← 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 451 (not an original page number)
Unit 451 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
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…