← 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 571 (not an original page number)
Unit 571 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
ccording to the following basic principles:
“1) Places of service, preferably within the boundaries of the
New-Russian territory * and the neighboring provinces are made
available to them for carrying out their active service: a) in the
work-places of the marine department; b) in the fire brigades; and c) in
special mobile detachments of the forestry department, which are
responsible for the planting of forests in South Russia.
“2) The obligatory service of the Mennonites is subject to the same
time schedules as are established by law for military service.
“3) Mennonites in the service are united into special groups so that
Military Service and Emigration
597
they may have their joint prayers according to their rules of faith.
“4) Upon completion of their active service the Mennonites, in the
event of war, will similarly be used only for the kinds of service
mentioned in article 1.”
c) The Treaty of June 25, 1880, 27 between the Ministry of Crown §276
Lands (in which department the Mennonites are placed) and the
Mennonite i mmuni ty states, in its main points, the following,
concerning 20 years of service exclusively in the forests:
The number of detachments is set at six. 28 Each detachment has a
director (“Mennonit-Starschina”), elected by the Mennonite communities
whose task it is, together with a few indispensable assistants, to
supervise the Mennonite workers in their leisure as well as to direct the
business affairs of the detachment. At the end of each month this
Mennonite director presents a receipt for the wages which the Ministry of
Crown Lands pays in the amount prescribed by the government.
18. In spite of the gracious concessions of the imperial government, §277
a migration was nevertheless begun, as indicated above. The waves of
this movement splashed over into the Mennonite Brethren circles as well.
Abram Unger was cold towards this movement; Johann Claassen, on the
other hand, enthusiastic. He was carrying on energetic correspondence
concerning the migration with Eduard Leppke (see above: “Baptists as
super Mennonites”). He died, however, before carrying out his intentions
to pioneer once more in a new, strange land. God had no more
assignments for him in America nor, indeed, in this world. Abraham
Schellenberg finally also went in 1879 as is well known. He explained his
position regarding this issue at a meeting of a General Conference of
Mennonite Brethren in Andreasfeld, May, 1874. (According to the
minutes): “He is attempting to settle the emotions and to delay the
migration somewhat. Whoever did not feel called to serve in Russia
should emigrate; those feeling otherwise, should remain.” Furthermore,
"every caution must be exercised concerning the migration since
unfavorable news has also been received from America.” We can see that
Brother A. Schellenberg was no Leppke and no Sudermann. If a certain
uneasiness and anxiety concerning the future in Russia (this is how
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…