Serving God by Being Neighbourly: Komi Protestants and local community initiatives

SUOMEN ANTROPOLOGI:JOURNAL OF THE FINNISH ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY

A quarterly journal published by the Finnish Anthropological Sociery.

EDITOzuAL STAFFSocial and Cuļtural AnthropologyPO.Box 1B

000 14 University of Helsinki, Finland

Editor in ChiefTimo Kallinen, Ph.D.timo.l<alļinen@helsinki. fi

Language EditorMarie-Louise Karttunen, Ph. D.marie-lor-rise. kar'tttlnerr@heļsinki.fl

Forum EditorEeva Berglund, [email protected]

Review EditorHeidi Härkiinen, [email protected]

Assistant Review Editor'Pekļra Tįrominen, M.Soc,Sc.pekka. tuominen@helsįnki.fi

EditorMatti Eräsaari, Ph.Dmatti.erasaari@hel'sinļ<i.fi

Edįtorial SecretaryMarianna Keisalo, Ph.D.mariarrna.keisaļo@helsinki. fi

EDITORIAL BOARD

Karen Fog OlwigInstitute of AnthropologyUniversiry of Copenhagen

Alberto GomesSchooļ of Social Sciences

La Īobe University

Chris GregorySchool of Archaeology and AnthropologyAustraļian Natįonal Universiry

Martįn HolbraadDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity College London

Wende Elizabeth MarshallDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of Virginia

Thmar RapoportSchool of EducationHebrew Universiry of Jerusalem

Joel RobbinsDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of California, San Diego

Donatella SchmidtDepartment of EthnologyUniversity of Padova

Borut TelbanInstitute ofAnthropology and Spatial Studies

Sļovenian Academy of Sciences Ec Arts

Layout: Maija RäisänenĪSSN 0355-3930 (print)

ĪSSN 1799-B972 (online)

Tämmerprint oy, Helsinki 2014

SUoMEI\ĮAI\ĮTRoPoLoGI

JOURNAL OF THE FINNISHANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCĪETY

VOLUME 39 ISSUE 2 SUMMEIĮ 2014

ErJįtor's Note''

KE\'Į\ĮOTE LECTURE

Martin HolbraadThe Vaļues oJ'Mone1t: Econoruies oJ'need įn conįempora l Cuba"'''"'"' ""''""'""'''' 5

ARTĮCLES

Mario Schmidtwb| wanpum Įs More MonEt than Schokn's Thį,nk: A neu uįeu on Seugnteenth centu?y

co aS į aĮ AĮgonqui an s o cįetįe s

Piręt Koosa and Aft Leete

širrīie cia iJ, Being NeĮghbourly: Koftļl Protestrl,nt's and Įocaļ cornmunįty įnįtiatiues *""""""'' 39

RESE,ARCH REPORTS

Perpetual Crentsilajr;'* ilsirit'; GambĮing in Finļand: Culture, hierarchies, and ualues..,,'' """'' 58

Panu ItkonenSkolt San'li ReciprocįįJ) an(] įhe Actions of the State Ar}rninįstratįon """'"""""'"' 7'j

Heirli Härkiinęn'Ib iot Dįe lļone: knship, loue anr} Ųē cycĮę įn contemporaly lĮauana, Cuba "''"""'""""'"'""''' 83

20

Suomen Antropologi: Journal oFthe Finnish Anthlopological Sociery is a peer-reviewed publication which accepts scholarly atticles, essays,

intelviews, resealch reports, conference ..po.tr, booĖ."tį*r, ..iti.rl commentary arrd inFor'mation in the field of anthropology and relatedstudies. Contribįįtoļ's afe kindly askec{ to fįllo* instructions given irr the Information for Contribtrtors on the Journalt web page (see belolrD.The views expressed in the journal ate those olthe authors, and they āIe not necessarily shar-ed by the Editors or by the Finnish,Ą.rrthr'opo'logical Sociery.

TĮre jor.rrr-ral is distributed fiee of chalge to tlre rnembels of the Finnish Anthlopological Sociery. Application for membership may be madeelectronically via the link on the Sociģ,s web page (see below).

Subscriptions to nonmember individuals is 40 per ),ear, to institutions 60 . Postage is 10 p.a. in Finlancl, 20 overseas. To stLbscribe,please contact The Finnish Anthropological So.i.Ļ bį following lįnks on the Sociery's web page (see below).

Tļ]e ar'tįclcs of the Jourrial of the Finnish Anthropo1ogical Society ar'e incļexecl ir-r the Royal Anrhr'opologicaĮ Index online, the Anthropologi-cal Inclex to CtLrlent Periodicaįs, Antl-rropological LitĮr.ature, Ar, Ī,-'d.* to Periocļicals, Articles arrjEssĻs, Mt.A Intelnational BiblioģLapĒy,ARfo' 'fhe jotlrtlaĮ is also availabļe onĮine thiouglr the EBSCo AcacĮernic Search Cornplete database.

The Finnish Anthropological Society _ Srromerr Antropologinerr Seula į,y. <www.įįtļtIopologinetlseut':r.fi>

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish A.rrthropological Society <www.antropologinensetua.fi/en/jotu'nal>

MARIO SCHMIDT

Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo 1 99B. Cosmological Deixis ānd Amerincįian Perspectivism ' Journal of the

Ro1al AnthropologicaĮ Įnstinte 4 (3): 469488.Viveiros de Castro, Eduar<lo 2012' CosmoĮogicaĮ perspectiuism in Amazonia and ekeuhere' Manchester:

HAU Network of Ethnographic Īreory.Wagner, Roy 1981. 1he Inuention of Culture. Chicago: Universiry of Chicago Press.

weeden,'W-illiam 18B4. Inclian Morrey as a Factor in New Englan d CtvīIization. Johns Hophins

Uniuersit1 Sndįes in Historicaļ and Poļiticaļ Sciences,2nd series, viii_ix, 5 51.'Welles, Edwin Stanley 7924. Some Notes on'W'ampum. A Paper Read Before 'ļhe Connectįcįļt Histzricaļ

Socie , Febrltary 5, ļ924. Newington.'!(zhitfield, Henry 1B34 [1652]. Strcngtlr out of 'Weaį<rtcsse: Ol'a glorious Marrifcstation of tlrc

Furtlrer Progresse of the Gospel among the Indians in New-England. Reprint. Collections of the

Massachusetts Historicaļ Societ1 4: t49 196'

Whitfield, Henry 1651. The Light Appettring More anlĮ More tounrds the Perfect Da1: or, a Īarther

Discouer1 of the Present State of the ĮnlĮians in Neu-EngĮnnd, Concerning the Progrese of the Gospel

Įļmongst Zhem' London: Printed by -ttĮ. & E.M.Willerslev, Rane 201 1 . Frazer Strikes Back From the Alrnchair: A New Search for the Anirnist Soul.

JournaĮ ofthe Ro1al AnthropoĮogical Inyj lte 1'7 (3): 504'526.willerslev, Rane 2007. Sollļ Hllnters. Ht'nting, Animįsm, and PersonhootĮ among the Siberįan Yuhaghirs'

Berkeley: University of California Press.

williams, Roger 1936 t1643]. ļ into the Language of America. Providence: The Rogcr'Williams

Plcss.'Ųrilsorr, John 1865 |1647)' 7he DayBrettking, if not the Sun-Rising of the GospeĮĮ tlith the Indians in

New-EngĮand. New York: Reprinted for Joseph Sabin.

winslow, Edward 1996 [1624]. Good Neaes fom New Enghnd: A trlle ReĮation of Things Wry

Remarhabļe rįt the PļĮįntĮįtion of Plimotlth in New EnglantĮ. Bedford: Applewoocļ Books.

wood, '1 /illiam 1977 Ī1635|. New England's Pt"?/rr. Amherst: University of Massachttsetts Press.

'Woodward, Ashbel 187B. IVampum: A ĮŲer presentelĮ to The Nllmismatic and Antiqllarian Socie ofPhiĮadeŲhia' Albany: J. Mtrnsell.

MARIO SCHMIDļ PhDCENTRE FOR GLOBAL COOPERA|ION RESEARCH, DUISBURGA.R.T.E.S. GRADUATE SCHOOL FORTHE HUMANiTIES, COLOGNEmariosch@em. uni-frankfurt. cle

SERVING GOD BY BE,INCNEIGHBOURLY

KOMI PROTE,STANTS ANDLOCAL COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

. PIRET K00SA AND ART IBEIIļ .

ARSTRÄcT

Sociaļ initiatives afe not widespread in ruraļ communities of the Russian Northand byvirtr-re of their social Programmes, evangelicals step into the locaļ social

nerwork berween official institutions and individuals. Drawing on ethnograPhic

fieldwork in the Komi Republic, Russia, Īve aim to explore the consequences

of evangelical civil endeavoufs on social as weļļ as religious relationships. \X/ith

their sociaļ outr'each' evangelicals įlnintentionally put the Rtrssian orthodoxChurch and local administrations Įļnder Pfessure as peoPle start to question

the ROC's efficiency and administrators' management abilities. At the same

time, through their social enterprises evangelicals aim to serve God, although

their social āctivity is also a way to approāclr people with their message. This

engagement in sociaļ justice Projects lrelps them acquire a positiYe rePįĮtātion

among the commotl people, much needecį in the generally sceptical village

communiries. This article examines ambivalent and contradictory responses to

the evangelical social activism in rural areas of l(omi Republic.

Keywords: Protestant, evangelical Christians, Russian Orthodox Church, Komi Republic,

social chariry

InĮ.roductįo n|

In this pāper our aim is to explore one characteristic feature of the post-Soviet Russian

religious landscape by focusing on the engagement of evangelical Protestant missions

witlr sociaļ weļfare plojects. Based on the example of a case study from tlre Komi Republic

in tĮre north-eastern corner of EįrfoPeān Russiā, we wiļl discuss the ambivalent oįĮtcomes

of, and responses to, evangelical sociaļ activism at the locaļ level.

