Discussion Jumpstarter

Study leader reference - not a definitive answer

Question 5

The speaker says fundamentalism helped with real reforms (teetotalism, resisting some moral collapse, maintaining creationism), yet insists it also “turned the Anabaptists away from their own story”; how should Christians discern when a “borrowed” movement is a helpful corrective versus a spiritual takeover?

Another way to ask: How can Christians tell when a movement they “borrow” is a helpful correction and when it starts taking over their faith and identity? What signs would you look for?

Discussion Jumpstarter

Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s approach, discernment means admitting borrowed movements can bring real benefits, but testing whether the “solution” replaces discipleship to Christ and the Anabaptist story with rule-making, individualism, and a different center of authority.

Support from Transcript:

He explicitly grants benefits: fundamentalists helped them move from brewing/drinking to “teetotalism,” and he says, “we are indebted to fundamentalism for helping us get rid of alcohol.”
He says moral crisis (movies, sex/violence, advertising, consumerism) pushed churches to respond, but the borrowed method was: “we make rules against it.”
He calls rule-reliance “opposite…not a part of the Anabaptist story,” because Anabaptism is “a living…relationship with Jesus Christ.”
He also notes a positive on creation: “We never lost our creationism…not everything…was negative.”
He warns the takeover effect: fundamentalism “turned the Anabaptists away from their own story,” shifting from “God and we” to “God and I.”

Discussion Follow-ups What fruit do you see when your group “borrows” an outside emphasis—more discipleship, or more control? What signs would indicate the borrowed tool is now defining Christianity more than Christ is?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10