In all honesty, I knew very little about the migration of Russian Mennonites to places like Canada and South America prior to taking this course. I knew even less about the lives of Mennonites while they were actually in Russia. Because of this, I found Katya to be a great novel but also a great history lesson into the lives of Russian Mennonites.
One aspect of the novel that intrigued me was the representation of Mennonites through the Sudermann and Vogt families. Okay, I know that even today, there is a sort of spectrum, if you will, of Mennonites, but this novel really shed light on some of these differences. To me, Peter Vogt pretty much epitomized what a traditional Mennonite would look like. Other than his temper--which he kept under control by using a hole in the wall as a reminder--Peter Vogt seemed to reflect the core belief system in all aspects of his life, as the reader knew him. On the other hand, we have Abram Sudermann. A man who comes off as overly wealthy, greedy, dishonest, and a womanizer among other things.
In thinking about the differences between these two characters, I began to ask questions. If these two characters represent the same tradition, but live their lives in very different ways, does this reflect on the tradition, or the people? I then began to think of this concept of Neo Anabaptism that we discussed in class and realized that a) I still don't really understand what Neo Anabaptism is, but b) that if the way that I sort of understood the concept--a group of folks who want to go back to the way of the original Anabaptists--that is somewhat confusing, right? During the reformation, there was probably a lot less confusion about what it meant to call oneself an Anabaptist, but over the years, the concept has gained a number of different interpretations, endured a split in the Mennonite Church, and I would still say that there is definitely a spectrum of Mennonites today.
This was a very complicated way of asking, is there a right and wrong way to be Mennonite? If there are Mennonite folks who were overly wealthy, greedy, and womanizing but still called themselves Mennonite, who are we to tell them they're doing it wrong? What about non-pacifists? Is there a right and wrong way to be Mennonite?
This is a great point. So if we want to return to the roots of Anabaptism what do we go back to, if Mennonite back then had conflicting views. In this book I think we can safely say Vogt was a better Mennonite then Sudermann, because he embodied values of nonresistance. I do think however, that over the course of history, what it means to be a good Mennonite has changed. In this book, being a good Mennonite means being nearsighted, like Katya. At Goshen College, being a good Mennonite means understanding the perspectives of others and broadening your world. These are two conflicting ideals. Ultimately, I think there are many different ways to be a good Mennonite.
ReplyDeleteI think that Birdsell created so many different kinds of Mennonites in Katya for this purpose, that she wanted the readers, especially Mennonite readers, to examine what being a Mennonite actually means. I, do however, think that Peter Vogt was a better Mennonite than Abram Sudermann, but perhaps because that is because Peter was a better person that Abram.
ReplyDeleteI'm also biased towards Peter Vogt for reasons other than his theology, but I can't really remember if we learned very much about Abram's theology. It would be interesting to talk about his theology and how he sees himself embodying it (does he, for example, ever feel guilty about having sex with his servants?)
ReplyDeleteThere has always been more than one way to be an Anabaptist. However, this does not mean that all Anabaptists are good . . . or that they even follow the proper guidelines. Abram Suderman falls pretty far from the mark; Peter Vogt is much closer to our ideal of what an Anabaptist should be. I think it's interesting that we all sense that. Birdsell's novel shows that money corrupts people, even Anabaptists, and that those within a hierarchy are reluctant to give up their position. Witness the encounter between Katya and Vera, in which Katya refuses Vera's overture of friendship. Birdsell is realistic about human relations and human temptations and shows how our failings distort our faith, especially when we think we're better than other people and act accordingly.
ReplyDelete