In the Komi Republic, as generally in Russia, the most prominent religious organisation

has historically been the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). After the demise of the

atheistic Soviet system, the Church and a considerable part of sociery presumed that

the RoC shoulcĮ have a special and superior role in the cottntry's religiotrs ļife. However,

numerous new competitors have challenged the RoC's monopoļy ovef the spiritual

sphere.2 Different evangelical Protestant denominations ļrave beerr tlre most strccessfuļ

in gathering followers among tļre Russiarr populatiorr. A number of evangelical clrurclres

Suonen Aatropologi:.fontn I of tltc Firutish Anthropological Societl39(2) Srrnrnrer 2014

Po llox 18,000t4 ĮJrrivcrsiLy oI'IIc|sitrki, IlinlĮld3B Suorncn Antropologi: Jourrral o{ the finnish Authropological Society 2/20l4 39

PIREl', KOOSA AN'D ARĮ tEETr

lrave aļso spread in tlre Komi region in recent decades, although admittedly they have norbeen overly successful in finding followers in the Komi population, especially with regardsthe rural communities. \ Ąile according to a fecent sociological survey the number ofpeople stating they belong to some Protestant denomination remains iess than lper cent(Arena 2012: 182), t}rese churches ļrave received considerabļe public attention, not onlybecause of the prevalent sceptical public attitude towards them but also due ro theirvigorous involvement in dealing with social problems such as addictions and poverty.Thus, evangeļical Protestant churches play an increasingly significant role in the region'spublic lancĮscape. Despite the small overaļļ nttmber of Protestants, their' civic activismmakes them significant actors in their surrounding social environmenr. As the communalimpact of evangelical Protestants is much hlgher than theil marginal membership, theyconstitute an intriguing phenomenon for investigations into tļre broader' spiritual andsocial context.

Scholarly literature on Protestantism in the Komi Republic is rarher scarce. So far,Yuri Gagarin has conducted the most prominent study on the history of religious lifein Komi (1978). His monograph provides several insighrs into rhe early hisrory of rheProtestants in the region, altĮrough it is mainly dedicated to investigating traditionalreligious actors (the RoC, the old Believers3). Only a few papers can be pointed outfrom recent decades. Mikhail Matsuk (2004) arrcĮ Sergey Filarov (2005) lrave prrblishedoverviews of religious developments irr the post-socialist I(omi Repubļic. Laur Vallikivi(2009,2011) has studied the ļatest Protestant developments in the nofthern borderlandof the Komi Republic, although Vaļlikiviļ reseatch concentrates predominantly on theNenets groups. Our own research has contributed to scudies of the overall developmenr ofKomi Protestants in recent years (Koosa 2010), touching also upon evangelical identiry-building in a predominantly orrhodox religious environmenr (Leete & Koosa 2012),the contribution of the Protestants to discussions concerning the Komi ethnic ideologies(Leete 2013), and analysis of an American missionary's role in forming an evangelicalcongregation in a rural area of the Komi Republic (Koosa 2013; Leete 2014).

Russian socieŲ in general has been favourable to the RoC. In this regard the KomiRepublic can be considered a somewhat exemplary case, as the position of officialrepresentatives of the religious majoriry is modelled in accordance with rhe aurhoritarianBishop Pitirim, wlro hoļds a rather strict position towards Protestants (see Filatov 2005).Several studies orr che role ofsociaļ or'rtreach in Russiak contemporary Protestantism pfovidea useful frame for our paper, The writings of Roman Lr-rnļ<in (2005 , 2007 , 2011 ) and VeraFilatova (2009) offer some gerreral insiglrts into tlre specificity of Protestant sociaļ activismin the Russian contexr. Boris Knorre (2010) has oudined the RoC's perspecrive on, andactivities in, the social sphere and its generally negative attitįrde towar'ds tlre Protestantsocial programs. Anatoli Krasiļ<ov and Roman Lunļ<in (20|2) have edited a volume ofconference materials that contain severaļ papers on Protestant social activities both frominsiders' and observers' viewpoints. Melissa L. Caldweil has analysed rhe strategies ofcoping with poverry and hunger in post-Soviet Russia by focusing on a Protestant soįįpkitchen (2004)' interfaith coļļaborative projects purstring social jtrstice (201l) ancĮ themotivation of voļunteer workers in Christian chariry projects (2008). There is, however,a certain need for closer scrutiny of the social parrnerships berween the Protestant ancįnon-Protestant įcį-or.s in specific cotnmunaļ settings irr Russia (and specifically irr Komi)

PIRĮĪ K00SA AND ART IEETE

in order to understand the functional ties that enabļe Protestants to establish sociallegitimacy. The rural Komi areas serve as a specific scene for Protestant action, whilefor their major spiritual contender, the RoC, it is a peripheral region. HoweveĻ forProtestants it is loaded with significance as the edge of the world, a place that needs to be

evangelized in order to fulfil biblical prophecy (see Vallikivi 2014). Every action in thisgeographical afea thįļs obtains special meaning for the Evangelical Protestants, reflectingtheir spiritual strategies.

\ /hile the existing studies on Protestant social progrāms tend to concentfate on the

examples of big cities or ļafgef administrative įrnits and the functioning of inter-chrrrchnetworks, oįįr paper is based on an ethnography of a very small evangelical group in the

Komi countryside; we thus hope to contribute to the knowledge of small-scaļe local-level evangelical social outreach efforts and how these activities are perceived by differentnon-Protestant actors. To this end, we have been studying an evangelical community inthe village of Don, Kulomdin district, 200 kilometres from the Komi Republic's capitalSykryvkar, since the second half of the 2000s. An American missionary, \Wilļiam, incooperation with rwo Russian missionaries, Andrey (who later became the group's pastor)

and Semyon,a settļed in the village ļn 2003 and soon a small congfegation formed aroundthem. The main reason for the American to choose Don as the base for his mission was

the aburrdarrce of social problems irr tlre region. 'Witļr tlre highest unemployment andcrime rate irr the republic, Kulomdirr district embodiecį the ļ<ind of deprived locus the

missionary had come to the North looking for, as his wish was to serve God by practicallyhelping needy people.5

During the years of our fieldwork, we have conducted interviews with almost every

member of the Don evangelical communiry and with other Protestants active in this

region, but also with non-Protestant inhabitants of the region, among them municipalofficiaļs and representatives of the RoC. Evangelicals' social programs have been rather

a common ropic, touched upon by our different fieldwork partners when discussing the

local religious acrors. The Don evangelical communiry and its social work have also been

portrayed in the local media ancĮ we have attempted to trace these reflections as well'Theoretically, we touch upon the concept of 'politics of rightness', proposed by

Caļdwell (2011) wlren arralysin8 t}re motivation of Cluistiarr social justice wor'ļ<ers and

che interrwining of religious and moral sensibilities in the individtral's impetr.rs to engāge

with chariry work. The concept encompasses 'contestations over defining and legitimating

pafticuļar combinations of religious and moraļ sensibility, coupled with the attendant

issues of how individuaļs align their personal belie& and actions "corr'ectly'' in a-ccordance

with theological poĮicy and practice' (2011: 52). Furtlrermore, this concept is relevant to

how the outsiderļ appraisal of a specific faith commtrnity is formrrlated. The abiliry arrd

willingness of the believers to both follow their own principles and align themselves withthe widet norms of social action can become more important than theological orientationin how the group is evaluated (ibid.: 60). Looking at evangelical social activism as the

enacrment of particular spiritual-moral norms that can enable the achievement of certain

moral authoriry in the wider community, we find the idea of the 'politics of rightness' to

be pertinent in conceptualising the way evangelicals function in the Komi villages.

40 Sttorrrcrr Atrtropologi: Journal oI'tlrc Firrnislr AntlrropoĮoglcal Society 2l2014 Sttottrerr Ätrtropologi: JournaĮ oftlre Fiuuislr Antlrropological Society 2/20l4 4ļ

PIRĪT I(00SA AND AIĮI LĮDTE

The utįĮįtarian dįmension of euangeĮicaĮ socįaļ outreacll

After the missionaries settļed in the village of Don, it was their active organising ofsociaĮ charity projects tlrat quickly introduced them throughout KįĮl mdin district. Animportant part of evangelical outreach has comprised driving to different villages andhelping-mainly-children's institutions such as schools, kindergartens, hospitals, nursinghomes and orphanages (and also cultural houses) wirh repair and renovation work, aidingtĮre elderly and the poor by preparing firewood for the winter, mending ovens of otherparts of hortses and salrtras, arranging tfezĮtment for alcolrolism, layirrg water pipes arrdstarting the sawmill in the village, particiPating in tĮre annttaļ village clean-up, repairingtractors, bicycles, motorcycles and potato pickers, consrrucring a wheelchair with skisf'or a harrdicapped villagel btrying clotlres for cļrildren, etc. (FM 2008-2013; see aļso\M!fMtoR). \)7illiamļ skiļls as a weļder have been gready appreciated and so has hiscomprehensive toolkit containing a variery of power tools that nor many villagers own. Byhelping the locaļs in this very practical manneļ the evangelicaĮs' aim to proselytise has notbeen too explicit and thus the boundaries between the rwo pįllposes have been vagtre.

