They were also said to consistently gather “revisionist elements” around themselves. The negative attitude of the Methodists towards Poland was also to be proved by the fact that in their seminary they put emphasis primarily on English and German. The pastors’ wives, in turn, were said to teach religion secretly in the German language. The analysis concerning the Methodist Church ended with the conclusion, which was significant in its effects: “The existence of two larger competitive Protestant denominations in Masuria contributes to delaying the rePolonization action”, so “we should continue the policy of gradual displacement of Methodists from Masuria”.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-12

“The Masurian Case”

119

In 1951, the authorities’ aim was simply to “eliminate the competitive tendencies” between the main Protestant Churches. In 1952, the leadership of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church was asked to “neutralize the activity of Methodists”.3 In 1954, it was mentioned that the Methodist Church in Masuria was to be liquidated. The punishment for disturbances to the re-Polonization process was therefore of the highest order. Not only individual leaders were blamed for this, but also the Methodist Church as a whole. Together with this position of the authorities, a gradual limitation of the work of the Church began. An illustration of this process can be seen in the situation of the church in Mrągowo. In May 1954, the Unit for Religious Affairs at the Presidium of Voivodeship National Council in Olsztyn forbade the holding of Methodist services in this city, and the whole church, consisting of nearly 600 members, was incorporated into the Evangelical-Augsburg Church. The fact that this did not suit the faithful was proved by their complaints submitted to the Office for Religious Affairs. Even after two years they demanded contact with the Methodist clergy. The pastor from Ełk, Pastor Edward Małłek, was willing to do it. He asked the authorities for permission to give the faithful from Mrągowo communion. However, Małłek’s initiative was considered a threat to social peace.4 With time, most of the Methodists from Mrągowo came to terms with the new situation and finally recognized the pastoral care of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church. However, there remained a group of 140 people who did not accept the decision of the authorities and used the chapel of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.5 The policy the authorities adopted towards the Methodist Church in Masuria caused a systematic decrease in the number of Methodists in this region. The aforementioned analysis, dating back to 1954, referred to 12,000 Methodists in the Olsztyn voivodeship. Ten years later, there were just over 5,000 of them in the whole country.6 Not all Methodist leaders were ready to accept the authorities’ policy of liquidation or marginalization of the Methodist Church in Masuria. Rev. Józef Naumiuk prepared a completely new and extremely radical program of re-Polonization of the Masurian population. He set out his plan in October or early November 1955 at a conference of the Masurian clergy. This was intended to gain the attention of the representatives of the state authorities, who normally had access to such materials, and to gain their favor for the Methodist Church. To counter the negative opinions formulated by the Presidium of Voivodeship National Council in Olsztyn and the Office for Religious Affairs, in his paper he presented in detail the past achievements of the Church in the field of re-Polonization. It is worth quoting a key passage: The recovery of our compatriots is a noble mission that fully corresponds to the above mentioned principles and the spirit of Methodism. As promoters of the great idea of Christianity and its most beautiful ethics, contributing to the re-Polonization of the Masurian land, we do not commit the injustice

120

“The Masurian Case” of deprivation of the national identity, but only repair the crimes of history, restore to the oppressed and converted with fire and sword their own soul and national dignity, we recover for our Homeland what was stolen from it against the laws of God and man. And we do it not with force, not with violence, not evoking the wraiths of the past – brutal Germanic ways of Hakata, or rather Hitler’s terror – but with noble methods of awakening national consciousness, supporting the lost, showing them the right way with the care of a nurse who teaches the sick person to walk again. Of all the Churches operating in Poland, we are the most suitable candidate to fulfill this mission, because we are a Protestant Church, which corresponds to Masuria – Protestants in its main mass, being Protestants we are not burdened with any links with German Protestantism, which would inhibit the reference to Masuria and we are a missionary church, which makes the mission of re-Polonization perfectly coincide with our developmental aspirations. We have a serious track record of our work in Masuria. Our church became one of the first in this area in 1945, acting in close cooperation with the state authorities in Olsztyn. We organized the main centers in Ostróda and Ełk, which were the most easily accessible for the local population. We started working in the following congregations: Olsztyn, Olsztynek, Kurki, Biesal, Miłomłyn, Liwa, Lipowo, Duży Szmigwałd, Szamborowo, Kroplewo, Glaznoty, Marwałd, Rudnice, Dąbrówno, Leszcz, Osiekowo, Gierzwałd, Nidzica, Szczytno, Pasym, Kalinowo, Klusy, Grabnik, Stare Suchy and Szymanowo. Our work was pioneering and versatile in this first phase of taking over the Regained Territories: 1. providing the indigenous peoples with pastoral care and organizing services in the Polish language; 2. teaching the Polish language; 3. encouraging parents to send their children to school; 4. Conducting a bursa for school children in Ełk; 5. encouraging them to become Polish citizens, 6. broad material aid: distribution of food, clothing, medicines, livestock and dead animals; 7. charitable action – such as running summer colonies, orphanage and old people’s home in Stare Jabłonki and Piętki; 8. organizing medical aid; 9. explaining the inappropriate behavior of lower local authorities and defending Masurians against harm caused by the mistakes of these authorities; 10. inducing participation in a referendum; 11. aiding in searches for families.7

Naumiuk also pointed out that the re-Polonization achievements of the Methodist Church would have been much greater had it not been for the activity of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church, which was hostile to the Methodists: and which, striving to expand its influence in Masuria, chose the way of agitation and propaganda, giving quicker immediate benefits than missionary work, and what is most harmful, referred to German chauvinism and revisionism by using the name of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church in its agitation, distributing leaflets in the German language, etc.

“The Masurian Case”

121

Further, the following statements were intended to convince the authorities that they had previously made a mistake in assessing the Polish identity of the Churches: Recruiting the Masurians for Methodist Protestantism, is at the same time acquiring them for good for the Polish identity, and persuading them to Lutheran Protestantism, it is preserving Germanic influences in them, delaying the final re-Polonization. Therefore, we will not give in to anything from the area, we will fight for every indigenous person, even if we do not have the recognition of one or another representative of the local authorities, because we are fighting in a good cause and our work sooner or later will find recognition for its results. Naumiuk thus proposed a program that would make the re-Polonization work of the Methodists bring the ultimate “de-Germanization of Masurians”. The essence of this program was to complement “the action of the Authorities and secular institutions in those sections, which they cannot reach in their official methods, in the sections of spiritual, everyday and family life”. The advantage of the Methodist Church was that it was “the most democratic Church, the Church of simple people and Masurians are simple people”. With this simple people, the Church was to “melt into one”. Practical re-Polonization was supposed to take place by “chatting in long winter evenings or days of rest”. Therefore, according to Naumiuk, the survival of the Methodist Church in Masuria required a departure from the essence of the Church, i.e. religious work and focusing primarily on “awareness-raising” work. The topics of these stories were not to be related to Methodism, but “should be both historical and contemporary”. The historical subjects were mainly the biographies and activities of outstanding fighters for Polish identity and the rights of Masurians, and those famous Poles whose activities were connected with Masurians. Naumiuk presented a wide list of characters to whom “storytelling” was to be devoted (Jan Małecki, Abraham Kulwieć, Stanisław Rafajłowicz, Jan Seklucjan, Stanisław Murzynowski, Wojciech Nowomiejski, Mikołaj Kopernik, Mikołaj Rej, Jan Kochanowski, Samuel Tschepius, Jan Cassius, Jerzy Wasiański, Rev. Krzysztof C. Mrongowiusz, Tadeusz Rejtan, Jan H. Dąbrowski, Rev. Gustaw Gizewiusz, Karol Barke, Kazimierz Jaroszyk, Jan Liszewski, Seweryn Pieniężny, Wojciech Kętrzyński, Michał Kajka, Fryderyk Mączka, Jerzy Lanc, Reinhold Barcz, Andrzej Samułowski, Jan Jagiełko, Bogumił Linka and Walenty Barczewski). The topic of each historical storytelling was to be “one, at most two characters, or some fragment of history, not overloaded with dates, given in an entertaining, anecdotal or diarist form, with as many minor, family and non-monumental details as possible”. The second theme of the storytelling was intended to be “Contemporary Poland”. The priests who would prepare such speeches were to: less praise the successes and achievements and more emphasize the enormous tasks to be fulfilled by the present generation of the new Poland, which

122

“The Masurian Case” boldly undertook the titanic work of rebuilding the enormous war damages, rebuilding the economic system and making up for the centuries-old backwardness of Poland.

Their task was also to: emphasize that such a great work requires huge sacrifices, that low wages, low prices of agricultural products, quantitative and qualitative deficiencies in supplying the daily needs of the population, in short, a low standard of living, is precisely this sacrifice of our generation for the performance of these huge tasks, necessary to achieve universal prosperity. That we all make these sacrifices for the common good of all. But once the results are visible today, we will all have the full benefit of them. There will never again be Masurians, the lowest social class in the German Reich, working for the prosperity of the Prussian Junkers and the German Bourgeoisie; Masurians will enjoy not only full political rights, but also, one and all, prosperity, knowledge, culture, entertainment, not exploited by anyone, only working on their own and for themselves. Naumiuk’s special instructions concerned “the most sensitive point of economic change for the peasant”, i.e. the transition from “the individual to the team economy”. He warned against presenting this problem in an “agitational” manner, and suggested an “economic” manner instead: Emphasize that team economy is, according to internationally recognized scholars, a higher form of agricultural economy and, as a consequence, not only brings better results in agricultural production – higher yields – but also huge savings in human labor and its facilitation, just like a large factory that can support managers and officials who do not produce goods, give workers holidays and vacations and still produce a given product twice or more cheaply than small production workshops. But because with less work, more can be produced in a team economy, all its members must understand and mature into this way of working, hence the only effective way to establish small production cooperatives is to join them voluntarily. The path outlined by Naumiuk to save Methodism in Masuria was undoubtedly difficult for him. When preparing the “new re-Polonization” program, he renounced his authentic, previously expressed beliefs. What is worse, these efforts were not able to change the attitude of the state towards the Methodist Church. No arguments – including the declaration of transforming the Church from a religious institution into an almost exclusively “re-Polonizing” one – had any weight with the decision-makers of the religious policy. The Church, which did not bring benefits to the state or was in conflict with its interests, was to be liquidated. To begin with, in the Masuria region. An unfavorable course towards Methodists was maintained.

“The Masurian Case”

123

Notes 1 APO, PWRN WdSW, sign. 444/115, “Analysis of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical-Augsburg Church”, Olsztyn 1954. 2 See: E. Małłek, Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016, ch. 126 “‘Polscy krzyżacy’ w akcji”, 407–416, ch. 150 “‘Kristall-Sonntage’ w Ełku”, 491– 493, ch. 153 “Pożar Domu Starców”, 496–499. 3 K. Urban, “Mniejszości wyznaniowe a procesy repolonizacyjno–integracyjne ludności mazurskiej po II wojnie światowej”, Zapiski Historyczne 4 (1983), 114. 4 APO, PWRN WdSW, sign. 444/115, Letter from the PWRN in Olsztyn to Pastor Edward Małłek, Olsztyn 20.03.1956. 5 APO, PWRN WdSW, sign. 444/116, Letter from the editorial office of “Głos Olsztyński” to PWRN in Olsztyn, Olsztyn 15.01.1957. 6 K. Urban, Mniejszości religijne w Polsce po II wojnie światowej. Szkice i materiały, Kraków 2012, p. 68, tab. nr 34. 7 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/5/55, c. 24–33, the paper of Rev. Józef Naumiuk [7.11.1955].

Bibliography Archiwum Akt Nowych w Warszawie (AAN Central Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw). AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/5/55, c. 24–33. Archiwum Państwowe w Olsztynie (APO State Archive in Olsztyn). APO, PWRN WdSW, sign. 444/115. APO, PWRN WdSW, sign. 444/116. Małłek, E., Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016. Urban, K., “Mniejszości wyznaniowe a procesy repolonizacyjno-integracyjne ludności mazurskiej po II wojnie światowej”, Zapiski Historyczne 4 (1983), 103–122. Urban, K., Mniejszości religijne w Polsce po II wojnie światowej. Szkice i materiały, Kraków 2012.

13 From liquidation to rationing policy Operation “Methodius” (Metody)

Rev. Józef Naumiuk’s successor as the chief superintendent was Rev. Gustaw Burchart, and soon afterwards Rev. Janusz Ostrowski and Rev. Józef Szczepkowski. It is noteworthy that the Office for Religious Affairs nominated people belonging to various groups. This could have been the result of a new concept of the Office – the selection of Church authorities from among the “democrats” and former “committee members”, so that the disputes between them could now take place at the very top of the hierarchy, i.e. at the forum of the Executive Committee. This was perhaps also intended to discredit, in the eyes of the West, those “not democrats” who cooperated – at least formally – with the supporters of the “new reality”. In this situation, the Office could have expected that financial support for the Church from abroad would have been stopped or at least reduced. An alternative interpretation is also possible: the Office for Religious Affairs entrusted actual authority in the Church to Pastor Witold Benedyktowicz, and granted only nominal leadership to Szczepkowski so that the assumed authority of the latter could influence the positive image of the Church in the West. In such a scenario, the stable Methodist Church could be used by the Polish state for numerous propaganda purposes. For Szczepkowski himself, such a compromise would have been the only viable solution for the preservation of the Church. It also successfully removed the pro-communist faction of “pastor democrats” from public space. The breakthrough of 1956 brought a stop to the liquidation activities, but – despite the efforts of Rev. Edward Małłek and Rev. Józef Naumiuk – it did not allow Rev. Konstanty Najder to come to Poland and take up the position of superintendent.1 The Office for Religious Affairs also blocked the efforts of the Masurian clergy to renew the piety of the Methodist Church. Despite the fact that the Annual Conference in September 1956 appointed Pastor Karol Oskar Napierski to the position of chief superintendent, after the intervention of Benedyktowicz, the Office for Religious Affairs refused to accept the election result. For the Masurian priests, the former gromadkarze, it was at the same time a turning point in their church work. From that moment on, many of them tried to leave Poland. This situation gave an excuse to remove Małłek from the payroll of the pastors of the Methodist Church in May 1959. In Małłek’s opinion, Benedyktowicz showed exceptional overzealousness and injustice. He, on DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-13

From liquidation to rationing policy 125 behalf of the management of the Church, informed Małłek about this decision in writing – Superintendent Szczepkowski clearly had no say in the matter. In September 1959, Brunon Raszkiewicz, a prominent pastor democrat, prohibited Małłek’s participation in the Annual Conference.2 It was only then that it became clear that removal from the payroll was tantamount to withdrawal of the status of clergyman. From that moment on, this outstanding animator of Methodist life in Masuria endured many years of humiliation. Napierski emigrated to the Federal Republic of Germany about a year after the Office for Religious Affairs prevented him from taking up the post of chief superintendent.3 As a result of the personnel policy of the apparatus of power towards the Methodist Church before 1956, the number of the faithful had decreased. In the largest ecclesiastical district in Masuria this decrease, as shown above, was extremely rapid, although there were other contributing factors in that case: administrative restrictions, support given to the Evangelical-Augsburg Church, which often sought the same believers, and the emigration of believers to Germany and the United States. The decline in the number of the faithful, however, affected the entire Church. At the beginning of 1952, there were 16,177 believers in the whole country; in 1961 there were only 5,311. In the Stalinist period the “pastor democrats” were not a real partner of the communist authorities, but only a tool used by them to implement the policy leading not to the strengthening of the Methodist Church in Poland, but to its degradation. The breakthrough of October 1956 brought about the revision of these assumptions, and in time the new religious policy began to recognize the utility of Methodists (as well as other denominations) in the authorities’ propaganda campaign against the Roman Catholic Church. In subsequent years, the Methodist Church, most often through its representatives in the Polish Ecumenical Council, repeatedly supported the dichotomous interpretation of the times, which consisted in exposing the positive role of the state while discrediting the activity of the Roman Catholic Church. When the authorities of the People’s Republic of Poland and the Roman Catholic Church came into conflict on the occasion of the Polish state’s millennium celebrations, the entities forming the Polish Ecumenical Council were clearly on the side of the state.4 On 12 June 1966, a ceremony was held in the Holy Trinity Lutheran Church and in the National Philharmonic on the occasion of the Millennium of the Polish state under the patronage of the Polish Ecumenical Council. Sermons, papers, declarations of loyalty to the state authorities and expressions of hostility towards the Roman Catholic Church were prompted by pressure from the state administration on the one hand, and a sense of threat from the dominant religion on the other.5 Benedyktowicz, speaking on this day on behalf of the Methodist Church and other Protestant Churches, stressed that “the Millennium celebrations are a manifestation of the unity of the nation, and through their secular and ecclesiastical character they unite believers and non-believers”.6 The change of policy towards the Methodist Church after 1956 is best illustrated by the case of the church in Gdańsk. In 1962 the acting pastor, Kazimierz Opolski applied for financial aid (money to rent buildings the church used) to the

126

From liquidation to rationing policy

local Head of the Unit for Religious Affairs, Leon Piotrowski. Without hesitation, Piotrowski submitted a positive opinion on the application to the Church Fund. He opined that a possible eviction of Methodists could threaten the existence of this church, and in these circumstances the Roman Catholic Church would gain from it, thus strengthening its dominant position in this area, which seems unacceptable from the political point of view.7 The request met with the full approval of Władysław Wilczyński, Head of the General Department of the Church Fund. In the 1960s, the state’s rationing policy towards the Methodist Church was carried out in parallel with the constant surveillance of its clergy and churches,8 largely because the latter were “penetrated by clergy from capitalist states, have a relatively large number of believers and are administratively under foreign headquarters”.9 The operation codenamed “Moda”, realized by the Ministry of Public Security and the Committee for Public Security, was replaced by operation “Metody” – under the supervision (since 1962) of Department IV of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Both the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concentrated their attention on the Methodists’ church management entities and decision-makers. Unlike in the period before 1956, the issues of individual congregations were in the background. One problem they faced was the secret collaborators who, as it later turned out, only pretended to cooperate, thus weakening their insight into the real situation in the Church. This applies, for example, to pastors with the pseudonyms “Henryk” (on the register of the Security Service in Gdańsk and Olsztyn) and “Wiesława” (on the register of the Security Service in Łódź). In the 1970s, the joint efforts of Superintendent Benedyktowicz (in post 1969– 1983) and the Office for Religious Affairs to maintain a Methodist community in Gdańsk were noticeable. When the appointment of a new pastor (Rev. Kazimierz Milewski came to Gdańsk from Grudziądz) was delayed, the Deputy Director of the Unit for Religious Affairs, Józef Mazur, wrote to Benedyktowicz: It is in mutual interest that the state of temporariness in the parish in GdańskWrzeszcz should not be excessively prolonged […] the normal situation, especially in such an important parish as Gdańsk, requires that it is filled by a permanent clergyman.10 Benedyktowicz could then count on the trust and support of the state authorities not only because of his loyal attitude, but also because of his active and creative involvement in peaceful activities.11 This was manifested in his activity as part of the Christian Peace Conference in Prague and his scientific work, which culminated in books showing theoretical and practical aspects of irenology.12 The authorities also noted positive peace initiatives in the environment of world Methodism. In 1975, Benedyktowicz, with the approval of the Office for Religious Affairs, became the President of the Polish Ecumenical Council (he remained in this position until 1983). This was another field of concession granted by the state authorities to the Methodist Church. The doubts of the Office for Religious

From liquidation to rationing policy 127 Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior about Benedyktowicz himself appeared in 1978 around the latter function. In the 1970s, only four priests were negatively evaluated by the authorities: Michał Jamny, Jerzy Markowski, Henryk Konieczny and Jan Paska. The latter, after finishing his work in Masuria, was sent to the parish in Tarnów, where he was subject to surveillance as part of operation “Biblia” (“Bible”). Pastor Marek Raczek was also involved in the same operation (ongoing until 17 October 1989!).13 Methodist clerics commonly manifested their loyalty to the authorities and fulfilled their detailed duties in the 1970s. In accordance with the idea of the rationing policy, they also reported – in cooperation with the Office for Religious Affairs or the Ministry of the Interior – extraordinary events, such as visits of foreign guests, well in advance.14 At that time the Methodist Church was classified by the state authorities as an important subject of internal and international policy, primarily because of the propaganda tasks assigned to it, as to other Churches of the Polish Ecumenical Council, e.g. in the circles of the World Methodist Council. The ecumenism of the Methodists was authentic and visible not only in Warsaw. A positive opinion about the ecumenical work of Lublin Methodists and their clergyman, Pastor Andrzej Merkery, was expressed by Lieutenant Colonel Tadeusz Hawrot from Department IV of the Voivodeship Committee of the Communist Party of Lublin.15 From the information prepared in January 1978 by Lieutenant Colonel Marian Rutkiewicz, Head of Unit IV of the Voivodeship Committee of the Civic Militia in Tarnów, for the Head of Unit III of Department IV of the Ministry of the Interior, it appeared that the Methodists in Tarnów were so open to other religions that they made their chapel available for services to the Church of Seventh Day Adventists and Free Bible Students (an anti-Trinitarian religion, outside the Polish Ecumenical Council!). As a result, on the initiative of Methodists, strong ties with the faithful of these religions were established.16 In the same decade, the Office for Religious Affairs recorded the high activity of the ecumenical center “Unitas” in Chodzież, led by the local pastor of the Methodist Church, and former chief superintendent, Rev. Janusz Ostrowski. This initiative, however, was criticized by Benedyktowicz for its overly broad definition of ecumenism and so was toned down by church leaders. The special services, however, noted the rather modest ecumenical activity of the Kraków Methodist church and its pastor, Rev. Zbigniew Kamiński, reporting, for instance, that during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity in January 1979: “With the exception of the Methodist Church, at all [Kraków] churches and churches [belonging to the Polish Ecumenical Council] so-called agapas were held”.17 Benedyktowicz (along with Rev. Jerzy Gryniakow and Rev. Bogusław Niemczyk) was considered for the post of rector at the Christian Theological Academy in 1980, which is said to have been his life’s dream. In the characteristics of his person prepared for the Ministry of the Interior by collaborator “Michał”, a Lutheran from the Academy community, however, there was little enthusiasm for his appointment:

128 From liquidation to rationing policy Rev. Benedyktowicz seems to be the most versatile and familiar person here. A lot of abilities, though unused, probably mainly due to the dispersion of too many functions. In any case, it seems that in recent years he has decreased his performance putting too much effort into the effect.18 According to the same document, although the President of the Polish Ecumenical Council and chief superintendent of the Methodist Church was highly regarded by the state authorities, his prestige in the academic community was no longer so great, because it was only nominal. The reason for Benedyktowicz’s involvement in social and public affairs was also puzzling to “Michał”. He considered it simple opportunism that had allowed Benedyktowicz to gain such a high position in his own Church as well as in the forum of non-Roman Catholic Churches. Not without significance was also the fact that Benedyktowicz was supposedly “a very difficult man to cooperate with”, who: refers to people below him with great reserve and even disrespect […] However, he is v[ery] submissive to people on whom he is in a sense dependent […] and it is very difficult to find out what his beliefs are. A report from another secret collaborator, “Władysław”, strengthened Major Siejkowski’s conviction about the significant role of non-ideological factors in Benedyktowicz’s career. It was “Władysław” who reported on the great agitation in the ecumenical environment in Poland caused by a Volvo car that Immer, the head of the Evangelical Rhineland Church, handed over to the Polish Ecumenical Council, which in turn handed in over to Benedyktowicz’s son. The President of the Council placed another son in the United States of America, which was meant to “exclude his patriotism”. In the circumstances, “Władysław” advised Siejkowski that the authorities (and he had already talked about this with Tadeusz Dusik from the Office for Religious Affairs) should consider replacing Benedyktowicz in the Polish Ecumenical Council with Bishop Tadeusz Majewski from the Polish Catholic Church.19 The Volvo incident was also reported a few days earlier by collaborator “Robert”. According to his account, there was a common belief among the administrative employees of the Polish Ecumenical Council that the council had become a “private institution” of President Benedyktowicz and Secretary Rev. Zdzisław Pawlik.20 Pastor Adam Kuczma was also supposed to be critical of Benedyktowicz,21 which is significant because he seemed an obvious candidate to take over from Benedyktowicz in both the Methodist and possibly ecumenical structures. In the opinion of Kuczma himself, however, Benedyktowicz wanted to exclude him from the Board of the Council, “because he shows too much interest in the proper management of Council funds”.22 Unflattering opinions on Benedyktowicz’s “self-serving” attitude were apparently expressed, according informer “Wyznawca”, by Rev. Woldemar Gastpary. His opinion was important to the authorities, as he was then the rector of the Christian Theological Academy. The opinion of the former President of the Polish Ecumenical Council, Bishop Jan Niewieczerzał of the Evangelical-Reformed

From liquidation to rationing policy 129 Church, must have carried similar weight. He was said to express a surprisingly strong belief that Benedyktowicz could afford to ignore criticism not only from influential church activists, but also from representatives of the Office for Religious Affairs, due to the fact that his position in Poland was determined by unspecified circles in the Soviet Union, where he enjoyed a very good reputation.23 The most critical assessment was formulated by informer “Fux”, who attempted to weaken the position of Benedyktowicz in the eyes of the state authorities. The available documentation shows that he was an influential figure both in the Methodist Church and in the Polish Ecumenical Council, and active in international bodies including the World Methodist Council.24 All we know of “Fux’s” identity is his date of birth – 1 March – though we do not know what year.25 The assessment of Benedyktowicz’s work expressed by “Fux” in March 1978 could have been part of a campaign to attain the positions held by Benedyktowicz for himself. It should be mentioned that a similar scenario emerged in 1969, when denunciation by “Fux” blocked the promotion of Pastor Gerhard Fröhlich to the leadership of the Church. In 1979, the term of office of the President of the Polish Ecumenical Council ended. In the opinion that “Fux” passed on to security officer Krzysztof Socha, the Church representatives responsible for appointing the President initially doubted that Benedyktowicz would be re-elected. Benedyktowicz’s conviction that he would remain in office stemmed from his trust in the support of the Office for Religious Affairs. In such circumstances, with the decisive support of the Office, he had held on to the position of chief superintendent in the Methodist Church in 1977. According to “Fux’s” predictions, this tactic had no chance of success this time: Benedyktowicz’s style of work is unacceptable to the members of the Polish Ecumenical Council. The Council’s inaction is the sole merit of Benedyktowicz – there are no international contacts due to the so-called selectivity as he defines it. It consists in the fact that in the case of invitations to the Polish Ecumenical Council, Pawlik goes to Benedyktowicz and they decide among themselves which of them has time to leave. If none of them fits, the matter goes ad acta, the other members are not even informed about the invitation proposal.26 The president was also said to have monopolized the reception of foreign guests. If he felt that the ecumenical representatives from other countries who were willing to visit Poland were not attractive enough, he refused to accept the delegation and did not allow other representatives of the Council to serve as hosts. From the information provided by informer “Władysław”, it appeared that the disregard for such delegations actually took place and that it had a negative impact on the perception of the entire Polish non-Roman Catholic community in the West. An example was the visit of delegates from the World Council of Churches and the Evangelical Council of Churches to Poland in 1978. The Vice-President of the latter organization, Bishop Hildt, stated that he “observed a decline in interest in

