Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 6

The Dutch Mennonites reportedly dropped convictions to “not offend,” “win more converts,” “show love and fellowship,” and “focus on what is really important”; which of those reasons sounds most persuasive to you today, and how does Dean’s “Did it work?” question (70,000 ? 8,000; 2,000 seats ? 26 attending) confront the way we measure faithfulness?

Another way to ask: Which reason for dropping convictions sounds most convincing today—not offending, gaining converts, showing love, or focusing on what matters most? When Dean asks “Did it work?” how do the shrinking numbers challenge how we judge faithfulness?

Direct Answer The transcript shows these reasons can sound loving and mission-minded, but Dean uses the Dutch outcome to confront the assumption that relaxing convictions produces spiritual fruit; he presses that numerical decline exposes a different reality than the stated intentions.

Support from Transcript:

Dean asks, “Why did they drop many of their old convictions?” and lists the kinds of answers: “Not offend,” “Win more converts from outside the church,” “We don’t want to be a stumbling block,” “Show love and the fellowship,” and “Focus on what is really important.”
He immediately challenges the promised results: “Did it work? Look at this slide.”
The slide numbers are stark: “1650, 70,000…1900, 31,000…2010, 8,000,” and he adds “that’s a generous number.”
He gives a concrete attendance example: the Singelkirche “seats over 2,000,” yet “last Sunday…26.”
Dean’s closing jab is practical: “So did it work? Hmm. So why would we want to repeat their mistakes?”

Discussion Follow-ups Dean uses numbers as a warning, not the only measure. What other signs of faithfulness (or decline) would you look for besides attendance?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 6 of 10