Discussion Jumpstarter

Study leader reference - not a definitive answer

Question 4

Michael concluded, “we were a bunch of unbelievers, excommunicating more unbelievers”; what theological assumptions about the church, baptism, and regeneration are exposed by that statement, and how would early Christians have understood who the “church” actually is?

Another way to ask: Michael said, “we were unbelievers, excommunicating more unbelievers.” What does that reveal about what he believed about the church, baptism, and being born again, and who would early Christians say the real “church” is?

Discussion Jumpstarter

Direct Answer
His statement exposes an assumption that the “church” is the whole cultural group who has been baptized into the system, even if not born again. Based on his reading of Schleitheim and salvation teaching, he came to believe true church discipline assumes a regenerate fellowship—“born-again believers”—not an unconverted community policing itself.

Support from Transcript:

Michael says Schleitheim made him realize excommunication “was not applicable unless people were born-again believers.”
He explains it applied to one “born again…had fellowship with the saints…held communion… and had backed away.”
He concludes: “the realization hit me that we were a bunch of unbelievers, excommunicating more unbelievers… I didn’t understand how God was even involved.”
Later his wife felt she had been “baptized into the church,” not “baptized unto Christ,” showing baptism had been treated as church-entry.
Michael connects new birth language to John 3 (“born again of water and spirit”) and admits this was not clearly understood in his setting.

Discussion Follow-ups What happens to a church’s understanding of membership and discipline if new birth becomes assumed rather than taught and pursued?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10