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 584 (not an original page number)

Unit 584 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
Exact extracted unit
ion or their lawfully permitted rights— or, if a governmental authority was forcing the afore- mentioned agencies to act against religion or the law— then they had the right to register grievances before the highest state authorities and to petition before His Imperial Majesty. This is how it has always been, particularly in the whole matter concerning military service from 1870 onwards. The ecclesiastical deputations were always treated as competent; their most humble petitions resulted in the sending of his eminence, Mr. Totleben, and all the consequences which this entailed. Totleben spoke first of all at the places of worship (“in the name of the Tsar”) surrounded by the ecclesiastical authorities and by the brotherhood— then he took care of legal matters with the civic administrations in conjunction with ecclesiastical and civic representa- tives. That the ecclesiastic authorities can command nothing nor forbid anything where “Mennonite” matters become "civic,” is a consequence of the Mennonite-apostolic principle: “not as those who lord it over the people.” That this authority is extraordinarily strong, however (when it is spiritually and intellectually on a high level), stems naturally from the fact that all civic agencies are made up of “brethren” who are members of one or another congregation of the total Mennonite community. It is unthinkable, therefore, that the determining majority of all the civic agencies could go continually against this majority of ecclesiastical representation. (Both representations sit together simultaneously, being members of the civic as well as the congregational assemblies.) This kind of unity is, in the final analysis, particularly guaranteed (we believe), since the church parishes may choose to elect voting members for the “General Conference” from their congregational membership. (These elected members may be non-preachers.) Should an irreparable schism Military Service and Emigration 611 ever develop, then (if His Imperial Majesty does not help out) it remains for the party which believes it has been wronged to resort to migration again as it occurred in 1874 and many times before that. This is the typical, traditional Mennonite way. b) Those Mennonite youths in Russia who were obligated to military duty at eight different camps are under spiritual care of an equal number of ‘‘manager-ministers.” The phylloxera group has been promised “occasional” visits from itinerant ministers and complains bitterly about the infrequency of such visits. However, they also work for only six months a year. They assemble to read sermons amongst themselves and, when the group composition is an appropriate one, they also have Bible studies, prayer meetings (more in smaller groups), and times of singing. Their spiritual nurture is being decidedly neglected! Spiritual supervision and training was one of the most important conditions upon which the Mennonite congregations wen

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…