Local village inhabitants have reacted variously to the missionaries' activities. A numberof people, mainly disturbed by the Americanļ invoļvement, ļroļd a resolute opinion thatnon-Orthodox believers have no (moral) right to opefa[e in tĮre regiorr. Yet, regardless ofrheir possible dislike of promoting a'foreign' IāitĮr, at times peopĮe can rake a very bttsiness_ļike attitude towards tlre missionaries. For example, an ardent ortlrodox lady reported tĮratshe had announced to the evangelicals straightaway that sįre does not approve of their faithbut at the same time she had no problem requesrillg their practical contribution:

They [thc missiorrariesl just came to draw Įpeople] to tlrern witlr thcir help. Becarrse they do everythingwith their money, they do everything for free. And of course, for us they also made this potato cellarand also for free. I told them: you might.just as well not do it; I will not tįĮįn to your faith. Brrt theydid it anyway. [l.aughing.J Tharrk you for cloing thatļ (Ę b' 1937, ļrM 2008)6

Many villagers do not mind accepting some religious lįterattrre or lisrening to preachingwlren with it they are offered much-needed materiaļ help. In e village of Don people.have received help fionr \Milļiam arrd lris felļow missionaries on a regular basis, arrd,despite their preconceived doubtfirl attitude towards the non-Orthodox agenda, accepr irwithout much hesitation. It is important to note that although the missionaries view tireirchariry projects as a form ofevangelisinĮ,very few ofthe villagers have actually convertedor' gone to alļy of the services. At least parts of the community have jrrst become rrsedto this rrnexpectecį source of material aid and seem to be qLrite oblivioLrs of the religiousmotivations of the helpers. The evangeļicals themseļves are toļerant about the matter aswell and do not necessarily expect the people they help to join the church in return. \7henasļ<ed whether he feļt that the locals sometimes tend to exploit his good wilļ, \ff/ilļiam firstadmitted that occasionally this could occur, but then went on to say:

But CĮid they take advatltage ofJesrrs? [Pause.] (...) I mean multittrdes, mtrltittrcĮes camc to lrirn tobe healed. And he ļrealed rnultitudes. Brrt tlrerr tlrey didn't folĮow hirn. They came for lrcaĮing ancĮthey got heaįed but... they clidnt believe in him. (...) Yes, some times you are taken fo. g."rrt"J, butthat airr't the idea, The ic{ea is to heĻl people, rnal<e thcįr lives berter. Itš like rny rlciglrborrr I cloritthirlk he took advantagc of me toclay. He knew tlrat ļ worrld Įrelp, I oflered to help, I ļrave somc

PIRĪT K00SA AND ^Rl'LEETD

instruments that I took over there to help him. I donr think thac's taking advantage; I think itt jusrbeing neighbour1y, basically. If you noticed, ļrere in the village these l(omi people, if one of themhas a chainsaw ancļ the other onc doesn't, they wilļ asļ< to borrow it. And many times they will givetļrem the chainsaw to ttse' So, it's not liļ<e they're taking advantage, it's more like hospitality, I think.(FM 2008)

In \Milliam's response to this somewhat provocative question rwo specific discoursesappear: first, he references Jesus, who is the protorype according to whom all Christiansate supposed to model themselves, introducing the idea that true believers are expectedto experience clifficuļdes and incompr'eherrsiorr as they try to spread the gospel; second,\Milļiam invokes the virtue of unsęlfishness as he refers to the principle of simply doing theright thing without expecting something in return, which has a lot in common with thevernacular system of communal reciprociry. Depicting his benevolence in tenns of 'being

neighbourĮy' according to local customs, the religious motivātion for the missionaries'activities is ļeft unarticulated altogether.

Reciprocal relationships in the village cornmunities are certainly a customary andexpected part of everyday life practicalities (Smirnov 2011 [1891]: 225-226; Konaļ<ov2004:76-77, 85; Sharapov, Zherebtsov 2014). Thus helping out one's neighbours bysharing resources that one has and the other lacks, is compatible with local notions of'right behaviour'. Indeed, when \Wiļliam first arrived in Don, and as the locals noted thathe was not properly dressed for the harsh winter, he was provided with a cotton filledjacket and felt boots by his neighbours.T Furthermore, there exists a certain lay assumptionthat the Church should use its means to provide suPPort for the needy, and even thoįĮghoutsiders do not always consider rhe Don congregation a '{proper' church, to some extentthis view affects their imagining of what the nature of a religious organisation should be.

Nonetheless, in the context of the ideological connection people perceive between theDon evangelicals and'American money' and an'American agenda'--rather than the fit ofthe evangelicals' action into the framework of traditional reciprociry or the benevolenceexpected of a church-a much more critical interpretation prevails.

Although the evangelicals give assurances that the ultimate cause for both individualand social problems lies in straying from God and His Įaws, at times this message is implicitand not overtly emphasised. For instance, during an after-service discussion concerningthe development of speciĖc measLĮfes to be proposed to tlre district administration tofight against alcoļrol addiction, all the suggested methods wefe stfictly profane ancį nospiritual means were mentioned.8 Furthermore, the missionising events organised bythe evangelicals, such as movie-nights, concerts or childrens fuotbalļ games, can be seen

as having primarily entertainment value in the villages where public pastimes of ānysort afe rare. Still, this is not to say that the Don evangelicals are willing to ļeave asidearticulating their basic message altogether. \fhen commenting on his participation in around table at the district administration (on invitation from a co-religionist workingthere) organised to discuss possible ways of dealing with the alcoholism in the district,Pastor Andrey reported proposing the organisation of anti-addiction movie šhowings andeducational talks at the local clubs, adding that as believers they could not overlook ātleasr mentioning God at these events.

The input the missionaries have offered to improve locals' living conditions, combinedwitļr relatively low Pressur'e to convert, Įras enabled tļrem to achieve a certain social

42 StLotrrctr Ärrrropologi: JourrraĮ of the I]irurislr AurĮrropolo gicaĮ Sociery 2120l4 Suotrretr Alrrro1lologi; Joulnal of tlre Firrnislr Ärrrlrropological Sociery 2120|4 43

PļRį"l' K00sA AND ARl', LĮIļTĮ

balance with the wider communiry. It is problematic to separate the practical aspectof the evangeļical social projects from their overaļl PurPose of proselytising. Btrt toa certain extent, this material contribution can be viewed outside the framework ofpower relations or spiritual competition in the region, which we rurn to in the f'ollowingsection.

EuangeĮicaĮ sociaĮ programs in the wider socio-poĮiticaĮ context

Evangelical social cĮrariry projects are carried out within a specific political context.-Ihe missionaries in Krrļ mdin district provide material help to both individuals andctrstodian estabļishments, while the central administration and the ROC, from whomsuch aid is rather expected, fail to provide it to an adequate level, in the opinion oflocals.Consequently, evangelical undertakings to PįļIsįļe social jr-rstice invoļve different problemsin relation to the administration, giving rise to local speculation abour internationalpolitical agendas supposedly being acted out through rhe missionaries. Many peopleamongst both Ordrodox and non-r'eligious populations have ambiguous opinionsabout the evangelical presence in their district and the question ofhow to evaluate theirundertakings is continuously contemplatecĮ.

Local people have mixed feelings about new religious groups in the area and theirsocial welfare activities in tļre communiry. Despite admitting that some of the projectsin which missionaries engage are indeed beneficial to community members, this sorc ofchariry work is still seen (although somewhat hesitantly) as suspicious Į:ecause, accordingto local understandings, there are some unknown and thus potentially hostile foreignsources supporcing these endeavours. Therefbre, particularly given that one of rheevangelicals is an American, their attendance and activities in the region as a wĮrole areinterpreted in political terms. Indeed, sr-rspicions concerning tįre American comPonentin evangelical social worļ< have certain va1idity. The Don evangelical communiry receivesfinancial sįįppoft from the US and, in addition to \filļiam's personal funds, tlris enablesits members to carry out their sociaĮ chariry. But this suPPort is specifically received fromthe donations gathered by the home chtrrch of \Milliam'Ų 'ood9 and the US governmenthas litde to do with this. (see \)7\X/MtoR)10.

In the local media, descriptions of the social work \ Tilliam and other missionariescarry out can be a more or less obvious way to criticise local authorities for inactiviry (..g.Ovchinniļ<ov 2004).In these ļ<inds of accounts the evangelising agenda of \ Zilliam andother rnissiorrarieslļ is sometimes ļlot even mentioned and tļre main point accenttratecįis the concrete and Practicaļ efforts they provide while tĮre state autlrorities are seenas remaining passive in dealing with the abundance of social problems in rural areas(see Sivkova 2013). Meanwhile, in Kulomdin district, the evangelicals have first-handexperience of how much the specific people in power in the district administration caninfluence the management of a non-traditional religious group in Russia. \Thereas theadministrative officials at the ļower level (in the villages) have been willing to cooPefatewith re evangelicals or-r the issues of solving social ptoblems in the communities, therelationship with district's central administration has been much more complicated. Theatdtude of tļre districtļ autļrorities irr regard to tlre missionaries has flucttrated considerably

Srrorrrerr Arrtropologi: Joumal of rhe Finnish Arrrhropologicil Soc\ery 2120l1t

PIRĮT K00sA AND AIį',l t[rT[

ovef time, depending on the results of local eļections and on specific people working in

the administration.After the missionaries arrived in Don and the news spread about the 'free sociaļ service'

of the evangelicals, local village heads wefe apparently quite eager to invite them to help

out with ."io,r"ti.rg childrenį or educational institutions. Aid for needy individuals was

also organised throĮgh local social workers, based on their ļ<nowledge about disadvantaged

familiĮ in specific Įom*unities. During this initial period, being busy with fulfilling

a specific..q.r.., during the day, in the evenings the evangelicaļs would have an educative-

miĮsionising event at the local clubhouse' such as a conceft with Christian songs or an

anti-addicti,cn film. However; afįer tlre clrange of the district administration in 2007

these undertakings in the public institutions, and the involvement of public servānts,

were abruptly halted.

The new district head took a quite openly antagonistic stance against the evangelicals

and banned most of their acriviries, insisting that, according to the Russian Constitution,

no religious propaganda is aļlowed in public or in educationaļ institutions. Reportedly,

th" ,l.į distri.t-l.įd.r thoroughly instructed the locaį village heads on the matter and

virtually threatened to dischargĮ them if they maintained the described coopefatiolļ with'Ųvilliam and other missionariįs. At the same time, the Orthodox Churclr continued to

be actively inclLrded in different officiaļ celebrations in the district (e.g. Victory Day)'

In 2011, another district head was elected, again with religiously tolerant views, and

the evangelicals were initially hopeful that they would again be allowed co perform in

pl""., .rrĮh as the clubhouses. As.oo., lr"."-. cļeaĻ however, the young new ļread Ļargely

Ļaintained the previous course in religious politics so as not to initiate opposition withirr

tlre administration.12 At the village lįvel, ļocal officials are persorrally acquainted with

problems in tļre community and individtrals or families who need help, and as they have

,rery limited fesources for social improvements, a blunt refusal of the help being offered

by ,h. .rrr.rgeļicaļs would b. ,r.'.""įo.'"ble. on tlre other hand, for the district's officials

*ho "."

1noi. ..-ou.d from specific difficulties in the villages, and it is easier to insist that

cerrain ideological principles be followed at the expense of small practical improvements

on iocal level.

