Preservings $20 Issue No. 26, 2006 - Home at Plett Foundation

Jacob Roore, Flanders, being interrogated before he was executed, 1569. Credit: Martyrs’ Mirror, 7 th ed. 775.
who…wish the destruction of God’s congregations,”
he wrote. 9
One of Philip’s continued demands during
mediation was his insistence that the leaders
of the two factions meet face to face. When
the Frisian side stonewalled on this demand,
Philips ended up meeting separately with both
sides on six different occasions. 10 However, as
time went on, Philips became more and more
frustrated with the stonewalling by the Frisian
side. This, combined with his feeling that the
original covenant itself had been unjust, drew
him increasingly into the Flemish camp:
“So we have taken every care to get both
parties together so that we might finally hear and
thoroughly understand the disputed matter. But
we could not succeed in that. For the Flemish
(as they are called) were certainly prepared for
that, yes, they have had a longing for it, that their
matter might finally truly come to the light of
day. But the Frisians (as they are called) did not
wish to do it that way; they have not wanted to
accept our reasonable, friendly, and Christian
request and desire.” 11
In the end, Philips decision to side with the
Flemish led not only to failure in his mediation
attempts, but actually to his being banned by
the Frisian side. They thus banned one of their
own elders!
Consequences
The results of the division were first felt
in Friesland. The Anabaptist church was split
into two camps, divided not by theology but by
culture and personal antagonisms. In turn, this
first division spawned other divisions in both
groups, as churches struggled as to where they
should belong. In time, the schism spread all
over the Low Countries, even to places where
members were neither culturally Flemish or Frisian.
Unfortunately, Netherlandic Mennonites
who chose to stay out of the controversy as
stilstaanders ended up being excommunicated
by both the Flemish and the Frisians! 12
The most unfortunate consequence of these
occurrences for the Netherlands was the loss of
influence suffered by Anabaptism as a result of
the disunion. While the growth of the church
through the middle half of the sixteenth century
had pointed to the probability of it becoming the
major denomination in the Netherlands, after the
schism the influence and success of the Church
began to decline. And just as predicted by their
elder Dirk Philips, the loss for the Mennonites
became a gain for the Reformed Church, and
probably even contributed indirectly to the
appeal of Reformed theology in Mennonite
circles.
Although the area of lower Prussia near
Danzig had already been settled by many
Anabaptists long before the division of 1566,
the controversy extended to Prussia as well. As
in the Low Countries, the schism here too was
long lasting and painful. Marriages between
the two groups were not allowed unless a rebaptism
was performed on the party wishing to
join the new fellowship. The first marriage in
which this re-baptism was not required in the
Prussian congregations only
occurred in 1768, and it was
1772 before the two sides held
joint ministers’ meetings. The
two congregations in the city
of Danzig only finally united
after the Napoleonic Wars had
destroyed both their church
buildings in 1807. The war had
pulled the two sides together,
and so the decision was made
to jointly build one new church
building, which was completed
in 1819. 13
It was actually 213 years after
the fateful separation of the
Frisian from the Flemish before
the first Mennonites began to
emigrate from Prussia to Russia,
but even then, the disunion
followed them. In the newly
formed Chortitza colony, the
Frisian emigrants, although at
first only thirty-six families out
of a total of 228, 14 formed their
own congregation with Johann
Klassen and Franz Pauls as
ministers. They founded a separate
village which they named
Kronsweide. It was decades
before the two groups again
united, finally healing a division
that had survived almost
two and a half centuries.
Historical Clues
Two questions in particular arise for people
of Prussian and Russian Mennonite heritage
with regards to the history of the schism. The
first is: “Are there still traces of either Flemish
or Frisian traditions in Mennonite churches
today?” And the second arises from the first.
“If I can trace my church history to either the
Flemish or Frisian side, does that make me
ethnically Flemish or Frisian?”
Traces of Frisian and Flemish Traditions
Not being separated by theological differences,
the Frisian and Flemish groups nonthe-less
developed different worship practices
through the years. The Flemish congregations
practiced baptism by pouring, the Frisians
by sprinkling. In the Flemish congregations,
bread was distributed to the members by the
minister while they remained seated. In the
Frisian congregations, the members filed past
the minister, who handed the bread to them as
they filed by. 15
If these practices are used as clues, many
Mennonite churches which originated in Prussia
or Russia will probably confirm the dominance
of the Flemish practices. On the other hand,
other Flemish practices have been abandoned
through the years in these churches as well, such
as the fact that Flemish sermons were once read
while the minister remained seated. In this case,
Reformed Church tradition, with its love of pulpits,
obviously overturned the dominant Flemish
practice. In other cases, the minority Frisian
12 - Preservings No. 26, 2006