130

From liquidation to rationing policy

further contacts between the Council and the organization he represented and that the Council’s interest in social and ecumenical issues is declining”. Bishop Hildt also noted that he was received by the Head of the Foreign Department of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party, Piątkowski, and that he no longer had the “honor” of conducting talks with Benedyktowicz.27 Benedyktowicz was thus disqualified as the President of the Polish Ecumenical Council, above all because of his questionable ethics and style of work: Benedyktowicz is unable to bring anything constructive to the work of the Council because of his reluctance to appear there [i.e. in the seat of the Polish Ecumenical Council at Miodowa Street in Warsaw]. It is very good if he comes by once a week for 1–2 hours in order to deal with matters requiring his signature or decision. Therefore, matters are shelved, because no one is authorized to replace him. He consistently adheres to his motto that the best at work are two-person teams, in which the other person has nothing to say, and this is the case in reality.28 In the opinion of “Fux”, this style of work contrasted with the style of activity of Bishop Jan Niewieczerzał, who carried out the broadest possible consultation in all ecumenical matters, conducted in an atmosphere of consensus: Benedyktowicz is a complete denial of that man. He is overbearing, arbitrary, without friends, surrounded by people who are not willing to accept him. He has rejected the system of collegial work, believes that he will do everything best himself, so in effect he does almost nothing. Meetings of the Management Board or the Presidium are rare and boil down to forcing acceptance of his decision. There is organizational disorder in the Council, there is no strict division of competences […] De nomine committees operating in the Council, de facto do not function. Benedyktowicz does not want to, or it is too inferior for him to give them any direction of action. He absolutely does not get involved in these matters, does not fertilize them with initiatives, ideas, etc., which leads to a specific kind of disorder of these bodies. The reasons for this situation were seen by “Fux” to lie in the fact that “Benedyktowicz uses both the Methodist Church and the Polish Council exclusively to build his authority in order to achieve the position of the ChAT (Christian Theological Academy) rector, which is his dream.” It is no secret to anyone that if he is appointed there, on the same day he will relinquish both the chairmanship in the Polish Ecumenical Council and the superintendence in the Church. Therefore, he treats both these functions temporarily as a sad duty and thus does not pay any attention to them. “Fux’s” opinion on the causes of the crisis in the Methodist Church sounded shocking. The source and cause of the destabilization was here named as the very

From liquidation to rationing policy 131 man to whom are normally attributed the greatest achievements in building the splendor of Polish Methodism. As “Fux” stated: The Church under his direction is undergoing a clear crisis. The number of believers has fallen to about 1,000 people, and a number of institutions are vacant, i.e. intended for losses. Among the clergy there is no unity, conflicts are born, he is disliked by believers and clergy, he lacks time to administer the Church, he never appears in parishes – he is the myth director, about whom you only hear. For the people of both the Church and the Council he is not accessible, a typical autocrat and satrap. In conclusion, “Fux” recommended that the authorities should replace Benedyktowicz with another person in the Polish Ecumenical Council and – just as informer “Michał” suggested – should support another candidate for the position of rector of the Christian Theological Academy, which the “rector Benedyktowicz” would “knock into a cocked hat”. As already mentioned, the opinions of “Fux” should be treated with great caution. They were formulated by a person high up in the hierarchy of Polish Methodism and ecumenism. That person was clearly jealous of Benedyktowicz’s position, and perhaps even coveted the positions he held. It is therefore difficult to decide to what extent, and in what manner, the evaluations of “Fux”, other informers, and the people they quoted influenced the Office for Religious Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior in their decision-making. Certainly, Benedyktowicz retained the presidency of the Polish Ecumenical Council in the elections held on 29 November 1979 by the General Meeting of the Council. He was not, however, appointed rector of the Christian Theological Academy in 1980. That position was taken on by Rev. Jan Bogusław Niemczyk. Due to the similarity of some of “Fux’s” allegations against Benedyktowicz with those of other secret collaborators (e.g. in the Volvo case), their combined evidence casts a shadow over the idealized portrait of Benedyktowicz created by Rev. Edward Puślecki.29 Yet, the fact that Benedyktowicz was re-elected as President of the Council stands against the assessments made by secret collaborators in the ecumenical environment. It should also be assumed that knowledge of the Volvo case, for example, was not common among Methodists and other faithful from the non-Roman Catholic Churches. As far as religious policy is concerned, the informers’ reports show that its regulatory disclosure and increasing concessions towards the activities of the Methodist Church and its people, caused in the late 1970s a situation reminiscent of the factional battles of the 1950s. However, while in the Stalinist period it was possible to see open actions and an ideological background to the conflict, in 1978 it was all about behind-the-scenes activity and veiled human ambitions. Within operation “Metody” and operation “Rada”, the Ministry of the Interior also had other secret collaborators who provided information about Benedyktowicz’s activity. Thanks to informer “Andrzej”, a member of the management of the Methodist Church, the authorities knew about possibly all

132

From liquidation to rationing policy

intra-church domestic affairs. Eavesdropping in the headquarters of the Council also played a huge role in the surveillance. Perhaps Benedyktowicz was aware of this, which might explain his unwillingness to stay in the office on Miodowa Street. The existence of such wiretapping is revealed, for example, by a report on a covert repair carried out during the night of 17 to 18 April 1979. The Volvo case and other manifestations of “self-interest” were to be used as a means of recruitment considered by Major Siejkowski and based on the possibility of discrediting Benedyktowicz. The effect was fully satisfactory: “the existing damage was removed and the exploitation of the installed devices started”, with the assurance that “it was not found that there was a deconspiracy”.30 Benedyktowicz was targeted by actions that were supposed to lead to his recruitment as a “secret collaborator”, according to the well-known “Work Plans” of the Ministry of the Interior for the years 1976–1977 and 1978–1979. These actions apparently ended in failure. The recruitment plan for 1976–1977 was certainly unsuccessful, since the plan was extended to 1978–1979. He was treated as a “personal source” on the issues related to the organization of the Fifth General Christian Peace Assembly in Prague.31 Benedyktowicz’s explicit support for communist power (although he had previously criticized the introduction of martial law) was expressed in his membership of the Consultative Council attached to the Chairman of the Council of State, Wojciech Jaruzelski, in 1986–1989. He was the only clergyman in the group of 56 members.32 Pastor Adam Kuczma, as the chief superintendent of the Methodist Church in 1983–1989 and the President of the Polish Ecumenical Council in 1986–1990, made a career similar to Benedyktowicz’s in its successes.

Notes 1 See: K. Urban, Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2000, 454–455; AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1613/J, c. 269, “Agent report” source “Cybulka”, Olsztyn 12.04.1957. 2 See: E. Małłek, Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016, ch. 166 “‘Pucz’ – spisek w Kościele Metodystycznym”, ch. 167 “Starania o wyjazd za granicę”, 540–548. 3 E. Kruk, “Uzupełnienie do listy duchownych”, Kartki Mazurskie 59 (2008, no. 5). 4 See: K. Białecki, “Chrześcijańskie Kościoły mniejszościowe wobec orędzia biskupów polskich do biskupów niemieckich, obchodów Milenium Chrztu Polski i Tysiąclecia Państwa Polskiego”, in Milenium kontra Tysiąclecie 1966 r., K. Białecki, J. Miłosz, S. Jankowiak (eds), Poznań 2007; B. Noszczak, Anty-Milenium. Konflikt państwa z Kościołem na tle obchodów tysiąclecia chrztu Polski (1956–1966/1967), Warsaw 2000. 5 O. Kiec, “Uroczystości millenijne w 1966 roku i mniejszości wyznaniowe w Polsce”, Roczniki Historyczne 68 (2002), 190; O. Kiec, “Die Millenniumsfeierlichkeiten in Polen 1966 und die Rolle der Minderheitskirchen zwischen Kommunismus ind Katholizismus”, in Im Räderwerk des “real existierenden Sozialismus”. Kirchen in Ostmittel- und Osteuropa von Stalin bis Gorbatschow, Hg. H. Lehmann, J. H. Schjørring (eds), Göttingen 2003. 6 W. Benedyktowicz, “Tysiąclecie”, Pielgrzym Polski (1966, no. 4), 34–37. 7 See: P. Szczudłowski, “Powojenne dzieje wspólnoty metodystycznej w Gdańsku”, in Nierzymskokatolickie Kościoły i grupy wyznaniowe w Gdańsku, W. Pałubicki, H. Cyrzan (eds), Gdańsk and Koszalin 1998, 146–147.

From liquidation to rationing policy 133 8 See: A. Chabasińska, “Zarys historii parafii ewangelicko-metodystycznej w Międzyrzeczu od roku 1945”, Nadwarciański Rocznik Historyczno-Archiwalny 16 (2009), 251–252. 9 G. Jasiński, “Kościoły i wyznania niekatolickie w województwie olsztyńskim w latach 1965 i 1966 w świetle sprawozdania Służby Bezpieczeństwa”, Komunikaty MazurskoWarmińskie (2013, no. 2), 276. 10 See: P. Szczudłowski, “Powojenne dzieje wspólnoty metodystycznej w Gdańsku”, 148. 11 See: W. Batóg, W. A. Glass, “Mosty wzajemnego zrozumienia. Wizyta Billy’ego Grahama w Polsce w październiku 1978 roku – przebieg i skutki”, Dzieje Najnowsze 51(3) (2019), DOI: 10.12775/DN.2019.3.13. 12 See: W. Benedyktowicz, Próba irenologii chrześcijańskiej. Doświadczenia praskie, Warsaw 1965; W. Benedyktowicz, Kościoły chrześcijańskie w walce o pokój, Warsaw 1967. 13 AIPN, Kr 034/34, c. 54–57, Mirosław Nazaruk, “Analysis of Operational Materials of the Object Matter Bible”, Tarnów 17.10.1989. 14 For example: information from Rev. Janusz Ostrowski about the arrival of pastor Eisel from Germany to Słupsk together with a package of detailed information about his plans. AIPN, sign. BU 1585/20256, c. 2, letter from UW in Koszalin to the SocioAdministrative Department of the MSW, Koszalin 5.08.1974. 15 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 29–31, ppłk Tadeusz Hawrot, “Information on the week of prayers for Christian unity”, Lublin 31.01.1978. See also: M. Orłowski, “Metodyści w Lublinie (1953–2018). 65 lat pracy duszpasterskiej i dialogu ekumenicznego”, Roczniki Teologiczne 66(4) (2019), 151–167, DOI: 10.18290/rt.2019.66.4–10. 16 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 7–9, ppłk Marian Rutkiewicz “Information on the intention to organize a branch of the Polish Ecumenical Council in Tarnów”, Tarnów 2.01.1978. 17 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 139–141, ppłk Józef Biel, “Information about the week of prayers for Christian unity organized by the Branch of the Polish Ecumenical Council in Kraków”, Kraków 29.01.1979. 18 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 14–19, mjr Stanisław Siejkowski “Information from a meeting with an agent, pseudonym Michał, at MK Długa”, Warsaw 21.01.1978. 19 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 20–22, mjr Stanisław Siejkowski “Information from the meeting of 19.I.78 with an agent pseudonym ‘Władysław’ in the Victoria café”, Warsaw 21.01.1978. 20 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 23–24, mjr Stanisław Siejkowski “Information from the meeting of 12.I.78 with an agent pseudonym ‘Robert’ in the Świtezianka café”, Warsaw 14.01.1978. 21 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 42–43, mjr Stanisław Siejkowski “Information from the meeting of 9.II.78 with an agent pseudonym ‘Robert’ in the Świtezianka café”, Warsaw 11.02.1978. 22 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 194–196, mjr Stanisław Siejkowski “Information from a meeting with an agent, pseudonym Michał, at MK Długa”, Warsaw 16.03.1978. 23 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 44–45, “Agent report” source “Władysław”, 21.04.1978. 24 See: M. Biełaszko, A. Piekarska, P. Tomasik, C. Wilanowski (eds), Plany pracy Departamentu IV MSW na lata 1972–1979, Warsaw 2007, 279, 283. 25 AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1616/J, c. 190. 26 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 52–55, “Agent report” source “Fux”, Warsaw 6.03.1978. 27 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 114–115, information of source “Władysław”. 28 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 52–55. 29 See: E. Puślecki, “Szlachetny Mistrz”, Rocznik Teologiczny ChAT 40(1–2) (1998). 30 AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 206, mjr Stanisław Siejkowski “Report”, 19.04.1979. 31 See: Biełaszko et al., Plany pracy Departamentu IV MSW, 180, 279–280, 283. AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 47, mjr Stanisław Siejkowski “Przedsięwzięcie”. In the quoted “Information” by K. Socha, there is a note about the existence of “a folder about Benedyktowicz”. 32 See: A. Garlicki, “Rozmowy (nie)kontrolowane”, Polityka 2490 (2005, no. 6), 75–77.

134

From liquidation to rationing policy

Bibliography Archiwum Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej (AIPN Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance). AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 7–9, 14–24, 29–31, 42–45, 47, 52–55, 114– 115, 139–141, 194–196, 206. AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1616/J, c. 190. AIPN, sign. BU 1585/20256, c. 2, AIPN, Kr 034/34, c. 54–57. Batóg, W., Glass, W. A., “Mosty wzajemnego zrozumienia. Wizyta Billy’ego Grahama w Polsce w październiku 1978 roku: przebieg i skutki”, Dzieje Najnowsze 51(3) (2019), DOI: 10.12775/DN.2019.3.13, 290–338. Benedyktowicz, W., Próba irenologii chrześcijańskiej. Doświadczenia praskie, Warsaw 1965. Benedyktowicz, W., “Tysiąclecie”, Pielgrzym Polski, 4 (1966), 34–37. Benedyktowicz, W., Kościoły chrześcijańskie w walce o pokój, Warsaw 1967. Białecki, K., “Chrześcijańskie Kościoły mniejszościowe wobec orędzia biskupów polskich do biskupów niemieckich, obchodów Milenium Chrztu Polski i Tysiąclecia Państwa Polskiego”, in Milenium kontra Tysiąclecie 1966 r., K. Białecki, J. Miłosz, S. Jankowiak (eds), Poznań 2007. Biełaszko, M., Piekarska, A., Tomasik, P., Wilanowski, C. (eds), Plany Pracy Departamentu IV MSW na lata 1972–1979, Warsaw 2007. Chabasińska, A., “Zarys historii parafii ewangelicko-metodystycznej w Międzyrzeczu od roku 1945”, Nadwarciański Rocznik Historyczno-Archiwalny 16 (2009), 245–253. Garlicki, A., “Rozmowy (nie)kontrolowane”, Polityka 2490(6) (2005), 75–77. Jasiński, G., “Kościoły i wyznania niekatolickie w województwie olsztyńskim w latach 1965 i 1966 w świetle sprawozdania Służby Bezpieczeństwa”, Komunikaty MazurskoWarmińskie 2 (2013), 269–282. Kiec, O., “Uroczystości millenijne w 1966 roku i mniejszości wyznaniowe w Polsce”, Roczniki Historyczne 68 (2002), 175–193. Kiec, O., “Die Millenniumsfeierlichkeiten in Polen 1966 und die Rolle der Minderheitskirchen zwischen Kommunismus ind Katholizismus”, in Im Räderwerk des “Real Existierenden Sozialismus”. Kirchen in Ostmittel-und Osteuropa von Stalin bis Gorbatschow, Hg. H. Lehmann, J. H. Schjørring (eds), Göttingen 2003. Kruk, E., “Uzupełnienie do listy duchownych”, Kartki Mazurskie 59(5) (2008), 3–5. Małłek, E., Gdzie jest moja ojczyzna? Wspomnienia, Białystok and Ełk 2016. Noszczak, B., Anty-Milenium. Konflikt państwa z Kościołem na tle obchodów tysiąclecia chrztu Polski (1956–1966/1967), Warsaw 2000. Orłowski, M., “Metodyści w Lublinie (1953–2018). 65 lat pracy duszpasterskiej i dialogu ekumenicznego”, Roczniki Teologiczne 66(4) (2019), 151–167, DOI: 10.18290/ rt.2019.66.4–10. Puślecki, E., “Szlachetny Mistrz”, Rocznik Teologiczny ChAT 40(1–2) (1998). Szczudłowski, P., “Powojenne dzieje wspólnoty metodystycznej w Gdańsku”, in Nierzymskokatolickie Kościoły i grupy wyznaniowe w Gdańsku, W. Pałubicki, H. Cyrzan (eds), Gdańsk and Koszalin 1998. Urban, K., Luteranie i metodyści na Mazurach 1945–1957. Wybór materiałów, Kraków 2000.

14 The religious policy of the Polish state towards religious minorities, 1945–1989

The religious policy of the Polish state towards religious minorities followed an intentionally atheist and decommissioning model. The unchangeable and strategic aim of the party and state authorities in the whole period under discussion (except late 1980s) was the disappearance of all forms of religion. The processes of desacralization of public life (secularization and promotion of atheism) were officially launched in 1948, after the short-lived pragmatic compromise, as accomplished within the formula of “people’s democracy”. The intensity of the hostility decreased markedly with the political breakthrough of 1956.1 Since then, only two religious groups – the Jehovah’s Witnesses2 and the Greek Orthodox Church – had been subject to openly repressive and decommissioning activities. The remaining religious minorities were able to operate within newly established limits. The erosion of the political system of the People’s Republic of Poland at the end of 1980s brought about a state of affiliation (positive cooperation) in the relationship between the state authorities and the majority of the non-Roman Catholic denominations.3 The main means of implementing the religious policy, with the cooperation of religious minorities, was through appointments to leadership positions within their denominational structures. The regulatory character of the religious policy resulted primarily from the intention of the decision-makers to use minority religious groups to combat or neutralize the influence of the Roman Catholic Church. This approach was directed primarily at the Churches included in the Polish Ecumenical Council. Utilizing the structures of the Polish Catholic Church4 and, to a lesser extent, the Mariavite Churches,5 steps were taken to establish an organizational “catholic alternative”. Another justification of the regulatory policy was that the associations of religious minorities could be used for propaganda purposes – mainly on the international stage – where their representatives could testify to the state’s respect for religious pluralism and freedom of confession. The attempts to secularize the minorities thus used were not abandoned, however, and were fostered by, among other things, supporting new developments in Protestant theology. The common attitude among the religious associations subject to concession and regulation was one of submission and opportunistic compromise. All the associations (including those operating on the edges of mainstream religious policy) were subject to surveillance and control. DOI: 10.4324/9781003187417-14

136

The religious policy of the Polish state

Religious policy was formulated and implemented by three power centers: specialized agencies of the ruling party, specialist and formally administrative offices, and specialized units within the security apparatus. The systemic position of these entities in relation to each other and to the subjects of their policy was regulated by the formal competences of the authority officials. The policy towards religious minorities was the chief domain of the Office for Religious Affairs (UdSW). Their competence within this area far surpassed that of the security personnel. The UdSW was the only one of the decision-making bodies that perceived religious matters in a comprehensive way, adopting a complementary approach and taking historical, legal, doctrinal and theological aspects into account. In that center, the most mature (multi-faceted) concepts and plans of religious policy towards religious minorities were developed. All the heads of the UdSW had high methodological qualifications, in accordance with the needs of religious policy. Their appointments were never random and proved that the authorities were aware of how demanding and specialized the religious policy area was in comparison with other policy areas. As far as religious minorities was concerned, the specialist qualifications of the Department III employees were most significant. Serafin Kiryłowicz – a theologian and specialist in religious studies – ensured excellent results for the Office, even in the most intricate areas of the functioning of nonRoman Catholic religious organizations. Other officials within the structure had similarly extensive knowledge. Frequent training sessions under their supervision bore fruit by constantly increasing the competence of officials concerned with religious matters at voivodeship and poviat levels. Establishing the system at the lowest level was based on in-depth political supervision of the religious associations and was achieved with the participation of local officials. As the majority of the UdSW’s specific decisions resulted from the strategic vision of the religious policy, the decision-making model was characterized by a mainly deductive procedure: decisions at the general level dictated those of more specific character concerned with sub-goals. By the end of 1980s, influence was beginning to travel the other way as well – from the particular to the general.6 The position of the subjects of religious policy (in which category the religious groups were counted) was shaped by the decisions of the political protagonists. The fraught relationships between Lutherans and Methodists and between Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Churches,7 frictions within the United Evangelical Church,8 conflicts between Jehovah’s Witnesses and other interpretational communities, and the antagonisms between the Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic churches were phenomena resulting not as much from historical prejudices and doctrinal arguments, as from the concepts and activities of the authorities. The factional antagonisms within the Union of Churches of the Seventh Day Adventists, within the Evangelical Lutheran Church or within the Methodist Church were, consequently, the result of members promoting or condemning certain attitudes towards the authorities and the socio-political order created by them. The authorities used various methods to achieve this purpose, including an array of positive and negative stimuli (known informally as the “carrot-and-stick policy”), to which the religious minorities responded in various ways: submission

The religious policy of the Polish state 137 (as a way of achieving a reward or avoiding punishment), identification (with the political inclinations of the authorities), and internalization (the desire to be right in the activity undertaken). The religious policy of the state towards religious minorities was shaped by many factors. Among these there were: ideology (materialist philosophy, Marxism-Leninism, atheism); the confessional structure of the population (monolithic vs. multi-polar confessional world); the unification of confessional and national policy (on issues of de-Germanization, de-Ukrainianization, Polonization and re-Polonization); the foreign policy and geopolitical location of the country (the threat from so-called “German revisionism”, the dependence of Polish religious policy on that of the USSR); the territorial placements of the religious groups and their followers (the clusters determined by history and shaped by the compulsory transfers of populations); and the historical religious rites and doctrinal and theological features of the respective religious associations. The religious policy towards religious minorities met with mixed success. The strategic aim of desacralization of the public space was not achieved. The smaller aims, related directly to the activities undertaken towards and based on the nonRoman Catholic religious associations in relation to the majority Church, were partially reached, to the satisfaction of the decision-makers. The frontal attack of the authorities on the Roman Catholic Church in the years 1965–1966 was carried out with the participation of the minority Churches. Attempts to limit the local influence of the Roman Catholic Church with the participation of the Polish Catholic Church and the Mariavite Churches were also partially successful. A similar effect was achieved by the activities of the Orthodox Church towards the Greek Orthodox Church. All the minority churches and religious groups subject to regulatory policy were useful to the authorities as a means of attaining their propaganda goals on the international stage. The positive image of the People’s Republic of Poland was adopted – and the former negative attitude rejected – by the many religious and ecumenical delegations visiting Poland. Visits of Polish delegates to the West served a similar purpose. The plans linked to the Evangelical Lutheran Church and related to re-Polonization were ultimately unfulfilled, while the attempts to liquidate the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Greek Orthodox Church were utterly thwarted. Both religious groups were successful, as they survived and were not morally entangled in the system, which allowed them to continue their activity without any burdens in the new reality after 1989.9 The authorities were less interested in various other associations: Muslims, Old Believers, Pietists, Irenicists, Pentecostals (those outside the structures of the United Evangelical Church), Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, Syncretists and communities operating outside the official registration of the authorities. These groups were of less concern partly because they did not have many members, but primarily because they were not considered a threat to the country’s policy. While these groups were not included in major conceptual programs, or in large-scale operations, they remained under regular and practical surveillance. This was the most outspoken attestation of the strengthening of the system based on in-depth political supervision over religious associations and the whole of religious life. From

138

The religious policy of the Polish state

the perspective of the authorities, the benefit to be derived from the existence of the associations (noticed only after 1956) was that they provided an opportunity for international propaganda. The religious mosaic was offered as evidence that the People’s Republic of Poland respected the principles of religious pluralism and religious liberty. As Katarzyna Krzysztofek observes: The period of the Polish People’s Republic is known as the time when the law was an instrument in the hands of the authorities, and human and citizens’ rights were only illusory. The specificity of the law during this period resulted from its being interpreted through the Marxist-Leninist ideology commonly accepted by the political decision-makers. Although the Constitution of 1952 seemed to guarantee freedom of conscience and religion to citizens, and freedom to fulfill religious functions to religious communities, the interpretation of the Constitution led to completely different conclusions.10

Notes 1 See: E. Bilska-Wodecka, “From Multi-confessional to Mono-confessional State. State– Church Relations in Poland following World War II”, GeoJournal 67 (2006), 341–355, DOI: 10.1007/s10708–007–9058-z. 2 See: J. Mironczuk, “Świadkowie Jehowy wobec władz Polski Ludowej – geneza kontestacji”, in Władze Polski Ludowej a mniejszościowe związki wyznaniowe, T. J. Zieliński (ed.), Warsaw and Katowice 2010, 85–101; M. Bielecki, “Odmowa pełnienia służby wojskowej przez Świadków Jehowy jako realizacja klauzuli sumienia. Uwarunkowania prawno-historyczne”, Studia z Prawa Wyznaniowego 19 (2016), 107–128; M. Bielecki, “Polityka państwa Polskiego wobec Świadków Jehowy w okresie PRL i po przemianach ustrojowych. Zarys problematyki”, Przegląd PrawnoEkonomiczny 36 (2016), 28–50. 3 See: R. Michalak, Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego wobec mniejszości religijnych w latach 1945–1989, Zielona Góra 2014, passim. 4 See: K. Białecki, Kościół Narodowy w Polsce w latach 1944–1965, Poznań 2003. 5 See: S. Rybak, Mariawityzm. Dzieje i współczesność, Warsaw 2011; K. Zamirski, “Relacje między Państwem Polskim a Kościołem Starokatolickim Mariawitów w aspekcie historyczno-prawnym”, Przegląd Prawa Wyznaniowego 2 (2019), 251–265, DOI: 10.34888/x44v-m330. 6 See: A. Pasieka, “Conflict and Coexistence of Church and State Authorities in (Post) Communist Poland”, in Atheist Secularism and its Discontents. A Comparative Study of Religion and Communism in Eurasia, T. Ngo, J. Quijada (eds), London and New York 2015. 7 See: S. Dudra, Polski Autokefaliczny Kościół Prawosławny w obszarze polityki wyznaniowej i polityki narodowościowej po II wojnie światowej, Warsaw 2019, passim; J. Koredczuk, “Polityka państwa wobec kościołów na Dolnym Śląsku w latach 1945– 1956”, Przegląd Prawa Wyznaniowego 2 (2019), 121–134, DOI: 10.34888/s0yn-mk78. 8 See: J. Mironczuk, Polityka państwa wobec Zjednoczonego Kościoła Ewangelicznego w Polsce (1947–1989), Warsaw 2006, passim. 9 See: E. Bilska-Wodecka, “Poland. Post-communist Religious Revival”, in The Changing Religious Landscape of Europe, H. Knippenberg (ed.), Amsterdam 2005, 120–144.

