Discussion Questions

Chester said, “Memory is a conscious work of interpretation, marked as much by deletion as by selection,” and then argued that “how a community remembers its past is the single most important element in determining its future”; what specific “deletions” about Mennonite history do you think have shaped present-day blind spots, and what would it cost a church community to stop deleting them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What parts of Mennonite history do you think we’ve left out or ignored, and how has that created blind spots today? What would a church lose or have to face if it stopped leaving those parts out?

Chester claimed that “it’s usually the more conscientious people…dedicated to Christ…[who] move,” while “the people who are tied to their businesses…who are just ethnic…like to stay”; how does that explanation challenge common ways we interpret who “stays” and who “leaves,” and what evidence in our own communities would confirm—or overturn—his claim? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Chester’s idea (that the most devoted Christians are often the ones who move) challenge how we judge who stays and who leaves? What examples in our own community support his view, and what examples go against it?

Chester framed the collapse as a re-ordering of identity (German first, Christian second), using the word-order illustration (e.g., “American Mennonite Christian”); where do you see subtle pressures today that try to make nationality, ethnicity, politics, or class the “noun” and discipleship the adjective, and what practices would actually keep “Christian” from being displaced? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see pressure today to put nation, politics, ethnicity, or social class ahead of following Jesus? What habits would help keep being Christian as the main identity?

He said the root problem was: “Jesus Christ, through the Holy Scriptures, was no longer the ultimate authority,” and tied that to sowing/reaping; what are concrete signs that a church has replaced Christ’s authority with another authority while still using Christian language, and how would those signs show up in decisions about money, safety, reputation, or enemy-love? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What are clear signs a church is really following some other authority instead of Jesus, even if it still sounds “Christian”? How would that show up in choices about money, safety, reputation, or loving enemies?

Chester contrasted the state-church two-kingdom idea (church and state “organically connected”) with the Anabaptist one (kingdom of God vs. kingdom of this world with “no organic connection”); how would early Christians (pre-Constantine) have heard his definition, and what modern “organic connections” do we tolerate that would have seemed unimaginable to them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do you think early Christians before Constantine would react to the idea that church and state are closely connected? What close ties between church and government do we accept today that would have shocked them?

The talk traced a long “100-year” drift: losing non-resistance “one step at a time,” loving the “martial spirit,” becoming “tired practicing Gelassenheit,” and keeping martyr stories while deciding “the past did not apply to the present”; what are the “small steps” by which a church can keep the aesthetics of a tradition while abandoning its substance, and how do we tell the difference between living faith and mere heritage? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What small steps can lead a church to keep the look of its tradition but lose the real meaning of it? How can we tell the difference between real faith and just cultural heritage?

Chester argued that sending leaders to Lutheran/Baptist universities led them to absorb “state church concepts,” leaving Mennonites “without a substantial theological foundation for resisting Nazism”; what kinds of training (formal education, media ecosystems, political discipleship, conferences) are shaping pastors and families today, and how can a church evaluate whether those influences are rebuilding—or eroding—two-kingdom clarity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What kinds of training and influence are shaping pastors and families today (schools, media, politics, conferences)? How can a church tell if those influences strengthen—or weaken—clear thinking about God’s kingdom vs. the world’s kingdom?

He contrasted an Anabaptist “God-and-I” *and* “collective” conscience (“No man is in Christ apart from his brother”) with a more individualized Protestant mindset; how might an overly individualized conscience make it easier for believers to cooperate with evil while still feeling “personally sincere,” and what forms of collective accountability would have made compromise harder for the Prussian Mennonites? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can a “me and God only” kind of conscience make it easier to go along with evil while still feeling personally sincere? What shared accountability could have helped the Prussian Mennonites resist compromise?

Chester highlighted Hitler’s “wolf in sheep’s clothing” messaging—promising moral renewal, “positive Christianity,” opposition to immorality and communism—while privately planning to “stamp out Christianity”; what features of Hitler’s public appeal did the Mennonites find compelling according to the transcript, and where are Christians today tempted to trust a movement because it promises moral cleanup rather than Christlike faithfulness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What parts of Hitler’s public message did Mennonites find appealing, according to the transcript? Where are Christians today tempted to trust a movement because it promises moral reform instead of Christlike faithfulness?

The talk ended with a chilling redefinition of “neighbor” as one who shares “blood,” with love extended primarily to “the German”; in light of Jesus’ teaching (and Chester’s quick reference to the Good Samaritan), what would it look like for a church today to quietly redefine “neighbor” in ways that feel reasonable or patriotic, and what concrete actions would expose whether our “neighbor-love” is actually limited by tribe? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How might a church today quietly redefine “neighbor” in a way that sounds reasonable or patriotic but is really tribal? What real-life actions would reveal whether our love is limited to “our kind of people”?