Discussion Questions

Dean Taylor quoted Tolstoy’s sarcastic summary of what Constantine was offered: “Christ having died, Constantine could live as he likes… repent and swallow a little bit of bread and some wine.” What picture of God and salvation is being mocked here, and where do you recognize similar “arranged Christianity” temptations in your own church culture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What view of God and salvation is Tolstoy making fun of here (live how you want, then repent and take communion)? Where do you see the same “set up” kind of Christianity tempting your church culture?

The lesson repeatedly returns to the question, “What does it really mean to be a Christian?” in connection with Constantine, Arius, and later creedal enforcement. Using the transcript’s examples, what markers of “real Christianity” does Dean imply were being lost, and which of those markers would make modern churches (including conservative ones) uncomfortable? JumpstartAnother way to ask: From the examples about Constantine, Arius, and enforced creeds, what signs of “real Christianity” does Dean suggest were being lost? Which of those would make churches today (even conservative ones) uncomfortable?

Dean asks, “Is it important that Jesus Christ came in the flesh?” and ties the incarnation to Jesus “living out the life of the kingdom… as one of us” and giving “a guarantee to be able to live that life.” How does that argument challenge common evangelical instincts about grace, obedience, and the purpose of Jesus’ earthly life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does it matter that Jesus came “in the flesh” and lived the kingdom life as one of us? How does that push back on common evangelical ideas about grace, obedience, and why Jesus lived on earth?

Athanasius is quoted saying the Word “takes a human body born of a pure virgin in whose womb he makes human flesh his own.” Why does Dean press the question of whether Jesus took Mary’s flesh (not just “appeared” in a body), and what do the later Anabaptist controversies he mentions suggest is at stake spiritually—not merely technically—in how Christians speak about the incarnation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does Dean stress that Jesus took Mary’s real human flesh instead of only seeming to have a body? What do the later Anabaptist debates show is spiritually at risk in how we talk about the incarnation?

“Athanasius contra mundum” is presented as heroic resistance during theological and political pressure, yet the lesson also warns about councils becoming the target and not Christ. How do you discern the difference between necessary defense of truth (like Athanasius) and destructive obsession with being right (like later councils), especially when both claim to protect “orthodoxy”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can you tell the difference between standing up for truth (like Athanasius) and being obsessed with winning arguments (like some later councils), when both say they’re defending “orthodoxy”?

After reciting the Nicene Creed, Dean asks whether “creedal Christianity” is Christianity and says the Sermon on the Mount was “crying out to be heard again” while the target moved to “make sure our creed is perfect.” What specific signs in the transcript show the target shift happening, and where might your community subtly treat correct formulations as a substitute for crucified living? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What clues in the transcript show the focus shifting from following Jesus’ teaching (like the Sermon on the Mount) to getting the creed exactly right? Where might your church treat correct wording as a substitute for a crucified life?

The “Robber Synod” story includes monks and militia forcing signatures on a blank paper and killing Bishop Flavian, followed by curses like “May those be hewn in pieces.” What does this episode reveal about what happens to the doctrine of Christ when it is separated from the Spirit and character of Christ, and how does it reframe the way you evaluate “right theology”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the “Robber Synod” story show happens when teachings about Christ are separated from the Spirit and character of Christ? How should that change how you judge what counts as “right theology”?

Dean describes the Seventh Council’s anathemas on images, including a curse on those with “a doubtful mind” who won’t confess “with their whole hearts” that they venerate images, and then contrasts that with Jesus’ warnings about “Lord, Lord” and building on sand. What does this contrast teach about God’s priorities, and how might modern Christians create their own versions of “anathema for doubt” around secondary issues? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the contrast between harsh curses for doubt about images and Jesus’ warnings about empty words (“Lord, Lord”) say about what God cares about most? Where do Christians today punish doubt or disagreement on lesser issues in similar ways?

In the “white tennis shoes” illustration, Dean shows how a possibly legitimate concern can evolve into identity, separation, and spiritual violence (“maybe spiritually or with our words”). What are the modern equivalents of the “white tennis shoe” issue in your setting, and what practices would actually keep a church from drifting from correction into cruelty? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What are today’s versions of the “white tennis shoes” issue in your church—small concerns that turn into identity and division? What habits could keep correction from turning into cruelty, even just with words?

Dean cites David Bercot’s point (as reported in the lesson) that no one was persecuted for not helping the poor or visiting the sick, and then the class discusses how every generation must “buy into it… speak into it… and own it.” If a brotherhood meeting started with the Sermon on the Mount and included annual review of your discipline, what parts of your current church life would likely shrink, what would likely intensify, and what hidden heart-issues would be forced into the open? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If your church started with the Sermon on the Mount and did a yearly review of how you live, what activities would probably decrease and what would grow stronger? What hidden heart problems would likely be exposed?