The religious policy of the Polish state 139 10 K. Krzysztofek, “Wpływ prawodawstwa okresu Polski Ludowej na przepisy prawa wyznaniowego III Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej–wybrane zagadnienia”, Studia z Prawa Wyznaniowego 21 (2018), 301–322, DOI: 10.31743/spw.199.

Bibliography Białecki, K., Kościół Narodowy w Polsce w latach 1944–1965, Poznań 2003. Bielecki, M., “Odmowa pełnienia służby wojskowej przez Świadków Jehowy jako realizacja klauzuli sumienia. Uwarunkowania prawno-historyczne”, Studia z Prawa Wyznaniowego 19 (2016a), 107–128. Bielecki, M., “Polityka państwa Polskiego wobec Świadków Jehowy w okresie PRL i po przemianach ustrojowych. Zarys problematyki”, Przegląd Prawno-Ekonomiczny 36 (2016b), 28–50. Bilska-Wodecka, E., “Poland. Post-Communist Religious Revival”, in The Changing Religious Landscape of Europe, H. Knippenberg (ed.), Amsterdam 2005. Bilska-Wodecka, E., “From Multi-confessional to Mono-confessional State. State–Church Relations in Poland following World War II”, GeoJournal 67 (2006), 341–355, DOI: 10.1007/s10708–007–9058-z. Dudra, S., Polski Autokefaliczny Kościół Prawosławny w obszarze polityki wyznaniowej i polityki narodowościowej po II wojnie światowej, Warsaw 2019. Koredczuk, J., “Polityka państwa wobec kościołów na Dolnym Śląsku w latach 1945– 1956”, Przegląd Prawa Wyznaniowego 2 (2019), 121–134, DOI: 10.34888/s0yn-mk78. Krzysztofek, K., “Wpływ prawodawstwa okresu Polski Ludowej na przepisy prawa wyznaniowego III Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej–wybrane zagadnienia”, Studia z Prawa Wyznaniowego 21 (2018), DOI: 10.31743/spw.199, 301–322. Michalak, R., Polityka wyznaniowa państwa polskiego wobec mniejszości religijnych w latach 1945–1989, Zielona Góra 2014. Mironczuk, J., Polityka państwa wobec Zjednoczonego Kościoła Ewangelicznego w Polsce (1947–1989), Warsaw 2006. Mironczuk, J., “Świadkowie Jehowy wobec władz Polski Ludowej – geneza kontestacji”, in Władze Polski Ludowej a mniejszościowe związki wyznaniowe, T. J. Zieliński (ed), Warsaw and Katowice 2010. Pasieka, A., “Conflict and Coexistence of Church and State Authorities in (Post)Communist Poland”, in Atheist Secularism and its Discontents. A Comparative Study of Religion and Communism in Eurasia, T. Ngo, J. Quijada (eds), London and New York 2015. Rybak, S., Mariawityzm. Dzieje i współczesność, Warsaw 2011. Zamirski, K., “Relacje między Państwem Polskim a Kościołem Starokatolickim Mariawitów w aspekcie historyczno-prawnym”, Przegląd Prawa Wyznaniowego 2 (2019), 251–265, DOI: 10.34888/x44v-m330.

Conclusions

The religious policy of the Polish state towards the Methodist Church in the years 1945–1989 was mostly hostile, displaying varying degrees of antagonism and repression. At least four stages can be identified: ·· ·· ·· ··

1945–1949: period of rationing policy; 1949–1956: period of repressive and dismantling policy; 1957–1969: period of stabilized regulatory policy; 1969–1989: period of rationing policy with a tendency to increase concessions in the areas of church activity.

The most important center of power in formulating and implementing religious policy towards Methodists was the Office for Religious Affairs. At the same time, the Ministry of Public Security, the Committee for Public Security, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs (directly through operations “Moda” and “Metody”, and contextually through operation “Rada”) also carried out operational activities in terms of state security (as it was then understood). In the ideological dimension, inscribed in the general guidelines for religious associations, the status of the Methodist Church in the social space was decided by the communist (MarxistLeninist) and pro-atheistic Polish United Workers’ Party. The policy of the party and state authorities towards the Methodist Church was based on unique assumptions and plans in comparison with the policy towards other denominations. This resulted from the specificity of Methodism (American identity and relations of the Church with Methodists in the United States of America and more widely in the West) and from the territorial direction of domestic activity (mission among the Masurian population, which was also subject to the state re-Polonization program). Both these issues influenced the state’s religious policy of liquidating the Methodist Church during the Stalinist period. The Masurian case also led the Methodist Church into antagonistic relations with the Evangelical-Augsburg Church at that time. Especially then, religious policy was the main phenomenon determining the functioning of the Methodist Church. Its successes and crises were also determined by internal factors. In the first case, the titanic effort of clergy (especially in Masuria); in the second, the factional battles in the 1950s and personal conflicts in the 1970s.

142

Conclusions

The sources collected and used in this book have made it possible to present a much more realistic picture of Polish Methodism in 1945–1989 than the one which, mainly due to confessional publications, has hitherto been available. The most important figures in the Methodist Church as presented in this study (the choice is, of course, subjective) are often persons unjustly forgotten and insufficiently addressed in the literature (for example, Werner T. Wickstrom, Edmund Chambers, Józef Naumiuk, Józef Szczepkowski, Antoni Liszkiewicz, Edward Małłek), or who appear much more controversial than the literature acknowledges (for example, Marian Lubecki, Witold Benedyktowicz, Adam Kuczma). Analysis of the available sources leads to an unambiguous conclusion: the Methodist Church in Poland, with significant support from Western clergy, especially American ones, entered a path of effective mission and evangelization after 1945, which could have resulted in the formation of a strong religious union with tens of thousands of believers. The main factor that stopped this progress at the beginning of the 1950s was hostile policy of the communist state, which pursued actions directly aimed at harming the Church and stimulating conflicts within it. In the clash of two unequal forces – Methodism and communism – the Methodist Church, in the end, emerged victorious, though damaged. It retained its identity and subjectivity, while the Polish United Workers’ Party ceased to exist. In 2020, the Methodist Community in Poland has 4,500 believers, 30 clergy and 46 parishes. The communist party was dissolved 30 years earlier.

Annex

1. A letter from the Polish Methodist Church in Poland to the Minister of Public Administration, Warsaw 24.08.1945 AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 20. Pismo Polskiego Kościoła Metodystycznego w RP do Obywatela Ministra Administracji Publicznej, Warszawa 24.08.1945 r. The Methodist Church included many U.S. Presidents, President Roosevelt’s wife and current President Truman. The leaders of the Labour Party movement were pastors of the Methodist Church such as Landsbury and Carter, and this Labour movement is now under strong leadership from the Methodist Church. The President of the world’s largest state (China), Chang Kai-Shek and his wife are also Methodists, and the President is still a lay preacher of our Church […] The Methodist Church stood and stands on the ground of the separation of Church and State […] The Polish Methodist Church, consisting of Polish citizens representing the left-wing, democratic and progressive wing of the Polish Reformation, refers to the traditions of Rej, Modrzewski, Łaski, the Polish Brothers, Gen. Dąbrowski, Traugutt. We expect to quickly settle our rights, because we do not want to reach for the support of our brothers in America and Great Britain, and in particular our brother – President Truman – although we fear [that], if this state lasts longer, they will learn about our wrongs.

2. A letter from the Chief Superintendent of the Methodist Church in the Republic of Poland, Werner T. Wickstrom, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Warsaw 19.08.1948 AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 105–106. Pismo Superintendenta Naczelnego Kościoła Metodystycznego w Polsce Wernera T. Wickstroma do Ministra Spraw Zagranicznych, Warszawa 19.08.1948 r. On the occasion of the establishment of diplomatic talks between the West – head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. America, and the Soviet Union, we want to highlight to what extent the opinion and will of several thousand Methodists in America affects seeking friendly ways of understanding and solving problems

144 Annex between the two great states [USSR and United States] […] The quotations are taken from “The Churchman” […] the material indicates what the Methodists have done to persuade the government and to move the public towards peace talks […] Without prejudging the results of the peace efforts, we want to demonstrate that the attitude of our fellow believers in America is peaceful and democratic. A similar attitude is also characteristic of the Methodist Church in Poland. Extracts from articles in The Churchman ·· ·· ··

··

the Methodists want peace […] they run the risk of being imprisoned in the [American] prison and paying a fine of 10,000 dollars. The World Peace Commission at the Methodist Church sent a telegram to President Truman, in which the Methodists demand diplomatic talks to settle American-Russian problems. We deeply regret the sluggishness and reluctance of our government to engage in talks with the Soviet government on the foreign policy of the two nations and to harmonize them and remove the causes and frictions leading to war. We call on the representatives of our government in Washington not to ignore the truth that these talks are possible and that every means should be used to remove the friction and misunderstanding between these two great nations. We must break down propaganda and militaristic barriers and find a platform for understanding with the nations of the Soviet Union.

3. Statement of the Executive Committee of the Methodist Church in Poland, Warsaw 04.03.1949 AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 108. Oświadczenie Komitetu Wykonawczego Kościoła Metodystycznego w RP (ks. superintendent Józef Naumiuk, ks. sup. Jan Kalinowski, ks. Leonid Jesakow, ks. sup. Gustaw Burchart, ks. Witold Benedyktynowicz, ks. Aleksander Piekarski), Warszawa 04.03.1949 r. The anti-peace propaganda of the imperialists of the West grew in strength. Overseas, elements hostile to peace have planned to infect millions of followers of the Methodist Church with resentment and distrust towards the people of our continent, with the Soviet Union at the forefront. It is clear that several instigators of war are trying to bring this greatest Protestant Church into the role of their ally. Recently, it has come to our attention that certain few American Methodists have succumbed to this propaganda and have even gone so far as to provide services to anti-peace activators. Standing on the position of evangelical Christianity, we Polish Methodists condemn the errors of these co-religionists, regardless of their offices and church dignities, and declare that we do not want to communicate with them. Aware of our Christian duty, we Polish Methodists will be persevering in the position of peace and brotherhood of peoples and loyalty and cooperation with our state, which along with other Slavic states stands guardian of peace.

Annex

145

4. “Okólnik” of the Executive Committee of the Methodist Church in Poland No. 1, Warsaw 04.03.1949 AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 109–110 and AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609/J, c. 530. Okólnik nr I, Warszawa 04.03.1949 r. Dear brothers and sisters! In recent days, foreign church workers have left Poland and those who remained resigned from their positions. […] The moment came when we Poles, the clergy of the Methodist Church, had to take over the leadership and responsibility for the overall work of the Church in Poland. Thus, we have implemented the thesis of the decree on the recognition of the Methodist Church in the Republic of Poland, which states the independence of our Church from any foreign ecclesiastical authority. Church Board of Directors: 1. Superintendent General and Chairman of the Executive Committee Józef Naumiuk, 2. Deputy Chairman of the Executive Committee Superintendent Jan Kalinowski, 3. Executive Committee Secretary Leonid Jesaków, 4. Deputy Secretary of the Executive Committee Witold Benedyktowicz, 5. Church Treasurer Superintendent Gustaw Burchart, 6. Vice Treasurer Aleksander Piekarski. The Committee adopted a declaration condemning the involvement of certain foreign ecclesiastical personalities in political action for Western imperialists. This declaration has been transmitted to the press and radio and will soon be published in our church publication Polish Pilgrim and Road.

5. Telegram to the Consul of the Polish Embassy in Washington, inż. Edward Bartol, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw, Washington, 21.02.1949 AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 119. Rozmowa Radcy Ambasady inż. Edwarda Bartola z Garlandem Evansem Hopkinsem, zastępcą sekretarza Wydziału Misji Zagranicznych Kościoła Metodystycznego, Waszyngton 21.02.1949 r. Hopkins’s point is to show the Polish government how difficult it is in America for the Methodist Church towards its own fellow-believers as a result of the pastors’ process in Bulgaria […]. Hopkins points out that the formal accusation of Bulgarian pastors, and especially the Superintendent Ivanov, exchanges his contacts with the Geneva bishop Paul N. Garber. This matter is directly related to Poland. Bishop Garber is the head of the Methodist Church throughout Eastern and Central Europe. In this capacity he is leading even presently Polish Methodists. Recognizing the relations of the national Methodists with Bishop Garber as reprehensible by the Bulgarian court may put the Polish Methodists under the auspices of the bishop in a difficult situation. Mr. Hopkins stressed that bishop Garber after visiting the countries of Eastern Europe, and, among others, Poland, publicly stated in America about religious freedoms in these countries. He was strongly fought against and called the communist.

146 Annex

6. Statement of the Executive Committee of the Methodist Church in Poland, Warsaw 04.08.1949 AAN, MAP, sign. 1062, c. 122. Oświadczenie Komitetu Wykonawczego Kościoła Metodystycznego w RP [statement being a reaction of the Church to the threat of excommunication of believers joining the communist parties, uttered by Pope Pius XII 14.07.1949], Warszawa 04.08.1949 r. The unity of the Polish nation and the creative work of rebuilding the country have been seriously threatened by the threat of excommunication of those who see their Christian duty in rebuilding and building a powerful People’s Poland. We state that the Pope’s speech, containing the threat of excommunication of all those who cooperate with the people’s power, is not justified by the doctrine and moral attitude of Christianity. Christianity does not condemn anyone who serves the cause of progress and good in political and social life. To those who, preserving the views and attitude of Christians, serve to rebuild their homeland and consolidate the unity of the nation, the Methodist Church offers fraternity and the right to receive the sacraments, denied to them by the Pope. Pius XII’s speech to the inhabitants of Berlin contributed to the revival of the German revisionist mood and thus became a tool for fighting against our western borders. Poland and its capital city, which were being rebuilt without the Pope’s blessing, once again found out that the Vatican’s policy is contrary to the interests of the nation. We believe that Poland, together with the Slavic brotherhood states, will resist the German attempts, which are an expression of a policy aimed at provoking a new war. It is clear to every sober-minded Pole that the Pope’s speeches were inspired by those who would want to turn Europe into a field of bloody war. Thus, the papal speeches are opposed to the attitude of Christians who, according to the principles of the religion of Christ, should serve the cause of peace and social justice. According to Jesus Christ’s guidance, we Methodists take the side of those whose aim is the good of the people, the reconstruction of the Homeland, the unity of the nation, and join our voice to those sober voices which rightly judge the Pope’s speech and the aspirations of the instigators of war as non-Christian, inhumane, reconciling peace and social justice.

7. Polish Pilgrim (1949) Marian Lubecki, “O duchowe oblicze metodyzmu polskiego”, Pielgrzym Polski (1949, nos 7–8) Methodism is characterized by broad liberalism, being able to unite in its bosom people with different views […] our Catholicism always takes on not so much a religious but a political form, e.g. some anti-Semitism, some social conservatism […] Contrary to the clearest testimonies in history, it tries to suggest that its

Annex

147

interest is the interest of the nation. […] Penalties for common crimes and crimes, if they are met by individuals belonging to the clergy, are classified in the same category [i.e. “act of persecution”]. Taking the pose of a suffering man, he is ready at any time to oppress by any means whatsoever that does not suit him […] Let us strive to ensure that, on our part, our coexistence is compatible and good […] Let us make an effort to understand the exact psyche of our Catholic confreres […] What is the essence of their confession, as well as that of other confessions, is also our essence. Our approach must be universalistic and synthetic. They are, unfortunately, a sect, not because of the number of confessors, but because of the dogma and exclusivity of the rules. Let us not be a sect! […] [Atheists:] They rejected not the living God, who is the ideal of good, and whom they had never known, but his caricature made by the priests, an arbitrary despot, a violent for his whims, a cruel man who likes the torments of the condemned and an authority serving as a screen for all ecclesiastical and social reactions. Our churches should do everything possible to enable such people to cooperate with us. All the relics of the Middle Ages, everything that frightens a thinking person from the church, should be removed from the official teachings and rituals of the Methodist Church. Our church should become an area where Free Thought and religion are combined into one Free Religious Thought. A new man will be born here, radiating the clarity of reason, not bending over before any authority, and at the same time blossoming with full feeling, embracing everyone and running out into the afterlife. We must assimilate the wonderful achievements of modern physical, cosmological, biological, linguistic, historical, etc. knowledge. The Bible is a religious document, not a textbook of individual sciences, with which one can immediately judge theories resulting from thorough experimental research. [Materialism:] taking a Christian position, we cannot take a materialistic view of the whole world. We believe that each individual science has its own specific field of study, so it must abstain from statements about infinity […] Our socialist government of Poland supports education and science, but all religions, as well as atheism, are free to express and nurture their beliefs. We are deeply grateful to it for this, because until now there has been no such freedom in Poland in the religious field. [Other religions:] Methodism has never maintained a spirit of exclusivity. Therefore, both in the whole world and in Poland, it supports ecumenical efforts to unite the Churches […] Methodism, because of its universalistic elements from the very beginning, is called upon to provide disinterested care for weaker groups, to become the avant-garde of the religious movement in Poland and a center of religious thought exchange. [Ethical and Social Deepening:] If for many denominations the religious form is sacramentalism and ritualism, then for us it is our conduct […] One of the main issues in this respect is full equality with men. […] Let us encourage women not only to speak at women’s meetings but also at general services. […] Our task must continue to be to combat racial superstition […] To raise the moral standard, it is necessary to remove the nightmare of alcoholism, which is the material,

148 Annex physical and spiritual ruin of the individual and the family, and of society as a whole. [Methodism as a movement:] the development of the church depends on the ability to acquire intelligence, the factory worker and the peasant […] Jesus Christ the revelator of God.

8. Memorandum on the need for a church participating in social transformations, 26.10.1950 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 5b/19, c. 41–43. Memoriał o potrzebie zboru uczestniczącego w przemianach społecznych 26. 10. 1950 r. [ks. Marian Lubecki] The main opponent of the new socialist system is the Roman Catholic Church in the world and especially in Poland. Religious minorities play an important role in weakening this church precisely in its relationship, i.e. in the religious section with the gospel in hand. The existence of religious needs in many people is an undeniable fact. Undoubtedly, it is better for the State, that those who can’t agree to a simple negation of religion, satisfy their religious needs not in the Roman Church, joining in obedience to its orders – but in independent Churches. These independent Churches are useful to the State also because their ethical attitude is stronger than that of the old Church. In combating alcoholism, gambling, debauchery, lying and all dishonesty, they carry out the activities desired by the State. These Churches do not fulfill their tasks to the extent that they would be expected to, and this is due to a lack of proper awareness. The church must fulfill a number of conditions: First of all, such a church is indeed independent of any foreign authority; it is domestic and national. Its services are not the chewing of old forms, but they refer to our history and to the becoming reality, which is emphasized in the appropriate prayers and sermons, in the use not only of the Bible, but also of the works of our bishops. The Church maintains the closest loyalty to the Government in its members, makes them aware of its achievements, especially in the field of religious law, fights against any disorganization of social life, sabotage, sympathy for underground and subversive tendencies, any reaction, nationalism, religious and racial discrimination. The key to religious freedom was to be the greatest possible secularization of social life, separation of the Church from the State, abolition of religious education at school, removal of religious emblems from public places. True religiousness, in turn, is the one that has as a measure of man’s conduct. That is why sectarian exclusivity is far from it. People who are concerned about it know very well that among the formal believers there is a great deal of injustice, and among the so-called non-believers, the atheists, there are noble people. With these noble people they are always ready to cooperate without any reservations for a good cause. They consider formal believers to be harmful. The next condition necessary for the correctness of the church is its democratic structure, meaning the abolition of the distinction between clergy and laity, the removal of the privileges of pastors at church meetings, the removal

Annex 149 of hierarchies and titles, and the full equality of women. The church is a secular church. Criticism and self-criticism, tried in party life, finds its application in the church. The essence of the church, however, is to create the conditions for the mental development of the members. The church was meant to be an educational institution that fights illiteracy, conducts awareness-raising lectures on comparative religious studies, natural sciences and social sciences. Members of such a church are made aware that the globe is no exception in the universe, that life has developed from inorganic matter and man comes from animal ancestors. Moreover, they are taught about historical materialism and the socialist ideal. This is possible when the community has a library and reading room, makes trips to museums. The educational process leads to the fact that religious ideology is progressive. Medieval dogmas about the sin of the first parents inherited by mankind, about substitute redemption and God’s incarnation, about the Trinity, about eternal punishments are no longer in force. There is no longer childish faith in the miracles of today as well as of the past: birth from a virgin, rising from the grave of the deceased, and others…. The church thus refers to the meritorious activity of rationalistic and liberal Evangelism, so condemned by backward fundamentalists. The future sacramentalism will disappear from ecclesial practice, i.e. the attribution of the magical action to baptism and communion, as well as to all ordinances and emblems. The religion of the modern church will be universalistic, facilitating communication with believers of other views. Not everything can be told at once to everyone that people need to be gradually brought up to a higher level: Unfortunately, religious minorities are far from such a sophisticated understanding, which sometimes leads to a collision with the democratic state. However, they are ready to recognize the rights of the secular authorities to supervise and regulate their lives. In order to take advantage of this for the benefit of society and minorities themselves, it would be desirable to establish such a church as the one referred to here. This church, as the Church of Unity, would become a model for other churches and, having obtained proper influence through the Ecumenical Council, appropriately reorganized with the help of the authorities, it would bring them with it. Of course, it would have to be possible for the press to have an influence. All of this does not present any major difficulties in realization, and the benefit of this for the homeland, democracy and progress is obvious.

9. The Christian Advocate, 22.03.1951 The Christian Advocate was a weekly newspaper published in New York City by the Methodist Episcopal Church between 1826 and 1973 POLAND: Renovated to Serve In the village of Kwidzyń, Poland, there was a group of Evangelicals, but no pastor. Rev. M. Jamny, pastor of the Grudziądz Methodist church, took an interest in the group and received them all into The Methodist Church.

150 Annex To save the people the journey to distant Grudziądz, Pastor Jamny began holding services in their homes in Kwidzyń. Then he began to negotiate with officials about the town’s abandoned chapel. They gave it to him willingly. But the chapel had to be restored, and its pews had been taken by various people and institutions. The pews were recovered and, by the work of all, the chapel was renovated. Since its rededication last November it has been in constant use. A similar story comes from Bytów, where Methodist work was languishing and services were held in private homes. There was no regular pastor. A student was taken out of the theological seminary and sent to Bytów. Town officials turned over to him a magnificent old church building. Pastor Milewski personally replaced each of 100 missing windows and sympathetic townspeople helped to clean up and renovate the interior. It was dedicated in December in the presence of 150 people, nucleus of a new congregation. These stories are part of the amazing growth of Protestantism, particularly of The Methodist Church, in postwar Poland. Rev. Józef Naumiuk, Superintendent of the Methodist work in the country, says that the growth continues steadily. At present Polish Methodists are putting an Easter climax to a revival campaign began early in the year. Church attendance, says, Mr. Naumiuk, is “most satisfactory”.

10. Serafin Kiryłowicz, “Internal relations in the Methodist Church” (1953) AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 26–27. Notatka UdSW “Stosunki wewnętrzne w Kościele Metodystycznym” [1953 r.] [Serafin Kiryłowicz] [In January 1953] there was a discrepancy between the Chief Superintendent and members of the Executive Committee. [the Office for Religious Affairs explains that this is about controlling the finances of the Church] Groupings among employees: (a) The grouping of democrat pastors was formed at the end of 1951. This group, headed by Marian Lubecki, initially spoke out to defend the living rights of workers and stressed the need to amend the statute. Then, it aimed to remove the Chief Superintendent. The democrats tried to slander the Superintendent with gossip. Aleksander Piekarski was the team’s tool in this direction. The activity of the team was halted due to the lack of a suitable candidate for the place of the current Chief Superintendent. From 16 January the democrats resumed their activity and offered their cooperation to the superintendent. They belong to the group: W. Benedyktowicz (Warsaw), J. Biczewski (Słupsk), M. Jamny (Bydgoszcz), M. Lubecki (Warsaw), J. Ostrowski (Chodzież), A. Piekarski (Bytom), S. Słotwiński (Gdynia), A. Sulikowski (Warsaw). (b) The second group is the so called “committee group” representing the conservative elements and very much connected with their American protectors to which they belong: L. Jesakow (Warsaw), G. Burchart (Warsaw), J.