\XĻile the evangelicaĮs themselves explain āntagonistic positions in the administration

predominantly in terms of narrow-minded officiaļs who are agairrst any diversity in

,eligious matįrs and want to get rid of the evangelicals in sįįpPoft of Orthocloxy, there

"..Į,h.. feasoĪls for tlre administration's ļack of support for the missionaries' activities. As

a local journalist plairrly stated in one conversation, the main concefn of tļre hostile ofĖcials

is tļrac tlre "rr"rrgĮli."lj

are undermining the administrationt autlroriry by providing the

people with the kind of aid they expect to receive fiom politicaļ leaders:

'Ihis '!7ilįiarn 'Wood arrived here to us. He did much for- the dįstrict, helped a lot. But of course tlre

authorities <ļidnt like it. The thing is that he rļid the autlrorįties' job. Renovatcd kinclergartens, helpcd

the elc{erly-repaired the o,r.rr., o,-',.., dicį this and that. They lthe authorities'ļ somehow dįdnt like

it. This somewĒirt affects their authoriry.'Ihey started to sqįĮeezc hįm out. \{/e were even told that we

shorrldnt write roo much about him [in the local newspape r] . (M, b. 1948, FM 2012)

This does not mean that the municipal powers offer nothing in the way of social worļ<

and assistatrce: the I(ulcimcĮin district admitristration, for example, pr'ovicles materiaļ

Suonten Atrtropologi: Journal ofdre Finnish Anrhropological SocicLy 2/2014 45

PĮIĮET KOOSÄ AND ARĪ tED]'[

suPport for people who have confronted hardships in conditions rhey could not conrrol(Postanovlenie 2012). Nonetheless, although local aurhorities do contribure ro rhe socialsphere (and the ROC has received support from the administration for its social initiatives,see below), in popular discourse the activism of the evangeļicaļs is more highly stressed.The administration'.s efforts are taken for granted and people do not notice them; theyare used to these services. Furthermore, the evangelicals provide help of a qualitativelydifferent kind, often on a more personal and intimate leveļ.

It is important to note that the Don pastor did not reaĮly agree with the opinionthat perhaps the acļministlation Perceives the evangelical social weļfare projects to becompetition. Andrey reasoned that any kind of help wirh social problems lessens rhenumber of complaints officials receive and tļrus makes their ļives easier. At the same time,another evangelical who actually works in the administration adjudged it qLrite probablethat the officials indeed see the evangelical social projecrs as challenging their authoriry insolving societal problems.

SociaĮ actiuįsm and spirituaĮ com?etition

Despite promitrent sociaļ and political implications, tlre most important aspects ofevangelical social activities are related to the spiritual effort. Don evangelicals see theirsocial programs as a genuine and fundamental part of the evangelising work. Althoughthe evangelicals stress their wish to cooperate in this regard with tįre ROC, the latter hįsquite flatly rejected such proposals and both the Orthodox and other non-evarrgelicalshave most often interpreted evangelical social activism in tetms of a religious Ārr,.rr.Among our fieļdwork paftnefs, there are distinct discourses that surround, and are incitecįby, the pracrical efForts of evangelicals in rhe field of social work.

Kuļomdin district's inhabitants foutineļy consider the evangelicals 'sectarians', rhatis, non_legitimate as religious actors. This attitįįde is in accord with the widely spreadperspective in Rtrssia. To some extent, the Don evangelicals themseļves regar.d tlreir socialjustice enterprises as a ļ<ind of legitimation of their groupt spiritual claims. ordinarymembers of the Don group, in particuiar, are less concerned by the docrrinal principles tharare supposed to distinguish 'true' religion from 'sects', r'ather determining the differencethrough the activities in which religious actors engage. Although the beneficiaries can berather indiffefent to the impetus provided by evangelicals'proselytising goals, the beļieversthemseļves understand the social jrrstice projects in terms of being good Christians. Basedon the Bibļe, the mofe theologically conscious members of the Don evangelical groupunderstand being charitable as an important way of practicing their religious convicrionsand acting out theil inner change. Īre group members frequently declare that one needsto con{irm one's faith in God by good deeds:

Faith wįthotrt deeds is cļead.13 (...) Only talking about being a believer; without dee<ls, then it is adead faįth. But when there are deeds, therr the believer doesnt have to say anythirrg at all. Becauseļthe othe| peįson cįlį see it from tlre deecļs. (F,b' I971' IrM 2009)

PļRĮT KoosÄAND ARĪ LDETE

This kind of logic largely coincides with the non-evangelical evaluations of a person's

character ".rd

Ārditį. fh'., if someone declares her- or lrimself to be a believer and

insists on certain moral rules that ouglrt to be followed, the personĮ feputātion depends

on her or his own abiliry to act oįrt tlrese principles. Following Caldwell, ]Ä/e can say thāt

the willingnes, of .,rr.'ģelicaļs to act ācco;ding to their religiously motivated 'politics of

right.r.sr'Įhro.,gh Li.rjrr.ss and helping the leĮs fortunate-characteristics wlrich are also

.į".d.d highly īy non-evangelicals-creates possibilities for more positive assessments

by'th. lr*._".. Ļį"fo.., by ār.o,rraging more positive responses from non-orthodox

lr"li"u.r, by their..r".,-.rr, of theirĪ"iĀ by being charitable, the evangelicals challenge

the popular'anti-sectarian' discourse.

folio*i.rg the perception rhar rrue faith must not only be interior but also necessarily

made evideit by one's behaviour, the evangelicals believe that by making examples of

themselves p.oįl. wilļ be guided ,o .orl,.-įlrte the reasons for their unselfish conduct

and thus tĖe process of .Įnrr.rsion wi[ haįe been initiated. Īris in turn explains the

relatively -odĮrtly articulated evangelising, which is to say that while the missionaries

".. "Į*"y, lookinģ fbr opportunities to t"lk

"bo.,, the Gospel, they do not persist when

they see that theii interloįutor is not receptive. Protestants caļculate that even if people

do not listen to the evangelicals' message, no.r-lr.li.v... can see good deeds as a means fbr

ultimate salvation.ļa

After a new priest, Alexander, was appointed to l(ulomdin Russian Orthodox church

in 2006, the Ėvangelicaļs soon "ppror.h.d him with the aim of aligning forces in

diffėrent kinds of social programs ,.rį, ",

least initially, quite arĮ amicable relationship was

"pį"r..r,ly established. Hoi.rr.r, after a while tlre ortlrodox pfiest terminated this amiry'

v"h.r"". Ļoth sides agree that it was the priest who cut offreļations, they have di{Įėrent

explanarions fo, *hrih"ppened. Th. pri.rt claims that the evangelicals took advantage

of hi, f.l..'dly toleration of their proselydsing work, using his attitude ās ān aĪgument

and proof of their claim that therį is no diffeįence between attending the orthodox or

"., .urrrg.li."l church. The evangelicals, on the other hand, explain the priest's change of

heart b1isaying that he was follš*ing the commancļ of the local bishop, Pitirim, who is

L.ro*., fo, Ļi, Ļo.til" attitude towards Protestant denominations and is firmly against any

collaboration between his clergy and evangelicals'

Despire harsh intra-RoC įr.rr.'r. and resentment over the fact that some proPose

",r"rrg.ii."l. should be held įļp as ān example to the RoC, tlre priest ļrirrrself lras expressed

" ."l"ti r.ly tolerant attitįįde įo*".d. th. Įu".'g.li.al mission, admitting that evangelicals

.u., p.orriā. necessary sįįppoft ft'r groups such as, for example' alcolrolics:

'lhey lthe evangelicals] help them [people]. And because of that pcople ' ' ', wellbeing is an inducement

for thcm. (. . .) ouL Lorthädox] .,ļi,'Ä. is simpĮy to cįirect the spirittral [Įife], althotrgh many do cttss

the government, cuss oįtf o.tĖodory [b"."r.. of th. social problems]' There was such an article lin

th. io."l paper] , that lsaid that] . /iļliam \ /ood helps everyone, why dont the or thodox monks come

ancĮ buįĮcl an oven o. .;o-.,hi,rg else. (. . .) \fhat kincl of thing is this! V'ell, if tlrey [tlre evangelicals]

help [people], let them h.tp. (i..) And ofcourse, itt, pirylhrt they lthe locals] go there [to the

*""gĮri..r,t, but if the p.*o,1 do".rr't iļrink las a result of joining the cvangelicals], if that persotr

*o.kĮ, i, is better ,h",, -h.n tlris person drinks. (Orthodox priest įrr l(trlornclįn, FM 2007)

46 Suomcu Antrol>ologi: Jourual ofdre Finnish AnLhropological SocieLy 2/2014 SttoIrrelr Ätrtropologi: jourtral of rlre Finnish Ąrtlrropological Society 2/2011r 47

PIIįĮT K00SA AND ARl'tEDTr

Nevertheless, the priest does not acknowledge the positive aspects of the evangelicalpresence too overtly or publicly, and regular Orthodox church-goers in Kulomdincontinue to hold, and exPress, rarher negative fėelings about evangelical social efforts.

As the social worļ< and mission activities employed by evangelical churches are oftensaliently different from the practices of the Orthodox Church, this provokes ambivalentresponses in the wider society. The ROC fights very openly against Protestant socialprograms in the Komi Republic. Representatives of the ROC and its supporters in Komicommonly depict evangelicaļ social projects as highly suspicious, with their principalgoal beirrg to carry or-rt 'reĮigious propagarrda (see for exarnple Dzliavrshyan 2009;Pravoslavnaia 2009; A.rrtisektantskļ 20l0; Rornashin 2011). In 2006, the RoC iniriatedcontrol action against Protestant anti-addiction rehabilitation centres. In 2009 KomiProtestant churches launched a social action entitled Feel the Power of Changeļ5 andinvited the ROC to join the ptoject. But the Orthodox Church refused to collaborate with'the sectarians' and instead attempted Įo engage with officiaļs of the Komi government inorder to dismiss the campaign. Again, in 2009, the ROC criticized rhe Komi governmenrfor cooperaring wirh Protestants in carrying oul ān anri-narcotįcs clrmpaign called Timeto Live.ļ6

The difference berween the Protestant and the Ordrodox approach to social charitywork is rather prominent. This is one of tĮre major domains where Bishop Pitirim enforceshis active 'anti-sectatian' policy, although ordinary people also recognise the disrinction.\fhile some of the Kulomdin residents are uneqnivocally critical, interpreting theevangelical social aid Programs predominantly as a kind of bribe to encoįlfage peopleto join tlre clrurcļr in the hope of fr.rrther benefits, otļrers Feeļ that the RoC shoLrļdlikewise pay more attention to, and be engaged with, similar kinds of sociaļ work andinceraction. Meanwhile, the spokesperson for the Eparchy has stated that tĮre local RoCconstantly dispenses chariry commenting that they simply do not 'shout about it',thereby scornfully interpreting the evangelical public outreach projects as self-promotion(see Dzhavrshyan 2009). Despite this, in the villages the ROC and its clerics continueto be criticized for tlreir passivity wļrerr ic corrles to rrrissiotl work and r'eachirrg out tothe people.'7 One of our interlocutors provided a particularly harsh assessment of thecįįffent Church, as according to lris judgement it had once been rhe leading force forimprovement in peoples' lives, though now only vestiges of the once mighty institutionremain:

