86 Fontane Blätter 110 Unveröffentlichtes und wenig Bekanntes cost/benefit analysis might have put Wedel off. He allowed in his conclusion that Mennonites have always valued practical, active Christianity as a sign of true faith, but have strictly avoided thinking of such actions as payment for sin or works that accrue righteousness. Thus, for Wedel just promoting peace and forgiveness was not enough, the reason behind it had to be ­authentic. 23 Another possible source of anxiety for Wedel concerning Quitt was that such modern ideas in Mennonite preachers or teachers’ heads was simply too dangerous for his institution and his church. The modernist-fundamen­talist conflicts in American Protestantism were well underway by this point and Wedel needed to avoid them. He had encountered modern literary crit­icism of the Bible in his studies in Bloomfield and noted,»I myself fumbled about a bit with this burst of new knowledge, especially about the Old Tes­tament. Now everything seems to become shaky.« The very first issue of the School and College Journal provoked an outpouring of letters to the editor questioning many aspects of the school’s approach and operations. The pa­per served as a kind of safety valve to air grievances, hopefully without things getting out of hand. The lid did not come off until 1916, six years after Wedel’s death, in the notorious»Daniel Explosion« that saw two Bethel pro­fessors, one modernist and one fundamentalist, attacking each other public­ly in chapel over the proper interpretation of the Old Testament book of Dan­iel. In this context, warm praise from Wedel for a theologically lukewarm, materialistic Mennonite preacher who nonetheless talked about peace might have been politically risky. 24 Cornelius H. Wedel together with David Goerz shaped the Mennonite mission and publishing efforts in Kansas and Indian Territory that came to Fontane’s attention just as he was developing the manuscript for Quitt. Both Wedel and Fontane were interested in critiquing militarism and in working for peace in different ways. Neither, however, could fully appreciate the ap­proach or contributions of the other. They remain nonetheless linked togeth­er in one of the most unusual cycles of source creation and publication re­view in Fontane’s world.