Annex

151

Szczepkowski (Warsaw), S. Kalinowski (Stalinogród), J. Kus (Poznań). This group was clearly defined from January 1953. From outside the committee they are joined by T. Dzierko (Ostróda), Z. Grzybek (Ostróda). Perhaps their number has increased, as they are trying to expand their ranks by all possible means. (c) They remain neutral, who have not taken a clear stand, although they are more or less thoroughly informed about the internal situation of the Church. They belong to them: E. Małłek (Ełk), K. Napierski (Olsztynek), M. Ostrowski (Tarnów), E. Babiaczek (Kurki), W. Timofiejew (Szczecin), B. Raszkiewicz (Przemyśl), H. Zalewski (Łódź), J. Madziarz (Wrocław). In their essence, the divergence and struggle in the environment of Methodist pastors has its source in the desire to get their snout to the trough, to participate in the disposal of American gifts, to use in their own interest the huge income from the PKO parcel trade. Wanting to stop the activity of the Methodist clique in Poland, and most of all on the premises of the headquarters in Warsaw, the Office for Religious Affairs applies for nationalization of the School of English Language run by Jesakow, which is one of the serious tools of propaganda and dissemination of undesirable influences in the working intelligentsia.

11. The paper of Rev. Józef Naumiuk, 07.11.1955 AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/5/55, c. 24–33. Referat ks. Józefa Naumiuka Superintendenta Naczelnego Kościoła Metodystycznego (data wpływu do UdSW: 07. 11. 1955 r.) Dear Brothers (A) The subject of this paper and the related proceedings of our congress of clergy of the Methodist Church in Masuria is the issue of Polishness of the Masurians and Warmians. These people were undoubtedly of Polish origin, culture, speech and customs, blood from blood and bone from our bones, throughout their entire history on the territory of former East Prussia, they persistently and continuously fought for their Polishness and preserved it even during the most brutal Germanization pressure – in the era of Hakata and Hitlerism. And it is simply incomprehensible that today, after 8 years of living in her Homeland, their Polishness raises serious objections. Today there is still an aversion to Polishness, and sometimes also hostility to Polishness, aversion to using Polish in family life, susceptibility – as the last Olsztyn trial showed – to anti-Polish propaganda and separatist tendencies. The Methodist Church, although not guilty of such an unsatisfactory state of Polishness in Masuria, nevertheless, as one of the first churches to work in the area, feels co-responsible for such insufficient results of the rePolonization of Warmia and Masuria. Considering the suggestions made by the authorities in this matter to be entirely correct, the Executive Committee of the Methodist Church decided to significantly revitalize and strengthen its work on

152 Annex the complete recovery of our brutally and perfidiously denationalized confreres for Polishness. (B) The proposal of the Methodist Church in People’s Poland This work is not easy. In order to do it properly we must first of all accurately assess the present situation of the Methodist Church in the People’s Republic of Poland and its attitude to building a socialist society and international affairs. We explain these issues to you honestly and openly, not counting on yesterday’s, today’s or future political situation, because we are a classless church, we do not represent the interests of any special social group, we have never intended and will never reach for political influence or play any political role in both internal and international affairs. In accordance with the essence of Methodism, our mission of the progressive evangelical movement and religious renewal, our activities and declarations since the founding of the Methodist Church in Poland, we have defined this situation as follows: 1. The first principle on which we are based is the principle of freedom of conscience and religion. The world owes its full religious tolerance to Protestants. This progressive achievement was fully reflected in the Polish Constitution. Article 70 of our Constitution, which guarantees all citizens freedom of conscience and religion, freedom to perform religious functions and protection of religious activities and rituals, in conjunction with the Decree of 16 October 1945 on the attitude of the State to the Methodist Church, is the basis of our existence as an organization. Through these two laws, the Methodist Church has been granted real equality of rights, the possibility of performing its religious functions and the fullest freedom of development. We have adopted both of these state acts with deep appreciation and gratitude, we use them as loyally as possible, and we believe in their permanence, sincerity and strict observance by the State Authorities. 2. We stand on the ground of the separation of the Church from the State […] The position that “the Church is a religion and politics is the State” we have always respected and expressed in our monthly magazine Polish Pilgrim of May 1934 and February 1949. 3. Our attitude to the reconstruction of socialist society in the People’s Republic of Poland is completely positive. We have expressed this in the “Social Creed of the Methodist Church” and on many other occasions. We believe and confess that God is the father of all people and races, that in Jesus Christ all people are brothers and sisters and that man as a child of God has infinite value in the eyes of the Heavenly Father. The principles of popular democracies are entirely consistent with the very essence of Methodism, which, as a Christian religious movement, was created under the motto of turning to the sources of Christianity. The idea behind the origin of Methodism was the idea that Christianity has abandoned the pure teaching of Jesus, and by seeking earthly triumphs and great political ambitions

Annex

153

it has lost its proper mission of God and has entangled the Church in the struggle for secular power, striving for earthly goods, worldly glory and glamour, forgetting the words of Christ: “My kingdom is not of this world. The validity of Methodism is clearly confirmed by the most recent times – the twentieth century – when the perverted teaching of Christ became coresponsible for all the flaws in the capitalist system and, after nearly two thousand years of work, faced helplessly the most pressing social problems for which she could not find a solution in the spirit of God, in the spirit of love for her neighbor, without resorting to violence. Methodism is free from these burdens of the past, because “from the beginning of its existence, it has considered without prejudice all the issues it has encountered and has tried to adapt bravely to the conditions of life with a view only to obedience to the commandments of God” (I Gen. 1:52). Methodism says [here, biblical quotation] (I Genesis 1:35). Our loyalty to today’s Polish reality therefore arises not only from the Gospel principle: “Give then what is imperial--the emperor, and what is divine--God,” but from the very essence of Methodism and its fundamental principles. We, in the implementation by the people’s democracies of a system of social justice, free from exploitation, in granting all citizens the right to gainful employment, leisure, health care, science, in promoting culture, socializing the means of production, creating higher forms of farming, raising the standard of living of the widest masses and the full socialization of the individual, see the further realization of the basic principles of Christ’s teaching, accelerating the creation of the universal Kingdom of God on earth. We therefore support all the principles of our Constitution, the program of the national front and the economic plans, and call upon all our workers to take an active part in shaping the new reality. It is understood that our Church as such can take an active part in building a just social system only by means proper to her. The activities of our associates must not extend to state authorities, political parties, economic authorities or other secular organizations. In accordance with our role, it will be expressed primarily in the upbringing of a new man, a socialized man, working and capable of making sacrifices for the good of society, a sacrificial, loyal citizen, respecting the duties of the law and opposing any anti-State, anti-Polish and anti-people action. And this is alongside work on the religious level our second important role in today’s reality. 4. We are a thoroughly democratic church. Throughout its history the Methodist Church has proclaimed freedom and democracy for all people. It has never been on the side of fascism or autocracy. The Methodist Church, because of its democratic background, feels good in contemporary Poland today and is grateful to the present Polish Government for the religious freedom that present Poland gives to all churches and denominations. However, democracy must not be understood inwardly as arbitrariness, muddling or anarchy. Just as in the most democratic type of state – the People’s Democratic Republic – the socialist rule of law exists and is carefully observed, so in our organization

154 Annex all applicable laws, our norms and statutes must be observed and all activities must be carried out within their framework, punished and governed by law. Discipline is a condition for the resilience of our organization. 5. We are a missionary Church. Our work is the mission of telling the Gospel, going out on the roads and between fences and evangelizing to fill God’s house. We don’t do propaganda, we do God’s mission. Propaganda operates with the worldly and secular, purely human means of uniting people. The mission is based on God’s grace, it believes and proclaims that “if the Lord himself does not build a house, those who build it work in vain”. The mission does nothing by itself […]. 6. We are not an American church, as our rivals accuse us of it, and even sometimes some representatives of the authorities are mistaken. Our complete independence from any foreign sovereignty is stated in the Decree of 16 October 1945. About your attitude towards the Methodist Church in Poland and our daily work. We do not take any advice from any foreign or foreign centers, nobody from outside directs us, we are an independent, self-governing hierarchy. Our only and exclusive source and inspiration is the Gospel – the Word of God and the resulting spiritual unity with all Methodist Churches of the world. 7. We stand on the ground of peace and inviolability of the borders of our Homeland. Our statement of 4 March 1949, published in the press, our daily work and what is most important – the Teaching of Christ and our ideology is a constant condemnation of all violence, imperialism and war as a means to settle international disputes. The return of the Regained Lands to the Motherland for the expression of historical justice, and the preservation of this eternal heritage of the Polish nation for the duty of our and future generations. We condemn Western German revisionism and all separatism as opposition to progress and the criminal pursuit of new rapes. We condemn it all the more because it stems from a spirit of possessiveness alien to us. We want to live in love and fraternity with all the peoples of the world, because this is the essence of our ideology. These are the basic principles on which our religious activities are based. In the People’s Republic of Poland, which is building socialism, huge political, social and economic transformations have taken place and are still taking place. In this hastened march of history, it seemed to the people of small spirits that the People’s State, striving to implement an extremely materialistic social theory, must inevitably eliminate religion, as a symptom of an idealistic understanding of the world, harmful “opium for the masses”. The behavior of the authorities of the People’s Republic of Poland, and above all the fundamental law, the People’s Constitution of 1952, recognizing the need to ensure the freedom of all citizens to satisfy their religious needs, they refuted such defeatist views. Only in this new reality must the Church understand its role and find its proper place. And the principles that we have presented to you in these seven points set such a place for our Church without diminishing its role but, on the contrary, give it full freedom of unlimited

Annex

155

development. They show complete convergence of the aims of our Church and the People’s State, clearly and distinctly delineate the area of activity, and the loyally observed by the individual representatives of the state authorities, exclude the possibility of conflicts with the authorities and lay organizations and create healthy conditions for fruitful work. Within the framework of these principles, move freely, develop your evangelical activity with a sense of good performance of your duties to God and society. (C) Re-Polonization and our achievements in Masuria Reclaiming our brothers – compatriots for Polishness is a noble mission that fully corresponds to the above principles and the spirit of Methodism. As preachers of the great idea of Christianity and its most beautiful ethics, contributing to the rePolonization of the Masurian land, we do not do any harm of denationalization, but merely repair the crimes of history, restore to the oppressed and converted with fire and sword people their own soul and national dignity, we regain for the Fatherland what was plundered against God’s and human laws. And we do this not by rape, not by violence, not by evoking the ghosts of the past – the brutal Germanization of Hakata, or rather Nazi terror – but by noble methods of awakening national consciousness, supporting the lost, showing them the right way with care of a nurse teaching the sick person to walk again. Of all the Churches operating in Poland, we are the most suitable candidate to fulfill this mission, because we are a Protestant Church, which corresponds to Masurians – Protestants in its main mass, being Protestants we are not burdened with any communication with German Protestantism, which would inhibit the Masurians and we are a missionary church, which makes the mission of re-Polonization perfectly compatible with our developmental aspirations. We have a serious record of our work in Masuria. Our church was one of the first to work in the area as early as in 1945, acting in close consultation with the state authorities in Olsztyn. We organized the main centers in Ostróda and Ełk, which are the most easily accessible for the local population. We started to work in the following Congregations: Olsztyn, Olsztynek, Kurki, Biesal, Miłomłyn, Liwa, Lipowo, Duży Szmigwałd, Szamborowo, Kroplewo, Glaznoty, Marwałd, Rudnice, Dąbrówno, Leszcz, Osiekowo, Gierzwałd, Nidzica, Szczytno, Pasym, Kalinowo, Klusy, Grabnik, Stare Suchy and Szymanowo. Our work was in this first phase of taking over the Regained Territories pioneering and versatile and consisted of: 1. Providing pastoral care to the indigenous peoples and organizing services in Polish. 2. Teaching the Polish language. In persuading parents to send their children to schools. 3. Running a boarding house for school children in Ełk. 4. Persuading to accept Polish citizenship. 5. Providing wide material aid: distributing food, clothes, medicines, living and dead stock.

156 Annex 6. Charity action – such as running summer camps, the Orphanage and the Old People’s Home in Stare Jabłonki and Piętki. 7. Organizing medical assistance. 8. Explaining the inappropriateness of the behavior of lower local authorities and defending Masuria against the wrongs caused by their mistakes. 9. Encouraging to participate in a referendum. 10. Help in finding families. As we can see – apart from purely religious work – our work mainly consisted of re-Polonization, which was indirectly served by material aid and defense of the Masurians against the mistakes of the local authorities. As a result of our observations in the field and interventions in the Ministry of Recovered Territories and the Ministry of Public Administration, the attitude of local authorities towards Masuria has changed very successfully. This work was fully understood and appreciated by the state authorities, as evidenced by the letter of the Olsztyn Voivode dated 23 July 1946. […] addressed to the Methodist Church, the beginning of which is as follows: “The local government is driven by concern for a just and just satisfaction of the religious needs of all confessions, also fully appreciating the enormous role and importance of the Methodist Church, which was one of the first to start working in the local area and can already be proud of a whole range of positive results, and is very careful in approaching the requests and conclusions of the Methodist Church.” Unfortunately, this initial momentum of the missionary work of the Methodist Church so useful for the Church, because it broadens its radiation, as well as for you, because it effectively and permanently re-Polonizes Masuria has been stopped in the later period, and even retreated in some sections. And it did not result from the cessation of American material aid, or from the state taking over a number of activities as its domain. The activity of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church turned out to be detrimental to our religious and re-Polonization action, which, striving to expand its influence in Masuria, chose the path of agitation and propaganda, giving quicker short-term benefits than missionary work, and what is most harmful, it appealed to German chauvinism and revisionism by using the name: “Evangelical-Lutheran Church”, distributing leaflets in German etc. in its agitation. Characteristic in the text of the leaflet “Methodist or Lutheran” is not only the German language and the call for conversion from the path of Methodism, whose work here was overexposed to Polishness, but also the lack of the word Poland, Polish, Homeland in its entirety, while emphasizing Lutheranism and calling for a return to this old way, to the bosom of the German Church. It is understandable that with such a vast area in some villages, the EvangelicalLutherans managed to gain the support of the authorities and cause us serious damage, especially in the possession of premises. It is understandable how much damage such a Lutheran-German religious action does to re-Polonization. However, do not be discouraged by these failures. Let us remember that conquering Masuria, for Methodist Protestantism, means at the same time conquering them for a permanent Polishness, and persuading them to Lutheran Protestantism,

Annex

157

means perpetuating the Germanization raids in them, delaying the final re-Polonization. Therefore, we will not give in to anything from the field, we will fight for every autochthon, even if we do not have the recognition of one or another representative of the local authorities, because we are fighting for a good cause and our work will sooner or later find recognition for its results. (D) The characteristics of the work area Complete re-Polonization of Masuria is not an easy or small job. Masurians, in their main mass, are simple rural people, i.e. conservative material, resistant to rapid and radical changes. Wronged, oppressed and exploited by whole generations, they are distrustful, cautious and not susceptible to professional agitation and even most convincing speeches. They can be reached almost exclusively by example and deed, they are not capable and prone to abstract speculation on thought and wider horizons, and they make their views based on the observation of their closest surroundings – the municipality, the district and their everyday material matters. Living within the borders of the German state, which was much more industrialized and developed than Poland, despite its impaired social position, they lived on a much higher standard of living than Poland can give him today, which must at the same time make up for centuries-old economic backwardness and war damage and bear the burden of a thorough reconstruction of economic life, building its entire new social life from scratch. From such a conservative Masurian peasant, reluctant by nature towards too radical changes, a moment in history demands at the same time at least a triple overturn: a change of national affiliation, although softened by the happiness of returning to his homeland, a change in the socio-political system and the entire overturn in his concepts, and a reduction in his standard of living, although softened by the prospects of a happy future. What is more, he is expected to voluntarily reconstruct the agricultural system by organizing a higher form of social economy – production cooperatives, which he often considers in his backwardness as depriving him of the property of the land, this love of every peasant. How much more difficult it is for this settled land owner on his own, though often miserable farm, to experience momentous transformations than for an unencumbered worker or working intelligentsia. That is why it is necessary to have a lot of forbearance for the too slow a pace with which this Masurian is overcoming his backwardness and internal resistance, and therefore one should not be impatient with his low susceptibility to being persuaded to undergo transformations that are not always mature enough in him. By emphasizing these difficulties, we do not intend to give the impression that this distrustful and conservative people is an ungrateful area for work. It is quite the opposite. It is precisely the overcoming of these resistances that gives much deeper and more lasting results, much more satisfaction with the results achieved. Let’s not forget that the Polish people are simply great material, and that the Masurians are the Polish people, although burdened with foreign material. The Polish peasant in his mass in the center of the country also distrustfully looked at the beginnings of our second independence, conceived after the First World War,

158 Annex and not infrequently renounced: “It was better with the tsar, there were smaller taxes”. But the same peasant, at the outbreak of World War II, was shrouded in fervent patriotism and ready for any sacrifice in the fight against the invader, the same peasant, in the dark darkness of the Nazi occupation, formed mass underground organizations, fought with arms and economy against the bloody occupant, and often from the same simple people, who were sighing for low tsarist taxes, you could hear the opinion that it was better to be hungry and wearing a torn shirt, but at home and on your own. (E) Working methods […] we are not going to throw you any ready-made work templates in advance either. On the contrary. We consider you our best experts in this area. You live and work in this area. Some of you are indigenous or have knots of affinity with them. You have a sacred duty to know this people deeply and understand them. … [here Naumiuk went on to give “advice”:] in your work, you must avoid any “tenure” and awkward propaganda. You have to give a complete differentiation, because you have to be complementary to the actions of the authorities and institutions of the laity in those episodes which they cannot reach in their official methods, in the episodes of spiritual, everyday, family life. We are the most democratic Church, the Church of simple people and the Masurians are simple people. Therefore, in your work you have to melt with them into one, not to rule them, but to radiate a deeper understanding of the Polish raison d’état, to be their friend, but without hypocrisy, without Phariseeism, only in reliable advice and help, and where the means do not stand, in compassion for their worries and troubles. To gain their full trust and awaken their consciousness and sense of Polishness, their soul from this Polishness, their ambition to show it. And not with cunning and deceit, but with reason and sincerity. […] From the moment Poland took over these areas until today and for the nearest future, every Pole from other districts of the country, whether a peasant or a worker, a clerk or a settler, a clergyman or a policeman, a doctor or a teacher, is primarily an ambassador of Polishness in Masuria, a bit like in a foreign country. For every Masurian, whether he fought fervently for his Polishness and his return to the Motherland, whether he is indifferently and reluctantly accepting it, whether he is looking at this return with hostility, he is looking closely at every Pole who came to this area from outside, observing his attitude, morality, attitude towards people, actions, even his way of behaving, and according to this, he is making his own judgments about Poland, this is the basis of his internal attitude towards his new homeland. Therefore, the most important weapon in the struggle for re-Polonization of these areas is your personal attitude, your example, your act, your family life. […] And having gained their trust, enlighten them, raise their Polishness and love for their homeland […] The best form may be chitchat during long winter evenings or days of rest […] And the topics of chats should be both historical and contemporary. From the historical subjects, above all, the biographies and activities of outstanding fighters for the Polishness and rights of the Masuria region and those

Annex

159

famous Poles whose activities were connected with the Masuria region. And history contains beautiful materials. The great 16th century – the Renaissance – is a period of great flourishing of Polishness, culture and knowledge in Masuria (the first Polish printing house of Jan Małecki from Kraków in Ełk, Polish language at the University of Königsberg; activities: Prof. Kulwiec, Prof. Rafajłowicz, Jan Seklucjan, Stanisław Murzynowski, Wojciech Nowomiejski – author of Polish grammar, Nicolaus Copernicus; visiting Masuria – Rej and Kochanowski) […] The second rich period is the 18th century [there are preachers – writers: Samuel Tschepius, author of “The Prussian Agenda”, Jan Cassius, Polish grammar, Jerzy Wasiański, “Kancjonał”, K. C. Mrongowiusz from Olsztynek]. […] At the same time, Masuria gave Poland two outstanding Poles such as T. Rejtan, a fiery patriot, and J. H. Dabrowski, the founder of the legions. The 19th century and the most recent times were published by: Rev. Herman Gizewiusz-Giżycki […], Karol Barke, the publisher of Gazeta Ludowa in Ełk; Kazimierz Jaroszyk, the publisher of the magazine Mazur in Szczytno; Jan Liszewski and Seweryn Pieniężny, the father and son, who published in 1866, until the outbreak of World War II, Gazeta Olsztyńska; Wojciech Kętrzyński – an outstanding historian from Masuria; Michał Kajka from the Garden and Fryderyk Mączka from Szczytno, folk writers and poets; Jerzy Lance, a teacher of the Polish school in Piastuń near Szczytno, murdered in 1931 by the Nazis; Reinhold Barcz, tailor and preacher, editor of Głos Ewangelicki (Evangelical Voice), beheaded in 1943. In Berlin, Andrzej Samułowski, poet and bookseller from Gietrzwałd, son of a peasant, fighter for Polish schools for the People; Jan Jagiełka, plebiscite activist from the Masurian People’s Union, prisoner of the Dachau camp, beheaded in Berlin; Bogumił Linka, delegate to the Congress in Versailles, demanding that the Masurians join Poland, murdered by German chauvinists; Fr. Walenty Barczewski, the son of a peasant from near Olsztyn, author of the works Geography of Warmia and Kiermasy in Warmia, an outstanding organizer of the Union of Poles in Germany. The topic of every historical story should be one, at most two characters, or a fragment of history, not overloaded with dates, given in an engaging, anecdotal or diarist form, with as many small, family, non-monumental details as possible. You have to prepare yourself well for every such talk. If you don’t have suitable source books or brochures, you should get them from the local bookshop or ask the Masurian Institute in Olsztyn for advice. You should use the help of this Institute as it is a professional body of knowledge about Masuria, it should provide you with advice and help, provide appropriate materials or indicate the source of their purchase. The expenses for this purpose – given the cheapness and the fact that the book is booked in today’s Poland, will be small, but if it would cause you a problem, the Executive Committee authorizes you to purchase the relevant books on its account. As far as the program of historical talks is concerned, we leave it entirely to your discretion and taste. Whether you want to present individual characters on the occasion of their birthdays or deaths, as is generally accepted, or without any excuse, just as the occasion may be, judge for yourself. The second section of the themes is Contemporary Poland. This topic is commonly known to you from the press, radio and everyday life. But here, too, we

160 Annex advise you not to follow the official propaganda, not to fall into easy trivialities, but to look for your own ways, even the brilliant ones. Less praise the successes and achievements, and more emphasize the enormous tasks to be fulfilled by today’s generation of the new Poland, which has undertaken the boldly titanic work of rebuilding the huge war damage, rebuilding the economic system and making up for the centuries-old backwardness of Poland. To emphasize that such a great work requires huge sacrifices, that low wages, low prices of agricultural products, quantitative and qualitative deficiencies in supplying the daily needs of the population, in short, low standard of living, is precisely this sacrifice of our generation for the accomplishment of these huge tasks, necessary to achieve universal prosperity. That we all make these sacrifices for the common cause of all. But when the results are already visible today, we will all benefit from them. There will never again be Masurians, the lowest social stratum in the German Reich, working for the prosperity of the Prussian junkers and the German bourgeoisie, only Masurians enjoying not only full political rights, but one for all prosperity, knowledge, culture, entertainment, not exploited by anyone, only working for themselves and for themselves. The most sensitive point of economic change for a peasant is the transition from an individual to a team economy. Emphasize that the team economy is, according to the internationally recognized opinion of scientists, a higher form of farming and as a result not only gives better results in agricultural production – higher yields, but also a huge saving of human labor and its facilitation, just like a large factory, which can maintain directors and officers who do not produce goods, give workers holidays and vacations and yet produce the given goods twice or more cheaply than small manufacturing workshops. But because with less effort it is possible to produce more in a team economy, all its members must understand this way of working and mature to it, hence the only effective way to establish small manufacturing cooperatives is to join them voluntarily. Any harmful cases of coercion in this matter are only the result of the excessive zeal of immature officials, a desire to show off their results, and are not intended by the Polish authorities, which expect a peasant to mature with his social product to a voluntary understanding of his own and society’s benefits of this type of economy, and prohibit the use of violence to accelerate this maturity. We hope that you will take advantage of the advice and guidance given above to understand their essence. Appealing to you to revive the re-Polonization work in Masuria, we expect from you that this work should be of a character corresponding to your role of the Church workers, different from the secular workers, so that it does not enter not into its own territory, the territory of state authorities, party, economic, secular social organizations, but that it should have features of otherness, complement the secular activity in those sections which are inaccessible to secular activists or forgotten by them. This work is delicate and difficult, it requires from you a lot of sacrifice and generosity, but do not forget how much fierce and criminal energy the enemy put into destroying Polishness in Masuria and therefore it is not easy to make up for it. […] By entrusting you with this work, we believe in your generosity and the imminent achievement of the goal. You are doctors of human souls and consciences, you know the condition of the

Annex

161

disease, its causes and medicines, the treatment must be effective – the results of your work are successful. God bless you. [Reverend Superintendent Joseph Naumiuk at the clergy convention in Masuria]

