If you’ve followed Mennotoba for a while, you may have noticed I like to attend and then write about the annual CTMS conference. That stands for Centre for Transnational Mennonite Studies — a research centre at the University of Winnipeg. In the beginning I didn’t know what this even was. I also didn’t know what Mennonites were, other than the fact that I am one, being born a Koop with a flat “manno” accent and love for cottage cheese perogies and a faint impression that all of this could be argued over forever and ever amen. Instead of actually attending university like a regular person to figure this out properly, I started showing up at this free-to-attend conference, which I learned about thanks to SteinbachOnline.com. (Back when Darrell Braun was there, he would post stories about it every year.) I found all of the research shared quite invigorating, fascinating, and came away from it with a growing curiosity and perhaps burgeoning understanding of what this Mennonite thing is all about, or rather, what aspects have been shoved aside and are now being examined by academics (and creatives!).
This year the conference happened from October 3-4, and it was my first year actually catching every moment of the entire conference — AND I had my laptop with me, also a first. At times I was typing so fast that I probably caught some of this absolutely verbatim and that, my friend, is stealing. So please keep that in mind as you read the following words!
Every year the conference has a different theme, and the papers selected get published in what everyone present knows as the JMS — the Journal of Mennonite Studies. This year’s theme was Global Mennonites and the Justice System Since 1525: Martyrs, Perpetrators, Enforcers, and Advocates. (1525 was the year Mennonitism became a thing.)
In her opening statement, Dr. Aileen Friesen said, “History has always been political.” This seems important and true. I write it down. And later regret not including context.
This is going to be a bit of a stream of consciousness as I take this in. My thoughts can wander. Ideas can distract and take my brain down roads not actually intended by the papers presented. Maybe.
The first trio of presenters were under the umbrella of Anabaptists, Conflict, and Punishment in Early Modern Europe — and it’s easy to think of those as just big clinical words but if you really listen and pay attention, it doesn’t necessarily feel like they’re talking about 500 years ago actually… and it was all really quite cathartic for me.
Linda Huebert Hecht presented “The Austrian Anabaptist Court Records of 1525 to 1531 Document the Criminal Actions of Anabaptist Women.” She examined the records of 418 women in the early 1500s – they were outlaws for adult baptism. Anabaptist was a derogatory term. “Public speech in action” = dangerous. Peasant War of 1525 — could Anabaptism be a continuation of this? (was the thought — and the answer to this is no). She talked about Tirol, Jacob Hutter and Moravia. All of this makes me curious about those areas of Europe. Interesting quote: “A lot of people take the sacrament that God would allow himself to be baked in an oven.” Referring to the bread at communion. Got a chuckle from the audience. Why were there so many female Anabaptists in this area? Well, Max Faber thinks any unstructured movements’ beginning has women in it.
Troy Osborne presented “Boundaries of Belief and Behaviour: Dutch Mennonites, Church Discipline, and Social Control.” So… this is about the Martyrs Mirror. At the back of the book is a prayer for worldly authorities. Overlap of church discipline and civic discipline. Contributing to social order. Charity and discipline. The tension of defenseless doctrine playing out. Several examples showed it was messy in real life to resolve conflicts within the church without secular authorities. “What Mennonites actually believed – how they acted, not just what they wrote.” (I might’ve got that wrong.) Is internal reconciliation among Mennonites always necessary? “Business deals gone wrong.” In Dutch society, were their efforts at reconciliation typically Mennonite, or typically Dutch?
Andrew Klassen Brown presented “In Defence of the New Jerusalem: The Theological and Legal Case for Anabaptist Münster.” I feel like I’ve been reading and hearing about this unhinged Münster thing a lot lately but that might just be an Erin thing (because of my typical reading material). For those who don’t know, sometime in the 1500’s a bunch of Anabapists in Münster ran around naked, killing everyone. (Am I glossing over and being disrespectful? Sure!) So there was a prince-bishop attack that caused them to defend themselves in 1534 and therefore “a sense of operating within God’s will justified the decision to use force.” They were “innocent victims of tyranny who had no choice but to stand firm.” They were “the obedient instrument of God… entitled to self-defense.” His examination of how the Münsterites “sought to claim the moral high ground in conflict” makes me wonder if there could be parallels drawn to all kinds of horrors unleashed today by those claiming to be true followers of God. “Holy war theology” — “God’s chosen warriors” — defending the legitimacy of their rule. “Anabaptist regime” – not how we usually hear about Anabaptists I think (being peaceful). Balance of power and freedom, use of force in truth and justice. Justifications — seeing themselves as instruments of divine justice – tragically delusional.
