Question 1

Conrad Grebel’s phrase “Use the word to form a Church of Christ” implies that a “church” is something that can be deliberately formed rather than merely attended—what does that suggest about God’s intent for how Christians become a real ecclesia instead of a religious crowd?

Accepted Answer

**Direct Answer**
Based on the speaker’s teaching, God intends Christians to *use Scripture (“the word”)* to actively shape a real, accountable fellowship—an ecclesia with shared responsibility—rather than just gather as a religious audience.

**Support from Transcript:**
• The speaker says the Swiss scholar explained Grebel’s phrase as: “Use the word to form a Church of Christ.”
• He contrasts merely having “the Church” or “the Reformed Church” with Grebel’s desire to “still… form a Church.”
• He ties forming church to Matthew 18 as a practical process: “Go talk to the guy… take somebody else… tell it to the Church.”
• He insists “There was no Church… Ecclesia,” meaning a living assembly, not a building.
• The ecclesia must “make a call… You bind or you loose,” and “heaven will back you in that function.”

**Discussion Follow-ups**
If church is something formed, what habits (conversation, correction, reconciliation) would have to become normal for us to stop being a crowd and start being an ecclesia?

Question 2

The speaker says Conrad “still wants to form a Church” even though “you had the Church, and then you had the Reformed Church”—what line is being drawn here, and what would have to change in our congregations for us to honestly say we are “forming” Christ’s church rather than inheriting a religious institution?

Accepted Answer

**Direct Answer**
The transcript suggests the “line” is between inheriting established religious structures and intentionally forming a Christ-shaped fellowship through obedience to Jesus’ teachings (especially Matthew 18) and shared responsibility.

**Support from Transcript:**
• The speaker notes: “you had the Church, and then you had the Reformed Church, but Conrad still wants to form a Church.”
• He calls this “drawing a line, starting from there,” implying a decisive break in how church is understood.
• The forming happens through action: “Use the word to form a fellowship in which you are responsible.”
• Matthew 18 is presented as the model for community life, not just private faith: “Go by Matthew 18.”
• “Tell it to the Church” is not institutional process with a building; it is “Ecclesia.”
• The church must “bind or loose,” making real judgments rather than simply applying external “rules.”

**Discussion Follow-ups**
What would it look like if our congregation measured “being church” by our ability to practice Matthew 18 and maintain peace, rather than by our history, name, or denominational identity?

Question 3

In the speaker’s reading of Matthew 18, Jesus begins with relationship (“Go talk to the guy”) rather than starting with “What about sin?”—what does that reveal about God’s priorities in dealing with wrongdoing, and where does modern Christian instinct reverse that order?

Accepted Answer

**Direct Answer**
The speaker teaches that God’s priority is restoring relationship through direct, personal engagement, while modern instincts often lead with labeling sin and distancing from the person.

**Support from Transcript:**
• He frames Matthew 18 as “about relationship.”
• He recalls criticism Jesus received: “You fellowship with sinners,” showing Jesus did not begin with exclusion.
• He critiques a common reflex: “When something comes up, first we say, ‘What about sin?’ Jesus didn’t start there.”
• Jesus’ first step is personal: “Go talk to the guy. Maybe he won’t listen.”
• The process is relational and communal: “Or take somebody else… But when you find he won’t listen, tell it to the Church.”
• The goal is not mere rule enforcement but a community capable of binding/loosing within relationships.

**Discussion Follow-ups**
Where do we tend to skip the first step—private conversation—and replace it with public labeling, gossip, or immediate institutional action?

Question 4

The speaker challenges the idea of “tell it to the Church” meaning speaking to a building and insists “There was no Church… Ecclesia”—how would early Christians have experienced “telling it to the church,” and what practices today keep us from functioning as an actual accountable assembly?

Accepted Answer

**Direct Answer**
Based on the transcript, early Christians would have experienced “telling it to the church” as bringing a matter before the gathered, relational assembly that could make a real decision, not as reporting it to a building-based institution.

**Support from Transcript:**
• The speaker asks pointedly: “Go and stand in front of a Church with a building… and talk to it? There was no Church.”
• He identifies the biblical word: “Ecclesia,” meaning the assembly.
• The assembly’s job is to decide: “And then make a call. You bind or you loose.”
• He emphasizes heaven’s support for that communal function: “Heaven will back you in that function.”
• He contrasts this with a passive approach: not “ask, ‘Heaven, what’s the rule here?’ and we’ll apply it.”
• The church is meant to be a fellowship where members “take the responsibility” for these decisions.

**Discussion Follow-ups**
What current habits (spectator worship, individualism, fear of confrontation) keep our gatherings from acting like an assembly that can actually hear a case and respond together?

Question 5

“Heaven will back you in that function… Not ask, ‘Heaven, what’s the rule here?’… Use your brain. That was given by God.”—what view of God’s trust in the church is being assumed here, and what fears do Christians have about taking that kind of responsibility?

