Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
The speaker challenges the Quaker-style workaround of swapping “swear” with “affirm,” arguing Jesus isn’t playing word games, then tells his conscientious objector story where the judge asked, “Will you tell the truth?”; what would faithful obedience look like if it cost you time, opportunities, money, or legal friction the way it did for him?
Another way to ask: The speaker says Jesus isn’t just playing word games like replacing “swear” with “affirm,” and tells a story where the judge asked, “Will you tell the truth?” What would obeying Jesus look like if it cost you time, money, opportunities, or legal trouble?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Faithful obedience, in the speaker’s framing, means refusing the oath-system even when it creates inconvenience, and choosing clear truthful speech (“yes” or “no”) with whatever practical cost follows. It may involve negotiating alternatives, editing documents, and patiently bearing delays rather than smoothing things over with verbal loopholes.
- He says Jesus’ teaching “isn’t a matter of playing word games,” not merely “swear versus affirm.”
- He critiques rewriting the military oath with “affirm” and removing “so help me God,” asking, “Does it work?… the obvious answer here is no,” because the commitment still conflicts with other teachings.
- In his conscientious objector trial, he “rejected the whole premise about taking the oath,” and worked out an alternative: the judge asked, “Will you tell the truth?” and he answered “Yes.”
- He gives a concrete costly practice: with legal documents he will “cross out the swear… and send it back,” even though “it takes me an extra two weeks.”
- He warns many people skip it because “it really costs me too much,” which he frames as ignoring Jesus’ implications.