The document below is from the "Peter J. Braun Archives Russian Mennonite Archive"-- a veritable treasure trove of yet-to-be-read primary documents. To date this document has not yet been used in the telling of the "Warkentin Affair." While it does not add new information per se, it brings out well the dynamics and tone of official engagements of government actors with "their" Mennonites and the Mennonite church leaders.
In the early 19th century, there was no question that Russia
was among the most religiously tolerant nations that side of the Atlantic. But
there was a framework with policies for that to work. How it played out was not
always pretty. Here is an example and a helpful primary text.
In 1842, Pure Flemish Elder Jacob Warkentin complained to
the President of the Guardianship Committee for Foreign Settlers Eugen von Hahn
about Johann Cornies’ “dictatorial” manner and disregard of the church’s
approach to discipline and reconciliation in accordance to Matthew 18.
Von Hahn knew of Warkentin’s opposition to Cornies’ reforms
and leadership—it had started with Warkentin’s reaction against Cornies’
introduction of more attractive, brick building material (note 1). Warkentin’s
interpretation of the Mennonite Privilegium’s requirements and
community mission as “model colonists” was as a fixed, unchanging and withdrawn
community; however for Cornies it was a dynamic responsibility requiring “model
colonists” to innovate and adapt to changing state policies and economic needs
(note 2)–and von Hahn stood with Cornies.
Von Hahn personally dismissed the interfering elder from his
church office, and forbade him to speak or participate in community events (note
3). Other elders, moreover, were not to acknowledge him as a ministerial
colleague, and his congregation was to be divided into three, with three newly
elected elders.
When von Hahn returned from the capital to Odessa in August
1842, he learnt that his warnings and personal reprimands had been ignored by
certain members of the former “Warkentin congregation,” and that the
congregation chose to tarry with their election. Here’s his letter to the
elders of the Molotschna churches, which I have transcribed and translated (note
4; pic).
To the Church Elders of the Molotschna Mennonite District
From the reports by local colony officials provided to me
upon my return from St. Petersburg, I noted with great regret that,
notwithstanding all warnings and personal reprimands, some members of the
former “Warkentin Congregation” acted disobediently and rebelliously during the
recent election for district chair, especially Fürstenwerder’s village mayor
Thun, who with his highly illegal and punishable acts displayed before
subordinate residents enticed them to disobey, thereby wreaking disorder and
harm in the community.
Respectively I have built upon the influence of the church
elders, and thus until know have had the confident hope that the latter would
not fail to use every means possible to ensure that peace and quiet develop on
their own. Now I feel compelled to use the most severe measures in order to
bring this scourge to a complete halt, and to put the guilty ones into a
position that will render them completely innocuous in the future. It is very
hard for me to come as one who must judge and punish, when with all my heart I
want only to be father and guardian to you. My duties are above all sacred to
me, and I would sin against my authority if I were to put up any longer with
the spirit reigning in some of the Mennonite colonies [villages].
Accordingly, in very short order I will personally arrange a
local investigation of everything that has occurred, and the guilty may then
only blame themselves if they have brought misfortune upon themselves.
Once again I declare officially that Warkentin has been
irrevocably discharged, and likewise, that Peter Toews of Tiege cannot become
head of the District Office, and that every act which is or will yet be
directed against these orders will be punishable.
Insofar as I hereby publicize this notice to the church
elders, whose good sentiments for the well-being of their congregations are
sufficiently known to me, I also request of you, that you mobilize all of your
available church resources, so that through your cooperation not only will the
scourge be removed, but also that what is good and the best generally will be
promoted. This cooperation could not be demonstrated any better than if the
church elders would leverage their total influence not only to bring any new
growth [of the scourge] in the congregations to a complete halt, but also to
bring those who are already guilty to genuine repentance; for only deep,
openhearted contrition can bring into motion a softening of the deserved
punishment.
[Signed] Vice-Chair of the Guardianship Committee, v. Hahn,
Odessa, 26 August, 1842.
“Cornies’ men” duly informed the Large Congregation’s
leaders that Warkentin would be exiled and subject to corporal punishment by
the military should they not comply by a certain date (note 5).
