Discussion Questions

The speaker says God’s wisdom is “upside down” and even the “princes of this world… would never have crucified Jesus” if they’d understood it; what does that reveal about how God chooses to defeat evil, and where does your instinct still expect God to work the way “normal power” works? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it show about how God defeats evil that the world’s rulers wouldn’t have crucified Jesus if they understood God’s plan? Where do you still expect God to use “normal power” to win?

In the engine-parts and cookie-ingredients illustrations, the speaker argues that difference is not a bug but a design feature; what “piece” or “ingredient” in your church do you find hardest to value, and what might that resistance reveal about what you think a healthy church should feel like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What kind of person or role in your church is hardest for you to appreciate? What might that say about what you think a “healthy” church should feel like?

The speaker connects Ephesians’ “mystery” to Jews and Gentiles becoming one “demonstration of God’s wisdom… a temple”; how would early Christians—who lived with real ethnic/cultural hostility—have assumed unity must look in daily life, and how does that challenge a modern “unity” that can stay theoretical? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jews and Gentiles were becoming one people, what do you think unity had to look like in everyday life back then? How does that challenge a “unity” today that stays as an idea but not a practice?

Paul introduces the command with “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord,” and the speaker calls this an “apostolic model of leadership” that expects more of yourself than of others; what does this imply about credibility and authority in the church, and how does it confront modern leadership styles that rely on position, personality, or pressure? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul calls himself “a prisoner of the Lord” before he gives a command—what does that say about real authority in the church? How does it challenge leadership that depends on title, charisma, or pressure?

The speaker defines “vocation/calling” as a commission and privilege (quoting Chrysostom: “You were called as his body… raised you up with him”), and uses Prince Hubert: “Because you are the only boy who is a prince”; what training and “disciplines” should be normal for Christians if we really believe we’ve been called to reign with Christ, and what do we tend to excuse as “optional”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Christians are called to reign with Christ, what kinds of training and habits should be normal for us? What do we often treat as “optional” instead?

The speaker insists Paul’s list has a “root-to-fruit” order (lowliness/meekness → long suffering → forbearing → unity/peace); where have you tried to “keep unity” without the earlier roots, and what did it produce in your relationships (especially when you were sure you were right)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When have you tried to keep peace or unity without humility, gentleness, and patience first? What happened, especially when you were sure you were right?

The speaker says lowliness is not self-hate but refusing to see yourself “over the crowd,” and ties greatness to being a “deacon… the church donkey”; in what specific settings (decision-making, conversations, ministry roles) do you most subtly still seek to be served rather than to serve? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In what situations do you secretly want others to serve you instead of you serving them (like in meetings, conversations, or ministry jobs)? Where do you most want to be seen as “above the crowd”?

On meekness, the speaker uses *gelassenheit* as “the condition of having let go,” describing submission to God and to the people/circumstances God uses to shape you; what would “letting go” look like in an actual unresolved tension you’re in, and what are you afraid would happen if you did? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In a tension you still haven’t solved, what would it look like to “let go” and submit to what God is doing through the situation or people? What are you afraid will happen if you do?

The speaker rebukes a brotherhood that can picture nonresistance when “someone comes with a gun” but struggles to love those causing suffering inside the church; what forms of “internal enemy-love” are hardest for you (absorbing inconvenience, refusing offense, returning good), and why do you think the early Christians treated this as normal discipleship? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What kinds of loving your “inside-the-church enemies” are hardest for you (putting up with inconvenience, not taking offense, doing good back)? Why do you think early Christians saw this as normal for following Jesus?

Using Ham versus Shem and Japheth, the speaker says Christian unity is “speaking of others’ faults only when necessary… in the spirit of Shem and Japheth,” not spreading shame; what practices would need to change in how your group processes problems (storytelling, venting, “prayer requests,” side conversations) so that truth can be addressed without multiplying humiliation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How would your group need to change the way it talks about problems (stories, venting, prayer requests, side talks) so the truth can be dealt with without spreading shame? What would it look like to speak about faults only when it’s really needed?