Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
Dan calls local voting or town involvement a “gateway drug,” even when it feels harmless (like a gambling referendum or “dog catcher”); what criteria would you use to test whether a “small” political action is actually forming allegiance, and how would early Christians—who had no vote but had powerful public witness—have evaluated that temptation?
Another way to ask: How would you tell if a “small” local vote is actually shaping your loyalty and identity? How do you think early Christians—who couldn’t vote but still had public influence—would judge that same choice?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Dan’s criteria is less about the size of the issue and more about the direction it pulls you: does it draw you into the political system, relationships, and tribal identity that gradually reshapes loyalty? He suggests early Christians would evaluate even “small” involvement by Jesus’ example of refusing power and choosing other forms of witness.
- Dan admits his “closest temptation… has been on local issues,” like a referendum: “Does gambling come into our community?”
- Yet he calls local involvement a “gateway drug,” saying political identity usually starts “in a small way.”
- He warns voting is an “entry into a system that eventually grows within us.”
- He ties this to the danger of being “formed by politics,” conforming to “my new tribe.”
- He argues Jesus and the apostles “chose not to” engage political power, even though Jesus “could have been involved locally politically.”