Īrere aretit enough clrurclr people. Iftlrcrc were tļrese initįators, tįren tlre faith rnight perlraps appealagain. (...) But the sects appear; they have the strength to do that. 'We have in Don this American,some kįnd of sectarian. '-Ihey have the money arrd they lreĻ. (. . .) -Ilrey

reach every place. Brrt these

[the Otthodox] cĮo rlot. Earlier, the [Orthodox.] faith was evolving, itlnovative. (...) As I trncļerstandit, it brought everything new, taught people to grow potatocs and so on, and everything innovarivewas there. They taught people to keep cows and alļ the knowledge was there. But rrowadays thcChurch cannot give anything in this way. Only faith and this is why it [the Church] has remaincd,but aļl that was rįew usecį to be there, but now thereļ nothing. Thcy have died out. (M, b. 1960,FM 2007)

Whiļe it is not rypical to lrear such severe cr'iticism of the RoC's Pl'esent corrdition in tlrevillages, people do feel drat it is tlre Clrurcļr itseļf tlrat requires aid as it is sdll thought

PļRIT K00SA AND AļĮI IĮETI

to be in the process ofa reconstrĮįction that started at the beginning ofthe 1990s' So,

while the e,rangelicals aĪe seen to provide people with practicaļ and material help, their

Orthodox countefpart is perceiveä ". .r..jirrģ and expecting material supPoft from the

lay people, instead ofoffering it.'No,'o.rly

do the .'o.r-"urig.licaļs understand the evangelical pfesence in the district

in terms of the weakness of rh"e ffadidonal Church, but the RoC's passiviry is also used

as ān ārgument in evangelical discourse to demonstrate the need for their presence' Their

point iJthat the missio-naries can help (both Practically and by spreading the Gospel) at

Ieast some of tlre many r-,...Įy p.opl" to whom the RoC pays little, if any, attention' ān

arrirude rowards the ROC's so"i"l *o.L that is somewhat exaggerated in popular discourse

(see Caldwell 2010 for analYsis).

Despite tļre contested ,r"ror. of claims of the RoCĮ neglect of sociaļ isstres' ancĮ

,"g".Jt"r, of historical importance of chariry in Orthodoxy, in the post-soviet period

it is true that social ministry has not been an integral part of Orthodox Church life but

has rather been seen ", " b.r.d.. ro the church (Mitrokhin 2006; Lunkin 2005); it is

o.rly in recenr years thar the ROC has started to Pay mofe attention a d initiated a more

.yr..-",i. "pp.or.h to social outreach (see Knorre 201 0; Mitrofanova 201 3) . In the l(orni

Republic rhere are several soup kitchens, programs for aiding the elderly or handicapped

,.ä ,,rpply of clothes ar-'d ot}i.r necessities to the needy, among other efforts, ofganised

by th" ciriĻrodox (see Syktyvkarskaia)' However, these activities are mainly locatecį in the

.rpit.l and rhe 1".g.. ,o*r village residents in the Kul mdin area have no particular

Į*i..l.".. o, k,'o*Ī"dg" of these cšntribtrtiorrs on the part of the RoC' In the rural areas'

whether and how ro.ij probl.-s āre addressed depends very much on the specific priest

į.r,,"t-,,t. the Į(ulomdin p.i.., feels that his main responsibility is to guide the spiritual

life of lris parishioners, hį hffi undertaken some social outreach pro.ļects' For example'

with the financial sįįppolt of the locaļ administration he has provided jobs fbr local yout}r

,.r'orr",i.rg the .hrrr.lr. But it is not always the case that the villagers expect some ļ<indof

māterial assistance from the Church. Y/hile the previous quote indicated the view tlrat the

RoC should be the innovator in sociery, ,o-" į"opl. miss the cļerics' involvement with

the wider community on a muclr -o.į di.... level. In one of the villages in the district

a woman commentecļ as follows:

T)te batyushha[diminutive for priest] ought to come, meet a Person and talkto hirn' ( ' ' ') In the church

he makes commellts, .1u"...l., t.lls p.oįļ. ho* to p..fo.-. In the church he can say everything and

taĮk normally, Įrrt on th. st...t h. -oįt "ppro""Ē you. (. . .) I think the baryushka should arrange

sorrre kin<ļ ofevents for childrcn, not only ,h. .hu..Ļly ones' yoįl see, lbutl. ļįkc one can read about,

see on TV, yoįĮ sce' they work rlirectly with children' (F' b' 195'' FM 2008)

So, while the way in which a priest approaches social issues depends very much on his

p.r.orl.liry and views, āmong the common people there are certain.expectations that the

pri.rt ,ho.rld ,ro, .or'Ä,'. hiÄseļf to dealing witĒ the purely spiritual sPhere btrt be 'closer

to the PeoPle'.

48 Sttotrrclr Atlrropologi: Jourlal of rlre Firrnislr ArrtļrLopological Society 2/2014 Sttorrrerr AtrtropoĮogi: Jotrrual of tlre Firrrlish lurtlrropological SocieLy 2/20l4 49

PļRFjI KOOSA AND ARt trETr

The evangelical social chariry work demonsrrares ro Komi village people that improve-

ment of material conditions for those who are deprived is possible; officiaļ instįtutions

are thus expected to perform their duties more effectively. At the same time, questions

.or-r.e..ri.rg the actuaī soufces of this material contribution by the evangelicals are aļso

pos"d. Thir., the evangelicals have obtained an ambivalent repįįtation in rhis resPect.

I.' ...trin areas of .oįid lif" their performance is seen as more effective than the

administrations, although at the same time they are suspected of having a hidden agenda

that involves foreign and hostile political interests. The evangelical believers themselves

comprehend rheir social projects as spiritual efforts because they act in a way pleasing

,o iod and fulfil their duty of spreading His word. Caidweļl (2008) lras slrown Įrow

Christian chariry workers do not always conceptualise themselves explicitly as missionaries

ancĮ, because spirittral development is an important component of social or'rtreach' its

intendecį beneāciaries are rātĒef thought to be the aid workers themselves and not the

aid recipients. In the Don case, however, while the evangelicals also understand their

social activiry in terms of personal spiritual gro\Mth, the ultimate intent of bringing about

change in others is always present.

UĮderstanding sociaL projects within the biblical framework of bearing witness to one's

own faith ,h.o1rģh deeds makes the conceptual bor'rndaries of the evangelicals' actions

unclear. As the Protesrant missions ofcen combine chariry and evangelising, this also blurs

perceprion of this- and other-worldly dimensions of faith (Miller & Yamamori 2007:. 2'

ao; črld*"ll 2011: 53-54), and confuses un-churched people and public irrstitutions

as weļl as the ROC. The local dominant trnderstanding of religion (dictated by the

ROC) connecrs faith almost exclusively with pure spiritualiry and rituals. Although

lay people do have some expecrations about the Churchk role in advancing the social

.lį.,",io.r, the Church pri*"iiĮy emphasises its function of offering spiritual solace' The

evangelical social contribution thus seems ro tarnish the overall idea of a belief that is not

disturbed by worldly matters.

In the nationwide context, rhere has to a certain extent been collaboration berween

orthodox and non_Orthodox religious communities in pursuit of sociaļ welfare. As

Lunkin (2010) writes, the local administration cān to a considerable extent deternrirre

the social position of different denominations as well as tlreir role in t}re sociaļ sphere.

At the same rime, he also emphasises the role of the local Orthodox hierarchs. In the

Komi Reptrbļic rare official govefnment cooperation projects with NGos organised by

,'on-ortĖodox Christians h"rr. c"ur.d sharp reactions from the RoC. Meanwhile, the

politicians ancį officials generally see the RoC as their specific religious partner and no

į".ti..rl"r efforts to proĻo,. interdenominatiorral arrd inter-corrfessional relations have

been made. The ROC's local bishop follows a very rigorous exclusionary policy towards

'rhe sectarians' and any kind of possibiliry of collaboration is strongly rejectecl (with one

remarkable exception: the bishāp approved the translation of the Bible into the Komi

language "r-rd.uį.,

blessed publication of the'Komi Bible', although the main promotefs

of tĪr. ir"..l"tion wor'k were from the Komi Evangelical Churchļ8) '

So, altlrough privately Kulomdins locaļ orthodox priest has expressed a somewhat

emPathetic ,ititįd. towards evangelical social irritiatives, public collabor:rtiorr is quite

imįossible due to Pfessufe from the bishop. \While in some other regions of Rtrssia the

.d.t, of individual and ļocaļ interderrominational collaborations have beerr recotrnted

SuoIrrerr Atrtropologi: Jourual of Llrc ljinnish AnthropologicaĮ Society 2/20l1r

i .. :..

ir' ,'::t. " l

i., r.:

:. .,

51

PIRET KOOSA ^ŅD

Alrl', LEETI

Dįscussįon

\7e have mapped a variery ofopinions and attitudes in regard to evangelical social ourreachin the Komi countryside. Īn the final section of the įaper *. di.=..r.. a few principalproblems and strategic motivations that frame the social clrariry efforts of įh. Dor1evangelicals. In addition, as the IGmi cāse can be treated in a larger post_sociaļist context,there are some general conclusions tĮrat can be made o.'

" -o..-,heļretical level.

- Mark D. Steinberg and catherine \fanner (200g: 16) have suggested thar in posr-

Soviet sociery, religiotrs organisations gain recognition predomin".dy through Įcialclrality work. Fighting against ineqLrality and disempowerment enables ,Ļ. .rr".rįli."l. ,oenhance tolerance towards the religious pluralism theyrepresent. In the case ofevĮngelicalsin the village of Don, the grotrp engages itseļf communaily throrrgh social justice

"i.l h.lpprograms which are important means of acquiring a more positive repuration in a socialenvironment where people tend to have a predetermined sceptical ,įrr-,.. ,o*u.cįs non_Orthodox believers. Providing practical help to disenfranchised people is certainly aneffective wāy to develop more friendly des within the wider.ommr--iry. Furthermore, theevangelicals are some of the few active social agenrs in rhe Komi countryside providingsolutions to problems of alcohol addiction, both by directing people to ..hįillt"tioncentfes and simply by constituting a motivating suPPol't g.orrį fo. an individual who istrying to qrrir drinking.

