Discussion Questions

David Bercot says the Anabaptists were “unique” because they sprang out of the Reformation rather than primitive Christianity or medieval Catholicism; what does that suggest about God’s ability to preserve “Kingdom Christianity” even inside movements that are reforming the church but still deeply entangled with the state? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the Anabaptists came out of the Reformation, not earlier Christianity or medieval Catholicism. What does that say about God keeping “Kingdom Christianity” alive even in church reform movements that are still tied to the state?

When Zwingli taught “Scripture alone” yet repeatedly submitted reforms (Lent, the cup, infant baptism) to the Zurich council’s approval, what do you learn about the spiritual danger of letting civil authority decide what obedience looks like—and where do you see modern parallels in how churches treat “respectability” or political acceptance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Zwingli taught “Scripture alone” but still let the Zurich council approve changes like Lent, the cup, and infant baptism. What danger happens when the government gets to decide what obedience looks like, and where do you see that today in churches chasing respectability or political approval?

Grebel and Mantz concluded the root problem wasn’t mainly baptismal theology but “what is the Church,” rejecting a population-wide church created by infant baptism; how would early Christians (pre-Constantine) have heard their claim that the church is “called out of the world,” and what would it expose about how many of us define “Christian” today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Grebel and Mantz said the real issue was “what is the Church,” not just baptism, and they rejected a whole-population church built by infant baptism. How would early Christians before Constantine hear the idea that the church is “called out of the world,” and what does that reveal about how we define “Christian” today?

The Zurich council’s law required citizens to report anyone favorable to rebaptism and mandated drowning for leaders; how does that kind of forced uniformity challenge modern assumptions that persecution is mostly a non-Christian problem—and what does it reveal about what humans (even “Christian” authorities) will do when discipleship threatens social order? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Zurich made people report anyone who supported rebaptism and even drowned leaders. How does that challenge the idea that persecution is mostly done by non-Christians, and what does it show about what people will do when discipleship threatens social order?

Bercot highlights that the first Anabaptists met in homes at night, three or four times a week, often taking communion each meeting; what does their pattern imply about the New Testament assumption of church as a shared life rather than a weekly event, and what would have to change in our schedules and priorities to recover even a fraction of that? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The first Anabaptists met in homes at night three or four times a week and often took communion each time. What does that say about church being a shared life, not just a weekly event, and what would you need to change in your schedule to move even partway toward that?

The Anabaptist wrote that reforms abolished “mass and images,” yet “true repentance and Christian love were not in evidence,” calling the changes mostly “external things”; where are we tempted to confuse “correct worship forms” or “right doctrine” with repentance that produces observable fruit, and how would you test whether your Christianity is mainly external? JumpstartAnother way to ask: They said reforms removed mass and images, but real repentance and love still weren’t showing up, so the changes were mostly external. Where do you confuse right worship or right doctrine with real repentance that shows fruit, and how could you tell if your faith is mostly external?

Menno Simons’ rebuttal—“If your faith is as you say, why do you not do the things which He has commanded you?”—directly confronts a faith that claims new birth and the Spirit but shows little effect; what specific commands Bercot listed (enemy-love, nonresistance, no oaths, not suing, treasures, divorce) most expose the gap between what you profess and what you practice? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Menno Simons asked, “If your faith is real, why don’t you do what Jesus commanded?” Which commands on Bercot’s list (loving enemies, nonresistance, no oaths, not suing, money/treasures, divorce) most show the gap between what you say you believe and how you live?

Bercot contrasts the Reformers’ assurance (“Boom, you are saved… nothing can happen…”) with Paul’s “Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power” (1 Cor. 4:20), meaning power to live Christ’s life; how does this challenge common evangelical ways of talking about grace, assurance, and works, and what evidence of “power” would your community expect to see if you took Paul and the Anabaptists literally? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot contrasts quick assurance of salvation with Paul saying the Kingdom is “not in word, but in power,” meaning power to live like Christ. How does that challenge common talk about grace, assurance, and works, and what “power” should your church expect to see if you took Paul and the Anabaptists seriously?

Even enemies like Zwingli and Bullinger admitted the Anabaptists looked “irreproachable” and morally serious, yet dismissed it as “semblance” or “hypocrisy”; what does that reveal about how theological systems can train people to distrust visible holiness, and how might that same reflex show up today when someone’s obedience quietly condemns our normal Christian lifestyle? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Even enemies admitted the Anabaptists lived morally serious lives but called it fake or hypocritical. How can a theology train people to distrust obvious holiness, and how does that show up today when someone’s obedience makes our normal “Christian” life feel exposed?

The Anabaptists expected a disciplined church using only reproof and the ban (not civil punishments), believing discipleship is the whole body’s responsibility, and they also expected members to devote possessions to the brotherhood in need; what would it practically look like in your church to recover that kind of mutual accountability and costly sharing without coercion or legalism—and what inner resistance does that expose in you? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The Anabaptists wanted church discipline through correction and the ban, not government punishment, and they expected members to share possessions to meet needs. What would mutual accountability and costly sharing look like in your church without pressure or legalism, and what resistance does that stir up in you?