Discussion Questions

Edsel Burge says the 1725 Pennsylvania leaders adopted the Dordrecht Confession partly so English authorities could see, “We’re peaceful…we aren’t rebellious”; what does that reveal about how these Mennonites understood God’s purposes for the church in relation to the state, and what did they assume the state needed to hear? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Mennonite leaders adopted the Dordrecht Confession to look peaceful to English rulers, what does that show about how they thought the church should relate to the government? What did they think the government needed to hear from them?

Burge calls “Anabaptist” an “awful term,” arguing it’s an opponents’ accusation (“we’re not rebaptizers”); how does accepting—or rejecting—an opponents’ label shape a community’s self-understanding, and what might early Christians have assumed about naming and identity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does using a name that your opponents gave you (like “Anabaptist”) change how your group sees itself? What might early Christians have believed about how names shape identity?

The transcript describes Swiss Brethren reading Dutch sources “through their Swiss Brethren lenses,” sometimes “glossing over the parts that really didn’t fit” (like deaconesses); where do you see modern Christians doing the same thing with Scripture or historical theology, and how does that challenge the claim that “we just believe the Bible”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see Christians today reading the Bible or church history through their own “lens” and ignoring parts that don’t fit? How does that challenge the idea that “we just believe the Bible”?

In Heinrich Funk’s “mirror of baptism,” baptism is symbol and “witness…testimony of a good conscience…declaration of commitment,” and also “the means by which one is…incorporated into… the church”; how would this integrated view of baptism confront modern assumptions that baptism is optional, private, or mainly about personal testimony? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If baptism is both a public commitment and a way of being joined to the church, how does that challenge the idea that baptism is optional, private, or only about my personal story?

Funk frames salvation not as a single event but “a process,” tied to Spirit baptism, water baptism, and “baptism of fire”; what picture of God’s patience, holiness, and goals for human transformation emerges from that, and why might this be uncomfortable for Christians who want immediate assurance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If salvation is a process, not a one-time moment, what does that say about God’s patience, holiness, and plan to change people? Why might that bother Christians who want quick certainty that they are saved?

Funk reinterprets “baptism of fire” as “the baptism of self-denial” in a context with little persecution; how does that move challenge the tendency to define faithfulness mainly as surviving external opposition rather than fighting “our own lust” and learning to say no? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “baptism of fire” means learning self-denial when there isn’t much persecution, how does that challenge the idea that faithfulness is mostly about facing outside enemies? How does it push us to fight our own sinful desires?

Burge contrasts German Awakening “crisis conversion” (anxiety, dread, casting oneself on Christ’s merits) with Mennonite emphasis on “regeneration” and new birth; what does each model imply about what God is chiefly doing in salvation—declaring righteous, creating new life, rescuing from Satan—and how would early Christians likely have weighed those emphases? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How is “crisis conversion” different from a focus on “regeneration” and new birth? What does each one suggest God is mainly doing in salvation, and which do you think early Christians would have stressed more?

Burge says Mennonites didn’t deny crisis conversion, but rejected the claim it was “the only way,” and he highlights the Isaac Long’s barn embrace: “We are brothers” based on a shared crisis experience; what happens to obedience issues like nonresistance, oath-swearing, and infant baptism when fellowship is grounded primarily in an experience rather than a shared way of life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If church unity is built mostly on a shared conversion experience, what happens to hard obedience issues like nonresistance, oath-taking, and infant baptism? Do those teachings become less important for belonging?

Burge suggests Pietist hymns could be “contextualized” so Mennonites sang them with Mennonite meaning, but warns that crossing “conceptual bridges” can also move people out of the community; what are the “conceptual bridges” in your church that make outside theology feel familiar, and how do you discern when borrowing is enrichment versus drift? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What ideas or habits in your church make outside teachings feel normal and safe to bring in? How do you tell the difference between healthy learning and slowly drifting away from your church’s beliefs?

John F. Funk argues, “Yes, worldly churches use Sunday school, but can’t we have Mennonite Sunday schools” to teach “Mennonite doctrine,” while old orders insist teaching beyond preaching should be in the home; what does this conflict expose about trust (God’s methods vs pragmatic methods), authority (leaders vs laity), and the hidden costs of adopting “neutral” tools from other traditions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the fight over Mennonite Sunday school vs teaching only at home show about trust in God’s ways versus “what works,” and about who has authority—leaders or regular members? What hidden costs can come from using tools that seem “neutral” from other churches?