Sometimes we gain insight by exploring a subject directly; sometimes discovery comes by reading on a seemingly unrelated or at least peripheral topic. This post is an example of the latter approach—in spite of the fact that the article that prompted it, E. K. Francis’s “The Russian Mennonites: From Religious to Ethnic Group,” might seem at first glance to be directly relevant to our interests. In fact, it is relevant in leading us to ask a completely different question.
The article abstract is technical but intelligible:
The study of social change seems to show that generic characteristics of different types of groups, as conceived in sociological literature, are susceptible to mutations. In the particular case of the Russian Mennonites a religious group was transformed within a comparatively short time into a distinct ethnic and folk group when the ethnically heterogeneous participants were allowed to segregate themselves by forming isolated territorial communities. While the specific religious system which afforded orientation in the formative stage changed and even lost much of its appeal, the identity and cohesion of the group did not suffer materially. (Francis 1948, 101)
Stated more simply, the main idea is that groups may change from one type to another, as the Russian Mennonites changed from a predominantly religious group into “a a distinct ethnic and folk group” that then permitted modification of the original religious principles that formed the group in the first place. Francis’s interest is in second half of that development; ours is in the first half. Permit me to explain. (Much of what follows is thinking out loud and may or may not be of value.)
Francis, we should realize, is entirely correct that a faith community may at times be thought of more as a religious group and at other times more as a social or ethnic group, in the sense in which he is using the term. We should also realize that membership in an ethnic group does not require, although it often corresponds to, a common racial or national background. As Francis defines the term, an ethnic group is a “small, closely integrated social unit, … the most inclusive, cumulative and realistic type of secondary community” (Francis 1948, 101). Why is all this important for us?
In the first place, the social/ethnic solidarity that developed among the Russian Mennonite groups (Molotschna and Chortitza) should not be projected back onto the Prussian or Polish Mennonite communities that preceded them. If I understand correctly, the Polish Mennonite group was far more diverse and disaggregated than the two Mennonite colonies in Russia. What united Mennonites in Poland was commitment to a common faith (even though certain details led to division), not a common social life. To offer one quick example, “some … Mennonites were farmers living in rural communities, while others [mostly in Danzig] were merchants, bankers, artisans, and manufacturers” (Francis 1948, 103). When considering Mennonite life in Poland/Prussia, it is important to keep these differences squarely in view.
A second implication of Francis’s piece is even more important for thinking about our family history. Because the Mennonite church in Poland was more a religious group than an ethnic group, it follows that joining the group was at least hypothetically easier for those who wished to do so. Of course, given the lack of legal status that Mennonites endured, joining the church would not have been overly appealing to many, but that is not the point. One did not have to be born into the church to become a member; the Mennonite church was a voluntary association, as it were, that welcomed anyone who wished to subscribe to and live in keeping with the key tenets of the Mennonite faith.
We have long known this, of course, but we have perhaps not thought about the possibilities it opens and the questions it raises. Many Mennonites of the Polish-Prussian-Russian group ask where their family originated, where the family lived before Poland. We have wondered the same thing ourselves. That is a legitimate question to ponder, but it is not the only one that needs to be asked.
Generally the question assumes that a given family, such as the Bullers, must have been Mennonites who came either from the Netherlands or one of the Germanic countries (e.g., Switzerland), probably to escape Catholic or Protestant (Reformed) persecution. This assumption is valid in a number of cases and for a large number of families. However, one wonders how many families actually lived in Poland before they joined a Mennonite church. This is the significance of Francis’s insight: at that time in Mennonite history, the possibility of joining the church was greater because the identity of the church was more religious than ethnic. One would think, then, that at least some of the families who were members of the Mennonite church in Poland had not fled persecution but already lived in Poland and joined the church there.
Looking at matters this way raises several important questions for us:
1. How far back might our Mennonite heritage go? Was George Buller of Przechovka our earliest ancestor to convert to the Mennonite faith, or were his parents or prior ancestors also Mennonite? If the former, then presumably George lived in Poland before converting. If the latter, then our ancestors may have moved to Poland to escape persecution.
2. If George was the first of our line to join the Mennonite church, why was he in Poland in the first place? Buller is certainly not a Polish surname (Adelbert Goertz considers it to be Swiss), so he or his family clearly originated somewhere else. If George joined the Mennonite church while in Poland, he was not living there (presumably) because of persecution, so why exactly was he living there?
3. If George joined the Mennonite church while living in Poland, were there others in his family who also lived there who did not become Mennonite? To state the question differently, did non-Mennonite Bullers who are related to us live in the general area at the same time as George?
What makes these questions, especially the third, so intriguing is the possibility that there may have been other Bullers in the general vicinity of Schwetz at the same time as George Buller. Sometime back Buller Time was contacted by someone who was attempting to trace the line of an individual by the name of Daniel Buller or Bullert (the name was spelled both ways), who lived approximately 20 miles west of Schwetz, that is, the Przechovka church. The question was posed whether our George may have been related to this person’s Daniel Buller.
Now before we make much of anything of this, we should keep in mind the fact that surnames are frequently the same for no other reason than sheer coincidence. Two people in the same general area who have the same surname may be related, or they may have no connection at all. Still, it is intriguing to wonder if George was a prior resident of the area (presumably part of the long-term movement of many Germanic families east into Poland) who converted to the Mennonite church, if George had family in the area who were members of the Lutheran church. We will explore this in the future, if it seems a promising path to take.
We may never know when our family became associated with the Mennonite church or who the first Buller Mennonite actually was. We may never determine with certainty whether our roots lie in the Netherlands or one of the Germanic countries. Nevertheless, as a result of Francis’s article we can now imagine the options with greater clarity and insight, so that our explorations are conducted with greater precision as we continue to sift and sort whatever evidence comes into view.
***
Bonus question: Is it possible to correlate the relative size of a family within the broader Mennonite community with the length of time that family has been Mennonite? In other words, if one assumes that Mennonite families enjoy a comparable birth rate/rate of growth, might one determine roughly when the various families joined the Mennonite community? The largest families presumably have been Mennonite longer than the smaller families (our Buller line is generally considered a small family).
Work Cited
Francis, E. K. 1948. The Russian Mennonites: From Religious to Ethnic Group. American Journal of Sociology 54:101–7.
No comments:
Post a Comment