Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 3

Frick named “lack of church discipline, infant baptism, militarism, and the oath” as reasons for separating; in the trial record he is accused of giving a “bad example” and spreading “the Anabaptist fantasy.” How does the state’s reaction expose what governments fear most about obedient discipleship, and where might Christians today prefer to be seen as “respectable” rather than “dangerous”?

Another way to ask: What does the government’s reaction to Frick show about what rulers fear when people truly obey Jesus? Where might Christians today choose being seen as “respectable” instead of faithfully “dangerous”?

Direct Answer Dean’s material implies the state feared discipleship that produces visible noncompliance—especially refusal of military participation and oaths—because it undermines social control and public unity. Christians today may seek “respectability” by avoiding any obedience that makes them stand out as disobedient to cultural expectations.

Support from Transcript:

Frick’s convictions named in court records: “lack of church discipline… infant baptism, militarism, and the oath.”
The government explicitly framed his influence as a threat: “because of your bad example… [we are] compelled to make a new strenuous effort to extinguish the movement.”
A special body was created to suppress them: the “Teufler Commission… created to dig out” these groups.
The pastor’s sister reports many admired him and were overtaken by “the Anabaptist fantasy,” implying the state feared the spread of conviction.
Dean explains the seriousness of symbolic loyalty (standard bearer; saluting the anthem), showing why refusal was seen as dangerous.

Discussion Follow-ups Where do we measure faithfulness by whether outsiders see us as “good citizens” rather than a distinct people? What kinds of obedience today would authorities or employers label “bad example”?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 3 of 10