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

Popular posts from this blog

Russian and Prussian Mennonite Participants in “Racial-Science,” 1930

I n December 1929, some 3,885 Soviet Mennonites plus 1,260 Lutherans, 468 Catholics, 51 Baptists and seven Adventists were assisted by Germany to flee the Soviet Union. They entered German transit camps before resettlement in Canada, Brazil and Paraguay ( note 1 ) In the camps Russian Mennonites participated in a racial-biological study to measure their hereditary characteristics and “racial” composition and “blood purity” in comparison to Danzig-West Prussian, genetic cousins. In Germany in the last century, anthropological and medical research was horribly misused for the pseudo-scientific work referred to as “racial studies” (Rassenkunde). The discipline pre-dated Nazi Germany to describe apparent human differences and ultimately “to justify political, social and cultural inequality” ( note 2 ). But by 1935 a program of “racial hygiene” and eugenics was implemented with an “understanding that purity of the German Blood is the essential condition for the continued existence of the

“Operation Chortitza” – Resettler Camps in Danzig-West Prussia, 1943-44 (Part I)

In October 1943, some 3,900 Mennonite resettlers from “Operation Chortitza” entered the Gau of Danzig-West Prussia. They were transported by train via Litzmannstadt and brought to temporary camps in Neustadt (Danzig), Preußisch Stargard (Konradstein), Konitz, Kulm on the Vistula, Thorn and some smaller localities ( note 1 ). The Gau received over 11,000 resettlers from the German-occupied east zones in 1943. Before October some 3,000 were transferred from these temporary camps for permanent resettlement in order to make room for "Operation Chortitza" ( note 2 ). By January 1, 1944 there were 5,473 resettlers in the Danzig-West Prussian camps (majority Mennonite); one month later that number had almost doubled ( note 3 ). "Operation Chortitza" as it was dubbed was part of a much larger movement “welcoming” hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans “back home” after generations in the east. Hitler’s larger plan was to reorganize peoples in Europe by race, to separate

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,

"Anti-Menno" Communist: David J. Penner (1904-1993)

The most outspoken early “Mennonite communist”—or better, “Anti-Menno” communist—was David Johann Penner, b. 1904. Penner was the son of a Chortitza teacher and had grown up Mennonite Brethren in Millerovo, with five religious services per week ( note 1 )! In 1930 with Stalin firmly in power, Penner pseudonymously penned the booklet entitled Anti-Menno ( note 2 ). While his attack was bitter, his criticisms offer a well-informed, plausible window on Mennonite life—albeit biased and with no intention for reform. He is a ethnic Mennonite writing to other Mennonites. Penner offers multiple examples of how the Mennonite clergy in particular—but also deacons, choir conductors, Sunday School teachers, leaders of youth or women’s circles—aligned themselves with the exploitative interests of industry and wealth. Extreme prosperity for Mennonite industrialists and large landowners was achieved with low wages and the poverty of their Russian /Ukrainian workers, according to Penner. Though t

High Crimes and Misdemeanors: Mennonite Murders, Infanticide, Rapes and more

To outsiders, the Mennonite reality in South Russia appeared almost utopian—with their “mild and peaceful ethos.” While it is easy to find examples of all the "holy virtues" of the Mennonite community, only when we are honest about both good deeds and misdemeanors does the Russian Mennonite tradition have something authentic to offer—or not. Rudnerweide was one of a few Molotschna villages with a Mennonite brewery and tavern , which in turn brought with it life-style lapses that would burden the local elder. For example, on January 21, 1835, the Rudnerweide Village Office reported that Johann Cornies’s sheep farm manager Heinrich Reimer, as well as Peter Friesen and an employed Russian shepherd, came into the village “under the influence of brandy,” and: "…at the tavern kept by Aron Wiens, they ordered half a quart of brandy and shouted loudly as they drank, banged their glasses on the table. The tavern keeper objected asking them to settle down, but they refused and

Mennonite Heritage Week in Canada and the Russländer Centenary (2023)

In 2019, the Canadian Parliament declared the second week in September as “Mennonite Heritage Week.” The bill and statements of support recognized the contributions of Mennonites to Canadian society ( note 1 ). 2019 also marked the centenary of a Canadian Order in Council which, at their time of greatest need, classified Mennonites as an “undesirable” immigrant group: “… because, owing to their peculiar customs, habits, modes of living and methods of holding property, they are not likely to become readily assimilated or to assume the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time.” ( Pic ) With a change of government, this order was rescinded in 1922 and the doors opened for some 23,000 Mennonites to immigrate from the Soviet Union to Canada. The attached archival image of the Order in Council hangs on the office wall of Canadian Senator Peter Harder—a Russländer descendant. 2023 marks the centennial of the arrival of the first Russländer immigrant groups

Turning Weapons into Waffle Irons!

Turning Weapons into Waffle Irons:  Heart-Shaped Waffles and a smooth talking General In 1874 with Mennonite immigration to North America in full swing, the Tsar sent General Eduard von Totleben to the colonies to talk the remaining Mennonites out of leaving ( note 1 ). He came with the now legendary offer of alternative service. Totleben made presentations in Mennonite churches and had many conversations in Mennonite homes. Decades later the women still recalled how fond Totleben was of Mennonite heart-shaped waffles. He complemented the women saying, “How beautiful are the hearts of Mennonites!,” and he joked about how “much Mennonites love waffles ( Waffeln ), but not weapons ( Waffen )” ( note 2 )! His visit resulted in an extensive reversal of opinion and the offer was welcomed officially by the Molotschna and Chortitza Colony ministerials. And upon leaving, the general was gifted with a poem by Bernhard Harder ( note 3 ) and a waffle iron ( note 4 ). Harder was an influen

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

Village Reports Commando Dr. Stumpp, 1942: List and Links

Each of the "Commando Dr. Stumpp" village reports written during German occupation of Ukraine 1942 contains a mountain of demographic data, names, dates, occupations, numbers of untimely deaths (revolution, famines, abductions), narratives of life in the 1930s, of repression and liberation, maps, and much more. The reports are critical for telling the story of Mennonites in the Soviet Union before 1942, albeit written with the dynamics of Nazi German rule at play. Reports for some 56 (predominantly) Mennonite villages from the historic Mennonite settlement areas of Chortitza, Sagradovka, Baratow, Schlachtin, Milorodovka, and Borosenko have survived. Unfortunately no village reports from the Molotschna area (known under occupation as “Halbstadt”) have been found. Dr. Karl Stumpp, a prolific chronicler of “Germans abroad,” became well-known to German Mennonites (Prof. Benjamin Unruh/ Dr. Walter Quiring) before the war as the director of the Research Center for Russian Germans

Blessed are the Shoe-Makers: Brief History of Lost Soles

A collection of simple artefacts like shoes can open windows onto the life and story of a people. Below are a few observations about shoes and boots, or the lack thereof, and their connection to the social and cultural history of Russian Mennonites. Curiously Mennonites arrived in New Russia shoe poor in 1789, and were evacuated as shoe poor in 1943 as when their ancestors arrived--and there are many stories in between. The poverty of the first Flemish elder in Chortitza Bernhard Penner was so great that he had only his home-made Bastelschuhe in which to serve the Lord’s Supper. “[Consequently] four of the participating brethren banded together to buy him a pair of boots which one of the [Land] delegates, Bartsch, made for him. The poor community desired with all its heart to partake of the holy sacrament, but when they remembered the solemnity of these occasions in their former homeland, where they dressed in their Sunday best, there was loud sobbing.” ( Note 1 ) In the 1802 C