Perilous Journey: The Mennonite Brethren in Russia 1860-1910, John B. Toews, 1988

on question reached a crisis point. In his compilation of documents and personal reminiscences A.H. Unruh includes an 1899 incident penned by Jakob Thies- sen. 1 The teacher Penner in Steinbach (Molotschna) expressed a desire for baptism during a visit of the Brethren leader Jakob Reimer. Arrangements were hastily made. A visitor requested that all true believers be allowed to attend the examination of the candidate and participate in the communion after baptism. Jakob Reimer, inclined towards open communion thanks to his involvement with the Blankenburg Conference, assented. As it turned out only two Old Church members participated. Severe objections to Reimer's liberality not only erupted at the next congregational meeting but became a sequential agenda item at future Brethren conferences. When he attended the annual conference in 1900, Hermann Neufeld noted that "the discussions concerning open communion with unrebaptized believers in which I participated were not pleasant." 2 At the 1903 conference in Waldheim, Molotschna, the discussions were calmer, "yet many hearts did not remain calm." 3 When a vote was called for which, in Neufeld's judgement, "was not according to the will of God," 4 13 delegates supported open communion while 59 were opposed. 5 Ten abstained from the vote. Pressure against the liberal minority increased at the 1 904 conference. Jakob Reimer and Jakob Kroeker were not reappointed to the itinerant ministry. 6 In part the differences 68 were regional. Einlage in Chortitza favored closed communion while the large Rueckenau church, led by Jakob Reimer, not only inclined towards open communion but practiced it. Following Reimer's dismissal as a conference worker, pressure against him mounted. In Reimer's Rueckenau congregation some interpreted this and later conference resolutions as a request for his dismissal. Others saw it as pressure designed to force Reimer to join the Evangelical Mennonite Brotherhood (Allianz) in Lichtfelde, with whom he had close connections. 8 Open communion remained a contentious issue for some years. Conference discussions involving the conservative majority and a vocal, influential minority usually ended in a stalemate. Resolutions advocating continued toleration, goodwill and brotherhood followed. The question apparently came to a head at a local meeting in Schoental in the Crimea. In Hermann Neufeld's words: On the third festive day [of Easter] we held a large and blessed brotherhood meeting at which among other things, we decided that like the Einlage church, we would have no further fellowship with the Rueckenau church or similiar minded ones unless they conformed to the Brethren confession of faith in matters relating to communion and baptism. 10 There was no mention of open communion at the 1910 annual conference. Again Neufeld had an explanation. Since an official observer from St. Petersburg was present "the question of the A