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 451 (not an original page number)

Unit 451 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
Exact extracted unit
smokers not be regarded as members of the church, as a result of which some ten to twelve brethren were excluded, among them people of talent and prestige. This action was a “matter of sorrow to the congregation and caused a great uproar in the world.” This is how the struggle continued in the congregation: “one struggle had barely ended when the next one appeared at the door. Because there was lack of unity among the teaching brethren, it seemed that the church would divide once again!” §201(2) We here append a correction to this and all that has been stated previously and to that which follows, in respect to the tensions created by elements in the Einlage M.B. Church involved in this Mennonite-Baptist struggle. This note follows the record of Brother Lepp, given about the year 1900. The following document was given to us belatedly (November, 1909). Factually it provides nothing new, but it gives expression to the desire of a very old church worker to present himself to posterity in proper perspective. Report from the Einlage Congregation “In the year 1866, when Br. Liebig was called to us, a minister’s election had already taken place. Br. Abraham Unger of Einlage did not approve of this election because Br. Heinrich Neufeld had been re-elected. This brother had been carried away by the ‘enthusiastic movement of exuberance’ for a period of time. When he saw the error of The Chortitza M.B. Church 186&72 465 his ways, he confessed the matter, and with many tears asked the congregation for forgiveness. But when the congregation elected him , he did not want to assume this office unless the Lord had appointed him by means of the lot. When the lot was cast, Br. Unger remarked: ‘In the name of the Lord!' However, when this also determined the case for Neufeld, Br. Unger and several others withdrew and did not acknowledge the election (cf. #152/). This again gave rise to further confusion. There were also other tensions in the congregation created by differences of opinion and interpretation. Some believed they could bear arms. The stage was reached where smokers were not regarded as members, an attitude considered too strict by some. In order to regulate these matters, Br. Liebig was invited, since he enjoyed the confidence of most members. And he was successful in resolving some of the issues, especially by taking the position that Baptists and Mennonites could exist side by side as two separate churches without being merged. He also arranged that Br. Peter Friesen and your humble servant take charge of the situation here [in Andreasfeld] and that the brethren who had withdrawn because of the election not be re-instated until they had seen the error of their ways, which actually happened later. “This is how things went until Br. Carl Benzien came from Prussia in 1868. He was then asked to chair a church business meeting, and steps were taken to elect an elder. The election results revealed

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…