Discussion Questions

John Ruth describes his Zurich visit as “existential” and calls Conrad Grebel’s September 5, 1524 letter a “break in history” he can “imagine himself” in; what does that way of telling the story suggest about God’s providence and about whether God forms a people through specific historical “markers” rather than only private spiritual experiences? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Ruth tells the Zurich story like he can “step into it” and calls Grebel’s letter a turning point. What does that suggest about God guiding history and using real events to form a people, not just private spiritual moments?

The speaker notes that Grebel’s defining letter came four months before the first “true Christian baptism” request (“For God’s sake, give me true Christian baptism”); what does it imply about early Anabaptist priorities that Grebel was already talking about forming the church and obedience to Jesus before the movement’s signature practice had begun? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Grebel talked about building the church and obeying Jesus months before the first believer’s baptism happened. What does that say about what early Anabaptists cared about most at the start?

John Ruth recounts Grebel’s shift from Renaissance ambition and moral mess (“goofing off,” “skirt chaser,” venereal disease) to being “swollen” by hearing Scripture preached in the common tongue; how does this narrative challenge modern expectations that God mainly uses the already-disciplined and respectable to launch reform? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Grebel went from chasing status and making a mess of his life to being changed by hearing Scripture in everyday language. How does that story challenge the idea that God mostly uses “good,” respectable people to start reform?

Grebel’s conscience is pierced by realizing his scholarship is funded by taxes that crush peasants (“half of their produce”); what does that moment reveal about God’s concern for economic injustice, and how might early Christians have expected discipleship to reach into the moral logic of how you are supported financially? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Grebel realized his education was paid for by taxes that crushed poor peasants. What does that show about God’s concern for unfair money systems, and how should discipleship affect how we think about the money that supports us?

The speaker contrasts Luther’s “be realistic… that’s why we need grace” approach with Grebel’s “Let’s do it. Let’s read the Sermon on the Mount”; where do you see your own Christianity leaning toward “grace as the solution” in a way that functions as permission to stay unchanged, and what would “let’s do it” obedience actually cost in your context? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Luther says, “Be realistic—we need grace,” but Grebel says, “Let’s obey what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount.” Where do you use “grace” as an excuse to not change, and what would real obedience cost you?

Grebel tells Müntzer, “Don’t be surprised… we call you brother,” grounding brotherhood in “sticking to the scriptures,” and John Ruth says for Grebel it was “not about doctrine… not about politics… it was about relationship… reconciliation”; how does that reframe challenge the way modern Christians decide who counts as “brother” and what church conflicts are really about? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Grebel calls Müntzer “brother” because he is trying to stick to Scripture, and Ruth says it was mostly about relationship and reconciliation, not politics or winning arguments. How does that challenge how Christians today decide who is “in” and what our church fights are really about?

In discussing Matthew 18, John Ruth emphasizes “binding and loosing” as a God-backed responsibility (“Use your brain that was given by God… there’s no promise you will always get it right”); what would it require for a congregation today to take that kind of communal authority seriously without becoming abusive or cowardly? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Ruth says “binding and loosing” in Matthew 18 is a serious church responsibility backed by God, even though we might get it wrong. What would it take for a church today to practice that kind of shared authority without becoming controlling or avoiding hard issues?

The speaker calls the Lord’s Supper “the supper of unity” that “must not be done without Matthew 18 and love,” and he laments communion without “preparatory service”; what concrete changes would need to happen in how your church approaches communion if you actually believed taking it while unreconciled is a contradiction of the gospel? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Ruth says communion is a “supper of unity” and shouldn’t be taken without love and Matthew 18-style reconciliation. If your church really believed taking communion while unreconciled denies the gospel, what would need to change in how you do it?

John Ruth draws a sharp line: “Christians don’t use the sword… with killing ist gar abgetan,” contrasting Grebel with Zwingli’s Bible-and-sword statue and noting most Anabaptists who carried the sword died out; what does this claim expose about God’s kingdom and power, and where do Christians today still try to secure righteousness through coercion, state force, or “necessary” violence? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Ruth says Christians shouldn’t use the sword, and he contrasts Grebel with Zwingli’s Bible-and-sword approach. What does this say about God’s kingdom and power, and where do Christians today still rely on force, the state, or “necessary” violence to get what they think is right?

The speaker says his church culture once “did nothing but bind” and now “does nothing but loose,” and he grieves that Anabaptist history produced “split after split” even though it was born from reconciliation; what do you think drives Christians to split rather than do the slower work of Matthew 18, and how might a community pursue unity without sliding into either rigid control or “everybody does what’s right in their own eyes”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Ruth says his church used to only “bind,” now it only “looses,” and he laments all the splits in Anabaptist history. Why do Christians choose splitting over the slower work of Matthew 18, and how can a church seek unity without harsh control or “everyone does whatever they want”?