Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 3

The lesson repeatedly describes whole towns responding (Zollikon daily communion and frequent meetings; St. Gall’s “procession” tradition replaced by idol-turning and river baptisms of 500+); what early-Christian assumptions about discipleship, time, and church life are embedded in “daily communion” and meeting 3–4 times a week, and what would it expose about the normal rhythm of many modern churches?

Another way to ask: What does “daily communion” and meeting 3–4 times a week show they believed about following Jesus and church life? What does that reveal about how often most churches meet today?

Direct Answer Dean’s examples suggest early revival assumed discipleship is immersive: believers rearrange time around gathered worship, communion, teaching, and mission, not around occasional religious attendance. That exposes how a thin meeting rhythm can reflect (and possibly produce) low spiritual expectancy and weaker community life.

Support from Transcript:

At Zollikon “there was instant response to the gospel,” and Dean says “it seemed like the entire town got revived.”
He notes a key practice: “they had daily communion” and “met…three or four times a week.”
Revival is linked to outward mission: the town was “going out and spreading the word.”
At St. Gall, an old tradition (“procession…on Easter morning”) was replaced by repentance-like action: people “turned in their idols and things.”
The response was public and communal: “500 were converted and baptized in the river on Easter morning,” and “300 more” followed.
He later contrasts America’s early pattern: church “only once every two weeks…maybe only once every four weeks,” which “led to a spiritual decline” and “formalism.”

Discussion Follow-ups If a church met 3–4 times weekly, what would have to change in our priorities? Is our schedule revealing what we believe church is for?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 3 of 10