Discussion Questions

The speaker says he dislikes the label “Anabaptist” because it means “rebaptizer,” was a derogatory nickname, and even tied to a capital crime in Christendom; what does that history suggest about how power (church/state) was defining “orthodoxy,” and how should that shape the way modern Christians use inherited labels for themselves and others? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the ugly history behind the name “Anabaptist” show about how the church and government used power to decide what was “right belief”? How should that affect how Christians use old labels for themselves and others today?

Van Braght’s two “marks” in *Martyrs’ Mirror* were (1) baptism upon confession of faith and (2) being “defenseless/non-resistant”; why might those two have functioned together as a single witness in early Christian terms, and what happens to a church’s identity when one mark is emphasized without the other? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why did “believer’s baptism” and “non-resistance” work together as one clear message for the early church? What happens to a church when it keeps one but ignores the other?

In the Hutterite Chronicle account of Jan. 21, 1525, the baptisms are described as happening in “fear of God,” leading to mutual confirmation for gospel service, and then called “the beginning of separation from the world and its evil ways”; what does that sequence imply baptism is *for* (beyond personal testimony), and how does it confront modern assumptions that baptism is mainly about individual experience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In that story, baptism leads to a shared commitment to serve the gospel and to separate from “the world”; what does that suggest baptism is meant to do besides show your personal faith? How does that challenge the idea that baptism is mostly about an individual experience?

The speaker contrasts centralized Reformation movements with early Swiss Brethren “grassroots” decentralization and people “reading their Bibles for the first time”; how might that first-time exposure to Scripture have shaped their urgency and literalness (for better and worse), and what “filters” from our own background most strongly shape how we read the same texts today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How might reading the Bible for the first time have made the Swiss Brethren act with urgency and take things very literally (in good and bad ways)? What parts of your background most shape how you read the same Bible today?

Schleitheim’s preface says “a very great offense” came from “false brethren” who used “freedom of the Spirit” to justify “lasciviousness and self-indulgence,” believing “everything” is permitted since they are believers; where do you see that exact logic operating now (even in subtle, religious-sounding forms), and what kinds of accountability do modern churches often resist that Schleitheim insisted on? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see people today using “God’s freedom” as an excuse to do whatever they want, even while sounding religious? What kinds of church accountability do many churches avoid that Schleitheim demanded?

The Schleitheim warning says such people “do not serve our Father, but their father, the devil,” and then defines Christ’s people as those who “have crucified the flesh with its passions and lust”; what does this reveal about God’s expectations for holiness and the nature of saving faith, and how does it clash with contemporary evangelical instincts about assurance and “not being judged”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does this warning say God expects when it comes to a holy life and real saving faith? How does that clash with today’s habits of saying “don’t judge me” and wanting quick assurance?

Michael Sattler’s letter frames reality as two opposed kingdoms—Christ vs. the devil—saying the devil is “prince over the whole world,” and the speaker comments, “That’s good enough atonement for me” (deliverance from the power of darkness); how does this kingdom framing reshape the way you think about salvation (not only guilt forgiven but allegiance transferred), and what parts of everyday life most reveal which kingdom you’re practically treating as “normal”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does thinking of life as two kingdoms—Christ vs. the devil—change your view of salvation as changing loyalty, not just getting forgiven? What parts of your daily life show which kingdom you treat as “normal”?

The speaker highlights that early Swiss Brethren believed water baptism was symbolic yet also that it “incorporates” believers into the body of Christ; how would taking baptism as real incorporation (not merely a personal symbol) change how a church treats membership, discipline (“the ban”), and the seriousness of breaking fellowship? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If baptism really brings someone into the church body (not just a personal symbol), how should that change membership, church discipline (“the ban”), and how seriously people treat breaking fellowship?

Schleitheim’s separation article rejects “popish and anti-popish” church services and later writings give specific reasons (no 1 Corinthians 14 participatory order, coercion in conscience, reliance on the sword, lack of the ban, “abolish the cross…by not living uprightly”); which of those critiques lands most uncomfortably on today’s church culture (including our worship habits, professionalized leadership, and relationship to political power), and what would it cost to actually reform in that direction? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which of these critiques hits today’s church the hardest—how we worship, how leaders run things, or how close we are to political power? What would we have to give up to change in that direction?

In Sattler’s trial, he argues Christians should not resist the Turk because “Thou shalt not kill,” and he calls persecuting “Christians” “Turks according to the Spirit”; how does that logic expose the danger of claiming Christ while using violence/coercion to defend “the faith,” and what modern “Christian” behaviors (not only warfare) might function as coercion in conscience that early believers would label spiritual betrayal? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Sattler’s argument show the danger of claiming Christ while using violence or force to “defend the faith”? What “Christian” actions today might pressure people’s consciences in a way early believers would call betrayal?