Skip to main content

Clothing the Naked Anabaptist

The Naked Anabaptist: this title recommended by the editors of Stuart Murray’s book certainly helped sales for a text certainly worth reading (note 1).

Early Anabaptist beginnings have resonated with many twenty-first century Christians in the global north who seek new post-Christendom expressions of church.

Here is Murray’s summary of those sixteenth-century convictions:

  • to follow Christ in life whatever the consequences;
  • to regard the Bible as authoritative not only in debate, but also in living and with ethical issues;
  • to hold to the separation of church and state;
  • to live in mutual accountability with other baptized members of the community, which includes using church discipline to maintain distinctiveness;
  • to share resources;
  • to live non-violently and to tell the truth;
  • and to expect that suffering is normal for faithful disciples and is a mark of the true church (note 2).

Indeed, most of those themes can be found clustered together in some early Anabaptist communities, for example, in Bruges. While these communities were short-lived, they were never “naked.” Each came with unique cultural baggage; their members were as human as you or I, and their context determined how and why they "clothed" and presented themselves as they did.

Are the “clothed” Anabaptists—i.e., especially those “next generations” of Mennonites who actually did the work of experimentation and construction of Anabaptist models in their contexts and who passed on a tradition—at all helpful for post-Christendom recoveries?

At the very point when the Mennonite projects in Soviet Union had almost completely collapsed with Josef Stalin’s purges (1937), J. Winfield Fretz, America’s first Mennonite sociologist, concluded that the “Russian Mennonite” community had successfully developed “at least fifteen different types of mutual aid activities” in a unique attempt to build a “holy community,” that is, “economic and social institutions that were in keeping with their religious convictions.” These experiments were governed by “a commonly accepted ethic, the centre of which was the principle of mutual aid” (note 3).

The activities and institutions mentioned by Fretz included:

  • fire insurance;
  • schools and agricultural associations;
  • an orphan fund and credit banks;
  • mutual ownership of breeding stock;
  • financial assistance to younger generations;
  • care for the aged;
  • care for the village poor and assistance to widows;
  • medical assistance;
  • cooperative marketing of products;
  • co-responsibility for village problems;
  • cultural support with regard to schools, music, and gatherings for funerals and weddings.

Though not unique or original to Menno Simons, mutual aid or the idea of watching and caring for fellow travellers on the journey of faith “where no one is allowed to beg” (note 4) was a pillar of his teaching, and forms one of the most consistent threads in the Anabaptist–Mennonite story.

Of course, many of these Mennonite commitments in Greater Russia matured over time; and Fretz’s assumption that these developed with “complete freedom from interference by the State” is very far from accurate.

Yet Fretz noted correctly, however, that it was not church leadership that directly encouraged “the formation of mutual aid societies”—though it “exerts its influence” and is at the “centre of the community.”

Rather, when permitted, this is “the course Mennonitism will take where it is free to apply its principles, economic and social as well as political, to every-day life” (note 5).

While Fretz’s account of uniquely Anabaptist-Mennonite achievements in the Russian Mennonite story would require much more contextualization and demythologization today, it is a large and important claim—especially when some had long agreed that “[f]rom the standpoint of the vision of the Anabaptists, however, the Mennonite Russian experiment was a failure. It was a failure in so far as it depended largely upon cultural supports and ethnic lines of continuity instead of pure spirituality” (note 6).

That critique too is rooted in myth without context, assuming “naked” Anabaptists with a "pure spirituality."

Russia’s 100,000 Mennonites (pre-WWI pop.) pulled on some very important Anabaptist strands to develop their own "Anabaptist clothing" for a very unique and welcoming host community: a multi-confessional, multi-cultural Imperial Russia which was very different from Western Europe or North America.

Of course there were many inner-contradictions in what they developed, and gross failures along the way as well.

But when the context changed—e.g., with a very toxic and eventually brutal form of Soviet post-Christendom—there was consensus among those charged to bring the Mennonite experiment to end that the clothing was quite difficult to remove! Here a few examples:

1. 1925: Report by the Central Bureau of the German Section to the Communist Central Committee: The Mennonite population is uniquely “characterized by a narrow-national [German-Mennonite] outlook, lack of class stratification, [and a] passive attitude … toward Soviet social life”—which makes party and Soviet work among them “more difficult” (note 7).

2. 1925: Commission of the Presidium Commission: “It is extremely difficult to conduct [communist] party work in Mennonite colonies because it is carried out among a population saturated with religious fanaticism and caste isolation” (note 8).

