Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
Chester notes that Mennonites agreed violence shouldn’t be used against Jews, yet affirmed “legal restrictions were proper,” and “that attitude was all the Nazis really needed”; what kinds of “nonviolent” complicity can a believer participate in while still claiming innocence, and how do you discern the moment when “passive and silent” becomes participation?
Another way to ask: What “nonviolent” choices can still help evil grow while someone claims they stayed innocent? How do you know when staying quiet stops being neutral and becomes taking part?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The speaker presents “nonviolent” complicity as supporting or accepting unjust policies—staying passive, endorsing “legal restrictions,” and refusing to intervene—while telling oneself, “at least we aren’t using violence.” Discernment, in the transcript’s logic, comes when your passivity helps evil advance, making you guilty alongside the evildoer.
- Chester says German Mennonites “engaged in anti-Semitic communication… verbally and in print.”
- He summarizes their moral compromise: they “agreed that violence should not be used against Jews, but that legal restrictions were proper.”
- He gives the chilling conclusion: “This attitude was all the Nazis really needed to implement their final solution. The German Mennonites would be passive and silent.”
- He contrasts this with active resistance: “the Quakers… refused to be passive and silent, actively aiding the Jews.”
- He quotes Ambrose of Milan to define guilt through inaction: “He who knows evil is being done and does nothing to stop it, is guilty with the evildoer.”
- He adds a local example: Mennonites “did not help Jews or hide Jews. It was too dangerous.”