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 343 (not an original page number)

Unit 343 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
Exact extracted unit
special difficulty, in a relationship of mutual counsel and aid to the council representing all the churches, therefore, in a kind of relationship of subordination, insofar as this seems really necessary. The elders: Bernhard Fast, Benjamin Ratzlaff, Heinrich Toews, Peter Wedel, Dirk Warkentin.” But earlier a number of elders, with B. Fast at their head, had already acted as a kind of “superior” group in matters pertaining to Elder H. Wiens (see ##37 and 61). On page 116, Franz Isaak reports: “After the reception of the administrative instruction [cited by Isaak] of the president of the Supervisory Commission [August 14, 1846, in regard to Elder Wiens], the entire religious leadership of the Mennonites was invited to the Area Administrative Office and the instruction was read to them [on 30th of August]. Wiens denied his unseemly conduct towards His Excellency [in a personal conversation with Privy Councillor Hahn in the Area Administrative Office, in regard to which matter Wiens was now being accused] before this assembly and remained obstinate in his stance. Thereupon, in the church at Ohrloff, Wiens was declared, by the Elders Fast, Wedel, and Ratzlaff, to be unworthy of further service in this office. Although Wiens was informed of this action, he nevertheless totally ignored the written explanation of the above elders.” Thereupon followed the decree of his banishment by the Administrative Office after recommendation by the Commission. In another place Isaak quotes a letter of the Colony Administrator Toews, a like-minded companion and friend of Johann Coraies, wherein, among other things, one reads on page 119: “After this [after the above-mentioned meeting of the entire ministerial staff in the Area Administrative Office on August 30, 1846, as recounted above], the Area Administrative Office and the Agricultural Society wrote to the ministerial personnel of all the churches to deal with Wiens [!] since the Area Administrative Office and the Society had declared him unworthy [!]. Thereupon the Elder Bernhard Fast, Friedrich Wilhelm Lange [cf. #49; why are Elders Ratzlaff and Wedel— and in the earlier account, Lange— not mentioned here? A typographical error?] and their ministers sent in a formal declaration of Wiens’ deposition, dated Sept. 21, 1846, with the implication that in the future he not perform any 358 THE MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH spiritual functions, and, failing this, he be reported [1] to the governmental authorities as a disobedient person . A deputation to the Commission, with the full authorization of many friends of Elder Wiens, could not avert his fate. These new sources (which came to our attention only after our book was essentially completed) explain ##35-38, 50 and 61 more clearly in this same sense: Coraies, whose greatness and achievements are indisputable, but whose errors and eccentricities cannot be hidden either, exerted strong control over the church with the

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…