← Research LibraryExact extracted unit
Indexed source
THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA (1789 - 1910), P. M. Friesen, 1911
Available for full-text research. Open the source to inspect original-language passages and page references.
VerificationThe full text is searchable; full source verification is not yet recorded.
Citation checksNo verified references are recorded yet
Research profileNot current yet
Text fragment 266 (not an original page number)
Unit 266 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
and Penner in the Old Colony Church, a
church which had existed, formally, since the spring of 1862. (Wieler was
a Mennonite from the Chortitza District, a student of Heinrich Franz,
who, as a result of his affiliation with the brethren, had lost his teaching
position in Liebenau in the Molotschna and had been forced to go to
Einlage in the winter of 1861-62 [see “Documentary Supplements,” #167,
for more about Wieler]) . The work of these brethren resulted in the worst
possible confusion within the church. Claassen, too, was opposed to
Reimer for a time because he considered him to be “too rational” and
because Reimer (for selfish reasons, in Claassen's opinion) had not
participated in the Kuban settlement. Brother Reimer, on the other
hand, accused Brother Claassen of having been lenient too long toward
the "excessive expressions of joy” and of frequently being too
“domineering” in church matters. Later, however, they were reconciled.
See “Documentary Supplements,” #193.
§120 7. Spiritual Despotism. In the meantime, a frightful spiritual
despotism developed in the two M.B. congregations in the Molotschna
Free and Exuberant Movement
275
and in the Old Colony (Chortitza-Einlage). It was led by B. Becker,
Bernard Penner, and Gerhard Wieler who promoted the excessive
exuberance, and by those who followed them for reasons of sympathy or
fear. This conscience-frightening, even enslaving and torturing
despotism had already begun during the period of the doctrine of
freedom, during the “sordid” year from the fall of 1861 until the spring
of 1862. The teaching consisted of merciless condemnation and mockery
of every personal conviction, culminating in the feared “ban”
(excommunication), in which dissidents were “delivered over to Satan.”
“Because silence also speaks,” even those not participating in
expressions of exuberance, which developed into formal dancing
accompanied by wild music and the beating of drums, were
excommunicated (as happened to Jakob Reimer, Gnadenfeld). Religious
books, which had earlier been treasured and which later were again
accepted within the church as containing materials useful for study and
devotion, even if not absolutely free of error, were burned. In the same
way this dictatorship forbade members having any friendly association
with people who thought otherwise. Even a hearty greeting of closest
relatives was forbidden since that constituted “fellowship with the
world.” The same system prevailed in the M.B. Churches in the
Molotschna and in the Chortitza area. Threats and letters of
excommunication were also sent to the Kuban, especially to Claassen,
mainly by Benjamin Becker who, like G. Wieler, had bestowed upon
himself the rank of apostleship! Claassen was bitterly accused of forcing
reconciliation with W. Bartel, Heinrich Bartel, Abraham Comelssen and
those like-minded upon the church, after his return from St.
Petersburg. He was called a “smearer” too (as W. Bart
Source excerpts
[THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA (1789 - 1910), P. M. Friesen, 1911. Книга представляет документальную историю Меннонитской братской общины в России (1789-1910), основанную на архивных материалах, собранных автором за 25 лет. Автор, П. М. Фризен, со] P. M. FRIESEN OTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA ( 1789 - 1910 ) P. M. Friesen THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA ( 1789 - 1910 ) How do you write the history of a movement when you are still a part of that movement? Whom do you believe when leading participants in those historical events disagree strongly not only on why things happened, but also on what happen- ed? What imparts the ring of truth to a denominational history? For P. M. Friesen the answer was a documentary history, letting the record speak for itself. Gathering historical docu- ments ov…