3. 1926: German Section of the Zaporozhye Okrug Committee: “Extraordinary difficulties” are reported in the Chortitza Colony, where authorities are having little success in drawing Mennonites “to active participation in the construction of the Soviet order” and into “the public life of village clubs and [communist] reading rooms.” The committee concludes that the youth are both “restrained by parents” and “by preachers in meeting houses [churches]” (note 9).

By 1937-38 when the terror and executions reached their peak in the Mennonite communities, there were again many naked, severely tested Anabaptists—with only a few bare (but critical) threads of the tradition left; arguably these were enough to survive and begin anew to cloth another generation.

While the “clothing” of the Russian Mennonite experience and heritage was certainly stitched with cloth patches from the sixteenth century, as it were, it also offers modern Anabaptists a broader “wardrobe” of important options to try on and adapt for their own more or less toxic post-Christendom contexts.

            ---Arnold Neufeldt-Fast

---Notes---

Note 1: Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2010).

Note 2: Murray, Naked Anabaptist, 152f. The necessity of suffering was a unique emphasis amongst the Bruges Anabaptists like de Roore. Cf. Martha J. Reimer-Blok, “The Theological Identity of Flemish Anabaptists: A Study of the Letters of Jacob de Roore,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 62, no. 3 (July 1988), 318–331; 326f.; 331.

Note 3: J. Winfield Fretz, “Mutual Aid Among Mennonites (I),” Mennonite Quarterly Review 13, no. 1 (1939), 28–58.

Note 4: Complete Writings of Menno Simons, edited by J. C. Wenger (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1984), 558.

Note 5: Fretz, “Mutual Aid Among Mennonites (I),” 36; 58.

Note 6: J. Lawrence Burkholder, The Problem of Social Responsibility from the Perspective of the Mennonite Church (Elkhart, IN: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1989), 144. Cf. also (no author given), Russian Mennonites (Ephrata, PA: Eastern Mennonite, 2002), 49f.: “The Mennonites who went to Russia desired to preserve their faith, their German language, and their agricultural way of life. Yet, from the very beginning, they forfeited aspects of the early Anabaptist view of the church.” See also Robert Kreider, “The Anabaptist Conception of the Church in the Russian Environment, 1789–1870,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 25, no. 1 (January 1951), 17–33.

Note 7: “Minutes of a joint session of the Central Bureau of the German Section of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine with German sections of okrug committees about work with Mennonites November 10–12, 1925,” in J. Toews and P. Toews, Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in Ukraine (1922–1927): Mennonite and Soviet Documents, translated by J. B. Toews, O. Shmakina, and W. Regehr (Fresno, CA: Center for Mennonite Brethren Studies, 2011), 318–324, https://archive.org/details/unionofcitizenso0000unse.

Note 8: “Conclusions of the Commission of the Presidium Commission following inspection of the Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage, Late July 1925,” in J. Toews and P. Toews, Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage, 291–296; 294.

Note 9: “Report of the German Section of the Zaporozhye Okrug Committee, January 4, 1926,” in J. Toews and P. Toews, Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in Ukraine, 324–329.

Note 10: Thieleman J. Van Braght, The Martyrs’ Mirror: The Story of Fifteen Centuries of Martyrdom (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2001), 655f., https://archive.org/details/TheBloodyTheaterOrMartyrsMirrorOfTheDefenselessChristians/page/n653.

Note 11: Most famously a "Group of 12" Anabaptists were martyred in Bruges in 1561. A hymn was written to remember these “twelve friends killed in Bruges”; the entire story is sung in twelve verses and each martyr is individually named. Cf. hymn in Philipp Wackernagel, Lieder der niederländischen Reformierten aus der Zeit der Verfolgung im 16. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt, 1867), 130, https://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10591883_00156.html.

