Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 4
The speaker says Prussian Mennonites knew the *Martyr’s Mirror* but decided “the past did not apply to the present,” treating martyr stories as “good for that day”; where do Christians today make the same move with Scripture or church history, and what do we gain or protect by declaring obedience “not applicable now”?
Another way to ask: Where do Christians today treat Scripture or church history as “for back then, not for now”? What do we think we gain or protect when we say obedience doesn’t apply anymore?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests Christians make this move whenever they treat costly obedience as “for another time,” because it protects comfort, cultural acceptance, and safety in the present.
- The speaker says Prussian Mennonites “were familiar with the Martyr’s Mirror,” yet “chose to believe that the past did not apply to the present,” calling martyr stories “good for that day, but not applicable for the present day.”
- He describes a forced choice between two paths: participation in Prussian/German society versus their Anabaptist history—“You can't do both.”
- He connects this to abandoning separation of church and state and losing the two-kingdom/nonconformity framework that had shaped Anabaptist life.
- Joseph Gingrich warns people resist recognizing danger because it may “shatter our religious as well as our economic well-being,” implying why “not applicable now” feels attractive.
- Later examples show the payoff: staying safe, being praised as good Germans, being spared (for a time) from Soviet-style horrors.