Discussion Questions

The speakers say the Schleithaim Confession is “where we disagree with the Catholics and Protestants,” and also where some rebaptized would-be Anabaptists “have made some mistakes”; what does that two-sided purpose reveal about how they understood God’s desire for truth, unity, and correction inside the church? JumpstartAnother way to ask: They say the confession shows where they differ from Catholics and Protestants, and also corrects mistakes among would-be Anabaptists. What does that tell you about how they thought God wants truth, unity, and correction inside the church?

In the cover letter they emphasize being Trinitarian and not breaking with “Catholic forefathers” on the Trinity or Christ’s divinity/manhood; how does that choice challenge the modern instinct to define “reform” mainly as rejecting tradition rather than clarifying obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the cover letter they stress they still believe in the Trinity and in Jesus as fully God and fully human, like their “Catholic forefathers.” How does that challenge the idea that “reform” mainly means throwing out tradition instead of obeying more clearly?

Schleithaim’s order—baptism, ban, breaking of bread, separation, shepherds, sword, oath—is treated as meaningful; what picture of salvation and the church is created by placing discipline and communion immediately after baptism rather than jumping straight to “assurance” or private faith? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The confession lists baptism, then church discipline (the ban), then the Lord’s Supper right after. What view of salvation and the church do you get when discipline and communion come right after baptism instead of focusing first on personal assurance or private faith?

Baptism is described as for those “willing to walk in the resurrection,” not claiming perfection, and as the way someone “receive[s] the grace of God through Jesus”; how does that merge of grace and embodied intention confront common evangelical categories like “saved by grace, then maybe discipleship later”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: They say baptism is for people willing to live a new life, and that through it they receive God’s grace through Jesus. How does that challenge the common idea of “saved by grace now, discipleship maybe later”?

Stephen calls infant baptism “the first and chief abomination of the Pope” and ties it to “pagans in the pew” because people assume “I’m a Christian already”; where do you see the same dynamic in churches that reject infant baptism but still produce “pagans in the pew,” and what would Schleithaim’s diagnosis be? JumpstartAnother way to ask: They say infant baptism makes people assume they are already Christians, creating “pagans in the pew.” Where do you see that same problem in churches that don’t baptize infants, and what do you think Schleithaim would say is the cause?

The ban is framed as admonition “twice privately and the third time publicly,” aiming for awareness and restoration, yet it is also “meant business”; what fears or idolatries in us surface when we imagine a congregation actually doing this today, and what does that reveal about what we think God is like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The ban is meant to warn and restore someone, but it is also taken very seriously. What fears or “too-important things” in us show up when we imagine a church actually doing this today, and what does that say about how we picture God?

They note a sharp contrast: the church’s maximum penalty is exclusion, while Catholic/Protestant authorities used exile, confiscation, and execution; how does Schleithaim’s refusal to punish bodily forcefully expose how deeply many Christians still assume coercion is necessary to “protect truth”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: They say the church’s strongest punishment is to exclude someone, not to hurt them, while other Christian authorities used violence. How does their refusal to use force challenge the belief that coercion is needed to protect Christian truth?

On the Lord’s Supper they stress “one faith, one baptism, one body,” and appeal to 1 Corinthians 11 (“it’s not the Lord’s Supper”) against empty ritual; what would it change in your congregation if communion were treated as a visible statement about the moral/spiritual reality of the whole body rather than an individual’s private moment with Jesus? JumpstartAnother way to ask: They treat communion as a sign of “one body,” and warn against doing it as an empty ritual. How would your church change if communion showed the spiritual and moral health of the whole group, not just a private moment between you and Jesus?

In separation, Sattler divides reality into “two kingdoms… light and darkness,” and the speakers connect it to 2 Corinthians 6–7 with the promise “I will be a father to you”; what modern practices (career paths, entertainment, political identity, consumption habits) become hardest to justify if separation is treated as a condition for enjoying God’s fatherly fellowship rather than an optional “radical” lifestyle? JumpstartAnother way to ask: They talk about “two kingdoms,” light and darkness, and connect separation with enjoying God as Father. If separation is required for close fellowship with God (not just an optional radical choice), which modern habits or identities would be hardest for you to defend?

On the sword and oath, the speakers argue God ordains government “outside the perfection of Christ,” yet Christ’s followers must not engage in worldly strife, and oath-refusal disrupts loyalty-hierarchy (“Jesus is Lord… Caesar is not”); what specific loyalties (nation, party, security, rights, reputation, income) would have to be demoted in your life for these articles to be more than ideals, and what resistance do you feel rising up as you name them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: They say government is outside Christ’s way, and Jesus’ followers should not use the sword or swear oaths that compete with loyalty to him. What loyalties in your life (nation, party, safety, rights, reputation, money) would need to move down, and what pushback do you feel as you name them?