Discussion Questions
The speaker says his “bigger concern” is not voting itself but that Christians have “lost your calling” and become salt that has “lost its flavor”; what specific signs did he point to (sermons, conversations, social media, rallies), and how would a church know it has crossed from civic interest into losing its witness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He said the real worry isn’t voting but Christians losing their “salt” and their witness. What signs did he point to (sermons, talks, social media, rallies), and how can a church tell when it has moved from normal civic interest to harming its witness?
The teaching contrasts two God-given institutions: governments “to rule…with a sword” and the church as “embassies of the kingdom of heaven”; what does that division reveal about God’s intentions for how change happens in the world, and what kinds of “good causes” tempt us to blur the line? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He says God gave governments the “sword” and made the church an “embassy of heaven.” What does that say about how God wants change to happen, and what “good causes” make Christians mix the two roles?
He warns that “the leaven of Herod” is political involvement that quietly works through the church; where do you see the “leaven” starting in the historical examples (prohibition, temperance leagues, revivalism language, loyalty oaths), and what would be the modern equivalents of those first small steps? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He calls “the leaven of Herod” small political involvement that slowly spreads in the church. In the examples he gave (prohibition, temperance groups, revival talk, loyalty oaths), what were the first small steps, and what would similar first steps look like today?
The speaker argues, “If there hasn’t been a repentance in this Constantinian synthesis…given similar circumstances again, [it] will very likely once again create the same result”; what would “repentance” look like at the level of theology and church practice rather than just individual voting choices? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He says without repentance from the “Constantinian synthesis,” the church will repeat the same mistakes when it gets power again. What would that repentance look like in what the church teaches and practices, not just in how individuals vote?
In the World War I section, prohibition is presented as an issue “any self-respecting Christian would vote for,” and it did achieve the 18th Amendment briefly; what “collateral damage” did he say followed for the Brethren/Mennonites, and how does that challenge the modern assumption that political wins automatically strengthen Christian influence? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Prohibition seemed like something every good Christian should support, and it even became law for a while. What harm did he say it caused for Brethren/Mennonites, and how does that question the idea that political wins always help Christian influence?
The Brumbaugh story includes an Anabaptist governor calling out a militia to quiet rebels and treating WWI as a “holy war” with cabinet loyalty oaths; what does that progression suggest about what political power does to people who begin with nonresistant convictions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the Brumbaugh story, an Anabaptist governor used the militia, treated WWI like a “holy war,” and required loyalty oaths. What does this show about what political power can do to people who start with nonresistant beliefs?
Judy Yoder’s quote describes Brethren confusion when a nonresistant statement was “quickly withdrawn under government pressure,” while they had “worked hand in hand” with other churches in reform and missions; what does this expose about the cost of seeking broad coalitions, and where do you feel that same pressure to conform today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Judy Yoder said Brethren were shocked when their nonresistant statement was quickly pulled back because of government pressure, after working closely with other churches. What does this show about the price of joining big coalitions, and where do you feel pressure today to go along to fit in?
The speaker quotes the telegrams to Hitler praising a “powerful revival that God has given our nation through your energy” and celebrating a government that “professes God as creator” and “protects the family”; what parallels did he want listeners to notice about how Christians interpret political movements as spiritual renewal, and what heart-level desires make that kind of language persuasive? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He read telegrams to Hitler that called his movement a “revival” from God and praised his pro-family, pro-God language. What similar pattern did he want us to see in how Christians talk about political movements today, and what wants in our hearts make that kind of talk feel convincing?
He claims, “The worst atrocities…have been committed by men who think they do God a service,” and then shows Mennonite SS units, Nazi flags in colonies, and churches mixing cross and swastika; how should that history reshape how early Christians’ two-kingdom assumptions would view national loyalty, slogans, and “Christian nation” rhetoric? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He said terrible crimes can be done by people who think they are serving God, and showed examples like Mennonite SS units and churches using both the cross and the swastika. How should that history change how we think about national loyalty, patriotic slogans, and “Christian nation” talk?
The speaker repeats Joshua’s encounter—“Are you for us or for our adversaries?”—and the answer “Nay,” applying it to “Who would Jesus vote for?”; how does that “Nay” confront the modern evangelical habit of equating faithfulness with taking a partisan side, and what concrete practices would help a congregation live as “what is to become” instead? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Joshua asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” and the answer was “No,” and he used that to answer “Who would Jesus vote for?” How does that challenge the idea that faithfulness means picking a party, and what specific things could a church do to live as “what is to become” instead?