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

wanted to give us 20 rubles less than we had paid for it in the colony. This was too much of a loss for me as well as for [Cornelius] Reimer, since the little money has to go so far, especially for §187 430 THE MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH bread. Nonetheless we believe that a door will be opened, so that I will be able to do what the church has required of me. Just what is going to happen, I do not know. God has a solution for all problems. . . . Johann Claassen.” §188 8. In the Molotschna Church a group is formed to combat energetically the excessive exuberance and the spiritual despotism. a) The brethren mentioned in section 4 above (“Growth,” etc.) from the Ohrloff Church— Daniel Fast, Philipp Isaak, Johann Fast, Jakob Jantz, Abraham Schellenberg, together with Christian Schmidt and others of the same spirit— gathered for this specified purpose, as the Unger circle had done in the Einlage congregation. They did not have the courage nor the clarity to provide energetic opposition when the issues were Reimer’s excommunication and Huebert’s rough treatment (December 1864). Now, however, when despite all his humility and yielding attitude, Huebert, now in prison, was removed from office for his already forgiven “errors” (December 18), they understood what their duty was (compare the letters of A. Unger and D. Fast, below), and “that they were not of the same spirit as the leading brethren.” They wrote the following paper, which prepared the way for Claassen (see # 11 ): b) “Dear Brethren! We, the undersigned, having again in prayer and supplication, and with the Word of God, examined several of the incidents— especially the recent ones— that have occurred among the brethren, confess before God and all brethren who disagree with us that we have realized with greater clarity that several points in the fellowship are contrary to the Word of God. For this reason we feel compelled— without any impure motives— to record these points, so that we do not as hypocrites simply allow these issues to pass. Here they are: 1) “Concerning the removal of ministers. According to Titus 1, ministers are to be blameless, etc. Here and in I Timothy 3 Paul says enough about how a bishop should conduct himself, so that we have no need to elaborate further. No brother in the entire fellowship is so blameless as the leading brethren would have him be, so that no one can be a minister. In order to remove such a person, surely errors previously forgiven [Huebert, December 18, 1864] should not be dug up, nor should it be held against him that he gave shelter to deposed members who had come from a distant congregation [see Huebert’s letter, January 2, 1866]. According to the Holy Scriptures, they should not be regarded as enemies but as brethren to be admonished, as stated in II Thessalonians 3:16. Similarly they may not be regarded as deceivers, for according to II John 7, those who deny that Jesus Christ is come in th