The Great Trek of the Russian Mennonites to Central Asia, 1880-1884, Fred Richard Belk, 1976

m- ing to be regarded as Russian’s principle enemy in the 1880s. This hostility and enmity between the Mennonites and their environment deepended as the years progressed. But more important than any of the above, the basic failure of the Great Trek venture may be explained as a product of the very two reasons for attempting the movement in the first place: millen- nialism and nonresistance. Since millennialism by its very nature was a controversial theological issue, it tended to be divisive rather than unifying. Many opportunities arose for radicalism and fanaticism to Conclusion 195 divide their ranks even before the first wagon train left home. This divisiveness deepened progressively as the pioneering Mennonites reached each new stage of their trek. Reacting to these divisions, two extremes clearly emerged: one descended further into radicalism; the other denied the validity of any millennial goal. The more radical experiment at Ak Metchet sought a complete withdrawal from a sinful world. It was a chosen place of ref- uge that would assure its followers of heavenly bliss. The Aulie Ata community, on the other hand, rebelled against this attitude because they believed it had destroyed the unity and solidarity of the faith- ful. Those coming to America from Lausan agreed with this latter position and added fuel to the fires of alienation from their more radi- cal brethren at Ak Metchet. The only result could be disunity. The doctrine of nonresistance was also to emerge as a bone of contention. Seeking a refuge from Russian militarism, they soon dis- covered they could not elude a militaristic state completely. Not even at Aulie Ata, Bukhara, or Khiva were they completely immune from state service requirements. It was in Lausan, moreover, that they learned in the face of Turkomen raids that they too were not above resorting to the necessity of self-defense or violence. The cherished Mennonite doctrine of nonresistance was put to the supreme test. As they ardently disagreed concerning millennialism, so also did they divide over this issue. The spectrum of options offered, from complete nonresistance to armed self-defense, presented them with another di- lemma. Under the circumstances, they decided to go their separate ways and withdraw from the dilemma rather than decide on a total course of action. Both divergent groups believed they could escape these dilemmas by seeking the peace and tranquility of a new pro- mised land. The tragic adventure of the Central Asian trek is a period of Mennonite history that cannot soon be forgotten, nor can it be ignored. Notes Chapter | 1. The problem of migration in Mennonite history, although repeatedly studied, is an extremely complex issue. See B. H. Unruh, Die ntederlandisch-niederdeutschen Hintergriinde der mennonitischen Ostwanderungen im 16., 18., und 19. Jahrhundert (Karlsruhe: priv. pub., 1955), pp. 188-195; H. Quiring, ‘‘Die Auswanderung der