Discussion Questions

Nathan highlights the 1688 Germantown petition as “not a political petition” but a plea to a local worshiping congregation; what does that choice reveal about how God expects His people to confront evil—especially when the evil is culturally normal and economically convenient? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why did the Germantown petition speak to the local church instead of the government, and what does that say about how God wants His people to face evil that feels normal and profitable?

The petitioners argued slavery violated God’s design by tearing apart “the sacred institution of marriage”; how does that reasoning reshape the way Christians should weigh social sins—moving beyond individual harm to what damages God’s created order? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If slavery was wrong because it broke up marriage, how should that change the way Christians judge social sins—not just by who gets hurt, but by what ruins God’s design?

Nathan says, to his knowledge, “there were no Mennonites in good standard of a congregation…that owned slaves,” and he notes one alleged exception who “never joined the church here”; what does this suggest about early Anabaptist assumptions regarding church discipline, membership, and the legitimacy of a “faith” that comfortably participates in oppressive systems? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it say about early Anabaptists that faithful church members weren’t allowed to own slaves, and what does that imply about church membership, discipline, and a “faith” that supports oppression?

In the Virginia story, Mennonites paid enslaved workers directly to honor their “dignity as human beings,” even while maintaining neighborly relations with plantation owners; what would it look like in your context to practice that same kind of costly, concrete dignity without simply baptizing the status quo? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In your setting, what would it look like to show costly, real respect for people’s dignity while still living peacefully with neighbors—without just going along with what’s wrong?

Nathan appeals to Paul’s approach in Philemon as a model for addressing oppression “in a quiet manner, but yet a loving, strong manner”; how do you interpret that apostolic strategy, and what parts of modern Christian activism (or silence) does it implicitly critique? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do you understand Paul’s approach in Philemon—quiet but firm—and what does that way of acting challenge about Christian activism today (or doing nothing)?

The Mississippi hospital story includes the line, “They’re Mennonites. They don’t take a side on the racial divides”; what do you think “not taking a side” means in the speaker’s framework, and where might that posture be faithful to God—or dangerously close to moral evasion? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When someone says, “They don’t take a side” on racial divides, what do you think they mean, and when is that faithful to God versus just avoiding hard choices?

Nathan describes early Anabaptists first planting separate churches for Native and Black communities, then later pushing toward worshiping together and ordaining Native and African American ministers; what does this trajectory reveal about the church as God’s “refuge” from societal categories, and what early-Christian patterns of unity and leadership does it echo? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the move from separate churches to worshiping together and ordaining Native and Black leaders show about the church as a place where God breaks down social categories?

The speaker warns against taking cues from society—“When society moves in a more progressive direction, that’s not when we take our cues. We take our cues from the scripture”; where do you see your church most tempted to let surrounding culture (progressive or conservative) set the agenda for what obedience looks like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where is your church most tempted to copy the surrounding culture—progressive or conservative—instead of letting Scripture set what obedience looks like?

Nathan asks whether Christians are “linking ourselves up in partnership with those who are using unloving methods,” rejects rioting, yet cites Isaiah’s call to “break the yoke of oppression”; how can a church discern what forms of public action are compatible with Christ’s love, and which ones subtly disciple us into fear, rage, or tribal loyalty? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can a church tell which public actions fight oppression in a Christlike way, and which actions train us to be driven by fear, anger, or team loyalty?

The speaker gives uncomfortable applications: avoiding race-centered storytelling, intentionally living as a minority, and directly confronting fear of interracial marriage by claiming “biblically, there’s nothing wrong with intermarriage”; which of these challenges exposes the deepest resistance in you or your community, and what would repentance look like in habits, conversations, hospitality, and family expectations? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which challenge—avoiding race-focused stories, choosing to live as a minority, or facing fears about interracial marriage—hits the biggest nerve for you or your community, and what would real repentance look like in daily life and family expectations?