Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 9

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?

Another 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?

Direct Answer Bercot suggests that when a system assumes “we are right, therefore we are godly,” it can reinterpret real holiness as mere “appearance,” because genuine obedience exposes the emptiness of a Christianity that is mostly doctrinal and cultural.

Support from Transcript:

Zwingli admitted: “If you investigate their life and conduct, it seems… irreproachable, pious… attractive… above this world… their lives are excellent.”
Yet the official stance was they were “wicked… seditious,” so their goodness had to be explained away.
Bullinger acknowledged they were received by “repentance and newness of life” and denounced many sins, yet concluded, “their hypocrisy is great and manifold.”
Bercot comments: “Sometimes when you have nothing evil you can pin on someone… you label them as hypocrites.”
He argues this reflects “twisted Christianity”: the idea that correct theology makes you truly righteous even if your life is not holy, while those with visible righteousness “must be wrong.”

Discussion Follow-ups When someone lives simply and obediently today, do we admire it—or feel judged and start looking for flaws? How do our favorite theological slogans shape what kind of holiness we trust?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 9 of 10