Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 4

The lesson argues that Anabaptist missions was not just “command and duty” but “eschatological expectation,” fueled by oppression and a sharp “dualism between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world”; how does suffering and pressure clarify what we believe about God’s coming reign, and what does comfort tend to do to that same belief?

Another way to ask: How can suffering and pressure make God’s coming kingdom feel more real to us? What does living in comfort usually do to that same belief?

Direct Answer Dean Taylor presents suffering as a clarifier: oppression pushed the Anabaptists to live like the kingdom is near, making mission urgent and making the world/kingdom divide sharper. Comfort tends to dull that urgency, making people plan for long-term security and treat the Great Commission as optional or merely a duty.

Support from Transcript:

Kupfer is quoted: they did not live the Great Commission as “command and duty only, but…as eschatological expectation.”
Taylor says zeal was “impelled by an eschatological perspective developed out of fierce oppression. Everybody was trying to kill them.”
He describes their “radical…dualism…between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world,” echoing Schleitheim’s separation.
He explains hope under pressure: “Oppression reinforced their hopes…would ultimately give way to the triumph of God.”
Their time-sense intensified risk-taking: apostles believed efforts would be “of limited time. Jesus is coming back. You’ve got to hurry.”
Taylor warns that mission can become mere event-talk in easier contexts: mission conferences can “make us feel better,” implying comfort can replace action.

Discussion Follow-ups How do our reactions to inconvenience reveal whether we truly expect Christ’s reign? What practices would keep eschatological hope alive in a comfortable setting?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 4 of 10