FIoweveĻ these sociaļ problem-solving practices rarely result in people attendingthe evangelical church as Komi village inhabitants generally receive evanģelic"l charitĮpragmatically, witĮrotrt any resultirrg spiritual consequeļlces. From t}reir perspective theevangelicals sur'ely see the difference berween tlre effects of public social Įharity actions(recognising thar their help is often perceived as simplypracricai conrribution to the materialimprovement of ļocal life) and theit' own spiritual efforts, even if the former actions areconsidered part of the goal of becoming interrwined in locaļ people's hearts. And indeed,even though there might be no instant spiritual response o. įonį.r.ion, the evangelicalsaļ'e nevertheless convinced that every Person who lras witnessed the good d..dsįf th.believers has also been exposed to God's grace and thus has

" b.tt.. Įhrnce of seeking

salvation and becoming a true believer.According to the widespread perception in the Komi villages the stare and municipal

administration are primarily (or even exclusively) responsibleĻr solving social probleĻsand should be capable of so doing. Evangelical social įrojects challenge this notion. Peopleate t'sed to expecting sociaļ services fi'om the state (or municipality) įd uļt...'"tiu" ,g.Į,,in the social services field cause a reconfiguration of the p.,bli..t'hl."l landscape (see"alsoSteinberg & Ņ7anner 20 08: 17), considered an embarrassįent for local administrators anclstate rulers who are conseqrrently seen as incapable of coping with their tasļ<s. In a mofeominous ļine of argįtment the evangelicaļ material contr'ibutions to villagers' daily livesare explained as a tactical element of American imperialisric policy. This reflects poorlyon the state įrecause it is then seen as unabļe to pr'otect p.opl. &om the manipulaįor-, offoreign powers. Pubļic discourse labels the evanģelicals ās foreign (American)Įgents andtheir social assistance actions afe seen as expliciidemonstratioĮ of'Russiak infėriority ininternational politics. 'Io a certain extent, the daily discussions of villagers

"l.o .-ģloy

this motif of America. conspiracy being behind the evangelicar missions.

,0 Suourcu Antropologi: Jourlal of rhe Fiunish Arrrhropological Sociery 2/2014

PIRIT K00SÄ ÄND AR1' LEETE

(see Lunkin 2010; Caldweļl 2011; also Elliott 2003)' in Komi this seems rather unlikelyin the near future. This does not mean that the Orthodox Church simply ignores theevangelicals. As social outreach is a prominent ]May for the Don evangelicaļs to attainrecognition in the area, the RoC Įras taļ<en this issue very seriously. The local bishopļras even visited the small Don village to give a special 'anti-sectarian' speech in the

village school, for exampļe. In recent yeats, orthodox services have been introducedin Don (in a private house) and the construction of a chapel statted in the village in2012. Characteristically, the ROC has reacted to the social actions of the evangelicals byemploying mainly spiritual tools.

The ROC and state officials hold a dominant position in defining the status ofevangelicals in Russian sociery as a whole and in the Komi Republic in particular.The evangelical Protestants are therefįrre forced to cope with the reality of Russian society,which determines their role in the public domain to be inferior. At the same time, socialcharity projects enabļe the evangelicals to become potendally mofe successful in theirproselytising though, in Russia, the participation of Orthodox believers and congregationsin joint social welfare efforts may prove to be politically problematic. As the ROC has

more legitimacy to determine which practices are respected, the social mission of the

evangelicals in the rigorous Orthodoxview appears to be a sign of spiritual inferioriry, orcan be interpreted as a kind of 'buying of tĮre souls'. At tlre same time, charity work in theevangelical frameworļ< of 'politics of rightness' provides them the possibiliry of malcingmoral claims, thus in turn leaving the ROC in an ambivalent position (cf. Caldwell20|1:51). Although the RoCļ negative assessments of evangelical social programs have

a considelable effect on the formulation of popular opinion of these projects, ordinarypeople do not necessarily blindly adopt the view the ROC promotes and can occasionallybe quite criricaļ of the dominant church.

The Don evangelicals see it as their moral obligation (cf. Steinberg & \Tanner 2008:t6-I7) to help those in need according to each beļiever's opporrunities. Caldweļl (201 1:

54) has evoked the notion of'politics ofrightness' in regard to beļievers' adherence to a set

of practices and beliefs about social action in order to bring about benefits simultaneouslyto oneself; to others, and to a higher being. As evangelical'politics of righmess'intersectswith broader underscandings of moral norms or ideals, it creates some space for unofficialmoral negotiations berween dominant r'eligious actors' the dominated, arrd the aucįience(ordinary people who do not folļow any religious tradition actively, although to someextent have Orthodox spiricual preferences).

According to several observers, over the past {ive years the ROC in general has startedto pay mol'e systematic attention to sociaļ outl'each though so far it has not given riseto significant changes at the locaļ ļevel that we have examined in this paper. \fhile the

Orthodox Church in Komi Republic deals with the muldtude of social problems in theregion and has addressed these both rhetorically and, to some extent' practicaįly, thesocial outreach projects ofevangelicaļ Protestants'have been more conspicuous, althoughadmittedly the surrounding polemics have contributed to their visibility. To a degree thesomewlrat differentiating specialisations of the orthodox and evangelical sociaļ activitiescan explain the amount of public attention each has received in this respect. Although theRoC has soup kitcherrs, manages several orplranages arrcį the like, rhe evarrgelical anti-adcįictions campaigns are perhaps seen as addressing orre of che most urgent problems in

PIRE"I' Ķ00SA AI\'D ART LEETI

contemPorāfy sociery. At the locaļ level the very personal and informal approach the Do1

evangelicals employ attracts sympat1retic ,.rpo'Į.r. In addition, whi1e the RoCļ social

service programs are rather ,"'g'i"d "t

th" pĮopl' who identiĻ themselves as Orthodox'

,h. .urr-rg.lĪ.als do not limit th'i' beneficiaries to their co-believers'

The J,r".rg"li."l, have been unsuccessful in their attemPĮs to - forge collaborative

interfaith relationships to deal wirh rhese issues. Even though social chariry is also part

of the Orthodox moral'rightness', they tend to assess evangelicals'respective endeavours

.r.g".irr.ty because these Jocial efforts are understood in terms of (morally) illegitimate

proselyrising. \Thereas the Don evangelicals in particular are ready to downplay the

theological diftėrences, and tļreir missionising "ģ.rd, can be..quite modest, they too

understand their activiryvery muclr in religiouĮ tįms. Caldwell's concept of the'politics

.irįrr.r.rr' caPtures their motivation to engage with social activism.well' occasionally'

there are improved oppā.,.r.'itl", to d.rr.loį Ällnlror"tio., on a smaller scale bodr with

individual orthodox and non-religious įartners, and even with representatives of

administrative units, althotrgh that ig"i'' dĮp"ds very much on the specific persons in

power.The bulk of locaļ population regards the state and local administrative authofities as

p.i-"įiĻ ,.rpo.'ribl. fĮ solvirrg.J.i"l probl.ms and insuring wellbeing for its subjects'

iJai,l.""tty, the chtrrch i. u.rĮ..too4 to have a certain moral dury to offer solutions

co existing social issues and care for the cįisenfranchised. Dtre to its historical role and

;;r*.; ii th" lo..ļ td;"y configuration, the ROC is expected to be this :hl-l. T:Īevent, hol'ever, the evangeii.rļ. hr'rr. become contributors in a sphere in which the RoC

and local administratiori ".. ,... as performing insufficiently, "'.'ģ

as theil input was

unanticipated, their action, hrrr. ,.ql.'ired heighĮened meaning' Although rnany ascribe

unscrupulous motiYations to tlreir activiry, "aĪ."., to some extent this constfuctive fole

."rrrr", evangelicaĮs to be accepted as valuable operators in village communities'

NOTTS

, This researclr was supportecl by the Etrropean Į-Iniorr througlr the Etrropean Regional l)evelopment

Funcl (Centre of Excelļence CEC])'2 For more detaįled air"u..ion į Įh. po.t-Soui.t religious context in general, see e.g. Agadjaniari 2001;

Baran 2006; Pelkmans 2009.3 Old Belįevers are the descendants of religious cļįssentcts who cļid not accept the litrrrgical reforms

i"rroJuį.a by Patriarch Nįį<on to the officiaī Russįan orthodox Church in the 17th celļtuty'

a The names of the missionaries are ļeft unchanged, as they are locally publicly known people'

5 For more detailed account on thc American missionary, see Koosa 2013'

6 AlĮ qmtations are from our fieldwork materials recordįÄ2007-2013.\{e indicate gender and year of

birth of the informatrts, as well as the year of the interview. People who afe easy to ide ntiĻ (missionaries)

are presentecĮ using their reaL names, fļese people ,." "*"r"Įf our research and the way we ic1entiĻ

them in our tcxt.7 An anonymous refįree to this paper suggested that perlraps for some locaļ-s attendirrg religiotrs services

įs an act of reciprocity t". ,m riap p.ou"iä..Į by tlre Dorl evarrgelicals'- \7hile this kįrrcį o| motivatįon

cotrlcl bring few indįvicļuaļs ,.-por'orily to tlre.ļervices, ''o" oitl-'' help reccivers ļrave not visited tlre

chr.rrch arr<ļ this kind oltogi"ĮoĮ. no, ļ..rr'' to be tlre tnaįn reason lor tlre reguĮar: attetrclers'

52 Suonrelr Atrrropologi: JournaI of tlrc Firrlrislr Änthropological Society 2120I4 Strotrretr Alrrro1rologil JoururĮ of tlre ljinnish Anthro1rologicrl SccieLy 2/20 l1r 53