12. Rev. Marian Lubecki, Memorandum on religious relations AAN, UdSW, sign. III 4a/11/53, c. 50–66. [Memorandum on religious relations, Rev. Marian Lubecki, May 1953] I. Relations between the People’s State and the denominations Our State is based on a purely secular and materialistic view. It is, therefore, based on non-religious assumptions, but this does not imply at all that all religious orientations are considered to be the same in relation to today’s reality, and only indifferently expect their. natural extinction. The extinction of religions is a very distant thing. It has not yet taken place in the world’s leading country of the USSR, which implemented socialism according to the Lenine-Stalinist indications. The religious directions, their influence on the members and on the surroundings should be taken into account, you should be aware of the differences and antagonisms between them and use these differences for your benefit. This is only a realistic approach, and adopting it to a greater or lesser extent to religious groups enables a more intensive contact with you. The Church, which covers the overwhelming majority of the Polish population, is subject to foreign Vatican power of unlimited despotism. This authority supports American imperialism in its policies. The Roman Church is the mainstay of all reactionary views. It is quite clear that the Roman Church is the main opponent of the People’s Government. Despite the fact that it has now been deprived of the privileges it was able to seize in pre-war clerical Poland, its reign, although unbalanced, is still powerful. The pressure it exerts on the individual, especially in provincial relations or in those institutions to which it penetrates, like some hospitals, is very great. It is sometimes difficult to avoid the pressure of opinion in matters of religious practices, sending children to teach religion, baptisms, vows, funerals. Its strength is the eternal habit of the general public to passiveness, and from where to lay down a heavy burden across all progress. Of course there are also within its ranks and among the clergy, individuals of light, liberating themselves from its influence in part, so for instance in the scientific field or in the political field, and they deserve to be respected and supported. But these are exceptions. Our religious minorities have a much more correct attitude towards the State. They do not come from the assumption of the superiority of the clergy over the secular power. They do, however, fully recognize the right of the State to regulate the administrative relations of the Church. It is their position that is justified with a, sustained not only where they constitute a small percentage of the population, but also where they cease to be minorities and constitute a majority, as in

162 Annex evangelical or orthodox countries. They accept with joy and gratitude every sign of kindness on the part of the State, when the Roman Church always behaves with suspicious reserve. The State, therefore, would go the most appropriate way if its attitude towards individual faiths was to depend on their attitude towards itself. The Church of Rome is hostile to our State. Therefore, everything that is conducive to the weakening of its power, which is directed against the State, is desirable for the State. Any opposition in its womb, like patriotic priests, is therefore desirable, and no less desirable is the development of religious minorities, who oppose the Papacy in principle, at the detriment of the Roman Church. It is a fact that religious needs occur in many people and are more deeply rooted in the psyche than dogmas. Also, a significant number of people are unable to leave the Church and give up supporting it if they do not have the opportunity to satisfy these needs in another religious organization. II. Guidelines for religious minorities in their relationship with the People’s State Minority congregations should establish for themselves guidelines of conduct towards the State, because passive loyalty, even the most reliable, is not enough. The churches must join the current of the new socialist system. Here is a general outline of such conduct: 1. The faithful are brought up in a positive evaluation of the current legal status of the religions. They are reminded that the removal of the clergy from the activities of civil servants, and the introduction of civil birth records of civil weddings, that the abolition of the obligation to teach religion in schools and these are huge steps forward in religious life. At the same time they are in full accordance with the principles of the gospel. 2. The declarations, to which the opportunity is occasionally given, are passed not only by the main boards of the churches, but also by the individual communities after they have been discussed, so that public awareness may be spread in this way. 3. State holidays on May Day inclusive are considered to be church holidays. Therefore, separate services are held on that day, or on Christmas Eve at a time determined in such a way as not to interfere with general lay celebrations. 4. On days of state celebrations, church buildings are decorated not only with national flags, but also with red flags. It is probably time to break with the fear of socialist emblems. 5. Churches proclaim the idea of peace and international cooperation. 6. Churches fight all chauvinism and racism. They also clearly fight against anti-Semitism, which still persists in society and is an excellent breeding ground for all reactions. (It is significant that there are church songs containing anti-Semitic elements. These include the song “People my people” (Ludu mój ludu), in which the historical successes of the Jewish people are

Annex

163

presented in an absurd way as a blessing of Jesus and at the same time juxtaposed with his suffering as inflicted by the Jews. A few phrases of this song are found in the ecumenical hymnbook and are sung at religious services and celebrations). 7. From an ethical point of view, they approve of the reforms carried out in People’s Poland, they support the National Front and the Six Year Plan. They also show compliance with the elementary principles of the religion of capitalist exploitation of man and the nurturing of neighbor, while emphasizing the deep harmony between the aims of socialism and the evangelical ideals. 8. They support sobriety and the fight against alcoholism, encourage diligence, require the strictest respect for social property and absolute honesty in all conduct. 9. At the services there are prayers for society, government, other nations, for common goals, in a free rather than formalistic way. In sermons, the motives contained in the above-mentioned items occupy a serious place. III. Church statutes The church statutes are thoroughly revised. There can be no significant approach to the new reality of the church if there is a relationship within it based on completely different principles. How can one consider the sincere declarations of church representatives in favor of democracy if they maintain an autocratic system that ignores human rights. The Protestant churches do not consider their political affairs to be sacred and unchanging. Thus, changes in the modern spirit can be carried out. In a democratic state the church must also be democratic. It is by no means a democracy when all lay people, hundreds of whom fall into one clergyman, have the same voice in church matters as relatively few priests. Clerics should be subject to the secular element. The secularization of the Church is a consequence of the Reformation. Women are entitled to full equality and to be admitted to all ecclesiastical functions. From the Protestant point of view, there are no religiously motivated objections here, and only the general conservative attitude about the leaders of the churches must not only have the character of unlimited rulers, but the running of the churches should be collegial and collective. The individual churches receive autonomy. A member of the church feels that he or she is the host in his or her church and has the opportunity to influence the course of affairs in the whole church. The title-seeking spread in churches is abolished. The laws are set in a simple and clear way for everyone to understand. IV. Worldview issues Apart from the organizational motives, the modernization of the worldview plays a huge role. This can happen especially among Protestant minorities who do not recognize any human authority. Changes concerning only those church matters that are more external in nature would not produce a proper arrangement. The

164 Annex fight between progressive and reactionary ideologies has been going on since the Enlightenment in the Protestant churches. In the West, conservative trends have recently prevailed, a symptom undoubtedly linked to the rise of fascism in the social sphere. Such a direction is called “dialectical theology” in an ostensibly modern way. Churches in the People’s State cannot be passive receptors of such influences. Evangelical theology has achieved serious accomplishments in critical biblical research. It explained the genesis of the biblical books as a compilation of various sources. These books are supplied with the names of people who are not really their authors and thus predicted as to the time of their creation. In the light of this research, the naive belief in verbal inspiration and infallibility of the Bible falls. Hence the conflict between the position of the Theological Faculties and the position of the clerical church leaders, who are still trying to maintain this faith for members who are treated as simpletons. And yet the truth must be proclaimed to people, even in a relative form for pedagogical reasons. The Theological faculties, and especially the professors’ progress, should feel behind them the support of higher factors in the face of clericalism. Symptoms such as “consistory exams” for university graduates, which are actually a painstaking study of legitimacy, should be abolished. 1. The churches should therefore promote a proper approach to the Bible, not as an object of adoration, nor as a paper pope, nor as a textbook for the resolution of scientific, natural, historical questions, but as a source of certain religiously edifying thoughts which should be found there and reasonably understood. 2. Therefore, the churches should eliminate faith in miracles (miraculizm). We do not accept miracles that supposedly happen in Lourdes, Częstochowa, etc. The rightly enlightened state has reservations about these matters. But we cannot accept stories of miracles that supposedly happened before the nineteenth century and the relevant Bible stories if you do not want to be a promoter of darkness, you must explain them to the people rationally, indicating their moral and not literal meaning. 3. At the same time, the idea of modern natural knowledge should be promoted. To teach clearly the theory of evolution: the origin of life from inorganic matter and man from animal ancestors. It is also important to acquaint people with scientific astronomical concepts and to indicate the possibilities of organic life and even intelligent beings outside the earth. Removing the remnants of the superstition about the unique position of our globe in the universe, acquainting people with astronomical theories about the creation of the world and its structure. 4. A uniform naturalistic view of the world around us should be supported. 5. To harmonize with this view the approach to the history of humanity, taking advantage of the achievements of historical materialism. (I note that such an approach does not weaken our religion as such in its main foundations, i.e. faith in God, not as a capricious despot, but as an infinite and eternal being,

Annex

165

from which flows the order of the cosmos, faith in the beyond-mortal content of life, faith in Jesus Christ as the ideal of man, our pattern through life and death. Such an attitude only cleanses religion from its superstitious infatuations. Against this background, religious people are not discouraged by giving them full scientific information and, yes, they see this combination as a happier way out of internal conflicts). 6. It is the duty of minority churches to combat religious fanaticism and intolerance not only opportunistic when it comes to their own handicaps, but universal and consistent. It must be taught that man’s closeness to God does not depend on the sacrament, religious practices, religious affiliation, but on good conduct, that a dissenter and atheist can be saved, that it is therefore natural for us to work together with all people who desire the good. 7. Since the Roman Church is a fundamental opponent of modern thought, the medieval Catholic remnants, which are still found in minority churches, must be uprooted, both in dogmatic terms (e.g., the theory of original sin, juridical redemption, eternal damnation) and in ritual terms (e.g., interior decoration of churches on the Catholic model, refusal of the so-called apostolic confession of faith, rigid liturgical devotion, kneeling, etc.). Only when they become fully aware of their opposition to the Roman system minority churches will get rid of their own sense of smallness towards Catholicism, which sometimes undermines my bolder initiative and pushes them into a row of infirm followers of others’ patterns. It is probably not indifferent to the prudent supporters of dialectical materialism, whether they will find in churches ruthless enemies of their worldview, or whether they will find sympathizers of a large part of it. Each of them understands that it would take a long time before society as a whole would be concerned about dialectical materialism and that it is not once necessary to be satisfied with more modest success. You cannot despise any, even the slightest, step forward, or disregard any social institution that would become cooperative. V. The realization of the transformation in the Methodist Church I realize that religious minorities are far from the program I outlined above. However, the implementation of this is, contrary to the opinion of conservative pastors, easier than it seems. One of the evangelical churches should be taken as an experimental starting point. Old churches with an established traditional mode, such as the Evangelical-Augsburg one, as well as the Reformed one, would not be suitable for this. On the other hand, it would also be difficult to go with sectarian churches like the Baptist ones. So there would be one church left for this purpose, which is young in Poland, still in the process of becoming, which represents radical Protestantism. It combines the features of both the more serious church and the Pietist groups and is burdened with the least amount of tradition. It is the Methodist Church. But in order for it to fulfill its purpose, serious changes must be made to it. Strong internal circulars would teach each member that there is not

166 Annex only an opportunistic adaptation by external declarations, but that interaction with the current social reality is indeed at the heart of the church. The decisions of the foreign chief superintendent deserve a clear appeal. The decisions of the foreign superintendent Werner T. Wickstrom deserve a clear appeal, e.g. decree No. 2 of February 1949 that marriages must not be granted to divorced persons. This regulation, which is inconsistent with the general practice of Evangelical Churches, completely ignores the state law allowing divorce. The humorous thing to do in our times is to mention some of the phrases from rituals that the mentioned Wickstrom announced as obligatory, e.g. an excerpt from the text: “Marriage ceremony” p.2 at Circular No. 5 of March 19, 1948 reads literally: “The pastor, turning to the congregation, will ask: who gives this woman to be married to this man? The father of the fiancée, the guardian, or someone who marries her, will answer: I am giving her back. Then the pastor, taking the fiancée’s hand from the hands of her father, guardian, or witness, will take the fiancée’s right hand and join the hands of both…”. Pastors, as far as I know, do not generally follow this ritual, but this thing has not been cancelled so far, despite the promises of the chief superintendent. The rituals, which are not uniform in our church, should be reviewed in order to remove motives that are incompatible with the current reality and absurd. It is time to break with the remnants of dependence on American influence. We should clearly instruct the faithful that, according to our evangelical principles, which consider marriage as a contract and not as a sacrament, a marriage based on civil marriage is already a complete marriage. The Church, therefore, will give its blessing to a marriage already entered into, and this will be taken into account in the ritual. A church wedding act sounding as if it were the only wedding, asking questions about matters that have been clarified in the Registry Office is at least a fat inaccuracy to the State. Churches could do educational work for the benefit of society. The congregations would be obliged to set up libraries and reading rooms and install national radios. In this way they would establish closer contact with the social and cultural life of the nation. There would also be lectures given on topics concerning the history of religion and on various scientific topics. The lecturers would be more intelligent members of the congregations and invited educationalists. The educational matters are also connected with individual and group work for combating, illiteracy and semi-analphabetism, and for raising the level of elementary knowledge of those congregation members who have fallen behind in terms of intellectual preparation. The chapels and church buildings will not suffer at all if they are also used for decent secular purposes. After all, they are to serve the society. Such things have already been done in years. 1947–1950 in the congregation in Praga with good results and to the satisfaction of the congregation members. After the change of pastor [written in pencil: “Fr. M. Lubecki”] they were discontinued. This entailed a certain reduction in the number of services in order to leave some time for the development of the mind. And methodologists and other minorities are directly deviant, leading three or more services a week, also on Catholic

Annex

167

holidays, not recognized by them as Protestants. In this way people are distracted and weaned from more useful activities. One service per week is completely sufficient. Such a regulation of the services would make it easier to raise their level and especially to improve the sermons. Likewise, the evangelizations, which usually take place eight days after each other, are worthy of a short cut, and are usually idle in content, weeks of prayer, retreats, etc., largely imitating Catholic missions, retreats, indulgences. For the so-called Sunday schools it is necessary to develop a program and provide pedagogical guidance to the students. I highlight the intellectual work in this paper, because it is awareness-raising, but I consider ethical and humanitarian action to be equally important. In this respect, too, the current activities of the churches leave much to be desired, mainly of the almsgiving type. However, as is sometimes the case in schools, it is necessary to create periods of education for the faithful in order to carry out, albeit roughly, a specific moral achievement. Active assistance in the care of children, in services to the sick, etc., will always be needed. This also includes participation in social activities undertaken at your initiative. In order for pastors to meet these tasks, or not to disturb them in a more pleasant way, it is necessary to try to raise their level. The Methodist Seminar is already doing a lot of work here, releasing preachers, some of them at least prepared for it. The atmosphere of church passivity is not conducive to a more lively action. On the improvement of the seminary I presented a separate paper on April 1 of this year in the Office for Religious Affairs, a department of non-Roman denominations. Now, I would just like to remind you of the need to support non-seminarian education of students as they have the basics, their preparation for the baccalaureate exams, and their referral to the studies of the Evangelic Theology Department. But there is much that could be done with the pastors of the past if they were instructed to do so. A separate general church committee would deal with the matter of their further education, pointing out books to them and providing guidance. The churches would be going around, with readings. The pastors would hold district meetings for further improvement. All these transformations require a radical change of the current statute. Completing the new one is a few months’ work, all the more so because it must be done in contact with all the congregations. It would be too optimistic to assign a decisive role in improving relations to the new statute. The core of the matter depends on the man. And the best statute will become a dead letter if the leadership of the church is stuck with the mind in the past. I think that even before the statute is finally established, some makeshift moves could be made for a broader, empowered and secular element to be activated, to equalize the rights of all preachers, acting as pastors, a significant part of whom are. not at all voiced at the General Conference and not even invited to the meetings of the Executive Committee. I am referring in particular to a number of young preachers, who could be contrasted with the conservatism of the old. They are the very element that could be a factor in pushing the church to a new track.

168 Annex Naturally, with the practical implementation of this program and the cooperation with the State Authorities, life itself would probably require even greater or lesser corrections and additions. VI. Change of management It’s quite obvious that the performance of all that this paper develops hinges on the proper focus of action. What is necessary here is a clear and decisive theoretical awareness of the goal with caution in action and taking into account practical difficulties, not to surrender to them but to overcome them skillfully. A steadfast determination with a courteous and tactful approach to people must be shown. The success of the intentions is conditioned by a comprehensive intellectual basis, unselfish ideals and life experience. A guarantee of conscientious cooperation with the authorities is to be given, and more: socialist beliefs, a guarantee that it is not based on words, but on the activities that have been carried out so far. In this case, the People’s Republic of Poland will not be disappointed by this experiment. Such a suitable man, who is placed in the highest position in the Church, will bring many. Gaining the kindness of the general public by understanding the fellow man and warmth will not be too difficult against the background of the rather rubbish and conceited behavior of the previous superintendents. This putting the right person in the right place is necessary to make a great attempt. But how to introduce him? There may be different ways, and the Office of Confessions probably still has other ways to go than those that are being considered here. 1. The most normal way would be to hold elections at the General Conference, prepared with the help of the State Authorities. This assistance would consist perhaps in holding preliminary conferences of the Offices for Religious Affairs in Warsaw and in the Province with the pastors of our Church, starting with the Superintendent General, in which it would be clear that the authorities are kindly looking at the steps to reform and that they are placing certain intellectual and moral demands on the candidate for Superintendent General. It would also be helpful to facilitate the tour of the churches before the General Conference to the desired candidate and his supporters for the preparation of an opinion. The presence of a representative of the Office of the Religious Affairs at the General Conference would do much to prevent possible abuse. The final step would be not to approve other candidates. This is the least certain way, however, because an individual who has so far been removed from all influence, directly boycotted in matters of evangelization and detours, is not allowed to cooperate with the former Church magazine, The Polish Pilgrim, is not well known in the Church. Moreover, it is systematically presented falsely by opponents fearing for their influence and sources to walk. They are afraid to replace mutual adoration with intellectual and moral requirements and do not disguise themselves in any means, using slander or even handouts. These adversaries have influence in the Church,

Annex

169

access to all churches, and most importantly, pastors are dependent on them. After all, they have the Church’s money without counting. So they attract to submissiveness with threat and lure. The chief superintendent was completely theirs until the middle of January this year. From the second half of January, as a result of a dispute with the Executive Committee, he took up halfway positions, seeking support from the Democratic pastors. Against this background, it is understandable that there is an uncertainty of fluctuation in the General Conference electoral community, completely unaccustomed to consider the rights of the Church and to proper deliberations. 2. The second way is to prepare the new management by close and confidential contact with the former chief superintendent. His compliance with the advice of the Office for Religious Affairs is unquestionable, especially if he has the assurance that he will maintain a serious position in the Church with his successor. Well, the Chief Superintendent could, taking advantage of a circumstance, change his current deputy. This circumstance could be a change in the composition of the executive committee, or some accusation against the deputy or even his leave. According to the statutes, the deputy assumes chief power until the next General Conference in case the superintendent chief resigns. So it is the Chief Superintendent, upon appointment, that the new Vice-Chairman would relinquish his dignity and the intended action could be taken by postponing the General Conference for the time being. 3. The third way, perhaps the easiest of all, is the official replacement of the Church administrator with the rights of chief superintendent^ with the order to heal the relatively marshy. He did not convene it last year against the statute and is postponing it as far as possible this year. It seems that he does not intend to convene it either. Another reason could be that the treasurer, which is his custom and also lasts for three and a half years of the current chief superintendent’s term of office. Apparently with his approval until January this year. Perhaps there would be another reason. Basically, it is important that any of these three moves should still take place during the duration of the old draft of the statute, because this one gives to the superintendent almost unlimited possibilities of acting in the Church. Our people are not used to democratic freedoms. They would accept them more with a feeling of surprise than with a feeling of joy. Therefore, there should be an initial period to prepare them for these freedoms. Even more so, the motive is that in the Church, as in secular society, there must be a crushing of the reaction before democracy comes into force. It is undeniable that our reaction, which has had many years of influence in the Church, would use democratic laws in a painful way to paralyze all creative endeavors. Let us add that a truly democratic statute, which would remove the remnants of Americanism, could only be laid down under the new leadership of the Church, because the conservatism of the views of the current superintendent general and also the chairman of the Statutory Commission, in the absence of 100% progressive determination on the part of the majority of the Statutory Commission, would not allow for a reliable radical approach to the statute.

170 Annex VII. Ecumenism The Methodist Church, becoming a focus of Protestant thought, will also influence other minority Churches. It will show them the way in a pioneering way. It will therefore be able to be set as a model for religious organizations in general to introduce such or other innovations according to their needs and ideas. The revival of one Church will necessarily entail the revival of the fraternal churches in the spirit desired by the People’s State. There will be a need for mutual sharing of experiences. Therefore, it is necessary to proceed to the renewal of Polish Ecumenism. Protestants have a great inclination in this direction and feel a clear lack of interfaith understanding, to which the first steps, although not very happy, have been taken. The international ecumenical movement has gone down a false track, it has become largely a tool for the reactionary interests of Anglo-Saxon countries. But these tracks are false not only from a political point of view, but also from a theological point of view. The ecumenical movement started in 1925 by the scholarly religious scholar Bishop of Uppsala Natan Soderblom, as the so-called Stockholm Movement, threw the slogan “life and action” (life and work). Christians, leaving dogma aside, were to unite for the purposes of achieving ethical ideals; peace and humanity. It is understandable that against the background of this movement there was also an exchange of theological thoughts. However, this issue was soon understood as the main one, it grew in ecumenism as a new movement, the socalled Lausanne-Oxford movement, at first next to the Stockholm movement and then it suppressed it completely. And the whole ecumenism entered into this perversion. A new slogan was introduced: “faith and order”. Now the ecumenical thought of unification of Christianity at least not Roman, against the background of a dogmatic rapprochement, is guided by ecumenism. The thought, of course, is hopeless, but it is a good nourishment for congresses that are far from the most vital issues of life. The center of the movement became the most conservative churches: Anglican High Church, Orthodox, Old Catholic, right-wing Lutheran churches. No wonder that dogmas inherited from the Middle Ages, faith in the Trinity, original sin, the divinity of Jesus Christ, etc., were considered valid. They had to leave the ecumenical Unitarian and liberal groups. Conservatism has now become fashionable in both theory (dialectical theology) and ecclesiastical practice (the liturgical movement is a step forward for Roman Catholics because it supports the active participation of the faithful in the service and the introduction of the national language. The liturgical movement in Protestants is a step forward for Roman Catholics because it supports the active participation of the faithful in the worship and the introduction of the national language. The liturgical movement in Protestants is backward because it involves Catholic forms). In the area of the Polish ecumenical community this conservatism has been taken up since the beginning of its existence. It was directed independently by a person who, because of his pro-catholic attitude and in the Evangelical-Augsburg Church, evoked serious objections. This person, with the help of the Mariavite bishops, caused that ecumenism was used to introduce Catholic elements into Protestant denominations.

Annex

171

The commission appointed for the arrangement of the ecumenical liturgy did not hold a single meeting at all. The liturgy was arranged on its own by the president of ecumenism with the Mariavite bishops. This liturgy does not take into account what is common to all confessions, but is clearly Catholic and foreign to Protestants. The “Eucharistic Brotherhood” was founded as the main work of the ecumenical community, even seemingly not according to the statute, in order to extend the worship of the “most holy sacrament. Among the evangelical pastors, the reception of “apostolic succession” was promoted. All the objections of just one ecumenical participant who did not even have a representative mandate from his Methodist Church, despite being carefully motivated, went unnoticed. Nor was it successful in attempting to popularize an essentially valid ecumenical idea, so that ecumenical gatherings would cease to be merely chats of the initiated clergy and would become a matter for the ecclesial people, who expect positive results from it. It was not so much because of a lack of support on the part of the pastors as because the said member of the ecumenical community had been removed from his pastoral office and had lost the possibility of having the premises for meetings. The ecumenical leadership did not accept certain groups into the union according to their own vision, removed others against the background of side conflicts, alienated themselves and caused some to leave. At ecumenical meetings the cooperation of the clergy with the People’s State was never discussed. The activity of ecumenism ceased, because the management body had too many more important activities within the home of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church. If this ecumenism were ever to be resurrected in its former mode, it would really better not exist! In its turn, we gain experience of how much a certain agile individuality can carry out by giving its mark to the whole movement, as it suggests its thoughts to others, even if not according to their original assumptions. This time it was in the wrong direction, but next time it may be in the right one. Ecumenism is needed, of course, one in which the convergence of denominations would not be based on outdated dogmatic confessions of faith but on a new reality. The main concern of such an ecumenism would be cooperation with the People’s State, assistance in the realization of a just social system. Instead of spreading the cult of the Eucharist, the cult of education would be supported. Thus, the practical operation of the churches would be discussed, which has never been the case before. The Ecumenism brings together different types of religions, which correspond to different types of the human psyche and are not mutually exclusive but complementary. We have a Catholic type in several shades, basically similar to Roman Catholic in its form. It affects people precisely by the fact that they find in it almost everything that they find in the Roman Church, except that it is familiar, Polonized, liberated from the papal slavery. This does not mean, however, that these churches are supposed to be blacked out in their inner content. The modernization can take place here. After all, the Old Catholic German churches, themselves made their teachings completely Protestant and the faithful willingly agreed with it. Then there is the wide range of varieties of the Protestant type, which must be facilitated to reach the right core of the revolutionary and

172 Annex creative Reformation. Any religious group recognized by the State will enter the ecumenical community if it wishes. There can be no exceptions. Each will bring its individuality into common harmony. And internal theological currents also have a voice. It is unacceptable to disqualify religious liberalism and modernism, as has happened all the time. The convergence of the Christian denominations does not mean Christian exclusivity and does not deepen, as has been the case so far, the gap between the Christian religion and the others. The rapprochement must be based on rising above religious differences and have the characteristics of universalism. In the Polish ecumenism there should be a place for non-Christian denominations, Jews, Karaims, Muslims. It is confirmed by the Conference of All Churches and Religious Associations in the USSR devoted to the defense of peace held in Zagorsk in May 1952 that such a thing is possible and desirable. The ecumenical service of the future will gather motives from different religious sources in order to bring them together into a single entity that suits everyone. The reborn Methodist Church would probably become the center of a reborn ecumenism. And if in cultural competition it would be surpassed by someone else, all the better. After all, it is about the common goal not about particularism. VIII. The assembly of churches In addition to ecumenism, which is the cooperation of churches, it is also important to unite the related churches into a larger whole. This could probably be done between churches of the Catholic type, but here we will take into consideration especially Protestant relations. Negotiations between the Methodist Church and the Evangelical-Reformed Church have been taking place on this subject for a long time. They were still in the times of the Evangelical-Reformed superintendent Skierski and Methodist superintendent Najder. Since then, nothing has essentially moved forward. The matter is limited to theoretical declarations, and in practice to inviting pastors to each other’s sermons. The projects of the superior council, with the distinctiveness of entire church organizations, do not help much. It will be a fiction, at most representative without a significant basis. None of the parties are taking each other seriously. As long as the present leadership of the Methodist Church is, I don’t think any of this will happen. These non-program people, who live day by day, are only concerned with maintaining influence and better income from purely personal motives. It is also true that the leadership of the other Church does not come out of the non-program state and without the fruitful chewing of old thoughts, from playing with the search of old confessions, which modern man does not care about, and which according to them are a step for the confessions towards understanding each other. The bottom-up connection is important, i.e. not from the pastors but the ecclesiastical people. If there are followers of both churches in a village, they form one church. The church districts are also common, and any distinction disappears. This is only possible against the background of democratic relations. No one can feel that they are coming under someone else’s rule, but that they are united as free with the free brethren, with the same right to decide

