Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
Christina recounts being accused by her Kansas church of “joining a cult” and being “under law,” and she says she lost many relationships; what does her experience force us to examine about how modern Christians use “grace” language to dismiss concrete obedience, and how do we discern the difference between life-giving discipline and legalism?
Another way to ask: Her old church said she joined a cult and was “under law,” and she lost relationships. How does this make us question how Christians use “grace” to reject real obedience, and how can we tell the difference between healthy discipline and legalism?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Her experience forces examination of how “cult” or “under law” accusations can be used to discredit visible, concrete obedience—especially when someone’s life choices start to look different. In the transcript, the main test she offers is long-term fruit: over many years she remained “the same person,” still pursuing what she believed was right, not collapsing into bondage.
- She says her Grace Assembly church reacted strongest: “Sent me letters and said I was joining a cult and I was under law.”
- The cost was relational: “I lost a lot of people, actually. And especially my own family.”
- She notes time revealed reality: “it took them about 15 to 16 years to see that I’m still the same person… I just look different.”
- She links her Mennonite draw to sincere obedience: people “honestly trying to do what’s right,” and friends “would support it by the Bible.”
- She describes non-coercive discipline: no one “force[d]” dress or covering; she was “let…make that decision,” suggesting structure without compulsion.