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

d compiled a "sin catalogue" the details of which were largely spelled out in the secession document. They were concerned with the inability of the old system to separate the committed from the uncommitted. It administered baptism and the Lord's Supper to both groups, a practice considered unbiblical by the dissenters. The old religion also preached an inadequate gospel, especially as it pertained to the question of conversion. Such a fervent condemnation of the Old Church demanded separation. In the end baptism by immer- sion, though not mentioned in the secession document, not only became an indispensable symbol of new life for the individual but the final act of separation from the Old Church as well. In submitting to this ordinance the convert deliberately moved out of what he or she considered a conventional, formalized Christianity into a personalized intimate "brother-sister" setting. Family and societal crises were among the expected conse- quences of such a transfer. In a sense one joined the persecuted and despised. In February, 1862, a Wilhelm Janzen of Kronsweide was severely beaten by the local mayor and imprisoned in an unheated room. 1 Here was another memory of the Old Church which the Brethren found difficult to forget. For a number of the early Brethren dissent meant imprisonment. In May, 1862, Jacob Epp reported how "their leaders Heinrich Neufeld, Abraham Unger and Johann Isaac were arrested and transported to prison." 2 A month later he reported the arrest and imprisonment of Johann Toews and Peter Nickel of Nieder Chortitz. 3 Some dissident school teachers lost their positions. There were also threats of banishment and loss of Mennonite privileges. 4 Such actions, often undertaken by elders in co-operation with the Mennonite state, were nevertheless collectively laid to the charge of the Old Church. The memories of these early persecutions tended to endure. Extreme "official images" sustained by radical actions only 78 marked the beginning of the separation. Politics were also involved. The existing structure of Mennonite peoplehood tolerated little novelty, even though it was sustained by a long egalitarian tradition. Religious revisionism was simply an attack on the very fabric of Mennonitism. Many of the orthodox viewed the ideas of the Brethren as a threat to the existing religious world. When the secessionists went beyond ideological dissent and proceeded to create a new ecclesiastical structure a harsh response was inevitable. The actual dynamics of the conflict were not that simple. The very "soul" of Russian Mennonitism was in flux. Though some actions were taken by civil authorities and others by ecclesiastical leaders, there was no unanimity of opinion as to the danger constituted by the movement. While the majority opposed the Brethren there were also those who advocated toleration. In the end the conflicts between the different levels of authority ensure