Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 7
He argued that when Anabaptists got drawn into voting movements (Prohibition, a Brethren governor calling out militia, loyalty oaths), it compromised their nonresistant testimony and worsened suffering during WWI; what parts of that historical warning feel uncomfortably relevant now, and how might “good causes” become a doorway to losing a distinct kingdom witness?
Another way to ask: What parts of the Anabaptists getting pulled into political causes feel similar to what’s happening today? How can “good causes” slowly make a church lose its clear kingdom witness?

Direct Answer Taylor’s warning is that “good causes” can pull peace churches into political trust and compromise, and then outsiders see hypocrisy—weakening nonresistant testimony and even increasing persecution or pressure in wartime.

Support from Transcript:

  • He cites Jesus’ warning: “Beware the leaven of Herod,” applying it to political influence creeping into the church.
  • He recounts Prohibition-era pressure: people “knock on… Amish… doors… you’ve just got to vote for this,” and voting “began to grow.”
  • He gives an outcome: they ended up with an Anabaptist governor (Brethren) who “called out a militia,” “breaking against his non-resistance attitude.”
  • He notes further compromise: the governor’s cabinet had “loyalty oaths.”
  • He describes the testimony problem: people said, “what do you mean you’re non-resistant?… your bishop’s running for president.”
  • He connects it to suffering: Anabaptists “fared worse… during World War I… I think it was for some of this compromise.”
Discussion Follow-ups What “surely you have to vote for this” arguments are strongest today, and why? How do we keep compassion for social evils from becoming faith in political solutions?