Discussion Questions
Chester says the Russian Mennonites were granted “the right to operate their own commonwealth” and became “a state within a state,” which he says “violated the founding principles of the Anabaptist movement.” What exactly gets lost (spiritually and practically) when a church community takes on law enforcement, taxation, and punishment—even if it is “only their own people”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What is lost, both spiritually and in daily life, when a church starts acting like a government by collecting taxes, enforcing laws, and punishing its own members?
The Russian arrangement required that “to own land, one needed to be a member of the Mennonite church,” and “you could not vote unless you owned land.” How does tying church membership to property and political rights reshape what “baptism” and “church” mean, and what parallels can you see in how modern Christians tie belonging to social or economic advantage? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you must be Mennonite to own land, and must own land to vote, how does that change what baptism and the church mean? Do you see Christians today linking “belonging” to money, status, or other advantages?
Harry Loewen is quoted saying they were loyal to the tsar but “did not identify with the Russian people,” and many never learned Russian. How would early Christians—who called themselves “sojourners” yet crossed ethnic boundaries—evaluate a deliberately isolated Christian “island” that doesn’t integrate with or evangelize its neighbors? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How might early Christians judge a Christian group that stays separate, doesn’t learn the local language, and doesn’t reach out to its neighbors?
Chester describes prosperity as feeling like “one continuous soft summer evening,” and says some believed wealth proved “a sign of a godly life.” Where do you see a similar assumption in today’s Christian culture (including Anabaptist or evangelical forms), and what spiritual dangers did the Russian Mennonite story expose in that belief? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do Christians today assume that wealth proves God’s favor, and what dangers does the Russian Mennonite story show in that way of thinking?
He claims “many Mennonites developed an attitude of superiority,” seeing Lutherans/Catholics as “a notch lower” and Russian hired hands as “definitely inferior.” What specific practices or habits usually accompany that kind of superiority (speech, hiring, schooling, marriage, church discipline), and how might those same patterns show up in our communities while we still tell ourselves we’re being “separate”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What habits usually go with feeling superior to others (how people talk, hire, educate, marry, or discipline), and how could those same patterns exist in our churches even when we call it being “separate”?
In the land crisis, “two-thirds…had no votes,” ministers were among the landholding class, and the landless finally went “directly to the Russian government.” What does this episode reveal about how power works inside a religious community, and what would “love for neighbor” have looked like in concrete decisions about land, inheritance, and opportunity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does this land crisis show about who really has power in a church community, and what would loving your neighbor have looked like in real choices about land, inheritance, and opportunity?
Chester highlights Johann Cornies as a man who modernized agriculture and education, yet threatened opponents with exile and drew resentment for working closely with outsiders. How do you discern when reform is faithful stewardship versus when “progress” starts subordinating the church to the state or to economic success? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can you tell when change is good stewardship, and when “progress” starts making the church serve the state or money instead of God?
The Russian officials told the Mennonites, “We have rooms full of files concerning quarrels and fights within your settlements,” questioning why they should keep military exemption when the Mennonites weren’t “non-resistant with their own people.” What forms can “violence” take inside a nonviolent church (boycotts, social shaming, legal pressure, job loss), and why might those be more spiritually revealing than whether a group carries weapons? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What kinds of “violence” can happen inside a nonviolent church (like shaming, boycotts, or getting someone fired), and why might that reveal the heart more than whether people carry weapons?
Chester says the traditional Mennonites persecuted the renewal movements: teachers lost jobs, business owners were boycotted, and some men were “jailed and beaten,” yet later renewal “improved the quality of spiritual life” for the wider community. What does this suggest about God’s willingness to use disruptive renewal, and how should a church respond when threatened by a spiritually serious minority? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If renewal movements were attacked but later helped the church’s spiritual life, what does that say about God using uncomfortable change? How should a church respond when a serious minority challenges the way things are?
In the Mexico discussion, Chester says “ignorance is bliss” became a guiding concept and cites Proverbs 1: God warns, people refuse wisdom, then “God says, ‘and I’m going to laugh at you.’” What does this teaching suggest about God’s character toward willful ignorance, and what specific “wisdom-getting” choices (education, language learning, reading, teaching standards, openness to counsel) would repentance look like for communities tempted to equate simplicity with not knowing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Proverbs 1 suggest God is like when people choose to stay ignorant, and what practical steps toward wisdom (learning, reading, education, listening to counsel) would real repentance look like for a community that treats “simplicity” as not knowing?