---
To cite this post: Arnold Neufeldt-Fast, “Clothing the Naked Anabaptist,” History of the Russian Mennonites (blog), July 12, 2023, https://russianmennonites.blogspot.com/2023/07/clothing-naked-anabaptist.html.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sesquicentennial: Proclamation of Universal Military Service Manifesto, January 1, 1874

One-hundred-and-fifty years ago Tsar Alexander II proclaimed a new universal military service requirement into law, which—despite the promises of his predecesors—included Russia’s Mennonites. This act fundamentally changed the course of the Russian Mennonite story, and resulted in the emigration of some 17,000 Mennonites. The Russian government’s intentions in this regard were first reported in newspapers in November 1870 ( note 1 ) and later confirmed by Senator Evgenii von Hahn, former President of the Guardianship Committee ( note 2 ). Some Russian Mennonite leaders were soon corresponding with American counterparts on the possibility of mass migration ( note 3 ). Despite painful internal differences in the Mennonite community, between 1871 and Fall 1873 they put up a united front with five joint delegations to St. Petersburg and Yalta to petition for a Mennonite exemption. While the delegations were well received and some options could be discussed with ministers of the Crown, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Flooding as a weapon of war, 1657

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then these maps speak volumes. In February 1657, the Swedish King Carolus Gustavus ordered an intentional breach of the embankments along the Vistula River to completely flood the villages of the Danzig Werder. See the vivid punctures and water flow in 1657 map below; compare with the 1730 maps with rebuilt villages and farms ( note 1 ). In Polish memory this war is appropriately remembered as "The Deluge". Villages in the Danzig Werder (delta) from which Mennonites immigrated to Russia include: Quadendorf, Reichenberg, Krampitz, Neunhuben, Hochzeit, Scharfenberg, Wotzlaff, Landau, Schönau, Nassenhuben, Mönchengrebin, and Nobel ( note 2 ). In the war the suburbs outside the gates of Danzig suffered most; Mennonites lived here in large numbers, e.g., in Alt Schottland and Stoltzenberg. First, these villages were completely razed by the City of Danzig to keep the invading Swedes from using the villages to their advantage in battle. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

“The way is finally open”—Russian Mennonite Immigration, 1922-23

In a highly secretive meeting in Ohrloff, Molotschna on February 7, 1922, leaders took a decision to work to remove the entire Mennonite population of some 100,000 people out of the USSR—if at all possible ( note 1 ). B.B. Janz (Ohrloff) and Bishop David Toews (Rosthern, SK) are remembered as the immigration leaders who made it possible to bring some 20,000 Mennonites from the Soviet Union to Canada in the 1920s ( note 2 ). But behind those final numbers were multiple problems. In August 1922, an appeal was made by leaders to churches in Canada and the USA: “The way is finally open, for at least 3,000 persons who have received permission to leave Russia … Two ships of the Canadian Pacific Railway are ready to sail from England to Odessa as soon as the cholera quarantine is lifted. These Russian [Mennonite] refugees are practically without clothing … .” ( Note 3 ) Notably at this point B. B. Janz was also writing Toews, saying that he was utterly exhausted and was preparing to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Formidable Fräulein Marga Bräul (1919–2011)

Fräulein Bräul left an indelible mark on two generations of high school students in the Mennonite Colony of Fernheim, Paraguay. Former students and acquaintances recall that Marga Bräul demanded the highest effort and achievements of her students, colleagues and of herself—the kind of teacher you either love or hate but will never forget! In March 1947, Marga was offered a position at the Fernheim Secondary School ( Zentralschule ). A recent refugee to Paraguay from war-torn Europe, she taught mathematics, physics, and chemistry. In 1952, she was the only female faculty member ( note 1 ). Marga wedded a strong commitment to academics with a passion for quality arts and crafts. She provided extensive extra-curricular instruction to students in handiwork and was especially renowned for her artwork—which included painting and woodworking— end of year art exhibits with students, theatre sets, and festival decorations. Marga’s pedagogical philosophy was holistic; she told Mennonite ed...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is the Church to Say? Letter 4 (of 4) to American Mennonite Friends

Irony is used in this post to provoke and invite critical thought; the historical research on the Mennonite experience is accurate and carefully considered. ~ANF Preparing for your next AGM: Mennonite Congregations and Deportations Many U.S. Mennonite pastors voted for Donald Trump, whose signature promise was an immediate start to “the largest deportation operation in American history.” Confirmed this week, President Trump will declare a national emergency and deploy military assets to carry this out. The timing is ideal; in January many Mennonite congregations have their Annual General Meeting (AGM) with opportunity to review and update the bylaws of their constitution. Need help? We have related examples from our tradition, which I offer as a template, together with a few red flags. First, your congregational by-laws.  It is unlikely you have undocumented immigrants in your congregation, but you should flag this. Model: Gustav Reimer, a deacon and notary public from the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mennonite “Displaced Persons” and MCC’s “Jewish Argument”

