Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 10
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?
Another 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?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript presents love of neighbor as active, costly service to anyone in need—even wounded soldiers—while still refusing any action that directly supports killing or harm. It redefines “good citizenship” as preserving life and serving all people, without letting political causes demand participation in violence.
- The Mennonite counsel says those who cannot take up arms should be “helpful to those who are in need,” and to act “with cheerfulness towards all men.”
- Their stated principle: “feed the hungry and give the thirsty drink,” and “serve all men in everything…helpful to the preservation of men’s life.”
- Their limit is explicit: “We find no freedom in giving or doing or assisting in anything by which men’s lives are destroyed or hurt.”
- The speaker cites Mennonites at the “Effort of Cloister…helping the wounded from like Valley Forge,” showing compassion across political lines.
- He notes the cost: soldiers died of “yellow fever,” and “the Mennonite men and women died from yellow fever,” yet they still refused to “support the revolutionary army.”