Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 5
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?
Another 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?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The speaker implies this logic appears whenever Christians claim “freedom” to avoid limits on behavior and resist accountability, treating sin lightly because they assume belief makes them safe. Schleitheim insisted on community boundaries and separation from fleshly indulgence, which modern churches may resist when discipline feels uncomfortable.
- Schleitheim’s stated problem: “false brethren…practice…freedom of the Spirit…[but] lasciviousness and self-indulgence of the flesh.”
- Their claim: “faith and love may do and permit everything…since they are believers.”
- The speaker explicitly parallels today: “Does that sound like anything we are faced with today?…nothing new under the sun.”
- He describes people who “run with the liberty…resistant to accountability…to any kind of order…in their lives and in their communities.”
- He explains the goal: a church where “lasciviousness and self-indulgence of the flesh is not going to be part and parcel of their experience,” connected to being “separated from the evil that’s in the world.”