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

onsequent developments, one was so eager to report everything to the government— the documents supply proof thereof— which made the members of the new movement appear to be disobedient and disturbers of the peace, why was the government not granted clearer insight into the circumstances? For neither the separate vote of the churches [Ohrloff and Kleine Gemeinde], nor any explicit mention, reference to, or reiteration of the explanation of Claassen and associates, dated January 6, which is the first document in this matter, are to be found in the records. 1) If we examine the answers given by the five elders in reply to the inspector’s questions, what do we find? The first question reads: ‘What is the essence of this new religious movement?’ The answer ‘Their understanding, exposition, and application of the Scriptures are one-sided. They claim that their interpretation of individual Scripture passages is the only correct one and this is the reason why they have failed to respond to all correction and instruction.’ (Do these words speak to the questions asked? All the different churches [Catholic, Protestant, etc.] make the same essential accusation about each other.) ‘They do not respect any existing church order, considering the latter to be merely human statutes,’ and as proof thereof they cite the matter of conducting holy communion in private homes. (In this version the statements give Claassen and his associates the appearance of extreme arbitrariness. Why was one not willing to add at least that, to be sure, church order, as measured against the 390 THE MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH Scriptures and confessions of faith, had fallen into great disorder and because one did not want to admit this to Claassen, nor bring about change, he took refuge in such self-help for conscience sake?); ‘to the point where they ultimately considered themselves to be the only true Christians, declaring with fearful arrogance and blindness the whole Mennonite brotherhood to be so corrupt as to have become enslaved to the devil.’ That, then, is the nature of this schism! 171 The answer to the second question: ‘What kind of harmful consequences could arise from this for the Mennonite brotherhood?’ is given in the following version: ‘A peaceful co-existence with them is unthinkable, and in the event that they should exist among us as a new and tolerated religious society, only offence and disorder would result. From past experience it is to be expected that, left to themselves, they would make all the more rapid progress in their fanaticism.’ This assumption has been duly tested during the past several years. 172 ‘It is also to be feared,’ the version continues, ‘that their unceasing activity in promoting their views will draw more innocent and well-meaning (!!!) people into the same fanaticism since they carry their endeavors on under the guise of truly Christian conviction.’ How totally different is the judgment of the