Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

Discussion Jumpstarter

Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 5
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?
Another 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?
Discussion Jumpstarter

Direct Answer
The speaker says the political victory of prohibition came with heavy spiritual and communal costs: political “leaven” entrenched itself, church witness became confused, nonresistance credibility was weakened, and government pressure compromised church integrity. This challenges the idea that winning a moral issue politically automatically strengthens the church.

Support from Transcript:
  • He notes the win: the 18th Amendment passed December 18, 1917, outlawing alcohol, showing political activism can achieve short-term results.
  • He highlights how short-lived it was: in 1933 Roosevelt signed a bill allowing alcohol again, quoting, “I think this would be a good time for a beer.”
  • He describes deeper repercussions: “the political leaven… entrenched itself into the fabric of conservative Christians, including the Anabaptists.”
  • Political success helped propel a Brethren leader into power: Brumbaugh becomes governor—an unintended outcome of political engagement.
  • Judy Yoder’s report shows confusion and compromise: elders issued an anti-military statement but it was “quickly withdrawn under government pressure,” leaving members unsure “where their church stood.”
  • The witness problem affected conscientious objection: draft boards questioned pacifism because leaders were politically involved (“how could you say you’re a pacifist?”).
Discussion Follow-ups If a political “win” is reversed later, what remains in the church afterward—deeper holiness and clarity, or deeper entanglement and confusion? What outcomes should the church measure besides policy success?