Discussion Questions
The teacher opens with the Moravian Indian Christians saying, “We’re not going to fight back. We are following in the steps of the Lamb.” What picture of God and of “the Lamb” is being assumed in that statement, and how does that picture confront common Christian instincts about self-defense and protecting families? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When the Moravian Christians say, "We won’t fight back; we follow the Lamb," what kind of God and "Lamb" are they picturing? How does that challenge the common Christian idea that we must defend ourselves and our families with force?
The transcript quotes 1601 Netherlands fines for attending “preachings,” for rebaptizing, and even giving half the fine to an informer—then compares it to Revolutionary Pennsylvania. What does this parallel suggest about how “Christian” societies can treat dissenters, and what does it reveal about the kind of loyalty God expects compared to what states demand? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the example of fines in 1601 Netherlands (and the comparison to Revolutionary Pennsylvania) show about how "Christian" societies treat people who disagree? What does it suggest about the difference between what God asks for and what governments demand?
Burns (1695) is quoted saying people must swear oaths of allegiance and “sacrifice their property and blood” for the “common mother,” and that Anabaptists “cannot be tolerated.” How would early Christians—formed by Jesus’ teaching on oaths and enemy-love—have heard this language, and where do modern Christians still absorb similar “common mother” assumptions without noticing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians heard leaders demand oaths and call for "property and blood" for the "common mother," how would Jesus’ teachings about oaths and loving enemies shape their reaction? Where do Christians today pick up similar nation-first ideas without realizing it?
In the York County tar-and-feathering story, the committee labels the Mennonite youth “an enemy to the country” because he criticized warlike mustering as leading to regrets. What does that incident expose about how quickly “public safety” becomes moral permission to shame and harm others, and where do churches today use softer versions of the same tactic (labeling, exclusion, public suspicion)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the tar-and-feathering story show about how fast "public safety" can be used to justify shaming and hurting someone? Where do churches today do a softer version of this through labels, exclusion, or suspicion?
The teacher describes farms of “non-associators” being repeatedly plundered by both Continental and British foragers during the war, sometimes with receipts and sometimes without. How does this reality complicate romantic Christian storytelling about the Revolution, and what does it do to our instinct to equate one side in a conflict with “God’s cause”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the plundering of "non-associators" by both sides complicate a heroic Christian story of the Revolution? How should it warn us against assuming one side in a conflict is automatically "God’s side"?
The Lancaster County story where a sympathetic lieutenant recommends writing off Christian’s militia fines after a fire is presented as notable mercy. What does that story teach about how Christians should interpret small acts of compassion inside unjust systems—gratitude, caution, hope, or something else—and how should that shape Christian engagement with authorities? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What should Christians do with small acts of kindness inside an unfair system—be thankful, stay cautious, feel hopeful, or something else? How should that shape how Christians deal with government authorities?
The Salcon Mennonites paid taxes and fines, furnished horses and teams, and even occasionally went with drivers, yet still refused the test oath because it felt like “joining our hands to the military service.” Where is the line they are drawing, and what “cooperation” with state power do modern believers justify that earlier nonresistant Christians would likely have treated as crossing a conscience boundary? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What line were the Salcon Mennonites drawing when they would pay taxes and fines but still refuse the test oath? What kinds of cooperation with government power do Christians today excuse that earlier nonresistant believers might have said crossed the conscience line?
The inventorying and auctioning of Mennonite property (down to bolted stoves, tools, a Bible, clocks, beds) and the wives’ petition saying “not even a morsel of bread left” shows the cost of refusing the oath. What does this episode suggest about God’s purposes in allowing faithful people to be economically devastated, and how does it challenge modern evangelical expectations that obedience tends to produce protection or prosperity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If faithful people can lose almost everything for obeying God, what might God be doing or teaching through that? How does this challenge the idea that obedience usually brings safety or prosperity?
Christopher Sauer Jr. refuses the oath partly because “you have in your act that they who do not take the oath shall have not a right to buy nor sell,” which he connects to Revelation’s “mark of the beast” logic. Whether or not the Revelation link is correct, what is the underlying Christian concern about commerce being controlled by political loyalty, and where do believers today accept “buy/sell” pressures tied to ideology, party, or nationalism? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Even if Sauer’s Revelation link is wrong, what is the Christian worry when buying and selling depends on political loyalty? Where do Christians today accept pressure like that—at work, in business, or in public life—tied to ideology, party, or nationalism?
The teacher ends with the Mennonite counsel: feed the hungry, give drink, preserve life, but “no freedom…in anything by which men’s lives are destroyed or hurt,” and he cites Mennonites caring for wounded soldiers and dying of yellow fever while still refusing to “support the revolutionary army.” How does that combination—costly service to suffering people while refusing participation in violence—redefine what “love of neighbor” and “good citizenship” look like in a polarized culture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does helping suffering people at great cost while still refusing violence reshape what "loving your neighbor" looks like today? What would that kind of "good citizenship" look like in a divided culture?