Q&A:
Women had “inner authority” – said Linda to Andrew’s question.
Troy – references a pastor who “had a scheme to turn lead into gold” which bankrupted people in the church.
There were so many Mennonites living in the town that they ran it. The entire city council was Mennonites. – Troy re: the time – they sat on city councils until the reformed church… “yeah, I’ll just leave it.”
The struggle to be concise about big things.
The Dutch Mennonites were urban from the start, always involved in society, in the city.
Karl Koop – the assumption was that they were actually Christian and would act like it, act justly, show mercy, etc.
Tina – your work is very prescient, Andrew.
Linda – being rebaptized was going against the court so in criminal court women spoke for themselves, but not in civil court where they had to have a man speak for them. You can’t find people who don’t have names, in the index. Very courageous. Not expected to be very prominent in society.
Andrew – the relationship between polygamy and patriarchal control…
Jeremy – Münster, polygamy, executions…
Andrew – the nature of constructing a biblical argument for… (this kind of behaviour)
(I’m thinking how this bleeds into manipulation of narcissists, abusers, bad actors…)
Coffee break! Gulping down coffee, chatting with Monica about what makes our own history come alive. But then suddenly break was over and we headed back to our seats for the next section: Imprisonment and Persecution in Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union Part 1.
Nataliya Venger presented “Peace, Order, and Offence: State Legal Regulation of Mennonite Colonies in the Russian Empire (18th -19th Centuries).” Turns out Peter the Great actually initiated colonization in Russia, not Catherine the Great as we so often think. Selecting Volga River lands for colonization. Potemkin was the actual initiator of colonization in Ukraine – new Ukrainian colonies. Needed to establish a system for order. Re: corporal punishment: “It can’t be turned into an execution but serves rather as a fear of shame and disgrace.” (Strong motivator.) Interesting about trial in Ekaterinosloav’s city court on abuse related to the use of timber allocated for the Mennonite colonies — a serious offence in 1800 – this is interesting to me because it helps me imagine life back then there, what went on. Jakob Wiens from Osterwick confessed to sodomy and was excommunicated but readmitted within seven days because he was repentant apparently (this makes me think that people may have been becoming really good at acting because that seems like quite a switch pretty fast) – I guess I took interest because Wiens and Osterwick are names in my family history but it might not mean anything, (but it also might…) Learning about the different court cases back in 1900-01 is interesting: personal insults and violation of sanitary norms are on this list. She described a situation with a Neufeld and Thiessen, a fight between the boys’ fathers (I missed the start of the story so I will have to read the rest in the JMS when it’s published!) Essentially, the “golden age” of Mennonite history was idealized and never actually existed (roughly a quote).
Ed Krahn presented “The 1925 Second Martyrs’ Synod and the KfK.” James Urry says Mennonites often petitioned politicians with statements of loyalty in hopes of influencing those they saw in positions of authority. (quote-ish) – I find this interesting because I think Mennonites still try to do this. Seems savvy. But maybe that’s actually a human thing. I think Ed is trying to solve a mystery. Who were these men? Shows a picture. “That iconic photo in Moscow” – 77. Many disappeared. (What is a synod? I should probably look that up. Answer: “an assembly of the clergy.” It was actually a conference that was named “Martyrs Synod” by author A.A. Toews. (Who’s that? I can’t find a hit when I google it.)