Annex

173

the affairs of the congregation as they are. Certain distinctions and habits could be maintained, but not as distinctions of the churches, but only of the individual parishes, which would in principle be given the right to shape their own religious life according to their own needs and appreciation. The combination is for the benefit of both parties. The Evangelical-Reformed would bring their Polish traditions and the recognition they have in society. The Methodists would have to give up their internal activism (although not too intense, but exceeding the Calvinists) and missionary momentum, and the Evangelical-Reformed Church would have to give up its dogmatic and liturgical rigidity (which is higher there than among the Methodists), both churches would have to give up their conservatism. Each one would give up its negative features, and would assimilate its positive features. A certain difficulty is the name issue. The name, however, is subordinate for a truly religious person and the matter of God is the most important. The Methodists will renounce their name. It is not true, as some pastors assure that the Methodist people are attached to the name. It sounds strange, incomprehensible and embarrassing to many. It resembles the American imported origin of the church, which not only in the present reality, but also in pre-war Poland did not win sympathy towards the Methodists. The name “Evangelical-Reformed” immediately has a clear content and the society is accustomed to it. The merger of the two churches would be an introduction to further mergers. A united church would already have the seriousness that would have to be reckoned with more. If the democratic elements gained the upper hand in the Evangelical-Augsburg Church, the matter of merging with it would be mature. However, a merger with other religious groups would also have to be made, perhaps even beforehand. They are already taking the first steps in this direction among themselves. The Church of Christ, the Evangelical and Free Christians, the Pentecostalists, are merging with each other. Further connections would be the next step. The burning and divisive issue of adult baptism, which is undoubtedly an expression of a higher religious consciousness, could be alleviated in the way of the Evangelical-Reformed Church in Switzerland, where both children and adults are baptized. Naturally, there may be different degrees of connection. For those who were essentially in complete isolation, a looser connection is also a step forward. A Methodism under what name, modernized, strengthened internally and externally, would become attractive, it would represent a certain strength towards the Church of Rome, if not materially and morally. The ecumenism of the churches would also represent at least a little of this material strength. It would be of great importance for society to have a collective progressive and pro-state Evangelical Church. IX. Publishing and press matters In conclusion, there is still a publishing house issue to be addressed. The renewal of religious relations cannot be done without a printed word. The pedagogical publishers are the first to come into play here. There are so-called Sunday schools,

174 Annex with one lesson per week. Pastors teach there, people with poor preparation, sometimes half-illiterates themselves. Dilettantes also teach. The smallest amount of school knowledge and good intentions, because work in Sunday schools is honorable, are enough to take up teaching. It is also the level of these “schools” or “nurseries” that is usually terrible. They are used to mechanically instill religious principles, which the lecturer himself usually has not thought through. The children who attend them are very sympathetic. At times the conclusion is undoubtedly correct for most schools that it would be better if they were not there at all. Better for mental development, but also better for direct sincere religiousness. But since it is a fact that such schools do exist, since they cannot have other teachers, because the Classes generally have no more intelligent teaching powers, the textbook must be given to these teachers. The textbook would contain the elementary pedagogical messages to instruct the teacher and the pastor supervising the school, and then the themes of the Bible stories in such a way that they do not oppose modern knowledge, so that they are at least approximately a whole with what children learn in the proper school. The few books in this field, wandering around in private hands, so generally unavailable, are absolutely outdated. The reborn Methodist Church or the new ecumenical church will be happy to publish such a textbook. Something similar applies also to religious textbooks in general education schools. Here the religion teacher is better prepared and the EvangelicalAugsburg textbooks are more accessible. However, their obsolescence is clear. There is a need for modernized textbooks, which also contain worldview chats. They would, of course, be common for different Evangelical denominations. The aspiration to modernize churches, to cooperate with the People’s State and the socialist transformations needs strongly to find a sound in the press for its success, it needs to be able to communicate its progress through it. This would be expected to be made available to Protestant-democrats, as it is made available to Catholic patriotic priests. The most important thing, however, is to have your own organ, at first in the size of a modest monthly magazine. It is not advisable that this matter should be postponed until the final victory of the program developed here, even in the church discussed here, because the magazine is one of the most effective weapons in the fight for victory. The very appearance of such a progressive magazine would be an important step in the religious world. It would bring Polish evangelism out of the current impasse. It would stop many abuses and create a ferment for the better. Such a magazine, maintained on a proper literary level, would gain readers among religious minorities and beyond and would soon become financially self-sufficient even if no church stands behind it. However, the reborn Methodist Church will support all cultural motifs with all its might, so the periodical will be the first to follow. It will not do as it did two and a half years ago with Pielgrzym Polski (Polish Pilgrim), eagerly winding it up at the first major publishing difficulties. The periodical will make a serious contribution to a better consolidation of our statehood in the camp of Protestants and other religious minorities. The case of such a publishing house would deserve special consideration.

Annex

175

The work of combining church work with the work of the People’s Republic of Poland is great and hurts without delay. What is progressive and creative should be strengthened in all areas, so also in the Church!

13. Memorandum by Serafin Kirylowicz, Head of the Department of Non-Roman Catholic Confessions at the Office for Religious Affairs, on the visit of Pastor Marian Lubecki AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1609 J, c. 15–16, Serafin Kirylowicz, “Memorandum”, 12.10.1950 On 11 October 1950, the Methodist pastor Marian Lubecki came to the Office for Religious Affairs, declaring that he would like to inform the Office about some events in the life of the Methodist Church that took place in Warsaw. Citizen Marian Lubecki started his religious and social activity on a larger scale after the First World War. During this period he was in the sphere of influence of the Quaker Mission, which aimed to develop propaganda activity in Poland on a wider scale (to no avail). In 1922, citizen Lubecki together with a small group of people founded an association called Wspólnota Twórczości (Community of Creativity), which in 1925 adopted the name Zbór Miłości (Agape) – an organization of rather pantheistic character. The aim of this congregation was to “cultivate an ethical and religious life, free from dogma and rituals, and based on a sense of connection with the Universe and love for all beings”. Citizen Lubecki was the editor of the journal Sumienie Społeczne (Social Conscience). These are the details of pre-war life of citizen Lubecki, which he naturally did not mention, and which are known to the Office from materials on Polish sectarianism. Citizen Lubecki only mentioned about himself so much that he said very briefly about his pedagogical activity as a teacher and director of a private gymnasium before the war (he holds a master’s degree in philosophy, and after the war in evangelical theology). After the war, Lubecki appeared in Warsaw as a pastor of the Methodist church in Praga (Jagiellońska Street). Citizen Lubecki stated that for his social activity in the church, carried out on the grounds of cooperation with the existing system of people’s democracy, he was removed from the post of pastor and transferred to the post of lecturer at the Methodist Theological Seminary in Klarysewo. He was not materially harmed, only morally. He believes that the transfer was caused by his enemies, who did not like his social activities and views on the current reality. He said about the work in the seminar area that, in fact, this establishment is not a college at the level of seminaries for clergy – it is a kind of Sunday school, which has neither a scientific plan, nor statutes, nor regulations. It is taught by several people, and above all by a certain Szczepkowski, who recently returned from America, where he received his “higher methodological studies”, and who held the position of rector and lecturer of theological subjects. The director of both the seminary and the Church is superintendent Naumiuk, who decides everything, not taking into account the opinion

176 Annex of the church representatives. In the opinion of citizen Lubecki, the statute of the Methodist Church, submitted to the Department of Confessions, is precisely an expression of the superintendent’s dictatorial drive. This statute is undemocratic and cannot be approved for this reason. Citizen Lubecki is carrying the idea of creating a special Evangelical Church in Warsaw, in which evangelicals of different factions would be grouped and which would develop social and ethical activity on the basis of cooperation with the system of people’s democracy and would like to receive support from the authorities in this matter. He announced that he would come to the Office once again to talk to Director Darczewski.

14. The religious situation in Masuria, according to Serafin Kiryłowicz of the Office for Religious Affairs (1953) AAN, UdSW, sign. III 2a/34/54, c. 122. [Serafin Kiryłowicz] Notatka służbowa “Sprawa Mazurska”, 21 XI [1953] The largest concentration of Masuria in Olsztyn Province is located in the poviats: Olsztyn – about 25,600 people, Mrągowo – about 22,000 people, Szczytno – about 12,000, Reszel – about 7,500, Ostróda – about 7,000 people and Giżycko – about 6,000 people. In the majority Masurians belong to Protestant denominations. The EvangelicalAugsburg Church has 30 parishes and 43 churches in the Olsztyn province with about 40–45 thousand followers, currently served by 12 pastors, 8 ordained and 4 non-ordained deacons and 3 deacon sisters. The followers, parishes and priests form a separate church unit in the Olsztyn province – the diocese of Masuria. Some of the Masurian Evangelicals are also served by Methodists /19 clergymen/ who started their action among the Masurians immediately after the war through material aid and American gifts. They organized 20 congregations and 17 branches in Ostróda poviat, Ełk poviat, Białystok province. Referring to the tradition of the German Evangelical-Union church, the Methodists stir up revisionist sentiments among the Masurians and maintain the opposition tendencies towards the Evangelical-Augsburg church and its influence on the Masurian population. The Evangelical-Augsburg Church fights against the influence of the Methodists, gradually pushing them out of Ostróda poviat, which was initially a bastion of Methodism /the whole parish in Lipowo with the Methodist pastor at the head/ has recently come under the jurisdiction of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church. For two years now, the Evangelical-Augsburg Church, with the permission of the Office, has been running the action among the Masurians, distributing Polish songbooks, calendars, catechisms and other religious literature among its followers, organizing Polish services with sermons, training the Masurians in Warsaw on a special course for deacons (in 1952, 25 people participated in the course for deacons). This action requires significant material expenses from the church authorities, especially for supplying the Evangelical population in Masuria with relevant

Annex

177

Polish literature. The previous post-war circulations of church songbooks and other religious literature are out of print. A year ago, the Evangelical-Augsburg Church received 30,000 copies of Polish hymn books from Sweden (including 10,000 bound in canvas), but these hymn books, due to their content, are not suitable for distribution among the Masurians.

15. The Methodist Church in Poland according to Major Władysław Setla from the Ministry of the Interior (1962) AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1617/J, c. 7–13. mjr Władysław Setla “Informacja dotycząca Kościoła Metodystycznego w PRL”, Warszawa 8.02.1962 r. The Methodist denomination belongs to the group of Protestant – Evangelical confessions and, apart from the Lutheran and Calvinist confessions, it constitutes a numerous and strong religious union in the world. The cradle of Methodism is England. Its creators at the end of the 18th century were brothers John and Karol Wesley. Their activity was a reaction to the heartless formalism that prevailed in the Anglican Church at that time. They proclaimed the principle of “living Christianity,” expressed not in theological doctrines, but in honest deeds. The name “Methodists” was given to them by opponents because of the regular gathering for prayers. The principles of Methodism generally coincide with those of most Evangelical denominations. A characteristic feature of Methodism is the emphasis placed on social and charitable activities, manifested in various forms, especially in providing material assistance. The second half of the eighteenth century was conducive to the Methodists’ foundations, so in a short time they gained a lot of supporters. Methodists in their doctrinal works claim that they deserve credit for the fact that in England there was no revolution of the size of modern France. After John Wesley’s death in 1791 the Methodists finally separated themselves from the Anglican Church and formed a separate religious union – the “Methodist Church”. Supported by influential factors, thanks to specific working methods, applied for the first time, Methodists became a strong religious union in Great Britain. However, the main development base of Methodism was the United States. The first Methodist community in America was established in 1784. The missionary and pioneering nature of Methodism has had a great influence on shaping the psyche of the American nation, which until recently exceeded all other religions operating there. The Church has been associated with representatives of ruling spheres with great capital and has long been used as a factor weakening class struggle. The Methodist Church in America still does not form a compact whole, but is divided into 19 separate organizations, with a fundamental split as early as 1844, due to the different attitude of the Methodists of the North and the South to the issue of slavery of the Negroes. Of all the separate organizations of the Methodist Church in America, there are three main ones, the strongest and the most influential:

178 Annex 1. The Methodist Church of America (Methodist Church of America) was founded in 1939 by the merger of three independent churches: the Methodist Northern and Southern Episcopal Church and the Protestant Methodist Church. 2. The African Methodist Episcopal Church – uniting the Negroes of America. 3. The Collegiate Methodist-Episcopal Church. According to statistics, the total number of Methodists on the American continent is about 25 million, of which about 12 million are in the United States of America. The number of followers in the world reaches 35 million. The Methodist Church is also significantly developed in England, Sweden, Africa and partly in South Asia. In the United States of America Methodists have great material resources. Thanks to the membership of this denomination of many representatives of the great financiers and thanks to their support, they are able to develop their property unlimitedly. They run about 140 secondary schools and 10 higher theological seminars. They have widely developed publishing institutions and are shareholders of many American journals. They have about 2,000 active and paid missionaries abroad, out of which 8 were active in Poland until 1949. The support enjoyed by American Methodists is explained by their role in internal and external politics. They are an important factor in foreign policy, since the missionaries scattered all over the world form as if the front guard of American imperialism. The activity of Methodists in missionary countries is mainly based on the following: (a) charitable activities, running free kitchens, distributing clothing and food (b) organizing orphanages, kindergartens, boarding schools and English language courses (c) the organization of press, publication and readings. The structure of the Methodist Church is as follows: The supreme authority of the Church is the so-called “General Conference” convened every 4 years. It consists of representatives of clergy and laity, elected at the annual conferences of individual districts into which the country is divided. Within each country, the Church is divided into districts, into parishes, and into congregations, which may be several within a parish. Each district, the so-called superintendenture, holds annual conferences, which are attended by representatives of all the churches, and where matters concerning the entire area are discussed. The Methodist Church in Europe does not have independence, but reports directly to the Church in the United States. In the Methodist Church we distinguish the following offices: bishop, superintendent, congregation elder, deacon, local preacher, exhorter. The first three offices are held by people who are professionally dedicated to the Church and are paid by it. The remaining functions are performed by lay people free of charge. In Poland we currently have 3 districts: Warsaw, Cracow and Olsztyn. However, the actual power rests in the hands of the chief superintendent, who for several years has been Józef Szczepkowski.

Annex

179

The Methodist Church in Poland was established in autumn 1920. At that time, the mission of the Methodist Church in the United States, composed of Major White, Dr. Sloan, Dr. Twynham and Margarette Quale, arrives in Poland. Until 1922, this mission was operating not only as a religious organization, but also as a committee to provide assistance in the form of distributing clothing and food. The building was purchased in Warsaw on Mokotowska Street. A number of institutions, dormitories for young people in Poznań and Warsaw and orphanages in Klarysewo, Pustomyty, Lwów and Odolanów were established. In 1923 the Methodist magazine Wysłaniec (Messanger) was founded, which was later renamed Pilgrim of Poland and a biblical school was opened and English language courses were launched, which have survived to this day, educating about 3 thousand listeners. Methodists, like other Evangelical confessions of pre-war Poland, put great emphasis in their activities on work in the eastern territories, covering also the Ukrainian and Belarusian population. Despite considerable efforts and financial sums, the results of the Methodists’ work were minimal. The statistics from 1933 show 614 members, affiliated in 14 institutions. Methodism rejecting all rituals, ceremonies and limiting services did not suit the psyche of the Polish population. Despite their hard efforts, the Methodists did not gain legal recognition before 1939 and acted as a tolerated association. They developed their financial and commercial activities under the name “Polish-American Joint Stock Company”. After the war broke out, they did not stop their activities. In the early period, there was even a significant development, due to the fact that they incorporated a number of churches: Baptist, Pentecostal, Scripture Students and Adventists, who as a result of the war lost contact with their headquarters at home and abroad. The Germans’ attitude towards the Methodist Church, especially in the first years, was positive. Germans (many facts prove it) treated the Church as an American agency and tried to make possible flattering opinions to the USA through this channel. The situation changed significantly after the USA joined the war. There were arrests and expulsions. The leadership of the Church was taken over by people of Polish nationality. The superintendent was Najder Konstanty, who together with such activists as: Kuśmiderski Michał, Biesiadecki Zygmunt, Szczepkowski Józef and Benedyktowicz Witold – conducted the activity of the Church until the end of the war. On the ground of this church a strong agent activity, led by the Germans, was revealed. The facts of a number of arrests of people connected with the activists of the Methodist Church are known, especially in Cracow and Zakopane. Many influential activists of the Methodist Church during the occupation period died at the hands of the Home Army, among others Biesiadecki, Skwarczyński and Wronarowicz were shot dead as collaborators with the occupier. [Note from the author: This information was falsified and repeated for the purpose of justifying the anti-Methodist policy of the authorities. The circumstances of the death of the well-known actor and member of the anti-Hitler underground, Zygmunt Biesiadecki, are known and completely different from those presented in this document. Biesiadecki and his wife were shot by the Germans in an execution carried out on 13 January 1944 in Warsaw.]

180 Annex After the end of the war activities, the Methodist Church resumed its activity. In October 1945 the legal status was regulated. In terms of organization, two districts (superintendentures) were created: the northern one with the seat in Ostróda and the southern one with the seat in Warsaw, headed by Konstanty Najder. From the very first days, gifts (money and material things) began to flow to the Church from the Ecumenical Council and various religious organizations in the USA, Sweden, Switzerland and Denmark. The whole activity of the Church goes under the supervision of the Methodist Church in the United States, on whose behalf Paul Garber comes to Poland and he actually heads the Church. The activity of the Methodist Church in the first years is characterized by considerable momentum. A number of institutions were reactivated, concentrating on the evangelical elements of the Masurian population. The main propaganda measure, used to extend the influence, was, apart from the preaching action, the distribution of gifts, which were constantly coming from the USA to the Church. This way, a number of existing associations such as: Workers’ and Peasant Society of the Friends of Children, Association of the Blind Soldiers, not excluding various cultural circles, began to be widely reached. Free colonies for children and youth were organized. In the press and publishing section, the publication of Polish Pilgrim resumed shortly after the liberation. The Methodist Book and Publishing Cooperative Pochodnia (Torch) was opened in Warsaw, dissolved in 1949 as a deficit institution. A separate form of activity of Methodists is their English language school. The school, which in principle does not serve the propaganda of Methodism, gives crazy income. It employs a dozen or so teachers, and since 1949 its rector has been Józef Szczepkowski, a reemigrant from the United States. Important changes took place in the Methodist Church in the spring of 1949, i.e. after the loud trial of several Methodist pastors in Sofia, who were proven to be active for American intelligence. This circumstance resulted in the dismissal of all foreign workers, headed by Garber, whose name was given at the trial. Leonid Jesakow took over the leadership of the church and in 1954 he left Poland for the USA as a result of many frictions and intrigues. Naumiuk Józef and Kalinowski Jan, members of the Methodist Church Committee established in 1950, began to play a significant role. The first one being exposed in 1955 as a financial scout and personnel speculator was removed from the Church. The second, after the 1961 election, became a member of the Board of the Church. Limited financial assistance, internal friction over influence and material benefits, which have been created in the Church over the last years, lead to its growing weakness. In 1950 the Church registered about 13,000 believers, in 1961 the number of believers is about 5,000. However, observation of the last years reveals that it does not go away from the field of interest of religious centers of the West. A number of visits of representatives of Methodist Churches of the USA, England and Sweden are recorded. There are attempts to revive it, as evidenced by the donation of $50,000 to the Church in the summer of 1960, allegedly an inheritance of a wealthy person in America. The Church in the person of Szczepkowski is significantly connected with the American Embassy in Warsaw, which is involved in the distribution of incoming gifts.

Annex

181

The church has a total of 46 congregations and 28 posts. It pays 43 pastors. It runs the Orphanage in Konstancin and the Coeducational School of English Language, which is currently the main financial support of the Church. The magazine Polish Pilgrim is published in a circulation of 2 thousand copies per month. Text prepared by Setla Władysław

16. The Methodist Church in Poland according to Col Zenon Goroński, Deputy Director of Department IV of the Ministry of the Interior (1967) AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1617/J, c. 14–24. płk Zenon Goroński “Informacja dotycząca Kościoła Metodystycznego w PRL”, Warszawa 15.11.1967 r. The Methodist movement developed on the grounds of the Anglican Church in the 18th century, and only later transformed into independent churches. Methodism aimed at resurrecting the life of the first Christians was a reaction of some Protestants to the attitude of Protestant Churches in England and Scotland, which at the turn of the 17th and 18th century experienced a period of general collapse of moral and religious life. The creators of the theoretical foundations of Methodism were the Wesley brothers – clerics of the Anglican Church. The name “Methodists” was originally a nickname given by Oxford students to John Wesley and his colleagues working in an association to cultivate “true” Christianity by reading the Bible, praying and caring for the sick. Wesley and his confreres took that name in a positive sense, claiming to live by the Bible’s “method”. The activity in the student religious association was not yet the proper beginning of the Methodist movement. The religious attitude of the Wesleys was decisively influenced by the missionary journey to America (1738), during which they came into contact with the Moravian Friars (the hernhuts). Influenced by the devotion of the hernhuts, after returning to England they both experienced their “conversion”. From then on, they acted as awakened preachers. The Wesley and then George Whitefield used simple folk language in their sermons and drastically depicted the “hell’s sufferings” of the condemned and vigorously exhorted their immediate conversion. The clergy of the Anglican Church referred hostile to Wesley’s activity. In this situation the founders of Methodism began to preach outdoors. The year 1739 is considered by Methodists as the beginning of their confession. The main center of this movement in England were two cities: Bristol and London. The leaders of Methodism separated themselves from the hernhuts. In 1741 there was a split between John Wesley and George Whitefield against the background of Calvinist predestination. The final break-up with the Anglican Church did not occur until 1784. In England and America the Methodists formed their own, in many respects “exemplary” church organization. Some English historians claim that Methodism saved England from a similar event, which was the revolution in France.

182 Annex In the field of religious principles, it brought nothing new to Methodism, but was based on the principles of the Anglican Church. The English section accepted all 39 articles of the Anglican Church’s principles of faith. The American branch, on the other hand, left 25 articles, which he modified in a way. Noteworthy is Article 23 modified and adapted for methodological Churches operating outside the USA. This article, titled “about the duties of Christians towards secular authorities”, has the following wording: “It is the duty of all Christians, especially Christian clergy, to observe the law and obey the law and the orders of the highest governing authorities of the country of which they are citizens or in which they reside, and to use all available means to encourage and unite in obedience to the existing authorities”. Methodism shows the way to proceed, leading to cleansing yourself from sin and “making yourself acceptable to God. There are three stages: conversion, rebirth and sanctification, or “total surrender to God”. In the formulation of dogmatic principles, Methodism is characterized by a great deal of liberalism, and some dogmatic issues are close to Calvinism. The form of devotion is not strictly defined. Methodism is not a religious trend with special teachings, but aims at a revival in Protestantism. Religious Methodist communities, led by a clergyman preacher and a council made up of lay people, are divided into groups of 12. There are about 35 million Methodists worldwide, including 30 million in the United States. In Europe, Methodist Churches have about half a million followers. *** At the end of the 19th century, among the German population in the former Prussian partition there were few groups of Methodists. Only since 1921 a wider activity of Methodists in Poland has been recorded. At that time, a mission of the Methodist Church from the USA came to Poland. Acting as a charitable committee to provide material aid to the population, it purchased a building in Warsaw on Mokotowska Street (the current seat of the Church authorities). They established orphanages, schools, craft workshops, boarding houses, a medical clinic and an English language school. In 1923, the Methodist Publishing House Wysłaniec was established and later changed its name to Pilgrim of Poland, a biblical school was also launched. In April 1924, the Committee for Providing Material Assistance to the Population was liquidated and an open missionary action started. The missionary work was managed by the Executive Committee. The first bishop in Poland was an American citizen Beauchamp. In the interwar period, the Methodist Church did not gain recognition of the state and its activity was based solely on individual guarantees of Article 111 of the March Constitution. Methodists developed their financial and commercial activities under the name “Polish-American Joint Stock Company”. At that time, the missionary work of Methodists was hampered by the Roman Catholic Church, which opposed their legalization as a religious denomination. The clergy of this religion were often harassed by the state authorities inspired by the Roman Catholic clergy. There have been attacks on clergy and methodological chapels.

