Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 5
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?
Another 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?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests pre-Constantine Christians would have resonated with Chester’s Anabaptist framing: God’s kingdom and the world’s kingdom are distinct, with no “organic connection,” and the church obeys government only until it conflicts with Christ. The transcript doesn’t list modern examples, but it strongly implies that church-state cooperation and loyalty oaths are key “connections” that become spiritually dangerous.
- He defines the state-church view: church and state have separate spheres but “remain organically connected.”
- He contrasts the Anabaptist view: “kingdom of God versus the kingdom of this world, where there is no organic connection.”
- He describes Christian civic posture: “we obey the government as long as it does not make us disobey what Christ says.”
- He argues losing this doctrine “legitimized participation in the Nazi state.”
- He notes Lutheran/Baptist-trained pastors “encouraged church-state cooperation,” leaving Mennonites without foundation to resist Nazism.
- Nazi demands mirror “organic connection”: Nazism “demand[s] loyalty through an oath” and forced conformity.