Maria Lotsmanova presented “Special Settlements as the Lesser-Known Form of Official State Persecution During Stalinism: The Experience of My Ancestors.” She opened with, “No documentary today, I hope to not disappoint you with my paper.” (This is in reference to her beautiful, and very moving, documentary I have nothing to add which screened at this conference in 2023 and received rousing applause.) She said, “I needed context to really understand what life was like for my ancestors.” Seeking a personal perspective rather than academic one. So sometime in the early to mid 1930s, her Janzen ancestors were removed to a “special settlement.” I took a picture of her slide which explained this was “a state-imposed way of life for ‘enemy classes’ — based on forced resettlement in specially designated areas.” They could not leave. She included a picture of the Janzen’s home in Crimea 1920s – this photograph has been found recently in a family archive. This moves me.
She read from a letter written by her great-grandmother, which never found its way to its intended recipient. It had been intercepted and ended up in the state archives (not sure I got this right). And then Maria, in her research, uncovered it and was the first descendent to actually read it. That’s pretty incredible! (If I’m getting this right — I really cannot type/think fast enough.) There was a picture of the family of six – had been a family of seven but the father had been arrested. A mother and five underage children. The youngest, a girl, in her mothers’ arms, giving the camera a suspicious, mighty stare. I love it so much I did not take a picture. I just stared up at the image projected onto the large screen, until it was gone. The image of Jakob Janzen is arresting. From his arrest. He looks at the camera with accusatory resignation. He knows he ought to be free. He knows he did nothing wrong and was wrongly taken from his family. From here the family was fragmented…
Aileen Friesen presented “A Gendered Analysis of NKVD Arrest Files.” This included files from the mass arrests that had taken place during the Great Terror of 1937, when Stalin went about systematically eliminating dissenters. Eventually, in the 2000s (perhaps the 2020s, I cannot remember!) the people in these files were “rehabilitated” — acquitted of the crimes they had been charged with — many decades after their deaths — and the files were released. She figured she’d do a gendered analysis, and she found pieces of stories that still need to be woven together. But one story known about in the community but not fully addressed: these files are overwhelmingly male. Also, male perpetrators arresting more males. Marlene Epp points out in her book Women Without Men, that when loss takes place, women end up providing the labour of care, recreating new family structures to compensate. Friesen references order 0056 which specifies the arrest of wives and “enemies of the motherland” which essentially stated “if we have arrested your husband, now we can arrest you as well” as the “wives of traitors.” These are names of women that feel very familiar. The objective was the destruction of the family. The Soviet state would send the children to orphanages. Women were arrested, held for months, and only interrogated very briefly. The “evidence” was that their husbands had been convicted. They had invested labour to travel to see their husbands in prison, bringing food and clothing to care for them. Friesen states that there are official ways Mennonites cared for each other, and the Soviet state broke those ties — but unofficial ones still existed, embedded in women’s work and labour of care. The NKVD also went to Molotchna colony and arrested several (three I think) women all on the same day – all charges stayed due to lack of evidence. Creating an atmosphere of terror – a time when people stopped talking to each other – they didn’t know what was happening, really. In many cases children were moved 1000 miles away – out of their community. She read many interrogations from 1937 – because men were being tortured, they invented stories under duress. But in the case of these women, their responses are all defiant. So defiant that Friesen believes these really are their words: that tone of “absolutely not, I did not do any of these things.”
Q&A:
“They didn’t want to come back to that past, it was a hidden trauma.” – Maria
Aileen – “I have never been able to tell someone that their loved one went on to live life. The answer is always that they were shot.” So many people started sending letters in the 50s already asking what happened to my husband, my brother, my father? When Aileen looks at the information, the answer is always that they had been shot. (Important note: The Great Terror of 1937-38 was not a Mennonite situation. This was happening to all people in this place, at this time.)
LUNCH — a time when conversation revealed that Zaporizhzhia is presently being bombed and shelled.
This is all quite heavy, eh? I was going to try to include all my notes from day one but this word count is pretty high already and I feel like I need to sit with all of this. Some takeaways… okay well interesting to learn that perhaps the Mennonite penchant for solving issues privately in the church without outside intervention is perhaps not actually Mennonite, but Dutch, harkening back to Anabaptism’s beginning. And then the Münster thing — what made them feel it made sense to do what they did? And that it was the “godly” choice? To the Great Terror of Stalinist Russia, “disappearing” those who did not support the regime.
There are some very good reasons to study history…
To be continued.