← 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 584 (not an original page number)
Unit 584 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
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…