Anabaptist Perspectives Episode - What Happened to Anabaptists who stayed in Europe

[Ken]

No Anabaptists who ever settled anywhere in North America saw their communities disrupted or destroyed by war, shifting political borders, rampaging armies, or anything of the like. They have mostly or entirely been left alone and have had their rights protected by stable governments and laws. Not once, for example, have rampaging armies criss-crossed Holmes County Ohio. Nor have the legal system and local governments that maintain property rights ever been disrupted by revolution.

This statement isn't correct, but I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to provide counter-examples.

I will also leave a hint: my ancestors on one side were Quakers, not Anabaptists, but they were unable to stay in North Carolina due to their belief system and lifestyle being unacceptable to the ruling aristocracy there on a particular issue. They had to relocate to Ohio and pretty much impoverished themselves when they did so.

Which Anabapist community in North America saw its community disrupted or destroyed by war or rampaging armies?

[JohnH]

Some more hints: Tuscarawas County (adjacent to Holmes), and consider a peace church which while not technically Anabaptist was closely related to Mennonites and Amish.

[Neto]

One detail that caught my ear was his suggestion that the offer of Catherine to the Anabaptists included the concept self government. How consistent is this with the radical separation of church and state. How much of a two kingdom theology can you have if the church accepts the role of self government?

I am particularly interested in Neto's thoughts.

We were away from home (congregation age group camping) from Thursday early afternoon until yesterday, hence the delay in seeing this thread.

The offer from 'Katherine the Great' came at a time where there appeared to be few options. And, more to the point, the 'self-government' was a condition of the offer to settle in the Steppes of the newly acquired Ukraine. I'm not sure if it could have worked out OK, but as you suggest, it turned out very badly. I grew up thinking that the greatest loss when my people (that is, my own ancestors) came to the States was the impossibility of adopting the same colony life style on the American plains. As I have learned more, I have recognized the terrible problems that developed in that setting - in particular a large landless class that was also cut off from any participation in the 'self-government' that had been forced upon them by the conditions of the invitation from the Russian Empire. This should not have happened - and would not have happened if every member of the colony was living a Christian life (especially those who found themselves in positions of leadership). But (as I say sometimes), "God has no grandchildren."

I do not know if this opinion was so clearly expressed at the time of the move from Prussia to Russia, but it was certainly a prevalent thought among Mennonite Brethren when the question of immigration to North America came up. My dad often said that the most religiously dedicated Mennonites went to Canada, and those who were more concerned about a similar climate and farming methods chose the US. Even more than the more favorable promises offered by Canada (and, unfortunately, soon withdrawn) was that the United States was formed upon a 'culture of rebellion' - revolt against their earthly king. The early MB leadership was adamant that the US was an ungodly nation doomed to collapse because of this rebellion.

Through interaction in a FB group dedicated to Plautdietsch history and genealogy I have heard of many people in both Russia and Ukraine who only discovered their 'Mennonite heritage' after doing DNA tracing. These are those who are lost to our people, many no longer following Jesus in any tangible way. Is the percentage of this loss greater there than the loss here in North America? I do not know - possibly not. (There was a woman whose name is identical to my oldest daughter's full maiden name who was a very active Canadian Communist. All I can say is to repeat, "God has no grandchildren.")

[ken_sylvania]

No Anabaptists who ever settled anywhere in North America saw their communities disrupted or destroyed by war, shifting political borders, rampaging armies, or anything of the like. They have mostly or entirely been left alone and have had their rights protected by stable governments and laws. Not once, for example, have rampaging armies criss-crossed Holmes County Ohio. Nor have the legal system and local governments that maintain property rights ever been disrupted by revolution.

This statement isn't correct, but I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to provide counter-examples.

I will also leave a hint: my ancestors on one side were Quakers, not Anabaptists, but they were unable to stay in North Carolina due to their belief system and lifestyle being unacceptable to the ruling aristocracy there on a particular issue. They had to relocate to Ohio and pretty much impoverished themselves when they did so.

Which Anabapist community in North America saw its community disrupted or destroyed by war or rampaging armies?

The Mennonites in Pennsylvania - Late 16th century
The Mennonites of Virginia - Civil war era

[Ernie]

Native peoples saw endless strife and conflict along the the frontier. But European settlers? None at all. No Anabaptists who ever settled anywhere in North America saw their communities disrupted or destroyed by war, shifting political borders, rampaging armies, or anything of the like. They have mostly or entirely been left alone and have had their rights protected by stable governments and laws. Not once, for example, have rampaging armies criss-crossed Holmes County Ohio. Nor have the legal system and local governments that maintain property rights ever been disrupted by revolution.

