Discussion Jumpstarter

Study leader reference - not a definitive answer

Question 5

In answering whether voting is inherently sinful, Dean says their caution comes from “the leaven” of history and how involvement “mixes” kingdoms; what examples from church history (or your own story) make this “leaven” argument feel plausible—or make you want to resist it?

Another way to ask: Dean says history is like “leaven” that shows how politics can mix kingdoms and change the church. What stories from church history or your life make that seem true, or make you push back against it?

Discussion Jumpstarter

Direct Answer
Dean’s “leaven” argument is that even small political involvement can quietly reshape Christian thinking and loyalties over time, and the transcript supports this through both historical warning and personal experience.

Support from Transcript:

Dean says they don’t treat voting as automatically sinful: “we both do not view voting as a sin in and of itself.”
Yet his caution comes from “the leaven… looking at historical theology and looking at what's happened to the church.”
He warns about mixing kingdoms: involvement can make what should be “foreign to us” feel normal.
David gives a personal “leaven” story: starting with local tax referendums became “a slippery slope… six years later, I was voting in the presidential election.”
Dean notes a common pattern: people who won’t vote on major issues will vote when “it would cost us money,” which reveals how motivations can shift.

Discussion Follow-ups What parts of Dean’s “leaven” framing feel persuasive because you’ve watched it happen in others—or yourself? What objections come up (for example, “but local issues are different”), and how would the transcript respond?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10