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

ch shall serve at baptism, communion, and marriage services; he is especially to comfort and admonish; and in addition to this he is to supervise the keeping of the church registers and to take care of such other written work which may become necessary in the church for which a church seal is also necessary. In like manner, several other matters were clarified in turn. No independent actions may be undertaken, such as baptism, admission or expulsion (of members), without prior knowledge of the elder and of the entire church. Of such actions the entire church must be informed.” Compare “June Reforms!” Naturally, none of this was new in the Mennonite churches, and also in the Molotschna Mennonite Brethren Church it had long been fact and practice, even though not in such strict “Hamburg” forms. The Chortitza-Einlage Church had however retained a number of members who, like those extreme factions (later called the “Hermann Peters Church," which had separated from the Molotschna Church) called every kind of business order “babylonian.” “Elected like a village mayor”— thus one of these “Hermann Peters Brethren” derided the assistant minister aides, Christian Schmidt and Jakob Jantz, during their deputation tour in December, 1865. Every formal recording of minutes was repugnant to them, especially the “June Reforms.” In the Einlage M.B. Church these clear directives were implemented only with great difficulty; and, strangely enough, it was much easier to implement these “laws” through the unknown Baptist brethren, Liebig and Benzien, than through Br. Unger, the “prophet at home.” However, later the Einlage M.B. Church, and with it the church at Friedensfeld, became an example in this matter to all other sister churches, also in the matter The Chortitza M.B. Church 1866-72 461 of conducting the business meetings of the General Conference of Mennonite Brethren. Of course one can have too much of a good thing; and with due respect and esteem for these “Hamburg” practices, it must be said that in these matters, the M.B. General Conference (at its ann ual meetings) for a time very nearly made a game of it. In the cases of several schooled “practitioners,” the means became something of an end in itself. But we— a certain segment which included the author as well— hungered altogether too much after order and method during the years 1866-1870ff. Yet all of this was very necessary for the entire Mennonite brotherhood and today such superior business and recording procedures are practiced more and more, not only in the M.B. Church, but in all of the Mennonite churches. c) On July 14, 1868, another church business meeting was convened under the direction of Br. Benzien. The chairman asked which resolutions had been passed at the previous meeting and whether all members still approved of them. The matter was confirmed by a show of hands. The chairman moved that the assembly proceed to the election of an elder du