Discussion Questions

Dean says Anabaptism is “not a denomination” but “a worldview… a biblical worldview or a hermeneutic”; what practical differences would show up in a church’s decisions if it actually treated Anabaptism as a way of interpreting Scripture rather than a label or tradition? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Dean says Anabaptism is more a way of reading the Bible than a church label. If a church really treated it that way, what choices or actions would look different?

Conrad Grebel’s line, “I believe the word of God without a complicated interpretation. And out of this I speak,” assumes a certain kind of confidence in Scripture’s clarity; where do you feel the strongest internal pushback against “taking it at face value,” and what does that resistance reveal about what you believe God is like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you most resist taking the Bible “at face value”? What might that resistance show about what you think God is like?

Grebel also said, “The words of the Lord were meant to be put into practice,” and Dean claims early Anabaptists saw Jesus’ teachings as “the cure for humanity”; which teaching of Jesus do you most doubt would actually be “the cure” if practiced literally, and why? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which teaching of Jesus do you most doubt would actually “fix” people or society if we obeyed it literally? Why?

Dean describes the church as “people called and born again… coming together to live out the teachings of Jesus,” like “a little embassy of the kingdom of heaven”; what would need to change in your congregation for outsiders to plausibly see it as an “embassy” rather than a religious club or social identity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would need to change in your church so outsiders could honestly see it as a picture of God’s kingdom, not just a religious group?

Dean’s statement, “If we were to go out of our way to create a church that everything Jesus commanded us to do, we did exactly the opposite, we would kind of come up with the modern American church,” is intentionally provocative; which specific Sermon on the Mount topics he listed (marriage permanence, lawsuits, economics, warfare, oaths) most resemble “exactly the opposite” in your context, and what forces keep it that way? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which Sermon on the Mount topic listed (marriage, lawsuits, money, war, oaths) looks most opposite from how your church or culture lives? What keeps it from changing?

Dean insists “God cannot change” and rejects the idea that the Old Testament God is different, while also saying the “weapons have changed”; what does this teaching reveal about God’s zeal, judgment, and mercy, and how does it challenge the common “Old Testament vs. New Testament God” instinct? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God doesn’t change, but the “weapons” do, what does that say about God’s judgment, mercy, and passion for what is right? How does it challenge the idea that the Old Testament God is different from the New Testament God?

He argues there is “no just war teaching in the Old Testament… none,” and says the Old Testament wars are about God’s judgment rather than guidelines for modern nations; what parts of that claim feel persuasive to you, and what parts feel like they create new problems you don’t know how to solve? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Dean says the Old Testament wars show God’s judgment, not rules for today’s nations. What about that seems convincing to you, and what new questions does it leave you stuck with?

Dean uses Jesus’ “You have heard… but I say… love your enemies” to frame Christian warfare as wrestling “not with flesh and blood”; if that’s true, what should it do to the way Christians talk about enemies, politics, national security, and “righteous causes” in everyday conversations? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If our real fight isn’t against people, how should that change the way Christians talk about enemies, politics, national security, and “good causes” in normal conversations?

The “continue the mission until the mission changes” army illustration frames obedience as the central continuity across both Testaments; what do you think the “mission change” is from Old Testament to Jesus, and how does that reshape what faithful obedience looks like when it costs you something tangible? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do you think changed from the Old Testament to Jesus about God’s “mission”? How does that change what obedience looks like when it costs you something real?

Dean challenges an evangelical assumption by asking, “Can a person be a follower of Christ without following Christ?” and contrasts “mental recognition” with “Christ within us”; where do you see your own faith tempted to settle for recognition/creed/assurance language rather than a lived apprenticeship to Jesus, and what concrete “shoe leather” change would expose whether Christ is actually ruling your life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where are you tempted to settle for right beliefs and assurance instead of actually obeying Jesus day to day? What specific change in your life would show whether Jesus is really in charge?