Avakum
Checking archive
← Research Library
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.

2,951 passagesText fragments 1–984; these are not original page numberslanguage not recorded
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 267 (not an original page number)

Unit 267 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
Exact extracted unit
el earlier called the brotherly recognition of those who were still in the “Babylonian Church.” It is remarkable that now W. Bartel has for a considerable period of time been closely associated with Abraham Comelssen, whom he earlier counted among the overly -rational and ship-wrecked brethren!) Finally, Heinrich Huebert was relieved of his position by the “strong ones” (after he had been falsely accused of having baptized Russians, and had been held in custody by the legal authorities during the winter of 1865, until November of the same year, for about ten months). Finally, the serious and moderate party 82 (Daniel Fast, Philip Isaak, Johann J. Fast, Jakob Jantz, Christian Schmidt, Abram Schellenberg, and others of the same mind as Heinrich Huebert and Jakob Reimer— who had since moved to Ekaterinoslav), succeeded in restoring order under Claassen’s leadership. Claassen also had been accused by the local authorities of violating ecclesiastical state laws, and they demanded that the criminal court authorities put him in custody for investigation. 83 While forced to hide from the local authorities, he 276 THE MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH worked without interruption at these church matters in the Molotschna and Chortitza regions from May 4 to July 20, 1865. The order that was restored was such as could please both God and men. §121 8. The “June Reforms.” In the minutes of June 1, 2, 12, 13, 26, and 27, 1865, read in public on August 4, 1865, in the congregation at Gnadenheim, the following points were agreed upon. (We include here the bare essentials only. The original version is included under #191, in the “Documentary Supplements”): a) No brother in charge of a congregation may excommunicate or carry out church actions alone or with a select group of members (as was the practice with the “strong ones”). The entire church body governs itself under the leader elected by them. Obedience and double honor are due to the ministers who speak and walk according to God's Word. b) Brother H. Huebert, who had been removed from his position, was re-instated as first elder by a process of casting lots, carried out solemnly after serious prayer and fasting (as was the case with the entire reform effort in the church). c) The unjust and arbitrary excommunication of Jakob Reimer, Gnadenfeld, and others was revoked. All matters were submitted to calm investigation according to the law of love and order. d) The wild expressions of joy, such as dancing, were unanimously declared as not pleasing to the Lord; the drum (actually a tambourine), was not to be used any longer since it had caused much offence. Music that had been used in an unseemly, loud, and provocative manner was to be performed in a pleasing and harmonious manner instead. The joy in the Lord should not be prohibited, but everyone was to behave in a manner that “edifies.” e) The cordial greeting and friendly treatment of non-members was declare

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…