Discussion Questions
The speaker says, “It’s either right or wrong. There’s no middle ground,” especially if Jesus says “Don’t kill” and “love your enemy.” What view of God’s authority and moral clarity is being assumed here, and where do modern Christians tend to resist that kind of black-and-white claim? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does “right or wrong, no middle ground” assume about God’s authority and clear moral rules? Where do Christians today push back against that kind of black-and-white thinking?
They refused to “ship missiles to Iraq until we determine whether this is actually okay or not,” even though their role was non-combat and “not like they were asking you to go kill people.” What does this teaching assume about moral responsibility for indirect participation, and how would the early church have reasoned about “support roles” in violence? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does this story assume about being morally responsible even in an indirect job (like shipping weapons)? How might the early church have viewed “support roles” connected to violence?
The transcript highlights the long CO process (psych evaluation, court hearing, witnesses, long paper, sent to the Pentagon) and the risk: “If they would have determined I had enlisted fraudulently… I probably might have gone to jail.” What does this reveal about the kind of faithfulness the speaker thinks God asks for when obedience could realistically cost freedom and reputation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the long, risky CO process show about what the speaker thinks faithfulness to God can cost (like freedom or reputation)? What kind of obedience is she describing?
The speaker describes feeling “very vulnerable” during the in-between time and credits Andre Gingrich Stoner and Kathy (MCC) plus the other CO couple for strengthening them. What does this imply about how God ordinarily sustains convictions—through individual resolve or through the church/community—and how does that compare to modern, highly individualistic discipleship? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does their need for support suggest about how God usually helps people keep hard convictions—through personal willpower or through community? How does this challenge today’s more individual “faith is just me and God” approach?
When someone says, “Just finish through with your enlistment and just leave… Why rock the boat?” what modern assumptions about grace, convenience, and “keeping your head down” are being confronted, and what might early Christians have expected a disciple to do in a parallel situation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What ideas about grace, ease, and “don’t cause trouble” are challenged by “just finish your enlistment”? What might early Christians have expected a disciple to do in a similar situation?
The speaker says Christ “would not have packaged missiles for Iraq,” and her husband calls Jesus’ way “the blueprint for humanity… it promotes life… values every human being… doesn’t need… politics or greed or lines in the sand.” What picture of God’s kingdom and God’s purposes for human society is being presented, and what parts of that collide with patriotic or partisan identities? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What picture of God’s kingdom and God’s plan for human life do they describe when they say Jesus wouldn’t package missiles? What parts of that clash with patriotism or party politics?
The interviewer tries to hold two things together: being “law-abiding,” “respectful,” and “willing to serve our time,” yet “opposed to the bloodshed,” possibly serving “as a medic.” How does the transcript define the limits of Christian cooperation with the state, and where do you think that line is harder to draw than the speakers admit? JumpstartAnother way to ask: According to the transcript, where is the line between obeying the government and refusing to take part in violence? What parts of that line might be harder to apply than they make it sound?
The speaker expresses gratitude that “the American government allows” conscientious objection now, contrasting World War I mistreatment and World War II changes. How should Christians think about gratitude for political freedoms while also claiming, “I feel like I’m of a different kingdom”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can Christians be thankful for political freedoms like conscientious objection while also saying, “I belong to a different kingdom”? How do you hold both ideas together?
In the office scene, the officer offers a quiet exit: “We can just sort of pretend this never happened… you can just go on doing what you love doing.” What does that temptation reveal about what discipleship often threatens to disrupt (comfort, belonging, vocation), and what concrete “pretend this never happened” options show up in Christian life today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the offer to “pretend this never happened” show about what following Jesus can disrupt (comfort, belonging, career)? What are some real-life ways Christians today are tempted to “pretend” and keep quiet?
The officer then whispers, “I do now. I’m leaving the army for the very same reasons,” and the speaker calls it “a gift from God” showing “you’re not weird… you’re not alone.” What does this suggest about how God uses visible obedience to affect outsiders—even authorities—and how does that challenge the common evangelical instinct to keep faith “private” and non-confrontational? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the officer’s response suggest about how public obedience can influence outsiders, even leaders? How does that challenge the idea that faith should stay private and not make waves?