Von Hahn’s reluctant intervention in colony religious and
political affairs for “disobedience” or “rebelliousness” towards authorities
was not unique in the Warkentin case. Similar occurrences are documented in the
Lutheran, Pietist Separatist and Catholic colonies as well (note 6), and
were entirely consistent with Russia’s otherwise broad protections and freedoms
within its self-understanding and mission to serve and rule nobly over many
peoples (note 7).
While the principle of complete religious toleration was
inviolable, this was balanced by a second principle: “upon the interference of
religion in the affairs of the state, the latter not only may, but must itself
interfere in the affairs of the church and indicate to [that church] its true
purpose and limits” (note 8).
Local administrators judged which acts of faith had
political content “in accordance with the particular spirit of each” (note 9),
and they were authorized to intervene.
---Arnold Neufeldt-Fast
---Notes---
Note 1: Cf. Delbert Plett, Golden Years: The Mennonite
Kleine Gemeinde in Russia, 1812–1849 (Steinbach, MB: Self-published,
1985), 286 https://www.mharchives.ca/download/1216/. See also John
Staples, “Afforestation as Performance Art: Johann Cornies’ Aesthetics of
Civilization,” in Minority Report: Mennonite Identities in Imperial Russia
and Soviet Ukraine Reconsidered, 1789–1945, edited by Leonard G. Friesen, 61–81
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), 73. Also Staples, “Religion,
Politics, and the Mennonite Privilegium in the Early Nineteenth
Century: Reconsidering the Warkentin Affair,” Journal of Mennonite
Studies 21 (2003), 72–88, https://jms.uwinnipeg.ca/index.php/jms/article/view/886/885.
Note 2: Cf. Staples, “Afforestation as Performance Art:
Johann Cornies,” 70; 74.
Note 3: Heinrich Neufeld, “Report Regarding the Exile of
Jakob Warkentin, Altona, Molotschna,” 1 [1/2]. Translated by Ben Hoeppner. From
Mennonite Library and Archives, Bethel College, SA. 2, 1171, https://mla.bethelks.edu/archives/sa_2_1171/.
Note 4: Evgenii von Hahn, “An die Kirchen-Aeltesten des
Molotschner Mennonniten Bezirks,” in Peter J. Braun Russian Mennonite Archive,
file 805, reel 31, translated by Arnold Neufeldt-Fast. From Robarts Library,
University of Toronto. On von Hahn, cf. the helpful piece by David H, Epp,
"Hahn, Eduard von (19th century)," Global Anabaptist Mennonite
Encyclopedia Online (1956), https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Hahn,_Eduard_von_(19th_century)&oldid=145375.
Note 5: H. Neufeld, “Report Regarding the Exile of
Jakob Warkentin, Altona, Molotschna,” 5 [6/7]; 7 [9]; 11 [13].
Note 6: Cf.
Evgenii von Hahn, “An den Oberschulzen des Berdjanschen Kolonisten-Bezirks
Friedrich Prinz Nr. 3031” (May 13, 1843), in Jakob Stach, ed., Grunau und
die Mariupoler Kolonien (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1942), viii–ix, fn. 24; https://chortitza.org/Buch/Grunau.pdf. Cf. also Paul Werth, The
Tsar’s Foreign Faiths, Toleration and the fate of religious freedom in imperial
Russia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 108f.
Note 7: Cf.
“Memorandum des Ministers des Innern (1804),” in Josef A. Malinowsky, Die
Planerkolonien am Asowschen Meere (Stuttgart: Ausland und Heimat Verlag,
1928), Anhang III; https://chortitza.org/kb/malinows.pdf. See also Robert Crews, For
Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 10.
Note 8: This implicit or operational principle was in a
Special Commission Memorandum in 1866; cited in Werth, The Tsar’s Foreign
Faiths, 108.
Note 9: According to instructions by the empire’s police
chief, Aleksandr Benkendorff, to subordinates in 1837; cited in Werth, The
Tsar’s Foreign Faiths, 110.
Comments
Post a Comment