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

aints. 30 The crisis confronting inter-Mennonite relations involved more than individuals and groups. It revolved around the classic problem confronting Christian sectarianism in any age. What happens after one obeys the injunction to "come out from among them"? The Russian Mennonites were victims of a long historical process. In pursuit of the pure church they had through the decades separated themselves from the state churches. Once apart they found that the Volkskirche tradition, to which they took exception, re-established itself in their midst. Once again the church accepted all who were born into its political and social order. In the 1860s both the Brethren and the Old Church clearly understood the dilemma. One argued that the new life could not be lived in the old setting, while the other feared that the exodus of the serious pilgrim might disrupt the existing community. Both views exacted consequences. The Brethren were tempted to make a pure church purer, and so generally defined the nature of the Christian walk rather precisely. The Old Church, which remained co-extensive with society, agonized about the difficulty of nurturing the serious believer when many others in the same group remained less committed. They in effect said: "This is what we are, so let us make the best of it," to which the Brethren responded: "This is what we can be, let us strive to attain it." 88 Who were the truly righteous in the Russian Mennonite world of say, 1910? Surely the call for a theology of essentials, the increasing economic affluence and the widespread contact with the outside world demanded changes in the definition of what constituted the pure church. Religious awakenings and the influence of Allianz piety gradually changed the character of the Old Church. There was a sincere agonizing about narrowing the prevailing definition of the believers' church, but the prevailing structures apparently dictated the continuation of the status quo. The conservatives among the Brethren instinctively restricted the circle of the elect. Immersion continued to be viewed as the only correct baptismal mode, the formula for Bekehrung remained tightly prescribed, and communion services admitted immersed believers only. In protest some liberal Brethren joined the Allianz and the movement became something of a half-way house between the two opposing views on the nature of the believers' church. In the end it was impossible to agree on a common definition of the "truly righteous" in the Russian setting. Historically each group had developed its own sense of religious peoplehood. One stressed that it lay primarily in the Gemeinschaft (fellowship) practiced in the local Gemeinde (congregation). The other, while using the same terms, applied them to a more diffuse community. Each group was secure in its concept of the believers' church. It was futile to argue who was right and who was wrong. Each instinctively unders