At the conclusion of the war Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) was fully aware that “their” 13,000-plus Russian Mennonite refugees in Germany did not qualify as displaced persons and for support from the International Refugee Organization. They were refused IRO “care and maintenance” as Soviet citizens, i.e., they were free to return home. MCC sought to convince the IRO that the Mennonite refugees were not “Soviet Germans” and--if they had became German citizens in Warthegau (also a disqualifier), it was done under duress ( note 1 ). Astonishingly MCC’s Europe Director Peter J. Dyck—later seen as the Moses of the Mennonites—proposed to top military personnel at US military headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany (USFET) in July 1946, that Mennonites be granted the same status as Jews as a persecuted people. “By a recent decree all Jews, regardless of their nationality, are automatically given the status of 'D.P.' [displaced person] on the grounds that they are victims of persecu...
Post a Comment
Read more

1929 Flight of Mennonites to Moscow and Reception in Germany

At the core of the attached video are some thirty photos of Mennonite refugees arriving from Moscow in 1929 which are new archival finds. While some 13,000 had gathered in outskirts of Moscow, with many more attempting the same journey, the Soviet Union only released 3,885 Mennonite "German farmers," together with 1,260 Lutherans, 468 Catholics, 51 Baptists, and 7 Adventists. Some of new photographs are from the first group of 323 refugees who left Moscow on October 29, arriving in Kiel on November 3, 1929. A second group of photos are from the so-called “Swinemünde group,” which left Moscow only a day later. This group however could not be accommodated in the first transport and departed from a different station on October 31. They were however held up in Leningrad for one month as intense diplomatic negotiations between the Soviet Union, Germany and also Canada took place. This second group arrived at the Prussian sea port of Swinemünde on December 2. In the next ten ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Flight to Moscow 1929

In 1926, my grandfather’s sister Justina Fast (b. 1896) and her husband Peter Görzen moved from Krassikow, Neu Samara (Soviet Union) to village no. 5 Dejewka, Orenburg. “We thought we would live our lives here with our children secure in the hands of God. But the times were becoming turbulent,” Justina recalled. In May 1929 they travelled back to Krassikow for Pentecost to visit with her mother, brothers and their families. But when they returned to their home, she writes, “… a large quota of grain was demanded of us. But we had nothing, and the harvest was not yet in. Then we heard that many were planning to move to Canada, including my three siblings with my mother, and my husband's three sisters too. My husband decided to go to Moscow first to see if it was possible and what was required for emigration. We made the decision to leave when the harvest was complete. At that time so many people were leaving [for Moscow], and early in September we sold everything we had. Only the b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fraktur (or Gothic) font and Kurrent- (or Sütterlin) handwriting: Nazi ban, 1941

In the middle of the war on January 1, 1942, the Winnipeg-based Mennonitische Rundschau published a new issue without the familiar Fraktur script masthead ( note 1 ). One might speculate on the reasons, but a year earlier Hitler banned the use of the font in the Reich . The Rundschau did not exactly follow all orders from Berlin—the rest of the paper was in Fraktur (sometimes referred to as "Gothic"); when the war ended in 1945, the Rundschau reintroduced the Fraktur font for its masthead. It wasn’t until the 1960s that an issue might have a page or title here or there with the “normal” or Latin font, even though post-war Germany was no longer using Fraktur . By 1973 only the Rundschau masthead is left in Fraktur , and that is only removed in December 1992. Attached is a copy of Nazi Party Secretary Martin Bormann's official letter dated January 3, 1941, which prohibited the use of Fraktur fonts "by order of the Führer. " Why? It was a Jewish invention, apparent...
1 comment
Read more

Immigration to Canada, 1923: Background

In April 1921 Mennonites in the Caucasus and Don Region officially petitioned Moscow for permissions to emigrate—which Lenin had “flatly refused.” Their rationale was more than economic. “The disruption of economic conditions leads to impoverishment, which again goes hand in hand with the degradation of morals and has an alarming impact on our youth, who are also constantly exposed to the pressure of brutal and ruthless agitation on the part of those in power. … This decay of our spiritual and economic goods will only become greater and more ruinous.” ( Note 1 ) Later that year and some months before the large-scale feeding operations could begin in the Soviet Union, American Mennonite Relief (AMR) commissioner A.J. Miller petitioned the Soviet Embassy in London for exit permissions for 20,000 Mennonites ( note 1b) . He was unsuccessful. Nonetheless in a highly secretive meeting in Ohrloff, Molotschna on February 7, 1922, key Mennonite leaders took a decision to work toward the re...
Post a Comment
Read more