Discussion Questions

Dean Taylor described the Marburg Colloquy as Luther and Zwingli agreeing on “maybe 15 points” but refusing to unite over the words “This is my body,” with Luther pounding the table and refusing even to shake Zwingli’s hand—what does that scene expose about how deeply theological precision can become a spiritual virtue on the one hand, and a destructive force on the other? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Luther and Zwingli agreed on many things but still refused to unite over “This is my body.” What does that show about how being very exact in theology can be a good spiritual habit, but can also tear Christians apart?

The lesson contrasts transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and Zwingli’s “spiritual presence,” and then asks, “Does that mean if it’s just a symbol, does it really matter what happens?”—how would you answer that question using Dean’s “mystery” emphasis without sliding into either empty symbolism or dogmatic certainty? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If communion is “just a symbol,” does it still matter what we do? How would you answer using Dean’s idea of “mystery” without making it either meaningless or overly certain?

Dean’s illustration about watching—and even partaking of—a satanic sacrifice argues that spiritual participation affects a person even when no “power” rivals God; what does that analogy imply about communion and baptism as spiritual realities, and where do modern Christians tend to “make so light of this” in actual practice? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Dean said even watching or joining a satanic sacrifice can affect you spiritually, even though God is still greater. What does that suggest about communion and baptism being real spiritual events, and where do Christians today treat them too lightly?

Dean said he intentionally avoids “doctrinal dogma” about baptism because strict theological systems can produce another Marburg Colloquy; what do you think the early church (and later figures like Pilgrim Marpeck, as Dean mentioned) would have assumed was happening in baptism and the Lord’s Supper that modern churches often avoid talking about? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Dean avoids strict dogma about baptism to prevent fights like Marburg. What do you think the early church (and people like Pilgrim Marpeck) believed was happening in baptism and the Lord’s Supper that many churches today avoid saying out loud?

In the Churchill analogy applied to baptism (“not the beginning of the end… but the end of the beginning”), what “threshold” does baptism represent in a disciple’s life according to the logic of the lesson, and how does that confront baptism-as-family-tradition or baptism-as-private-testimony? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the Churchill quote, baptism is “the end of the beginning.” What big change or “crossing point” does baptism mark in a disciple’s life, and how does that challenge baptism as just a family tradition or a private moment?

The account of Zwingli’s death includes refusal to call on Mary and the saints, the offer of a priest for last confession/absolution, and the brutal desecration of his body—what does this story reveal about what rival “gospels” were operating at the time, and what do you think “he died for his faith” should mean (and not mean) for Christians today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Zwingli’s death story includes rejecting Mary and the saints, refusing confession to a priest, and his body being abused. What does this show about the different “gospels” people were following then, and what should “he died for his faith” mean—and not mean—today?

Dean tied Revelation 13:7–10 and 14:12 to “the marks” of the true church: keeping God’s commandments, the faith/teachings of Jesus, and perseverance that refuses the sword (“he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword”); how does that framework challenge common evangelical instincts about self-defense, nationalism, and justifying violence while still claiming to follow Jesus? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Dean said Revelation points to the true church as people who obey God, hold to Jesus’ teaching, and refuse the sword. How does that challenge common Christian attitudes about self-defense, nationalism, and using violence while still saying we follow Jesus?

Zurich laws required state-church weddings, infant-baptism registration, mandatory attendance, and reporting Anabaptists; Bern threatened that refusing church marriage meant children were “illegitimate” and could be taken into orphanages—what does that kind of coercion reveal about the state church’s view of authority and salvation, and what modern “soft” versions of coercion still shape Christian conformity today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Zurich and Bern, the state forced church weddings, infant baptism records, attendance, and reporting Anabaptists, with threats against families. What does that say about how the state church used authority and tied it to salvation, and what “softer” pressures push Christians to conform today?

Dean suggested persecution “purified the church,” yet he also asked, “If that wouldn’t have happened, what could have happened?”—based on the examples of exterminated congregations in Zurich/Zollikon and scattered remnants, how should Christians think about God’s purposes in persecution without romanticizing suffering or treating it as a growth strategy? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Dean said persecution can “purify the church,” but also asked what might have happened without it. How can we talk about God’s purpose in persecution without glorifying suffering or acting like persecution is a good church-growth plan?

The Martyrs’ Synod (Augsburg, 1527) focused on appointing missionaries in twos and threes, demanding “an upright life,” mutual aid, and refusing baptism to anyone unwilling to live that way; if your church adopted even one of those practices this year, which would create the most resistance—and what would that resistance expose about your (and your congregation’s) view of grace, assurance, and what it means to be “born again”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The Martyrs’ Synod sent missionaries in small teams, required an upright life, practiced mutual help, and wouldn’t baptize people unwilling to live that way. If your church tried just one of those this year, which would cause the most pushback, and what would that reveal about how you think about grace, assurance, and being “born again”?