Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
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?
Another 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?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript most strongly presses the critique of professionalized, one-way church leadership and the critique of coercion/political reliance, since the speaker highlights both as reasons the Swiss Brethren refused to “walk inside” state churches. Reform would cost comfort and control: it would require participatory gatherings, real discipline, and refusing to let the “worldly sword” decide gospel faithfulness.
- They rejected both “popish and anti-popish works,” including Protestant services, not just Catholic ones.
- A key complaint: they “do not follow 1 Corinthians 14,” where “each person” contributes; instead there is an “official learned preacher” while others “passively sit back.”
- Another complaint: “They coerce people in matters of faith and conscience…put you in prison…even…kill you.”
- The speaker says Protestants “depend…on the state…to decide…how the Reformation is going to be instituted,” letting men “rule on…follow[ing] the gospel.”
- They also criticize the lack of discipline: “The ban is not used…so the supper is not truly kept,” and churches “abolish the cross…by not living uprightly.”