Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 8
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?
Another 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?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
According to Chester, when conscience becomes mainly “God and I” without the church’s shared discernment, people can justify compromises privately and still feel sincere, especially when the culture pressures them. Collective accountability—brothers watching out for one another and holding a shared confession like nonresistance—would have made it harder to drift into Nazi cooperation.
- He says historic Anabaptists hold both individual and group conscience: “God relates to us individually, but he also relates to us as a group.”
- He states, “No man is in Christ apart from his brother,” emphasizing mutual responsibility.
- He contrasts this with an individualized Protestant mindset: “You do your thing. I’ll do my thing.”
- He connects individualized theology + conservative politics to the outcome: “that’s how you get Mennonite German Nazis, minus the two kingdom concept.”
- Evidence of weakened collective guardrails: in 1934 the conference removed nonresistance from the written confession; leaders publicly declared pacifism abandoned.