Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
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?
Another 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?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Chester portrays “small steps” as gradual compromises: keeping Mennonite cultural markers and stories while reinterpreting them so they no longer bind present obedience, especially on nonresistance and separation from the world. The difference between living faith and heritage shows up when a church still submits to Christ as ultimate authority rather than treating the past as inspirational but irrelevant.
- He cites a documented “100-year period” where Mennonites “lost their non-resistant principles a little bit at a time.”
- He says they came to “love the martial spirit” and by World War I many went to war; “400 Mennonite boys…died.”
- He describes spiritual fatigue: “tired practicing Gelassenheit…tired being humble…tired…non-exciting faith,” suggesting loss of active faith.
- They wanted to “maintain the cultural and religious traditions” for “group identity,” even while compromising.
- They knew Martyrs’ Mirror but chose to believe “the past did not apply to the present.”
- The final visible “substance loss” is formal: in 1934 they removed nonresistance from the confession and said pacifism was “dead and buried.”