Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Discussion Jumpstarter

Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Anabaptist Perspectives / William Penn Knew the Mennonites. This Is What He Said. - John Ruth
Watch Full Video
Question 2
The speaker says that from 1663 to 1708 Mennonites in Germantown “could not have communion” because they came from five different places and “weren’t united”; what does that assume about communion, church unity, and boundaries, and how does it confront modern habits of quickly sharing the Lord’s Supper across major disagreements?
Another way to ask: They said the Mennonites “could not have communion” because they weren’t united. What does that suggest about what communion means and who it’s for, and how does it challenge our habit of sharing the Lord’s Supper even when we strongly disagree?
Discussion Jumpstarter

Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s statement, communion was treated as something that required real unity and shared boundaries, not just a general Christian feeling. That challenges modern habits of treating the Lord’s Supper as automatic even when a group is deeply divided.

Support from Transcript:
  • The speaker makes a strong historical claim: “from 1663…to 1708, they could not have communion.”
  • The reason given is not personal preference but church condition: they “came from five different places… and they weren’t united.”
  • Penn’s word “diverse” is connected to this lack of unity: it is presented as the first way Mennonites were identified in the letter.
  • The story implies that disunity had concrete consequences, not just relational awkwardness, since it affected a core church practice (communion).
Discussion Follow-ups What kinds of disagreements today are serious enough to affect shared communion? What steps would help a divided community move toward unity rather than pretending it already exists?
Jumpstarter 2 of 10
Previous All Questions Next