Discussion Questions

John Wesley is quoted defining “true gospel liberty” as freedom “not from the law of God… but from the law of sin and the works of the devil”; how does that definition reframe what “liberty” should look like in a believer’s daily life, and where does it collide with common evangelical instincts about freedom and grace? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “gospel liberty” means freedom from sin and the devil—not freedom from God’s law—what should that look like in everyday life? How does that clash with common Christian ideas about freedom and grace?

The chapter says church standards are “an enormous help in our quest for obedience”; what does that statement assume about God’s intentions for Christian growth, and what view of human weakness or forgetfulness seems built into the need for shared rules? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If church standards help us obey, what does that say about how God expects us to grow? What does it assume about how weak or forgetful we are that we need shared rules?

Early church manuals like the Didache and others made “specific applications” of New Testament conduct (including barring occupations like actors, magicians, and gladiators); what does that suggest about early Christian expectations of separation from surrounding culture, and what present-day occupations or industries might raise similar “excluded” questions if we took that approach seriously? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do those early Christian rules (like banning certain jobs) show about how much they wanted to stay separate from their culture? If we did that today, what kinds of jobs or industries might Christians question or avoid?

The chapter admits manuals can’t adequately cover “the weightier matters” (justice, mercy, faith) or enforce the two greatest commandments; what dangers do you see in relying on written standards, and what safeguards would be needed so standards serve love rather than replace it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What can go wrong when Christians rely too much on written rules instead of focusing on love, justice, mercy, and faith? What would help rules support love rather than replace it?

After A.D. 400, discipline “mainly depended on the zeal and concern of the local bishop”; what does this shift imply about authority and accountability in the church, and how might it compare to how discipline functions (or doesn’t) in many modern congregations? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If church discipline depended mostly on the local bishop after A.D. 400, what does that say about church authority and accountability? How is that similar to or different from how discipline works in many churches today?

The author notes that in the Middle Ages authorities often suspected as heretics those “living exceptionally godly lives”; what does that reveal about the threat of visible holiness to religious systems, and where might something similar happen today—either in churches or in broader Christian culture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why would a religious system feel threatened by people who live very holy lives? Where could that same kind of suspicion show up today in churches or Christian culture?

Wesley observed that most who “were not united together in a society” quickly “fell back,” while those united “continued striving… to lay hold on eternal life”; what does this claim suggest about perseverance, assurance, and the role of community, and how does it challenge individualistic models of discipleship? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If people often “fell back” when they weren’t in a Christian group, what does that say about staying faithful and the need for community? How does it challenge the idea that you can follow Jesus well on your own?

Wesley’s societies excluded people who didn’t live by the standards; what do you think a church or group is saying about salvation, repentance, and belonging when it removes someone for noncompliance, and what would be the most difficult parts of that approach for modern Christians to accept? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When a church removes someone for not living by its standards, what message is it sending about salvation, repentance, and who belongs? What parts of this would be hardest for modern Christians to accept?

The Methodist standards include concrete prohibitions (credit purchases without “probability of paying,” “haggling,” “costly apparel,” certain amusements, “laying up treasure,” and even speaking evil of magistrates or ministers); which of these most exposes the ways modern Christians normalize sin or self-indulgence, and what rationalizations do we use to keep them from applying to us? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which Methodist rule most shows how today’s Christians excuse sin or self-indulgence? What excuses do we use to say those rules don’t apply to us?

The standards also require positive duties—merciful care for bodies and souls, economic preference for fellow believers (“buying from one another… helping each other in business”), frugality so “the gospel is not reproached,” and disciplined practices like fasting and the Lord’s Supper; what would it cost your life (time, money, reputation, relationships) to adopt even a portion of that “rule of life,” and what might it reveal about what you most fear losing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you tried to follow even part of this “rule of life” (mercy, simple living, helping believers, fasting, Communion), what would it cost you in time, money, reputation, or relationships? What might that show about what you’re most afraid to lose?