Annex

183

The failure of the Methodist mission was also influenced by the fact that rituals and religious ceremonies of Methodists do not correspond to the Polish psyche. In 1935, Methodists had only 800 followers. During the Nazi occupation, the Methodist Church was formally allowed by the German authorities to operate in the General Government. However, when the USA joined the war, a number of arrests of the leaders of the activists (mostly American citizens) took place, and the leadership of the church was taken over by Polish citizens. Many of them went into cooperation with the occupier. The Church’s activity was limited to a minimum. After regaining independence in 1945, the Methodist Church gained recognition of the state by decree of 16 October 1945. – on The State’ s attitude towards the Methodist Church in the Republic of Poland. According to Article 3 of the aforementioned decree, the Council of Ministers is to approve the internal statute of this Church. Until now, the statute has not been presented by the Church for approval. The decree of 16.10.1945 provides the Methodist Church with the right to freedom of religion and worship as one of the equal rights in Poland. In the first days after the liberation, numerous gifts like material things and money from the USA, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland etc. began to flow to the Church. The distribution of the gifts was given a lot of publicity, which contributed to the reactivation of the old and the creation of new institutions and to the acquisition of a significant number of believers. In a short period of time the number of believers increased tenfold. Methodists took on the missionary action of repatriates from the East, who settled in the Western Territories, and followers of the former Evangelical-Union Church in Masuria. Serious changes took place in the Methodist Church in 1949, i.e. after the loud trial of several Methodist pastors in Sofia (Bulgaria), who were proven to be active in the field of American intelligence. At that time, all pastors of American origin, headed by Garber, were dismissed from Poland. Konstanty Najder, the then superintendent, also left Poland. Antoni Jesakow took over the leadership of the Church, who due to numerous frictions and intrigues resigned from his post, also going to the USA in 1954. Between 1949 and 1956 the Methodist Church underwent an internal-organizational crisis, which caused a rapid decline in its followers. The reason for the decline in the number of followers was also a reduction in financial aid from the West. In 1956, by a decision of the Office for Religious Affairs, a commissioner superintendent was appointed, who was entrusted with putting the affairs of the Church in order and leading to elections, in accordance with the regulations in force. However, the internal breakdown in the Church was not completed until 1957, i.e. since the elections for the post of chief superintendent of Father Dr. Józef Szczepkowski. Józef Julian Szczepkowski, son of Aleksander and Maria née Bagerowska, born 12.12.1890 in Brooklyn (USA), Polish nationality and citizenship (until 1939 American), university education – philologist, married, non-party, permanently resident in Toruń 5 flat 5 Kościuszki Street, temporarily resident in Warsaw Mokotowska 12 flat 7. Szczepkowski completed higher education in America.

184 Annex During World War I he served in the American Navy. In 1923 he was ordained a Methodist clergyman. In 1929, Szczepkowski came to Poland and settled in Toruń. Until 1939 he worked as an English teacher at the Navy School in Gdynia. During the occupation, he stayed in Zakopane. After the liberation, until 1947, he was an English teacher at the Jagiellonian University and then at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. In 1947, for two years, he left for the USA, where he supplemented his theological knowledge necessary to give lectures at a methodological seminar. In 1957, he became a superintendent of the Church and has been performing this function until now. He remains in close contact with the English and American embassies in Warsaw. He receives material help in dollars from England and the USA. He has introduced despotic rule in the Church, which is why he is hated by most clergy. His closest family is of Roman Catholic faith, he himself shows the tendencies that favor this Church in Poland. The Methodist Church in Poland is modeled on the American branch, which has an episcopal-presbyterial system. The role of the bishop is characteristic here, who according to the legislation of the Polish People’s Republic is limited only to the ordinances of the clergy. In Poland, due to the insufficient number of ordinate clergy, the Church cannot elect its own bishop, so the actual bishop’s authority is held by the Superintendent General. The highest authority of the Church in Poland is the Synod, which elects the Executive Committee and the Chief Superintendent. The seat of the Executive Committee and the Chief Superintendent is located in Warsaw, 12 Mokotowska Street. The Church is divided into 5 districts (central, southern, Silesian, Pomeranian-Wielkopolska and Masurian). Each district is headed by a superintendent. Methodists have 46 churches in the country and 74 outposts with about 4.5 thousand followers, the churches serve 34 pastors. The current circulation of Polish Pilgrim is 2,000 copies. The school of English, which has a high level of teaching, is attended by about 3000 students. Strong relationships of the Church’s leaders in Poland with Methodists in the West, and above all with the USA, have a certain influence on its character and activity. Every year a number of visits to the country by representatives of Methodists from the USA, England and Switzerland are recorded. Deputy Director of Department IV of the Ministry of Interior Colonel Zenon Goroński MA

17. The background of the change of the Head of the Methodist Church in 1969: a secret note by Captain Gustaw Szaraniec, Head of Group III, Department IV, of the Security Service of the Voivodship Civic Militia Headquarters in Gdańsk AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1617/J, c. 33–34. kpt mgr Gustaw Szaraniec “Notatka służbowa”, Gdańsk 12.10.1969 r. On 7.10.1969 in the Marysieńka café in Gdansk I had a planned meeting with a secret collaborator called “Henryk”. The above mentioned person gave me the following information:

Annex

185

From 18–21 September 1969 in Klarysewo near Warsaw the 48th National Conference of Methodist Church in the Polish People’s Republic took place. The main goal of the above Conference was to select a new leadership of the Methodist Church in Poland. The new chief superintendent, Dr. Benedyktowicz, the former deputy superintendent of the same Church, became the new chief superintendent by an overwhelming majority. In fact, the aforementioned had no competitor that could really count as a candidate for the leadership of the Church. It was a skillful move of the Office for Religious Affairs to approve the new Statute of the Church, which had been unsuccessfully developed for several years. According to the aforementioned document, which clearly defines the age of a candidate for the position of chief superintendent, Dr. Szczepkowski could not automatically apply for this office again. Pastor Adam Kuczma from Warsaw became the deputy chief superintendent. Till being elected to this post, Ms. Kuczma was the deputy director of the English language teaching school run by the Methodist Church in our country. Probably A. Kuczma, who knows well the tasks of this school, will become its headmaster (to replace Dr. Szczepkowski). The Kuczma’s counter-candidate for deputy superintendent of the Church was pastor Jan Kus from Poznań. The latter, however, received significantly fewer votes than Kuczma and thus dropped out during the election. According to the assumptions of secret collaborator “Henryk”, Pastor Kus was a candidate inspired by Dr. Szczepkowski and his supporters, so not electing him was an additional defeat for the aforementioned long-time Chief Superintendent, who was resigning from the Church authorities. The state authorities at the Conference were represented by the Head of the Office for Religious Affairs Dr. Serafin Kiryłowicz, who also spoke during the plenary session. From abroad, Bishop Franz Schäfer from Geneva was present, to whom the Polish Methodist Church is nominally subject. The bishop participated in the whole session, and at two services he gave sermons on religious themes. The discussion at the conference was active, but its demands and atmosphere were moderate and calm. The final conclusions, put forward by the speakers, have not yet been worked out in a draft resolution. This task lies with the new authorities of the Church. Similarly, it was decided that the newly elected leadership of the Methodist Church is to properly organize the work of the editorial office of the monthly Polish Pilgrim published by the Church. All parishes in the country are to be informed about the outcome and the way of dealing with the above matters through their pastors and lay activists. The next meeting with secret collaborator “Henryk” will take place at the end of October this year in Kwidzyn. I will set the exact date on the phone. I recommended him to write down the issues connected with the national conference. I agreed with the above mentioned that in this report he would give exactly who was part of the governing bodies of the Methodist Church, what specific demands were made, the atmosphere of the meeting, etc. issues. The secret collaborator with some hesitation, but he has accepted the above task. The Head of Group III, Department IV, of the Communist Party in Gdansk Captain Gustaw Szaraniec, MA

186 Annex

18. The 48th Annual Conference of the Methodist Church (1969), as reported by secret agent “Henryk” and in the notes of Captain Gustaw Szaraniec, Head of Group III, Division IV, of the Voivodship Civic Militia Headquarters in Gdańsk AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1617/J, c. 35–40. T.w. “Henryk” “Doniesienie” złożone kpt. Gustawowi Szarańcowi – kierownikowi Grupy III Wydziału IV Służby Bezpieczeństwa KW MO w Gdańsku, 18.10.1969 r. oraz notatki Kierownika Grupy III Wydziału IV KW MO kpt. mgra Gustawa Szarańca At the 48th Annual Conference of the Methodist Church, which took place from September 18–21, this year in Klarysewo near Warsaw, the election of the new chief authorities of the Church was made. As a result of a secret ballot, Dr Witold Benedyktowicz was elected to the position of superintendent general. Out of 68 people entitled to vote (pastors and lay delegates), 50 voted for Dr Benedyktowicz, 4 against, 5 abstained from voting, and 9 people were absent in the meeting room. There was no second candidate for this position. There were two candidates for the deputy chief superintendent: pastor Adam Kuczma, MA, superintendent of the Central District, and pastor Jan Kus, MA, superintendent of the Pomeranian – Great Poland District. The majority of votes (37) were cast by Pastor Adam Kuczma. Pastor Jan Kus received 20 votes. All District Superintendents with the Chief Superintendent enter the Executive Committee ex officio. The Chairman of the Executive Committee is the Chief Superintendent. According to the new statutes, he may appoint three more persons to the Committee. Exercising this right, Dr W. Benedyktowicz appointed the following persons as members of the Executive Committee: Pastor Adam Hercun from Ostróda, Pastor Aleksander Sulikowski, Church Treasurer from Warsaw, and Mr Ryszard Rode, Chief Accountant of the Church’s Chancellery. The nominations are valid until the next Annual Conference. The election of the deputy chief superintendent is also important for one year. The term of office of the Chief Superintendent is four years. As a result of the election of a new Audit Committee for the next conference year, it was composed of the following pastors: Mieczysław Ostrowski – Chairman (Słupsk), Eugeniusz Mroczyński (Łukta near Ostróda) and Henryk Konieczny (Wrocław). The solemn accent of the Conference was the farewell to the former Chief Superintendent of the Church Dr J. Szczepkowski. He was accompanied by his wife. As a meritorious Church worker Dr. Szczepkowski retired. For his long and sacrificial work, he received compliments and thanks. Young people handed him numerous flower bouquets. Flowers and gifts were also given to a guest of the Conference, Bishop F. Schäfer from Switzerland. He was the only foreign visitor. On the last day of the Conference he made a solemn act of ordination of two pastors. Henryk Konieczny from Wrocław was ordained a senior clergyman, and Jerzy Markowski from Przemyśl was ordained a deacon.

Annex

187

Another solemn moment of the Conference was the academy in honor of the XXV anniversary of the People’s Poland. It was held on the second day of the Conference, on Friday 19 September in the afternoon. The special lecture was delivered by superintendent Adam Kuczma. The academy was attended by numerous guests, mainly representatives of ecumenical churches and director Serafin Kiryłowicz. Present were Prof. Dr. Andrzej Wantuła, Bishop of the EvangelicalAugsburg Church, Bishop Pękala and Ordinary Bishop of the Diocese of Cracow Majewski from the Polish Catholic Church, Presbyterian Aleksander Kircuń from the Baptist Church, Fr. Atanazy Semeniuk, a representative of the Orthodox Church Curia and brother Czajko from the United Evangelical Church. All the guests made short speeches. The last speaker was Director Serafin Kiryłowicz. The good atmosphere at the Conference deserves special reference. It lasted for the entire duration of the Conference. Both the plenary sessions and the work in the Working Committees took place in a factual and constructive atmosphere. The following committees were active during the Conference: Evangelization Committee, Sunday School Committee, Youth Committee, Financial Committee, Statistics and Resolutions Committee, Order Committee, Mandate Committee, Pastoral Education Council, Qualifications and Orders Committee and Publishing Committee. The newly elected Chief Superintendent, Dr. Benedyktowicz, in reference to the report of former Chief Superintendent Dr. J. Szczepkowski, pointed to the stabilization within the Church, which was achieved during the three terms of office of Dr. J. Szczepkowski. This is a very important and significant thing. This achievement is extremely valuable – said the new chief superintendent. But stabilization may hide in itself a germ of stagnation. This is what we are afraid of and we will be afraid of,” said Dr. Benedyktowicz further. What is needed is biological growth of the Church and growth of pastoral staff. The Church needs young workers. Speaking about evangelization, Dr. Benedyktowicz called for a revision of the concept of evangelization. The forms of evangelization should be changed. The evangelization so far has had a static character. Dynamic evangelization is needed. Speaking about the position of the Methodist Church in Poland, the new chief superintendent emphasized that it is not some American or English, or German, or some other “foreign” movement. – as some people think. Polish Methodism is a part of Polish society and is an evangelical-pietistic movement. With great satisfaction the Conference took note of the approval of the new statute by the authorities of the People’s Republic of Poland. The new statute is to be published in the form of a brochure and will be available to all interested parties. Each conference day started and ended with a service. Bishop Franz Schäfer spoke several times. His sermons were edifying. This year’s Conference was one of the best organized conferences. Besides, it was characterized by deep seriousness and awareness of responsibility for the future of the Church in our homeland – People’s Poland.

188 Annex “Henryk” Information: I had a meeting with a secret collaborator, a pseudonym “Henryk”, in his private apartment on 18 October this year. The written report given to me by the above mentioned person concerns the issue of the last Conference, held in the Methodist Church, September 18–21, 1969 in Warsaw. The main aim of the above mentioned Conference was to elect the national leadership of the Polish Methodist Church. In the content of the report he discussed the course of the 48th Conference. As it was already the second meeting with the aforementioned “Henryk”, at which I discussed with him the issues of the election of new national authorities in the Methodist Church, he did not bring any more important elements during the oral conversation at that meeting. The secret collaborator stated that the secular activity of the Church and pastors expect effective and active actions of the current leadership with Dr. Benedyktowicz at the head. The past period before the election was characterized, according to “Henryk’s” views, by stagnation in the national leadership and waiting in the local organizations of the Methodist Church in Poland. The episode of participation and greater contribution of the Methodist Church in the field of ecumenism is to be particularly lively. Therefore, it has been announced to organize a national course and a conference of pastors on preparing the Methodist Church for cooperation with the Polish Ecumenical Council and its local branches. As it is known, the above meeting was planned to take place in February 1969, but the previous chief superintendent of the Methodist Church in the People’s Republic of Poland, Dr. Szczepkowski, clearly ignored this problem and even boycotted the organization of an event preparing pastors and the secular activity of the Church for ecumenical activity. Next year is the 50th anniversary of Polish Methodism. Secret collaborator “Henryk supposes that the jubilee will be a good opportunity to revive the entire work of the Methodist Church in the People’ Republic of Poland. I asked the interlocutor if all or what percentage of pastors are actually satisfied with the entry of new people into the national leadership. The above mentioned person did not tell me specifically about it. I even clearly deduced from “Henryk’s” reaction that he was disappointed that he did not have any responsible function in the new authorities. He became only the Secretary of the Conference, i.e. formally responsible for documenting the proceedings of the Conference. When I recommended that the interlocutor actively join the initiatives proposed by the recently elected authorities of the Methodist Church, a conversation developed for his immediate professional intentions. Well, that is. “Henryk” informed me that in the nearest future he intends to go to Warsaw and ask Dr. Benedyktowicz for support and help in undertaking doctoral studies at the Christian Academy of Theology, where he is mentioned as the head of one of the Faculties. Furthermore, he agreed that he would seek the support of the national authorities of the Church to send him, at the earliest possible opportunity, for three months for a theological training in Switzerland. Such courses are held there to consolidate basic knowledge of the theological principles of the Methodist Church. In order to participate in the training in Switzerland, knowledge of

Annex

189

German, English or French is required. Secret collaborator “Henryk” formally corresponds to such conditions, because apart from his theological preparation and seniority in the Methodist Church, he is fluent in two languages (German and English). I am signaling the above because, due to his attitude, it would be necessary to prevent both the further studies of secret collaborator “Henryk” and a possible trip to Switzerland for the theological training there. The above mentioned man drew a clear conclusion from his recent election that only the improvement and raising of his qualifications can enable him to advance professionally in the Methodist Church in the Polish People’s Republic. From personal matters, he told me that he was going to help his old parents to sell their farm and settle down in Kwidzyn. So far, the above mentioned parents live in a village in Ełk poviat, Białystok province, where they own a 5 hectare farm. The task: I didn’t assign any specific tasks to secret agent “Henryk”. I naturally declared to him that he should properly implement the guidelines of his superior authorities, but at the same time maintain full loyalty to the people’s state in terms of his pastoral work and personal attitude. From the general recommendations I stated that he must inform me about observations, negative phenomena in the Methodist Church (at the national level or in the parish of Kwidzyn). The above mentioned recommendations were accepted for implementation. Undertakings: In connection with the necessity to organize and carry out a systematic operational control of the behavior and general attitude of the secret collaborator “Henryk”, I discussed and agreed to carry out the following actions with the deputy commander of the poviat Civic Militia for the Security Service Major M. Owiecki in Kwidzyn: 1. Identify and discern the closest neighbors of the above mentioned, collect available information about these people, which we could use for the short or long term operationally. 2. Through the Chairman of the poviat National Council to determine the current composition and possible discernment of the Parish Council, operating at the Methodist Church in Kwidzyn, and those people who are distinguished by their active attitude in social and organizational work on the Methodist section. 3. Pay attention to trips made by the above mentioned (by car), contacts maintained and in general to his behavior in the place of work and residence. 4. The information obtained from the above Security Service in Kwidzyn will be sent as soon as possible to the Department of IV of Voivodship Headquarters of Civic Militia in Gdańsk. 5. Examine, through the local “T” Department, the possibility of controlling the home telephone, i.e. the “T” Department. “Henryk”.

190 Annex 6. Send a copy of this report to Division III of Department IV of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Warsaw. I will arrange the next meeting by phone. The Head of Group III of Department IV of Voivodship Headquarters of Civic Militia Captain Gustaw Szaraniec, MA

19. Opinion on Pastor Gerhard Fröhlich on the basis of a report by Security Service secret agent “Fux” AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1617/J, c. 43. Władysław Setla, Wyciąg z doniesienia t.w. “Fux” odbytego w dniu 29.IV.1969 r. Rev. Gerhard Fröhlich, middle name Heinz, was born in 1922 in Masuria. He is a Pole of German origin. He tries to maintain friendly relations with all employees. He is a favorite of Bishop Schäfer, just like he was a pet of the previous Bishop Sigg. He started his work in the Church in 1951. He graduated from the Christian Academy of Theology. He also received a one-year scholarship to study in England. He was sent to the Methodist College in Manchester for a one-year study of youth work. He did not undertake this study due to a lack of sufficient English language skills. Instead, he enrolled in an English course leading to the so-called Lower Cambridge Certificate, the equivalent of six semesters of any course in Warsaw. He obtained this certificate. Currently he works as a pastor in Kwidzyn. He has a wife and two children. He is quite a good pastor. He aspires to a higher position in the Church. For some time there were rumors that he was going to emigrate to the Federal Republic of Germany, where part of his and his wife’s family is located. However, in an interview with the superintendent chief, he denied this. He is not very coordinated. He often leaves for Germany. For compliance Władysław Setla

20. Security Service secret agent “Wiesława” in the opinion of Deputy Head of Department III of Department IV of the Ministry of the Interior, Colonel Lucjan Stasikowski AIPN, sign. BU 01283/1617/J, c. 101–103, płk Lucjan Stasikowski, “Ocena” dotycząca pracy t.w. ps. “Wiesława”, Warszawa 24.02.1972 r. Secret collaborator pseud. “Wiesława” was recruited for our service in 1964. The pretext to make contact with him was his departure for 2 years to England, where he was to take up English language studies. Already the first meeting led him to sign a commitment of cooperation, which was due to the fear that the authorities would not grant him permission for the planned trip in case of his resistance.

Annex

191

When assessing the cooperation with the secret collaborator, separate criteria should be applied for the information provided on the situation in the country and separately for information on stays abroad. In the first case: Meetings with secret collaborator “Wiesława” were held on average once a month. At first, the secret collaborator provided written information, but it was very poor, only signaling the existence of certain problems, so this kind of information was abandoned and the oral relations were completely switched to oral relations. Looking at the content of the information obtained, it seems that nothing interesting has ever happened in the church in Łódź. For a few years of cooperation, for example, he has given only the composition of the council of the church, and did not try to give any deeper characteristics of these people. On several occasions, he signaled the arrival of representatives of the church leadership to the congregation, without, however, giving the problems raised, limiting himself to giving the names and general information. In the case of conventions and conferences he attended in Warsaw, his information was of a very general nature, stating the existence of certain facts without any attempt at evaluation. It seems that, for example, he is alienated from the Methodist milieu, he does not maintain contact with anyone, hence this superficiality of information, or it is against the contrary, but, for example, he does not want to give more in-depth information. During the meetings, a significant part of the time was devoted to the activities of the local branch of the Polish Ecumenical Council, weeks of prayers for Christian unity and similar ecumenical initiatives. While there is a lot of this in quantitative terms, in terms of content there is little of it. The branch of the Polish Ecumenical Council has only been given its membership without giving detailed characteristics of its members, lack of information about the daily operation of the body, the clash of views in its body, the initiatives with which it is involved, etc. It gives in great detail the dates of all ecumenical services, meetings, places and dates of prayers for Christian unity. So what if the same data can be officially obtained from the Department for Religious Affairs, but his accounts as a participant in these meetings are very barren, devoid of any assessment of the speeches of individual persons, the content of the issues raised, etc.? As far as ecumenical meetings between Methodists and Catholic representatives are concerned, he gives 2 names without summarizing the purpose of their visits, the aspirations they represent, not even a statement whether they are acting officially or on their own out of sympathy for the Methodist Church. The tasks set by an officer serving a secret collaborator in the matter of working out some people from other church backgrounds are not fully realized, a huge superficiality of action can be seen. Naturally, the evaluation of the work of a secret collaborator cannot only catch negative phenomena in his behavior, so it must be stated that the secret collaborator is trying to conscientiously carry out tasks concerning the world Methodist movement, collecting information about visits of church guests from abroad, sounds of foreign conferences, prevailing trends there, but inevitably has limited

192 Annex possibilities in this field. Judging by his work as a whole, it seems that before he left for England in 1964, it was possible to draw conclusions about his considerable usefulness as a secret collaborator for our service from the very detailed, in-depth and committed information obtained at the time. Nowadays, although he cannot be disqualified as a source of information, because thanks to him there is a recognition that maybe not very comprehensively, but the idea is that a secret collaborator is not working with total commitment. The second issue is his accounts from his two visits to England. After a twoyear English course (1964–1966), the secret collaborator made a note that the headmaster of the school, Mr. Scott, had a good relationship with him, while in his spare time he worked in restaurants as a waiter, dishwasher and bartender, saving £250, for which he bought a car in the FRG on his way back. Among the people he met, he mentions several names of Polish emigrants who came to the restaurants where he worked and that’s all. But that’s not enough for 2 years abroad. He also discreetly keeps silent towards the Security Officer about the fact that he was trying to extort 500 dollars from the Church in Poland to buy a hearing aid, which was a very loud case, and which was previously purchased by students in England for 250 dollars as a gift. The English language, according to an opinion of secret collaborator “Fux” and a letter from the headmaster of the school Scott to the then superintendent Szczepkowski, was mastered in a mediocre level – he simply lacked time. The information from the month-long stay in England at the 1970 Conference is already more abundant in relation to the issues raised during the proceedings, but its main shortcoming is the lack of the names of the activists, established contacts, etc. On the occasion of his stay the secret collaborator gained money to buy car parts by buying duty-free cigarettes on board and selling them in England. Currently, the secret collaborator is going to go to the USA for permanent residence at the invitation of Konstanty Najder. They have known each other for a long time, because a few years ago, the secret collaborator polled an opinion whether, if Najder returned to Poland, he would have a chance to take up the position of the chief superintendent of the Church. Unanimously negative views of the Polish clergy thwarted this action. It is worth noting the recent actions of Najder, namely – last year he invited 8 people, this year 5 – and the sixth one is to be the secret collaborator. Najder’s attitude towards Poland can be said in his own words: “I don’t want to see any communist from Poland” – on the proposal of the secret collaborator “Fux” to meet during his stay in 1968 in the USA. The purpose of the sent invitations is not so far known to us, but according to one of the reports of the secret collaborator “Wiesława”, Eliasz Golonko is hanging around Najder. According to our knowledge he is a full-time FBI employee. The question arises, for what purpose the secret collaborator wants to leave for the USA and will this trip bring any benefits to our service? It seems that the trip is only supposed to bring financial benefits to the secret co-worker, although this is also questionable, because in the last conversation with an employee from Łódź he explained that he does not know what function he would take up in the USA. He only heard from Januszkiewicz that there is the Polish Methodist Church (about 150 people), headed by K. Najder

Annex

193

until 1 January 1972. So it is hard to imagine that after his arrival the secret collaborator would take up some exposed function in it, because supposedly for what reason. The secret collaborator also does not have any practical profession, so while in Poland he can support himself thanks to the church salary and English lessons, in the USA it is not known from what he will draw his income, and it is difficult to imagine that Najder together with his family will support him. Despite his declaration to keep in touch with us, once he’s in the United States, you should be skeptical about it, because: – What is the practical possibility of keeping in touch with him? – Even if it were, what kind of information could be given to us by a person who is a stranger in this environment, who is not part of any bodies, who does not hold a responsible position, which would provide an opportunity to make the acquaintances we are interested in. Let us remember about his relations from his stays abroad. What was their value? None. Let us also note that during the period of cooperation, there was always someone in Poland who enforced information from him, paid him for it (PLN 5600), and there on the spot? Conclusion: Do not grant a permit to emigrate. The secret collaborator of “Wiesława” is only 42 years old, he can still work in Poland for many years, he does not have to look for bread in the USA. The requirements for him should be increased and enforced in a more rigorous way, which is already a matter for the employee serving him.

