← 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 444 (not an original page number)
Unit 444 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
owever,
this new element or attitude could just as well be designated
“big-church” with respect to its confessional base in that Klaas Reimer,
an elder from the “small-church” and Heinrich Wiens, an elder from the
“big-church” were of one mind and disposition in this direction, i) The
first real impetus toward an organized Mennonite Brethren Church came
from the “Wuest” Mennonite Brethren, k) To these were added, along with
Herman Peters, Johann Martins and their followers from 1861 and later,
people from the “big church” who had neither theological training nor any
practical experience of brotherly living. In this group we must also
place Gerhard Wieler, in spite of his many talents and good education.
(Johann Wieler had brotherhood experience in and around Odessa
amongst the Lutherans and Reformed “brethren.”) One must also
list the brethren J. and B. Becker and Bernhard Penner with
Gerhard Wieler, even though they had been partly influenced by the
school of Wuest, but had not fully attained the patterns of thought of
that leader (influenced by the unwholesome period of Kappes). All these
people, who brought with them this new element or attitude were
indescribably narrow and intolerant, as one gathers from their many
letters of semi-official (congregational) character (especially those of the
Becker brothers); these people never seemed to harbor a thought about
church history that went beyond the borders of a co mm on Mennonite
framework (although they talked of spreading their ideas throughout the
whole world), nor had they ever read a serious book on theology. But they
did have warm blood and healthy nerves. These people brought into the
M.B. Church the strangling orthodoxy of the “exuberant movement”
and the “mad year” during the winters of 1861/62 and 1864/66
respectively. To overcome this false emphasis God sent Daniel Fast and
men of similar caliber from the Ohrloff District, where a broader vision
and a healthier emotional attitude prevailed. 1) After the cleansing of the
1865 episode was completed, there came, as already indicated, those
458
THE MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH
elements from the “big church” which hungered and thirsted after a new
spiritual life, but which nevertheless brought with them their inherited
ecclesiastical narrowness and exclusiveness, learned in their former
church and now superimposed with some changes upon the new M.B.
Church. Because of their large numbers and the outstanding abilities of
individuals amongst them, who had come from the Molotschna and
Chortitza districts, their influence was carried over into the M.B.
Church, m) Abraham Unger (rather out of character) introduced the notion
of the “strict baptismal doctrine” which forbade communion together
with non-immersed believers to the extreme brethren Becker, G. Wieler
and others like them. (See the special account of the Einlage M.B.
Church in Chapter XIXff.) This idea soon gained supremacy in both
churc
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…