Discussion Questions

Mike says that when we read Scripture we’re “not just getting what’s there, but also viewing it through the lenses of however we grew up”; what “lenses” from your own church background most strongly pressure you to explain away parts of the New Testament instead of simply obeying them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What parts of your church upbringing shape how you read the Bible in a way that makes you explain away New Testament commands instead of obeying them?

Mike argues that John’s promise (“the Spirit will guide you into all truth…bring all things to your remembrance”) was spoken in context to the apostles, not to “the church” as an institution or to individuals in private devotions; what would have to change in how you make doctrinal decisions if you actually treated that promise as primarily apostolic? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus’ promise about the Spirit guiding into truth was mainly for the apostles, how would that change the way you decide what doctrines are true?

Mike insists the apostles “established a very unified church that taught a unified message everywhere,” then contrasts that with “over 10…thousand denominations” all claiming Scripture and the Spirit; what do you think God intended unity to protect the church from, and what does our denominational fragmentation reveal about our confidence in our own interpretations? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do you think God wanted church unity to protect Christians from, and what do all our denominations say about how sure we are that our own interpretations are right?

Mike quotes Paul to Timothy about “the pattern of sound words” and “commit these to faithful men,” and then Jude’s “faith once for all delivered”; what practices today would actually function like that chain of transmission (pattern → witnesses → faithful men → others), and what practices in modern Christianity subtly break that chain? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What church practices today help pass down the same teaching from one generation to the next, and what practices quietly weaken or break that handoff?

Tertullian is quoted saying, “Innovation is unlawful,” and Mike says early Christians treated “novelty as heresy”; where have you personally come to assume that “new insights” are a spiritual virtue, and how would your theology look different if you treated novelty as a danger rather than a feature? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you started to think “new teachings” are automatically good, and how would your beliefs change if you treated novelty as something to be careful about?

Mike highlights the early Christians as native Koine Greek speakers who “dreamt in it,” and says they didn’t need commentaries for cultural background; how should that affect the authority you give to modern scholars, study Bibles, and “systematic theology,” especially when they produce readings that the early church would not have recognized? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Since the early Christians knew the New Testament language and culture naturally, how much weight should we give to modern scholars and study systems when they teach meanings the early church wouldn’t have recognized?

Mike points out that people dismiss early Christians with “I just want the Bible,” yet appeal to them to defend the New Testament canon; what do you think is really happening in our hearts when we accept the early church as reliable for canon but unreliable for interpreting the teachings inside that canon? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why do we trust the early church to tell us which books belong in the New Testament, but not trust them much to explain what those books teach?

Lactantius says groups named after men (Phrygians, Novatians, etc.) “have ceased to be Christians,” and Mike jokes about adding “Baptists or Mennonites or Amish”; in a world where labels feel unavoidable, what would it take for your church identity to be genuinely “of Christ” rather than primarily a protective tribe with “pet doctrines” to prove you’re the right ones? JumpstartAnother way to ask: With so many Christian labels, what would it take for your main identity to be “of Christ” instead of loyalty to a group that protects its favorite doctrines?

Mike’s “Hallelujah…I can just do what it says” example includes head coverings (1 Corinthians 11), modesty connected to lust, Sermon on the Mount obedience, and nonresistance (“refuse to take up sword”); which of these “simple, straightforward” commands do you feel most tempted to reinterpret as “custom,” “future kingdom era,” or “just to show us we can’t,” and what does that temptation expose about your view of God’s wisdom? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which clear New Testament commands (like head coverings, modesty, obeying the Sermon on the Mount, or nonviolence) do you most want to explain away, and what does that show about how much you trust God’s wisdom?

Mike uses communion as a test case—Ignatius calling it “the medicine of immortality,” John 6’s “eat…drink…or you have no life,” and Matthew 26’s “for the remission of sins”—and he contrasts that with modern “just a symbol” or “just pray a sinner’s prayer”; what would change in your fear of God, your assurance, and your daily perseverance if you treated communion (and the rest of Jesus’ commands) as real spiritual sustenance needed to endure the wilderness rather than optional symbolism for people already “saved forever”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If communion and Jesus’ commands are real spiritual nourishment we need to keep going, not just symbols for people already “saved forever,” how would that change your fear of God, your confidence, and how you live each day?