← 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 497 (not an original page number)
Unit 497 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
ere not
bom Mennonites) they, like the brethren from Mariopol and the Don,
could not receive the Mennonite privileges of exemtpion from military
§237
514
THE MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH
§238
service. Those, of these three areas, who remained have joined the Baptist
Union as the churches of "Usti-Kubalinka” and “Strassburg” (in the
provinces Saratov and Samara). At the present time there are at best
very few Mennonite Brethren in the “homeland” of Brother Eckert and
even before the 25th anniversary in 1885 the Volga M.B. congregations
had ceased to exist.
XXX.
THE ACTIVITY OF THE M B. GENERAL CONFERENCE AS A
BODY 1872-1885
The Mennonite Brethren General Conference consisted of all the
M.B. congregations as initiated at the first joint meeting on May 14th in
Andreasfeld. This Conference met in annual meetings which
took place in the month of May alternately in various churches. The
most important item on the agenda was the project of itinerant ministry
with its treasury, reports, etc. (Cf. 1/202.)
A. 1) Annual meetings were of special significance because they
dealt with important questions of principle. Thus in 1876 the question of
fellowship with the Baptists, the emigration to America, the fellowship
in communion with those who had not been baptized according to the
biblical teaching of the M.B. Church were considered. In 1882 discussions
centered on whether, for internal and external reasons, a working relation-
ship with those of the Russian evangelical Baptist persuasion was possible,
a question, which, in spite of the fact that Br. Johann Wieler had indepen-
dently invited them to the meeting of 1882 at Rueckenau and had stormily
requested the same at the meeting in Friedensfeld, 1883, was decided
negatively after being energetically opposed by elders of the church. (Cf.
//141, “Answers," May 7, footnote, etc.) 2) The conference or the annual
meeting did not have ( de jure) the character of a legislative authority,
but was rather an advising, guiding, admonishing, and supporting
institution. The total decisions of this conference came into effect for
individual congregations only by approval at their regular brotherhood
meetings. (See further 1/241 (2) and Confession of Faith 1902, p. 33). In
fact, however, the decisions of the conference were accepted almost without
exception by every church, and the confidence of the churches in the annual
conference was almost limitless, something that was natural since every
congregation sent its most trusted men to the annual meeting— its
elders, ministers and other proven brethren; through these repre-
sentatives such a close bond of fellowship 311 was created between all the
districts of various elders and other divisions that all the congregations
of the M.B. Conference became conscious of such a solid unity as was not
the case with the congregations of the Mennonite Church in Russia. The
The General Conference
515
peculiarities
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…