THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA (1789 - 1910), P. M. Friesen, 1911

d with a decision of Jan. 19, 1870, to separate the new church from the old .... Ultimately this separation of the members of the new parish brought them into an extremely oppressive situation with respect to the economy as well as to church life. b) “Reluctantly and with heavy heart the ‘Huepfer' [they had earned this appellation through their own zeal] turned to the government for help. We say ‘reluctantly’ because the Mennonites, like all sectarians, try hard to manage without administrative meddling, especially in questions of faith. [Unfortunately, perhaps not enough!] Not to trouble the government with complaints and quarrels had till then been one of the guiding principles of the Mennonite brotherhood [?! cf. Deputies Hoeppner and Bartsch, ‘Kleine Gemeinde,’ ‘Lichtenauer,’ Elder Jakob Warkentin and Heinrich Wiens, ‘Barley Affair’ and ‘Halbstadt church building quarrel!’]. The violation of this rule, which the landless in particular did often [who began to seek help from the government a little later than the ‘brethren’], served the authorities as an official reason to impose fines and other punishments, because similar complaints harmed the good reputation and the interests of the brother- hood, by degrading the century-old reputation of being peaceful and model citizens inherited from their fathers.” c) “Almost every private complaint by the landless Mennonites begins with the phrase: ‘With the greatest regret,’ ‘To the disgrace of the brotherhood,’ etc. The representative of the ‘Huepfer’ [Johann Claassen] having arrived in St. Petersburg, 143 petitioned for over a year to be granted land in the Caucasus before he openly expressed his views about the state of affairs on the spot. Only the most extreme necessity, the refusal to send him a passport, finally forced him to enlighten the government concerning the object of the quarrel.” [Klaus was at that time a young official in the Ministry of Crown Lands and quite f amili ar with Claassen’s case. There follows the statement of the f amili ar content of the petition to His Majesty and the only hope of the brethren to receive protection only from the government.] d) [Supplement to #106.] “. . . Indeed [Page 288], the government 356 THE MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH did not delay in issuing an order to the effect that the ecclesiastical separation was in no way to be accompanied by restrictions of civil rights or prosecution by the police. With regard to the recognition of the new parish, however, obstacles were encountered in that our laws do not touch upon the dogmatic aspect of the Mennonite doctrine. Thus the question arose: Which of the two parties should one consider a sect, which one to have deviated from the Mennonite doctrine guaranteed by law? 144 Yet to enter into a discussion of this matter is not in the spirit of our laws, which demands from other religious organizations only that their doctrine should not contain anything cont