PIRET KOosÄ Aļ\D Alįl IEBTE

8 The discussion was howevel closed witlr a prayer asking God to heĻl the officials to legislate and cerryout the considered measures.9 The East \Mhite Oak Bible Church in Carlock, Illinois (see East \rhite oak Bibļe Church).I0 See \ r''WļMMtoR. 'l7ļrile \Milliam covers his own living exPences from persorral funds, thesedonations, remaining fathcr modest, are meant to suppoĪt įthei missionaries' worļ< and to providefinarrces to buy building materials etc. for their charity projects. In severaį occasions the donations havebeen gathered with a specific purpose (for exampĮe, to buy a certain power tool, or car, or a varr) to enbļethe missionaries' basic work.ll Being a foreigner ancį thus provoking attention arrd ambiguous reactions, Williamļ person is rypicallycentral when outsiders dįscuss tlre group's activities.'2

'Williarn actually ļeft l(ulorndiri to start a rnission in another clistrict in 2011. IĮeporteclly, in this new

locatiotr (Gr'iva village, Koigorodok district) the officiaļs are vcry tolerant ancļ differcrrt evatrgelical actorshave no problem performing in rhe village clubs, for example (See Sivkova 2013).13 Comp. Janes2:17-26.|a'TheKingwillreply,"ĪulyItcllyou,whateveryottdidforone

oftheleastofchescbrothersandsisrersof mįne, you did for me"' (Mattlrew 25:40).15 This sociaļ rnedia project lras been carried out in several Russian cities anc] has been sharply criticisedby the Orthodox in Arkhangelsk, for example (see fol example Alkhangelsk 2005). However, Lurrkin(2005) argues that tļrc local bishop irritially apptovecl tļre Protestant įroject arrcl later the MoscowPatriarchate prompted the sharp sratements.r6 Interestingly enough, a representative of the Public Charnber repliecl with her own criticism addressirrgthc IĮoC's passivity on the Īnattel'of aįcohoļ abuse įn sociery. (Sce Popov 2009.)l7 Caįdwelį (2008:200-201) lias algtrcd tlrat irr ĮĮussia, therc is a pnpuĮ". trnclerstarrcling of the Chtrrclras an'agenr ofredistribution separare from its role as agent ofspiritrnliry,.l8 The I(omi Evangelical Church

- aĪļ aįltonoļnotts Protcstant church establishecl irr tļre 1950s.'Ihe

Komi Evangelical Clrrrrclr vcry activeļy Ptornotes Ī(orni cttļttrle ancl larrgtrage. 'ļļe translatioll of the Bibļcis being carriecį out in cooperation with the Bibļc translatiorr institrrte in Finlarrcį arrcļ l(orrrį lirrguistsfrom the ļocal science centfe at the Academy of Sciences. The NewTcstament has alreaģ been publĪshedin l(omi arrd work continues on the translation of the Oļd-lestament. (See Leete 2013)

REI'ĮRENCES

Agadjanian, Aļexander 2001. Pubļic Religion and tlre Qr.rest for Nationaį lcleology: Rr-rssiaļ MecļiaDtscolrse. JournaĮfor the Scientifc Stlldjl of IĮeĮigion,40 (3): 351 365.Antisektantski.i 201 0 = Auruce rarrtc už l-Įerrrp Cr,rxrlrnxapcttož enapxuu PIĪtļ MĪĪ o6BļļHficTĪIpoTecTaIĪToB B y6Ęi1cTBax, oĪ(Ī(yIbTH3Me H rĪ4 nHo3e. Hoaocmu xpttcmrĮaHcKo1o

'luptt 21 Ann.

2010. Available at: <http://prochurch.info/incįex.php/news/morelļ6227> [accessecl 2Il01l14].Atena2072 = Apeua. Amlac peluert u ua uouattuutlcneti Poccttll. Avaiļable at: <www.srcda.org/arena> [accessecĮ 19 l02ļ20I3l.Arkharrgelsk 2005 = Apxaulenbcl( Bo3MyIiļeH ceKTaHTcKož ax tež "oilļyrĮr cĪlny [epeMeH',.ĪIpaaocnaatte.rtt 16 o,ag 2005. Availabļe at: <http://www.pravoslavie.ru/news/1345B.htm> [accessecĮt3101 I 14).Baran, Emily B' 2006. Negotiating the Limits of Religiotrs PĮuralism in Post-Soviet Russia: 'ļlreAntįcrrlt Movernent in tlre Rtrssiarr Ortlrodox Clrurch, 1990-2004. 'rhe Rllssian ļĮeuieu 65: 637 656'Caldwell' Melissa L, 2004. Not Ąl Bread Aļone: SociaĮ Support in the Neu Rtlssia. Berkeley: Ulriversiryof Caļifornia Press.

Cal<lwell, Melissa L' 2008. Social Veļfare and Clrristian \Meļfare: \Mho Gcts Saverl irl l,ost-SovietRttssįan Chariry Vork? In Mark D. Steinberg, Catlrerirre Vanner (eds), ReĮigion, Morali , antĮCommunity in Post-Souiet Societies' Vasllington, f)C: 'Woocļr.ow 'W'ilsorr Ccnter Prcss.

54

,!,.],]:

ltl:

PIRiT K00SA AND ^I{į'tErTE

Caļdwell, Melissa L. 2010. 'Ihe Russian orthodox Church, the Provisįon of Sociaļ \7elfare' and

Changing Ethics of Benevolence. In Chris Hann and Hermann Goltz (eds), Eastern Christianitįes įn

Anthiopological perspectiue. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Caldwe[, Melįssa L. 201 1 . The Politics of fughtness: Social Justice among Russia's Christįan

communities. In Jarret Zigon (ed.), Multipk"Moratities and Religions in Post-souiet Rzrssla' New York:

Berghahn Books.

Dr .,,rrhyrr' 2009 = leng ĮNanpruxu (2009). IĪpe cmaaumeJļLļ PĮĪIļ pac euuaanm

KaltmlļKpu3ucHyto)) paxu\uo3Īįyn aKį uo a Koutt rcarc aep1oalcy u no 2omo6lE rc z1aemuo

pruon,oĻr,r,.Availabie at: <http://komionlirre.rtr/newslt4845> [accessed 04l04ļ12]''East Wite oah BibĮ^e churrh.Available at: <http://www.ewo.org> [accessed 11l08l20I4]'

Elliott, Mark R. 2003. orthorļox-Protestant Relations irr tįre Post-Sovict |:ta. RcĮigiotl in 'Eastern

EuropeXXllI (5): 31 50.

Fit.Ļ 2005 = Ceprež (Dularo 2005. Pecrry6lura Kouu. In M. Eyprro, C' (Dularo ' (eds)' Arutac

coilpaver*roti paruzuosuori ctcusrnt Poccttu' T1' Mocxa, Canrr-flerepypr: Jlerr-rucaa'

Filatova, Vera 2009: Bepa cDzlaro a (2009). Tpa. zqNr eBaHren 3Ma: Bo3po)Ī(ÄeHĮ{e

coĮįIaJIį,Hor-o *pr"rrun"'r'ru [online] Russian Reuįeu 36. Available at: .http://www'keston'org'

uk/ russianreviĮw/edition36/03-baptists-frorn-v-filatova.html> [accessed 14ļ0ļļ|4)'

c.įir, |978 =ĪopuĪ,lBactlĪbeBrl.r larapurr !978. Į4clnopun pe]įLļluĮļ įļ ameu3i4a uapo a rouu'

Mocrua: Haytta.

Knorre, Boris 2010 = Eopprc Krroppe (2Oi0). CoqzaĪb*afiMk'acĪlg PiĪĮ MIĪ: ycĪĪexĪ4, ynyilļeHļ{fi

u uÄe uste napaÄoKcll. Įļussian kuiew46. Available at: <http://www.keston.org.uk/ russianreview/

cdk\o n46 l 02 -|<no rre_church-social-wo rk. lr tm> [accessed I 4 Į 0 I l M]'

Konakov, Nikolay 2004 = FIr.r orrar4 ļļMuTpueBuq KorraKos (2004). Tpa, uįĮ}loHHa{ cI]cTeMa

pĮrpoÄoĪIoJll3 oBaļufl.Įz xo3flžcTBeHHLIe 3aHqTI4r KOMļ'I. In Hraro-rraž Įurarpzenrau Korrartog (ed',)',

3utpnttcltttīt uttp. ()aeprcu o mpa ttt1ttotuto ttyLtumype rcouu uapo a' Cltrrrtlttap: Kolru uurrrgoe

[3ÄaTeĪLcTBo.I(isą Piret 20Į0. Õigeush kaasaegses homi bįļlas. Studįa Ethnologica ct Folkklristica Tartuensia 12'

Tartu: Taltu Ülikoolį Kirjastrrs.

Koosa, Piret 2013. Sowing thc see<is of Faith: A case study of an American Missionary in the

ĮĮussian North. Journal of Ethnokg and Folhļoristics 7 0): 3148 '

Krasikov Anatāu; "rra

įo-", rį"ki" 2012 - Allarcnla A. Kpaczrton, Pouau H' Jlyrrr<lttt

2072. Penętln tt zpactc attclcoe o6uļecm6o c Poccutt. IĮpeo oneutte cmepeomLļnoa Įļ coxļĮļaJĮbĪļoe

cJxy)rcet'Įxļe.MamepuanutIĪepao ecepoccu aco HaylļHo-npaģmu,tectto rcouģepeu uu

,,Penuertost' tīt ļlarcmop G co uaJļbĪļo-nolumt tecrcoīt )rcu3Ītu co6pe'Ą4eut'to Poccuu'' (npeo onetnrc

Hemepnuwocmįļ įļ 3Kcmpefiucmct<ux meu eu u ).Mou<na,'] ulon'Ī 201ļ roaa- Mocx a:

ĮopucnpyĀeuĮux.t"ļ,", Äį 2010. LortlrocĮoxie en pays komi. Irr EvaTotrĮottz.e, Sėbastierr CagnolĮ (eds), Les Komis:

{2rgtion, d''histoire et de ctlltllre' Jo]uixėr, komįrr. I es journėes fntlo-ougrierules de ļA'DĖF)' Park' ļ B-ļ 9

nouembre 2009. (Bibliothėque finno-ougrienne 1B') Paris: LHarmattan'

Leete, Art 2013 .= IleeĪc' Apr 2013. nEor ronoplIr Ha MoeM poÄHoM '3Ī,ĪKe):