21. The portrait of Fr. Witold Benedyktowicz in the account of Security Service secret agent “Fux” and a note of the Inspector of Department III of Department IV of the Ministry of the Interior, Krzysztof Socha AIPN, sign. BU 0639/7, c. 52–55, Krzysztof Socha “Informacja” na podstawie opinii TW ps. “Fux” z 21 lutego 1978 roku, Warszawa 6.03.1978 [materiały sprawy obiektowej kryptonim “Rada”] In 1979 the term of office of W. Benedyktowicz in the Polish Ecumenical Council ends. As President Benedyktowicz did not prove himself and if such moods prevail in relation to him as they do at present, there is rather no chance of his re-election. Admittedly, he is counting on the support of the Office for Religious Affairs because he assumes that the Office helped him to remain in the position of the superintendent of the Church last year, so it cares about him and will continue to support him. He makes courtesy gestures to Bazyli [Włodzimierz Doroszkiewicz, Head of the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church] and [Tadeusz] Majewski [head of the Polish Catholic Church], wanting to win them over for himself, but it is not difficult to notice that it is only appearances calculated for something else. The style of work presented by Benedyktowicz is unacceptable to members of the Polish Ecumenical Council. It can be said that the Council’s inactivity is

194 Annex solely due to Benedyktowicz – there are no international contacts, due to the socalled selectivity of actions as he describes it. It consists in the fact that in the case of invitations coming to the Polish Ecumenical Council, [Zdzisław] Pawlik [Secretary of the Polish Ecumenical Council, clergyman of the Baptist Christian Church] goes to Benedyktowicz and they agree among themselves which one of them has time to leave. If none of them fits, the matter goes ad acta, the other members are not even informed about the invitation proposal. The same goes for offers to visit Poland from other countries. If the planned arrival date interferes with Benedyktowicz’s or the persons willing to come are, in his opinion, not very representative, he gives a laconic answer that the arrival date is not acceptable to the Polish Ecumenical Council. Two more answers of this type are sufficient to break off contacts. Benedyktowicz is unable to contribute anything constructive to the Council’s work due to his reluctance to appear there. It’s very good if he comes in once a week for 1–2 hours to deal with matters requiring his signature or decision. So matters lie fallow, because no one is authorized to replace him. He consistently adheres to his motto that two-person teams are the best at work, with the other person having nothing to say and that’s the reality. The previous president Niewieczerzał focused mainly on collective work. Board meetings were called frequently, discussions were held, decisions were made, everyone was involved, felt needed. Moreover, Niewieczerzał was able to live in harmony with everyone, to bring people together. Benedyktowicz is a complete denial of that man. Apodictic, arbitrary, without friends, surrounded by people who were reluctant to him. He rejected the system of collegial work, he believes that he will do best himself, so in effect he does almost nothing. Meetings of the Board or the Presidium are rare and boil down to forcing acceptance of his decision. There is organizational disorder in the Council, there is no strict division of competences. So far, the director of the Polish Ecumenical Council has not been appointed as the candidates are rejected by Benedyktowicz for personal reasons. The great merit of this is that Pawlik, who benefits from the size of his functions in such a way that in total he can be a scatterbrain oriented only towards trips abroad, as the large number of duties in the Council automatically relieves him of responsibility for particular sections of his work. Thus, he and Benedyktowicz form a uniform block, torpedoing the proposals of the Council members to reorganize their jobs and appoint a director, as this would hit him first and foremost. The de nomine committees operating within the Council are de facto not functioning. Benedyktowicz does not want or it is too low for him to give them any course of action. He is absolutely not involved in these matters, he does not fertilize them with initiatives, ideas, etc., which leads to a kind of seduction of these bodies. There is a complete lack of interest on his part in their activities, so as such, only the Foreign Affairs Committee functions, which is pushed forward by Wójtowicz, Gastpary and Narzyński. Twice a year the Commission for Contacts with the Roman Catholic Church meets, because ecumenism obliges it to do so, while the existence of other commissions such as the Theological, Christian

Annex

195

Education, etc. is only known to have been established. Thus, a great role in this field is played both by Benedyktowicz as President and by Pawlik, who is, after all, the Secretary General of the Polish Ecumenical Council and for his 6 thousand zloty salary could give something to the Council. Both the Methodist Church and the Polish Ecumenical Council serve Benedyktowicz exclusively to build his authority in order to achieve the position of Rector of the Christian Academy of Theology, which is his dream. It is no secret to anyone that if he is appointed there, he will relinquish both the presidency of the Council and the superintendence in the Church on the same day. So he treats both of these functions temporarily as a sad duty and thus does not pay attention to them. The Church under his leadership is going through an evident crisis. The number of believers has fallen by about 1000 people, a number of institutions are vacant, i.e. destined for losses, there is a lack of unity among the clergy, conflicts arise, it is disliked by believers and clergy, he lacks time to administer the Church, he never appears in parishes – he is the myth director about whom one only hears. For people from both the Church and the Council he is inaccessible, a typical autocrat and satrap. If he is appointed rector of the Christian Academy of Theology, you can be sure that he will spread the university over the shoulders. While he is a good theologian, a speaker, and if he wants to present himself well, the organizer and administrator is none. He will introduce such an organizational disorder that no one will know what he is up to, what he can do and what he is not allowed to do. Considering that he will not share power with anyone, because it is due to his character, the vice-rector will have nothing to say, he will be deprived of competence and will become a figurehead in conflict with him. As a result, only the university will suffer. As it results from the above, Benedyktowicz is a man with whom it is very hard to cooperate, you cannot find a common language with him, you cannot establish anything to discuss, he is an alpha and omega in all fields, so the model of cooperation he has imposed is unacceptable, and the gap between him and the activists of the Polish Ecumenical Council or his church environment will systematically widen. The undertaking: To provide information to the object matter “Council” in order to use it in operational work. Task: Provide current information on the situation in the Polish Ecumenical Council. Made in 3 copies copy 1 – work file copy 2 – case “Council” copy 3 – Benedyktowicz’s file

K. Socha

Index of names

Figures in bold refer to tables. Adamski, Wincenty 45 Armenszoon, Jacob 30 Asbury, Francis 31 Babieczko, Eliasz 44, 45, 46, 109 Bagerowska, Maria 183 Bąk, Stanisław 91 Banaszkiewicz, B. 46 Bankowicz, Bożena 102 Barcz, Reinhold 121, 159 Barczewski, Walenty 121, 159 Barke, Karol 121, 159 Bartol, Edward 86, 145 Beauchamp, William B. 35, 182 Benedyktowicz, Witold 42, 45, 47, 48, 54–57, 84, 100, 107–108, 110–112, 114, 124–132, 150, 179, 185–188, 193–195 Berdyaev, Nikolai 19 Biczemski, Jerzy 42, 45, 88, 100, 109 Biesiadecki, Zygmunt 179 Bida, Antoni 64 Bierut, Bolesław 73 Bocheński, Józef Maria 20, 22 Bohdan, Jan 67 Bolleter, Heinrich 48 Borowiak, Janusz 2, 31 Bultmann, Rudolf 66 Burchart, Gustaw 43, 44, 45, 54–55, 79, 100, 108, 111–113, 124, 144, 145, 150 Cassius, Jan 121, 159 Chambers, Edmund 35, 36, 40, 54, 56, 84–86, 142 Chiang Kai-Shek 72 Chojnacki, Zbigniew 50 Ciszek, Henryk 45 Cox, Harvey 66

Cybulla, Maksymilian 44, 76 Cyrankiewicz, Józef 65 Czajko, Edward 187 Czerwiński, Jan 90 Dąbrowski, Jan H. 121, 143, 159 Darczewski, Roman 67, 77, 89, 105, 111, 176 Darlington, Urban V. 36 Dawidowicz, Wacław 67 de Groot, Huig 30 Długosz, Józef 89 Doroszkiewicz, Włodzimierz 193 Dropiewski, Władysław 36 Drozdek, Franciszek 45, 46 Duchniak, Mikołaj 42, 45 Duda, Jan 67 Dudra, Stefan 2 Dusik, Tadeusz 67, 128 Dzierko, Tadeusz 44, 45, 46, 76, 151 Dziurok, Adam 65 Edwards, Jonathan 31 Engels, Friedrich 20–25 Feuerbach, Ludwig 24 Fibich, Paweł 44, 45 Fiszkal, Robert 78–80 Forsstrom-Wickstrom, Hjordis 55 Francke, August Herman 30 Fröhlich, Gerhard 45, 47, 129, 190 Gamble, Thomas J. 35, 43, 85–86 Garber, Paul Neff 73, 86, 145, 180, 183 Gastpary, Woldemar 128, 194 Gizewiusz, Gustaw 121 Gizewiusz-Giżycki, Herman 159 Golonko, Eliasz 192

Index of names Gomułka, Władysław 73, 76 Gorky, Arshile 25 Goroński, Zenon 181, 184 Grotius, Hugo see de Groot, Huig Gryniakow, Jerzy 127 Grzybek, Zdzisław 44, 45, 113, 151 Grzybowski, Konstanty 19 Hardt, Charles G. 35 Harzyński, Jerzy 42 Harzyński, Józef 48, 89, 90, 93, 113 Hawrot, Tadeusz 127 Hebisch, Wilhelm 76 Hebisz, Fryderyk 44 Hercuń, Adam 45, 46, 47, 186 Hild, Helmut 129–130 Hopkins, Garland Evans 86, 145 Hukisz, Henryk 45, 46 Hulka-Laskowski, Paweł 36 Husak, Włodzimierz 43 Ihnatowicz, Kazimierz 36 Imos, Rafał 20 Ivanov, Yanko 86, 145 Izydorczyk, Jan 64 Jagiełko, Jan 121 Jakimowicz, Kazimierz 43 Jamny, Michał 43, 45, 91, 100, 108, 127, 149–150 Janczewski, Janusz 92 Janitz, Jerzy 67 Januszkiewicz, Michał 192 Jaroszyk, Kazimierz 121, 159 Jaruzelski, Wojciech 56, 132 Jasikówna, Helena 87 Jasiński, Grzegorz 2 Jesakow, Leonid 42, 45, 79, 100, 108, 111, 144, 145, 150, 151, 180 Jodłowski, Jerzy 67 Johnson, Lyndon 57 Jurkiewicz, Jarosław 67 Kajka, Michał 121, 159 Kąkol, Kazimierz 64 Kalinowski, Jan 40, 43, 44, 45, 55, 92, 100, 108, 144, 145, 180 Kamiński, Zbigniew 127 Kammel, Richard 77 Kania, Stanisław 65 Kapalski, Marian 67 Karczewski, Zygmunt 43, 48, 60, 93, 113–114

197

Kasowski, Henryk 90 Kędzierski, Edmund 67 Kętrzyński, Wojciech 121, 159 Kiec, Olgierd 2 Kiernik, Władysław 73 King, Hiram K. 35 Kircuń, Aleksander 187 Kiryłowicz, Serafin 40, 67–68, 77, 79, 105, 107, 108, 111, 114, 136, 150, 176, 185, 187 Kłaczkow, Jarosław 2 Kleeberg, Franciszek 60 Klinger, Antoni 66 Klonowski, Mieczysław 90–91 Kochanowski, Jan 121, 159 Kołakowski, Leszek 20–21 Kołodziej, Władysław 88 Kołodziejek, Henryk 67 Komraus, Andrzej M. 32 Konic, Jan 76 Konieczny, Henryk 45, 127, 186 Kopernik, Mikołaj 121 Korczowy, Wawrzyniec 43 Kośmiderski, Michał 36, 40 Koziej, Bazyli 42, 88 Król, Leon 67 Krukowski, Józef 8 Krutikowa, Irena 67 Krzysztofek, Katarzyna 138 Kuberski, Jerzy 64 Kuczma, Adam 45, 47, 48, 54, 55, 56, 113, 128, 132, 142, 185–187 Kula, Marcin 20 Kulak, Jan 84, 108 Kulwieć, Abraham 121, 159 Kus, Jan 43, 44, 45, 47, 108, 151, 185, 186 Kuśmiderski, Michał 179 Kustodowicz, Andrzej 42, 45 Kustodowicz, Bazyli 44, 45, 46 Lanc, Jerzy 121 Langner, Julian 45, 46 Łaski, Jan 49, 143 Lawrence, Ruth 36 Lech, Jan 67 Lechicki, Czesław 36 Łęcki, Jan 92 Lenin, Włodzimierz 19, 23–25 Liberman, Arkadiusz 89, 111 Libiszowska-Żółtkowska, Maria 8 Libuda, Gustaw 91 Linka, Bogumił 121, 159 Liszewski, Jan 121, 159

198

Index of names

Liszkiewicz, Antoni 44, 46, 48, 50, 58–59, 76, 93, 113, 142 Łopatka, Adam 64, 67 Łopatowski, Stanisław 60 Loranc, Władysław 64, 67 Łotocki (Łotecki), Piotr 90 Lubecki, Marian 42, 54, 57, 89, 93, 100–102, 104–110, 112–114, 142, 146, 148, 150, 161, 166, 175–176 Lubecki, Marianna 108 Mączka, Fryderyk 121, 159 Madziarz, Jan 43, 45, 109, 151 Majewski, Tadeusz 128, 187, 193 Małecki, Jan 121, 159 Malenkov, Gieorgij 107 Małłek, Edward 40, 44, 45, 46, 58, 59, 60, 109, 119, 124–125, 142, 151 Markowski, Jerzy 127, 186 Marx, Karl 19, 20, 22–25 Mazur, Franciszek 65 Mazur, Józef 126 McKnight, Ernest B., Prof. 35 Merker, Aleksander 66, 67 Merkery, Andrzej 127 Michel, Patrick 18 Michelis, Zygmunt 58, 79–80, 105–106, 108 Milewski, Kazimierz 45, 126, 150 Miśków, Julian 44, 45, 89 Modrzewski, Andrzej Frycz 143 Moore, Arthur J. 36 Mroczyński, Eugeniusz 45, 46, 186 Mrongowiusz, Krzysztof C. 121, 159 Murdoch, Józef 43 Murzynowski, Stanisław 121, 159 Musiał, Paweł 43 Mysłek, Wiesław 66 Najder, Konstanty 36–37, 40, 54, 73, 76, 124, 172, 179–180, 183, 192–193 Najmałowski, Kazimierz 45 Napierski, Karol Oskar 45, 46, 109, 124–125, 151 Narzyński, Janusz 194 Naumiuk, Józef 36, 42, 44, 45, 54, 56–58, 85, 100, 107, 108, 110–113, 118–122, 124, 144, 145, 150, 151, 158 Neusch, Marcel 23 Niemczyk, Jan Bogusław 127, 131 Niewieczerzał, Jan 128, 130, 194 Nowak, Zenon 65 Nowomiejski, Wojciech 121, 159

Opolski, Kazimierz 125 Osęka, Piotr 19 Ostrowski, Janusz 43, 45, 54, 100, 108, 112, 124, 127, 150 Ostrowski, Mieczysław 43, 45, 109, 151, 186 Osuchowski, Janusz 67 Owiecki, M. 189 Pachołek, Stefan 67 Paska, Jan 46, 59, 127 Patrick, Francis 87 Pawlik, Zdzisław 128–129, 194–195 Piątkowski, Lucjan 130 Pękala, Julian 187 Piekarski, Adam 66 Piekarski, Aleksander 42, 91, 93, 100, 108, 113, 144, 150 Pieniężny, Seweryn 121, 159 Pietrzak, Michał 8, 18 Piotrowski, Leon 67, 126 Pipes, Richard 19 Pirożyński, Zenon 45, 46 Pius XII 146 Piwowarczyk, Jan 20 Płuciennik, Tadeusz 67 Podgórny, Michał 43, 45 Prajsner, Mieczysław 67 Price, Martin, Dr 35 Puślecki, Edward 131 Quayle, Margaret 35 Raczek, Marek 127 Rafajłowicz, Stanisław 121, 159 Rasmussen, Jürgen, Dr 35 Raszkiewicz, Brunon 42, 44, 45, 109, 125, 151 Rowlings, E. H. 35 Redzel, Jan 46 Rej, Mikołaj 121, 143, 159 Rejtan, Tadeusz 121, 159 Robota, Ludwik 43, 45 Rode, Ryszard 186 Rogalski, Mieczysław 73 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano 72, 143 Rudź, Jan 48, 93, 113 Rudź, Michał 43 Rumiński, Rafał 44, 46, 113 Ruprich, Franciszek 43, 45, 109 Rutkiewicz, Marian 127 Rydlewski, Grzegorz 66

Index of names Sadownik, Alicja 67 Samulowicz, Gerhard 46 Samułowski, Andrzej 121, 159 Schäfer, Franz 48, 185–187, 190 Scott, Andrew 192 Sczech, Jan 40 Seklucjan, Jan 121, 159 Semeniuk, Atanazy 187 Setla, Władysław 177, 181, 191 Siejkowski, Stanisław 128, 132 Siemek, Józef 67 Sigg, Ferdinand 48, 190 Skarżyński, Aleksander 64 Skierski, Stefan 172 Skoniecki, Czesław 65 Skórczyński, Witold 67 Skwarczyński, Tadeusz 179 Sloan, D. A., Dr 35, 179 Słotwiński, Stanisław 43, 91, 93, 100, 111–114, 150 Śniegoń, Wilhelm 43, 45 Sobolew, Witold 88 Sobolew, Włodzimierz 42, 45, 92 Socha, Krzysztof 129, 193, 195 Soderblom, Natan 170 Spener, Philipp Jacob 30 Stalin, Joseph 25, 107 Stasikowski, Lucjan 190 Staszewski, Michał 67 Sulikowski, Aleksander 112, 186 Świątkowski, Henryk 67, 73 Szaraniec, Gustaw 184–186, 190 Szczepkowski, Józef Julian 35, 40, 45, 54, 55, 88–89, 108–109, 124–125, 142, 151, 175, 178–180, 183–188, 192 Sztachelski, Jerzy 64 Sztekker, Eryk 67 Timofiejew, Włodzimierz 43, 91, 93, 113, 151 Traugutt, Romuald 143 Trojanowicz, Longin 44 Truman, Harry 72, 85, 143, 144

199

Tschepius, Samuel 121, 159 Twynham, George W. 35, 179 Urban, Kazimierz 2, 67 Wałek, Stanisław 90 Walkiewicz, Walentyna 67 Waluszewski, Feliks 89 Wantuła, Andrzej 187 Warfield, Gaither P. 35, 36 Wasiański, Jerzy 121, 159 Waszk, Jan 48, 60, 93, 113 Węclewski, Bolesław 67 Welsh, Bruno W. 35 Wereszczyński, Zygmunt 67 Wesley, Charles 31, 177, 181 Wesley, John 30–31, 177, 181 White, Leslie G. 35, 179 Whitefield, George 31, 181 Wickstrom, Werner Theodor 40, 54–56, 84–86, 142, 143, 166 Wilczyński, Władysław 126 Winniczek, Sergiusz 45 Winniczek, Wincenty 44, 45, 46, 59 Wityk, Piotr 44, 45 Wojnowski, Jan 85 Wójtowicz, Andrzej 194 Wojtyła, Karol 66 Wołowicz, Aleksander 66 Woodard, Fred C. 35 Wróbel, Antoni 88 Wronarowicz, Stanisław 179 Wyszyński, Stefan 66 Żabiński, Tadeusz 64 Zalewski, Henryk 42, 45, 76, 88, 109, 151 Zaperty, Lucjan 42, 45, 47, 110 Żaryn, Jan 18 Zawadzki, Aleksander 65 Zinzendorf, Nikolaus Ludwig 30 Zygmanowski, Marian 64 Żywicki, Mieczysław 67

Geographic index

Page numbers in bold refer to tables. Africa 55, 178 America 31, 72, 84, 86, 91, 143–145, 177–178, 181; see also United States of America (USA) Armenia 11, 30 Augsburg 79, 113 Bajtkowo 44 Bartoszyce 41 Berlin 67, 146, 159 Białystok 45, 46, 77, 86, 176 Biesal 120, 155 Biskupiec 41 Braniewo 41 Bristol 181 Britain 31; see also Great Britain British Isles 31; see also Great Britain Brylińce 42 Brzeg 43 Brzeżawa 42 Bulgaria 42 Busko Zdrój 89 Bydgoszcz 43, 45, 89–91, 108, 114 Bytom 40, 43 Bytów 43, 78, 150 Canada 85, 60 Caucasian Emirate 11 Central Europe 18, 86, 145 Chełm 42, 88 China 11, 72, 143 Chmielnik 42, 89–90 Chodzież 35, 43, 127 Chylice 49 Cracow 178, 179, 187 Cyprus 11 Czarny Las 43 Czechoslovakia 92

Dąbrówno 44, 46, 120, 155 Dallas 57 Dęblin 60 Denmark 11, 86, 180, 183 Dezyderów 42 Dunkowice 42 Duży Szmigwałt 44 Dzierżoniów 43 Eastern Borderlands 40 Eastern Europe 18, 86, 145 East Germany 46 East Prussia 40, 151 Elbląg 43 Ełk 44, 46, 50, 58–60, 119–120, 155, 159, 176, 189 England 30, 86, 177–178, 180, 181, 184, 190, 192 Europe 84, 146, 178, 182; Central 18, 86, 145; Eastern 18, 86, 145; Western 12, 57 Federal Republic of Germany 60, 77, 125, 190; see also Germany Finland 55 France 11, 177, 181 Franciszkowo 58 Galicia 37 Gdańsk 35, 43, 45, 85, 86, 125, 126, 184, 186 Gdynia 43, 85, 184 Geneva 48, 73, 85, 86, 145, 183 Germany 11, 37, 59–60, 77–78, 125, 159; East 46; West, 46, 91; see also Federal Republic of Germany Gierałcice 43 Gierkowo 44

Geographic index 201 Gietrzwałd 46, 120, 155 Giżycko 41, 176 Glaznoty 44, 46, 58, 120, 155 Gliwice 40 Głuchołazy 43 Góra Śląska 43 Górowo Iławeckie 41 Gorzów Wielkopolski 40 Grabnik 44, 46, 120, 155 Great Britain 3, 11, 32, 35, 72, 143, 177; see also Britain; British Isles Greece 11 Grudziądz 35, 43, 91, 149–150 Hamburg 60 Inowrocław 43, 90–91 Iran 11 Ireland 30 Israel 8, 11 Jabłonka 44 Jelenia Góra 43, 87 Juchy 44, 46, 50 Kalinowo 44, 120, 155 Kamienna Góra 43 Kandyty 44, 46, 58 Katowice 36, 40, 43, 45, 86, 87, 92 Kętrzyn 41 Kielce 42, 59, 89–91 Klarysew 42, 55, 57, 106, 107, 113 Klarysewo 36, 89, 175, 179, 185, 186 Kłodzko 109 Klusy 44, 46, 120, 155 Königsberg 159 Konstancin 42, 181 Koszalin 40, 43, 45, 78 Kraków 2, 42, 45, 84, 86, 127 Krasnystaw 42, 92 Kroplewo 44, 46, 120, 155 Kurki 44, 46, 58, 120, 155 Kwidzyn 43, 149–150, 185, 189–190 Laufen 60 Legnica 43 Leszcz 44, 120, 155 Lidzbark Warmiński 41 Lipka 43 Lipowo 44, 46, 58–59, 120, 155, 176 Liwa 44, 120, 155 Łódź 36, 42, 45, 56, 59, 88, 191, 192 London 181

Lublin 45, 59, 88, 92, 127 Łukta 186 Lvov 36, 37; see also Lwów Lwów 179; see also Lvov Lwówek Śląski 43 Marwałd 120, 155 Masuria 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 56, 58–60, 75–80, 84, 91, 111–113, 118–122, 124–125, 127, 141, 151, 155–161, 176–177, 180 Miechowice 43 Międzyrzecz 40, 43 Miłomłyn 44, 120, 155 Morąg 41 Moscow 9 Mrągowo 41, 46, 119, 176 Myanmar 11 New York 88 Nidzica 41, 59, 75, 120, 155 North Korea 11 Norway 55, 86 Ochojec 43 Odolanów 36, 179 Olsztyn 41, 44, 45, 46, 58, 60, 75–77, 91, 119–120, 155–156, 159, 176, 178 Olsztynek 46, 120, 155, 159 Osiekowo 44, 120, 155 Ostróda 41, 44, 46, 58, 75–76, 120, 155, 176, 180 Pasłęk 41 Pasym 120, 155 Piaseczno 89, 109 Piastuń 159 Piętki 44, 46, 59, 118, 120, 156 Pietrzwałd 58 Piotrków Trybunalski 88 Pisz 41 Podgórzyn 43 Podstoły 42 Pomerania 35, 41, 43, 44, 47, 78, 184, 186 Portugal 11 Poznań 35, 37, 40, 43, 45, 56, 179 Praga 42, 105, 106, 166, 175 Prague 126, 132 Przemyśl 42, 88 Prudnik 43 Pustomyty 179 Reich 30, 37, 122, 160 Reszel 176

202

Geographic index

Rudnice 120, 155 Rudno 58 Russia 9, 11, 25, 92, 108 Rzeszów 45, 91, 109 Salzburg 60 Sambor 58 Sanok 42 Saudi Arabia 11 Ścinawka Średnia 43 Scotland 181 Siemiany 46 Sieniawa Żarska 43 Śląsk 35 Słonecznik 46 Słupsk 43, 78 Smykowo 46, 58 Sofia 86, 180, 183 South Asia 178 Soviet Union 11, 25, 92, 129, 143, 144; see also Russia; USSR Spain 11 Stalinogród 151 Stare Jabłonki 44, 120, 156 Stare Juchy 46, 50 Stare Suchy 120, 155 Stockholm 109, 170 Susz 41 Suwałki 50 Sweden 55, 86, 177, 178, 180, 183 Switzerland 55, 86, 173, 180, 183, 184, 188–189 Syracuse 56 Szamborowo 120, 155 Szczecin 40, 43, 45 Szczytno 41, 120, 155, 159, 176 Szwalewo 44 Szymanowo 44, 120, 155 Szymonowo 58 Tarnów 42, 56, 127 Toruń 88–89, 184

Turkey 9, 11 Turznica 58 Ukta 44, 46 United States of America (USA) 3, 31, 32, 35, 36, 55–57, 72, 87, 88, 91, 125, 141, 177–180, 182–184, 192–193; see also America Uppsala 170 USSR 18, 84, 85, 107, 108, 137, 161, 172; see also Soviet Union Ustka 43 Vatican City 11, 146, 161 Vilnius 36 Wałbrzych 43 Wales 30 Wapienica 43 Warmia and Masuria 41, 118, 151; see also Masuria Warsaw 2, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 45, 49, 56, 57, 151, 168, 175, 176, 179–180, 182–185, 188; University of 55, 67, 107 Washington 86, 144, 145 Węgorzewo 41 Western Europe 12, 57 West Germany 46, 91 Wilno 35 Wińsko 43 Wołów 40, 43 Wrocław 35, 40, 43, 45 Wrzeszcz 43, 126 Zaborowszczyzna 43 Zagorsk 172 Zakopane 179, 184 Zalewo 44 Zamość 42, 88, 92 Żary 40, 43, 109 Zielona Góra 40, 90 Zofy 91