Accepted Answer

**Direct Answer**
The speaker assumes God entrusts the gathered church with real authority and expects them to use God-given wisdom to make decisions, while Christians often fear making mistakes or being blamed for exercising that authority.

**Support from Transcript:**
• He says: “Heaven will back you in that function,” referring to binding and loosing.
• He rejects a purely rule-consulting posture: “Not ask, ‘Heaven, what’s the rule here?’ and we’ll apply it.”
• He commands practical wisdom: “Use your brain. That was given by God.”
• He calls this “radical,” implying it demands courage and maturity.
• He clarifies there is no perfection guarantee: “There’s no promise you will always get it right.”
• He notes even Conrad “didn’t get some things right,” yet the responsibility remains.

**Discussion Follow-ups**
Are we more afraid of making a wrong call, or of the relational cost of making any call at all? How might that fear push us toward either harsh binding or endless loosing?

Question 6

The speaker calls it “radical” that the church must make real decisions to “bind or loose” without a guarantee of always being right—how does this confront common evangelical approaches that try to avoid communal judgment through private spirituality, strict rulebooks, or “only God can judge”?

Accepted Answer

**Direct Answer**
The speaker’s point confronts avoidance strategies by insisting Jesus’ plan requires the church to make communal, relational judgments—binding or loosing—rather than escaping into private faith or hiding behind impersonal rules.

**Support from Transcript:**
• He stresses Matthew 18 is a church process: “tell it to the Church… And then make a call. You bind or you loose.”
• He says the church is not to merely consult heaven for rules: “Not ask, ‘Heaven, what’s the rule here?’… Use your brain.”
• He calls this responsibility “radical,” suggesting it goes beyond comfortable religion.
• He explicitly denies a promise of perfect correctness: “There’s no promise you will always get it right.”
• He frames binding/loosing as necessary to Jesus’ plan: “Without binding and loosing, you don’t have Jesus’s plan.”
• His baseball analogy implies avoiding judgment destroys the game itself: without an umpire, it isn’t baseball.

**Discussion Follow-ups**
What “spiritual” phrases or systems do we use to avoid the hard work of communal decision-making? How might those strategies actually undercut Jesus’ design for the church?

Question 7

“I grew up in a culture that did nothing but bind. Now I’m living in one that does nothing but loose.”—what do “binding-only” and “loosing-only” churches look like in real life (discipline, membership, pastoral care, conflict), and what does a faithful balance require that neither side wants to do?

Accepted Answer

**Direct Answer**
From the transcript, “binding-only” and “loosing-only” represent two unhealthy extremes: one always condemns and restricts, the other always excuses and avoids decisions; faithful balance requires a church willing to make real, relational calls aimed at peace.

**Support from Transcript:**
• The speaker’s personal contrast: “I grew up in a culture that did nothing but bind. Now I’m living in one that does nothing but loose.”
• He treats binding/loosing as Jesus’ intended church function: “You bind or you loose.”
• The process is relational, not abstract: “Go talk to the guy… take somebody else… tell it to the Church.”
• He says he wants a fellowship that can come to the Lord’s table and “declares that it is at peace.”
• He warns against refusing the “ump” role: “Without the ump, you don’t have baseball… without binding and loosing, you don’t have Jesus’s plan.”
• He acknowledges fallibility: no promise of always being right, yet decisions must be made.

**Discussion Follow-ups**
What would it look like for a church to both confront real wrong and also genuinely pursue restoration—without collapsing into either harshness or permissiveness?

Question 8

The speaker wants a fellowship that, at the Lord’s table, “declares that it is at peace… It’s not just between me and Jesus… the supper of unity”—what would it cost (relationally and practically) to make communion a public statement of reconciled relationships rather than an individual moment with God?

Accepted Answer

**Direct Answer**
The transcript suggests it would cost us the hard work of pursuing peace with each other—using Matthew 18 conversations and communal accountability—so that the Lord’s table represents unity, not just private devotion.

**Support from Transcript:**
• He states his desire: “I want to live in a fellowship that when it comes to the Lord’s table, declares that it is at peace.”
• He rejects a purely individual framing: “It’s not just between me and Jesus.”
• He names the original meaning: “the supper of unity, Conrad Grebel said.”
• He links peace to relational processes: Matthew 18 begins with “Go talk to the guy,” then involves others, then the ecclesia.
• The church must take responsibility: “Use the word to form a fellowship in which you are responsible.”
• Binding/loosing implies practical decisions that affect fellowship, not merely personal feelings.

**Discussion Follow-ups**
What relationships would need attention before communion if we treated it as a declaration of peace? What church practices would help people actually reconcile rather than just sit quietly together?

Conrad Grebel: “Use the Word to Form a Church” - John Ruth

Description

🎧 Audio Player with Transcript

Playlist

Playlist

Conrad Grebel: “Use the Word to Form a Church” - John Ruth

Description

🎧 Audio Player with Transcript

Add to Playlist

Playlist

Playlist