3THIįĪ{ecI(afl

cTpaTerH' Korr.tra qeprrrtl. Alt mp o nonozuuec rcu tįlopyu |8: 25 6_27 5'

Lįt", Art 2074.'Ī!-le Collective Powers of Religion: Scholarly Interpretatiorrs and Vernacular

Dialogue. Approaches to Cllļture 1heor1 4: 204 219 '

Leete, A. and Koosa, Lr. 2072.'ļhe čhurches 'Were opened and Lots of Missionar'ies Arrived:

DiaĮogue between Komi Identity and Faitlr. Foļhļore. EĮectronic JollrnaĮ of FoļhĮore 51: 171--190'

LoilJrr, Roman 2005 = Por'aau JlyHrturr (200'. PE 1PTA}K: Pycc*tt Ceaep npomua noJļįļmLĮKįĮ

Ęeumpa. Co ualntnst alQļun npomecmal'ļmo| GcKoįįbtxĪļyJta apxaH2eJļbcKoe o u1et:mco' Available at:

.Ļ,,p/t***.portaļ-credo.ru/sitĮ/prirrt.php?act-news6.icĮ=33621> [accessed 13r0]'l14]'

Lunkin, Rornarr 2007 =Pouall:iy"nr, (2007). IIpor'ec'I'aHTr,Ī 14 ĪĪoJĪIzTUįIecKįIe I(oHd)nul(.l'bļ B

Enparuu: cflaceHļļe Ėy u|ĄynpaBnrIeMafl,r1elrortparr'rx. Rusian Reuieu 24. AvaiĮabļc at: <http://

***.k..,o,-,.o.g.uk/-russianreviįw/editiorr24/03/Lunkirr.htrll> [acccssed |4ļ0ļl14]'

Sttotrren Ätrrro1rologi: Joutnal oftlre FinIrislr Antlrropological Socicry 2/20l4 5tSuolrctt Atrtropologi: Journal of thc Finnislr Änrlrropolo gicil Socicry 2l20l1l

PIRM'KOOSA AND ARl IDL"I'Į

Lunkin, Roman 2008 = Porr.rau JĪyurzH (2008). CIDKEHI4E KAK IĪOJII4TI4KA. PIĪI-ļ MlIBcrynĮĪJĪa n 6opl6y:a rpzaauczpoBaHue coqįIaJIbHo 3HaiIIzMLIx ĪĪpoeKToB. Availabļe at: <http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=fresh&id-832> [accessed 2110I114].Lrrnkin, Romarr 2010 = Pouau JĪyrrttnu (2010). KpacrrorpcKĮ.I rpa : cz upcxraž o6pa:coĮuanbHoro rĪapTHepcTBa BJIaCTH }Ī pellĪlĪĪlĻl. Rt sian Reuie 45. Available at: <http://www.keston.org.uk/-russianreview/edįtion45/03_rom-about-krasnoyarska.html> [accessecl 15l0IlI4].Matsuk 2004 = MalļyĪ(, Maxatu 2004.Pelur o3tafl at'Īyaļļu'Ī n Pecny6rrzxe Kori,ru. In A. H.Typy6auor (ed.)' Į,Īcmopun Kouu c peeue uux lpaveH o rcou a XX aerca' T' 2' Crtrrltlxap:Koltz xllzlrruoe H3ĀaTeĪLcTBo.Miller' Donald E. and Yamamori, Tetsunao 2007 ' GļobaĮ PenįeclstĮįĮism: The Netu Face of CbristĮa'nSociaĮ Engagentent. Berkeley, Los Angeies & London: University of Calįfornia Press.Mitrofanova 2013 = Murpoģauora, A. B. 2013. CoqltalrHar pa6oTa ilpaBocJĪaBHĪ,IxHeKoMMepįIecKrlx opraHH3aĮI{ž: uanpauertz'Ī'ĪĮenĻI'THĮĪoJĪorH'. ģ,vtauunlapttuįe tļoy10ļ. BecmtnnccDuuaucorloeo yuusepcĮļtnema uayano-o1pasoaamelnuani ,rcypĪļan 1 (9):3243.Mitrokhin 2006 = Murpoxtlrr, Hzrolaž 2006' Pyccrcan npalocJtasĪļan įļepKosb; cospeMetļtļoecocmo'įĪrue u aKmyaJĮbt.Įbįe npo6aeuat' Mocrt a; Holoe .lzreparypuoe o o:peHr.re.ovchinnikov 2004 =Bnalu rtrp on.runrruros (2004).Ilpocrož auepzrcarrcru My)KIzK. Tptt1yua'Avaiļable at: <http://www.tribtrna.nacį.ru/moduĮes/news/article.php?storyid=965&PHPsESSID=929bd26c4|b7 667 tr 5234dcfa0c424ea> Įaccessed 25 l 03 l 13).Pelkmans, Mathijs 2009. Introductįon: Post-Soviet Space and tlre Urrexpectecl Īrr.ns of ReligiotrsL,ife. In Mathijs Pelį<mans (ed.), Conuersion Afier SociaĮism' Disruptions, MotĮen sms ancĮ Tech|noĮogies ofFaith in the Former Souiet ĮJnion. New York, Oxford: Berglrahn Books.Popov 2009 = Īopz flonon (2009). fattmn I{nnseea; <Vnpercu enapxuu a a pec o1u1ecmaeuuotin1IįambĮ Koutt a co e cmauu cel(maJ\į 6esocuoaameLt ut't>. Availalle at: <komionlįne.ru/news/1653 1 > [accessecĮ 11 Į 04l I2].Postarrovlenie 20!2 = Ī1ocrauoBJIeHlze Nq 1031 . 06 ymaepcrc etrutt Peecmpa ayHĮtĮlunonuĮbtx ycļĮy:,npe ocmaalneudx Ho meppįļmopuu Mo MP <Vcmu-Kyltoaucrni>. 29 tt ;un 20] 2 zo a' Available at:<http://ycrr-rcylorvr.pQ/?page_id =7 424> [accessed | 4l 02 I I 4].Pravoslavnaia 2009 = IĪpaaocaanĪįo'į enapxĮļ't o1auunem o1u1ecmeeultyto naltamy Kouzt aco eticmalru ceKma'Ļį. Korrarlorrlažrr. Avaiļable at: <httpl//komionline.ru/news lI6145> [accessccĮ20l0rl 141.

Romashin 2011 - Agapež Pouamltrr (2011)' B Kouu uaprconoluLļun u cGĄį eĪĮHocIįyJtcLįlneJįLĮlrc no enuntt Heonntnut)ec'Įmuut<otl. Available at: <http://l<omionline.rtr/newsl29927> [accessccĮr1l04ltzl.Sivkova 20i3 = Ansa Cz o a (2013). Borourep-3arBopHur(. C oro uncczro Bul sr.r Byrl peu1rnĪIpoÄoJĪ)KHTĒ n ccle Ęura. Pecny1nztrca' 10 ortrx pr 2013 roaa. Availabļe at: <http://www.gazeta-resptrblika.ru/a r ticle.php I 63496> [accessecl 1 \ I 08 I 14].Sharapov, Zherebtsov 20 74 = BanepuĪl3rrrenlco z.t LLIapanor, tr4ropl JIro orrlHpoBIļįr Xepe611oa(20I ' n' H. }Įtepe6 oc o mpa u unx mpy oeo l3aĮļMonoltouļu y t@,Ą,įLļ-3bįpnLr. Marepuallt tc

Mex4yHapo4uoMy clzMno3layĮly "BEME: o6Į,Ī.ļaž B3aĮĪMo[oMoĪIļIī B Ī(ynbTypax HapoÄoB Vpano-lIosoIrrtbx" (JĪy1opra , ļ6 18 Nras 2014 r'). Cltrrrtrrap: ĮĄf,JlļĄKo tpt HĘ Ypo PAH.Smirnov2011 [1891] =VlBau H t<o:raesįIq Cuuprron (2O11 t1891]). ĮĮepustrcu; ?Icmoptuco-smtlozpaģttueįļ KLļe o epKu. Moc a: Kunrr<Hli .qoįa,,IĮ{EPOKoM,,.Steinberg, Mark D. and Catherine'W'arrner 2008. introduction: Recļaiming the SacrccĮ afterCommunism. In Mark D. Steinberg, Catherine'Wanner (eds), ĮĮeĮigion, MoraĮily, antĮ Commllni l inPost'Souįet Societies' B\oomington and Indianapolis: Indiana Universiry Press.Syktyvkarslraia = Crno t apcKa' eĪĪapxļrf. Easa a|trļatx no coĮftĮaJļbĪįoj'ly cny)rceĪnoo PycctcoIĮpaaoataauoti Ęeprcau. Available at: <http://www.miloserdic.rtr/social/search> [accessecl 17l03l13].Vaļlikivi' Laur 2009. Chr'istianisation of\7ords ancį Selves: Nenets Reindeer HerdersJoining tlre Statetlrrorrglr Conversiotl. In Mathijs Pelkmans (ed.), Conuersion After SociaĮism: Divll1ltions, Modernitiesttnd the'ĮĮ:chnologies of Faith įn the Form'er Souiet ĮJnjon. Oxfor-cl aucl NewY'ork: Bcrglrahn,

PIRIiT KOOSA AND ART TEETE

Vallikivi, Laur 201 ļ. .what Does Matter? Idoļs ancį Icons in the Nenets Tun dra' JournaĮ of EthnoĮog1

antļ Foļhļoristįcs 5 0):75 95.

Vaļlikivi, Lat,- 2014' o,, ti. Edg. of Space and Time: Evangelical Missionaries įn the Tįrrrdra of

Arctic Russia. /a urnaĮ of EthnoĮog and Folkļoristįcs B (2) (forthcoming) '

wWMtoR = \Y/iļļiamVr'ood Miilons to Russia.Available at: <http://www'Ir'r'wmtor'oį-g> [Accessed

211021141.

PIRET KOOSA PhD Cand.

RESEARCHERF,STONIAN NATIONAL [email protected]

AtļT I.EETEPROFESSOR OF ETHNOLOGYUNIVERSITY OF]]ARTUaf t.leete@įļt.ee

56 Srtotrretl Ätlrropologi: Journal of Llre Fitrnish Arrtļrropological Societ1, 2/2014 Srtorrretr Atrtropologi: -ļourual of rlre Įiinnislr 'Aurdrropological SocieLy 2/20l4 57