← 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 267 (not an original page number)
Unit 267 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
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…