Discussion Questions

David said the 1975 prophecy failure made him wonder whether “this isn’t God’s one true church”; what does this reveal about what he believes God is like (truthful, accountable, consistent), and how should God’s character shape the way Christians respond when religious leaders confidently claim prophetic insight? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When the 1975 prophecy failed, David started to doubt it was God’s true church. What does that show about what he thinks God is like, and how should God’s character guide Christians when leaders boldly claim they can predict the future?

David described going to “primary sources” (Charles Russell’s own writings, then the Anti-Nicene Fathers) instead of trusting what groups say about their origins; what does this assume about God’s willingness to be examined, and how does it challenge the modern Christian instinct to outsource truth to institutions, platforms, or “safe” teachers? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David read the group’s original writings instead of trusting what the group said about itself. What does that assume about God not being afraid of hard questions, and how does it challenge our habit of letting institutions or favorite teachers do our thinking for us?

David said, “I couldn’t believe Jesus… would tell us, beware of false prophets, and then use a false prophet to restore his church”; what does that claim imply about God’s way of preserving the church across history, and how would early Christians—who assumed continuity from the apostles—likely hear that argument? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David couldn’t believe Jesus would warn about false prophets and then use one to restore the church. What does that say about how God keeps his church faithful through history, and how would early Christians—who believed the church continued from the apostles—respond to that idea?

In the evangelical church David joined, he heard “once saved, always saved” and was told his objections were “just your Jehovah’s Witness background”; how should a serious Christian distinguish between unhealthy baggage and legitimate biblical conscience, and what does David’s story suggest about how churches sometimes protect doctrinal systems by pathologizing dissent? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David was told his concerns were just “Jehovah’s Witness baggage” when he questioned “once saved, always saved.” How can a Christian tell the difference between unhealthy past influence and a real Bible-based conscience, and how might churches label dissent as a problem to protect their system?

David called it “the height of heresy for Christians to be killing each other” and tied it to Paul’s rebuke about believers taking each other to court; what picture of God’s kingdom and global Christian identity is being asserted here, and what would have to change in our loyalties for that to become normal Christian thinking again? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David said it’s deeply wrong for Christians to kill other Christians, and he linked it to Paul’s warning about lawsuits. What view of God’s kingdom and Christian unity is he pushing, and what loyalties would we need to change for that to feel normal again?

David said early Christians did not go to war, did not get involved in politics, rejected unconditional eternal security, and rejected a “faith alone” that leaves disobedience untouched; which of these clashes most with modern evangelical assumptions about grace and freedom, and what fears (loss of assurance, “legalism,” loss of cultural influence) surface when you take those early Christian claims seriously? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David said early Christians didn’t go to war, avoided politics, rejected “once saved, always saved,” and rejected a “faith alone” that doesn’t change how you live. Which of these most challenges modern evangelical ideas, and what fears come up when you take those early beliefs seriously?

David was surprised that early Christian practice implicated his profession as an attorney—not merely “don’t sue each other,” but “they didn’t sue other people”; how does that confront modern Christian comfort with rights, legal pressure, and career paths built on coercion, and what might obedience to Jesus cost in status, income, or identity for people in similar fields today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David realized early Christians didn’t just avoid suing each other—they avoided suing others too, which affected his work as an attorney. How does that challenge modern comfort with legal force and “my rights,” and what might following Jesus cost people in careers like that today?

David said the issues he discovered (head covering, modesty, entertainment, work ambition) were “all in the Bible” but he had “never taken [them] seriously”; what does his experience suggest about how selective Bible-reading forms a counterfeit “obedience,” and where might your own “I believe the Bible” be masking a settled refusal to take certain passages literally? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David said things like head covering, modesty, entertainment, and ambition were in the Bible, but he never treated them as serious. What does that show about how we can obey the Bible selectively, and where might you be saying “I believe the Bible” while still refusing certain passages?

When David removed TV and entertainment, he promised his children “whatever we give up… we add even better things,” and his daughter said that’s “when life really started getting fun”; what does this teach about God’s intentions for joy and family life under discipline, and how does it challenge the assumption that holiness mainly means loss rather than gain? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When David cut out TV, he told his kids they would add better things, and his daughter said life got more fun. What does that say about God’s plan for joy and family life with discipline, and how does it challenge the idea that holiness is mostly losing things?

David described 15 years of hesitating to join Anabaptists because of “legitimate biblical standards” versus “a lot of cultural standards,” plus his longing for “500 years of stability” and concern over radical Christians who “don’t want to come under church authority”; how do you discern when stability is godly fruit versus mere tradition, and what uncomfortable submission (to community, discipline, limitations on independence) might modern Christians need to recover to resemble the “historic faith” he pursued? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David hesitated to join Anabaptists because he saw both real Bible standards and extra cultural rules, and he also wanted long-term stability and church authority. How can you tell when “stability” is a good spiritual fruit and not just tradition, and what kind of hard submission to church and community might Christians need to relearn?