Discussion Questions

The early Anabaptists preferred the term “defenseless Christians” rather than “non-resistant”; what did they think that wording communicated about following Jesus in a world where “all the other Christians were connected to the state”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why did early Anabaptists call themselves “defenseless Christians” instead of “non-resistant”? What did that say about following Jesus when most other Christians were tied to the government?

The speaker describes a Reformation pattern of judging “heretics,” handing them to the state, and the state executing them; what does this history expose about how Christians can use power to solve doctrinal problems, and what does it imply about God’s priorities for protecting “truth”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the history of Christians labeling “heretics,” handing them to the state, and having them executed show about using power to fix belief problems? What might it say about what God cares about most when it comes to protecting “truth”?

The Anabaptists tied excommunication to nonviolence—“we may have to expel him, but…we want him to come back”; how does that goal reshape what church discipline is for, and what would have to change in our instincts when someone is “potentially corrupting the church”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If excommunication is meant to help someone come back, how does that change the purpose of church discipline? What would we need to change in ourselves when we think someone is harming the church?

The speaker says the key Reformation-era issue wasn’t mainly military conscription but “Do we use the state to discipline in the church?”; where do Christians today still rely on state power (directly or indirectly) to accomplish what we call “church work,” and how might that reliance contradict being “defenseless”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do Christians today still depend on the government (directly or indirectly) to do what we call church work? How could that clash with being “defenseless”?

Erasmus’s Greek New Testament helped people see they were “called to do something beyond… the Old Testament” by “lay[ing] our lives down”; what picture of God is assumed when Christians believe the New Testament raises the bar beyond permitted Old Testament actions, and what parts of Jesus’ teaching do we most resist reading that way? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the New Testament calls Christians to go beyond what the Old Testament allowed, what does that assume about what God is like? Which parts of Jesus’ teaching do we most resist reading as a higher standard?

Schleitheim is summarized as: Christians “walk in the life of the resurrection,” “live in the perfection of Christ,” and “the sword is not part of the perfection of Christ”; what do those phrases suggest early Anabaptists thought resurrection-life should look like in public conflict, not just private morality? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What did early Anabaptists think “resurrection life” should look like during public conflict, not just in private behavior? Why did they say “the sword” doesn’t fit the “perfection of Christ”?

The speaker claims Augustine’s adoption of Cicero’s restraints and his call to “defend the social order” made Christian participation in government and war seem “better”; what assumptions about God’s kingdom and the world are embedded in “keeping things functioning well,” and where do you hear the same logic in modern Christian political engagement? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What beliefs about God’s kingdom and the world are behind the idea that Christians should help “keep society running well,” even through government and war? Where do you hear the same idea in Christian politics today?

The transcript mentions early church pastoral accommodation: baptizing soldiers who “promise not to kill,” even though refusing battle could mean execution; what does that decision reveal about early Christian ethics and discipleship costs, and how does it challenge modern expectations of safety, rights, and religious freedom? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does baptizing soldiers who promised not to kill—even if that could get them executed—show about early Christian ethics and the cost of following Jesus? How does that challenge our modern focus on safety, rights, and religious freedom?

The speaker says medieval Christians “still knew this wasn’t really what God wanted,” shown by confession manuals parsing whether a soldier knew he killed; what does that lingering unease suggest about conscience and the Gospels, and how do Christians today manage (or silence) similar unease about violence done “for good reasons”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it mean that medieval Christians still seemed uneasy about killing, shown by confession questions about whether a soldier knew he killed someone? How do Christians today deal with that same kind of unease about violence done “for good reasons”?

The speaker distinguishes “pacifists” who may fight when “justice is on our side” from the non-resistant person who will not even defend himself because he sees “the image of God” in the enemy; what would have to change in your view of justice, self-preservation, and the image of God to accept that “thorough” logic—and where does modern evangelical teaching about grace, freedom, or “protecting your family” most collide with it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would need to change in how you think about justice, self-defense, and the image of God to refuse even protecting yourself from an enemy? Where does modern evangelical teaching (like “protect your family” or ideas about freedom and grace) most clash with that view?