Except that it wasn't this way.

John Ruth, and many other historians have written extensively about North American Anabaptists and shifting political borders, rampaging armies criss-crossing Anabaptist communities, etc. Anabaptists faired quite well under British rule as compared with US rule.

[ohio jones]

The Mennonites in Pennsylvania - Late 16th century

Late 18th century, maybe?

[ken_sylvania]

The Mennonites in Pennsylvania - Late 16th century

Late 18th century, maybe?

Yes, that would be more likely.

[JohnH]

There were some difficulties in the early 20th century for Hutterites as well.

Nowadays plain people are relatively coddled. Only the most traditionalist groups come under fire - such as Swartzies who won’t accept LED lights on their buggies, or certain Amish in NY who won’t accept mandatory vaccinations.

My own church is a little concerned there is no longer an MoU between us and SSS (and from what I can tell, there isn’t one with other groups like JWs and Wengers either). I would hardly call it persecution though, although that could change if war breaks out.

[barnhart]

One detail that caught my ear was his suggestion that the offer of Catherine to the Anabaptists included the concept self government. How consistent is this with the radical separation of church and state. How much of a two kingdom theology can you have if the church accepts the role of self government?

I am particularly interested in Neto's thoughts.

We were away from home (congregation age group camping) from Thursday early afternoon until yesterday, hence the delay in seeing this thread.

The offer from 'Katherine the Great' came at a time where there appeared to be few options. And, more to the point, the 'self-government' was a condition of the offer to settle in the Steppes of the newly acquired Ukraine. I'm not sure if it could have worked out OK, but as you suggest, it turned out very badly. I grew up thinking that the greatest loss when my people (that is, my own ancestors) came to the States was the impossibility of adopting the same colony life style on the American plains. As I have learned more, I have recognized the terrible problems that developed in that setting - in particular a large landless class that was also cut off from any participation in the 'self-government' that had been forced upon them by the conditions of the invitation from the Russian Empire. This should not have happened - and would not have happened if every member of the colony was living a Christian life (especially those who found themselves in positions of leadership). But (as I say sometimes), "God has no grandchildren."

If I understand correctly, you are agreeing there is a contradiction to Anabaptists with theology of radical separation of church and state accepting self rule.

[Neto]

One detail that caught my ear was his suggestion that the offer of Catherine to the Anabaptists included the concept self government. How consistent is this with the radical separation of church and state. How much of a two kingdom theology can you have if the church accepts the role of self government?

I am particularly interested in Neto's thoughts.

We were away from home (congregation age group camping) from Thursday early afternoon until yesterday, hence the delay in seeing this thread.

The offer from 'Katherine the Great' came at a time where there appeared to be few options. And, more to the point, the 'self-government' was a condition of the offer to settle in the Steppes of the newly acquired Ukraine. I'm not sure if it could have worked out OK, but as you suggest, it turned out very badly. I grew up thinking that the greatest loss when my people (that is, my own ancestors) came to the States was the impossibility of adopting the same colony life style on the American plains. As I have learned more, I have recognized the terrible problems that developed in that setting - in particular a large landless class that was also cut off from any participation in the 'self-government' that had been forced upon them by the conditions of the invitation from the Russian Empire. This should not have happened - and would not have happened if every member of the colony was living a Christian life (especially those who found themselves in positions of leadership). But (as I say sometimes), "God has no grandchildren."

If I understand correctly, you are agreeing there is a contradiction to Anabaptists with theology of radical separation of church and state accepting self rule.

Yes. Perhaps if the elected leaders had only been obligated to report to the Russian officials, and, much more importantly, had they all been regenerated believers, it might have worked. That's the part I cannot answer, because they were required to enforce Russian law, and many of them (if not most) were not believers, being, instead, self-seeking degenerates.

But the colony life is also, I think, a large part of the problem, because the result is much like the State churches, where every resident is a member of the church. The main difference is that baptism and membership is not given to infants. But the end result is that since these were required for marriage, and repentance and conversion were NOT, there was little practical difference. This change of opinion came as a drastic turn about for me, because as I said, I somehow grew up thinking that the colony life was some sort of key to ideal Christianity. (The events that led to this change were the reported sexual abuse incidents in the colony in Bolivia, so rather recent in comparison to my current age - pushing 70.) I think I see some of the same dangers in the rather insular societies of the 'Old Orders', and this is why I think that submission to community is not enough - there must also be an element of personal piety in every member's life - 'Brotherhood' AND piety, not either/or.