Discussion Questions

In Alexander Campbell’s reply, he argues that “consistency is a virtue only when the professed principles of action are good,” and even notes that Satan may be “very consistent”; how does that reshape the way you evaluate “consistent” Christians, churches, or movements you’ve admired—or distrusted? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Campbell says being “consistent” is only good if your principles are good (even Satan can be consistent). How does that change how you judge Christians, churches, or movements you’ve respected—or doubted—because they seemed consistent?

Campbell says the key question is whether consistency means acting “conformably to our own professed sentiments” or to “the professed sentiments and principles of others”; where do you see yourself most tempted to define faithfulness as conformity to *your* circle’s expectations rather than loyalty to Christ? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When do you most tend to measure “faithfulness” by what your own group expects instead of by loyalty to Christ?

Campbell insists the only bond for “full communion” among Christians is a sincere confession that “Jesus is the Christ,” expressed in an “overt act of obedience,” along with living “conformably to it” and maintaining an “unblemished moral character”; what would it cost (relationally and institutionally) to treat those as your baseline for recognizing a brother or sister? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Campbell says full communion should be based on confessing “Jesus is the Christ,” obeying Him openly, living it out, and having a clean moral life. What would it cost you—in relationships or church systems—to treat that as the basic test for calling someone a brother or sister?

The “independent Baptist” letter treats the Philadelphia Confession as “anti-Christian,” calls monthly communion a “vile deviation,” and labels regular Baptist services “an abomination” largely on theological and ecclesiastical grounds; what does this reveal about how easily zeal for “primitive order” can become a substitute for mercy, and where have you seen that spirit in yourself? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The “independent Baptist” letter attacks other churches in harsh terms because they don’t follow the “primitive order.” What does this show about how love for “right order” can replace mercy, and where have you seen that in yourself?

Campbell challenges the assumption that joining in prayer, praise, or the Lord’s Supper necessarily signals “full and entire approval of all their views”; how would your approach to shared worship change if you adopted his distinction between approving *the act* versus endorsing *everything* about the group? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Campbell says praying, singing, or taking the Lord’s Supper with a group doesn’t mean you approve of everything they believe. How would your view of shared worship change if you separated joining the act from endorsing the whole group?

Campbell claims that by the “independent Baptist” standard, even Paul might not have been able to break bread with Corinth, Rome, Galatia, or even the Twelve on the night Jesus was betrayed; what picture of God’s patience with imperfect churches is implied here, and how does that confront modern instincts to withhold fellowship until a church is “up to standard”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Campbell says that by the “independent Baptist” rules, Paul might not have been able to share the Lord’s Supper with many early churches. What does that suggest about God’s patience with flawed churches, and how does it challenge our habit of cutting off fellowship until a church meets our standards?

In discussing “communion,” Campbell points out the inconsistency of Christians who freely unite at the “Family Altar” or prayer meetings but would “rather be caught with publicans and sinners” than share the Lord’s Table; what do your own communion boundaries reveal about what you believe the Table *means*, and what fears or loyalties drive those boundaries? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Campbell notes some Christians pray together but refuse to share the Lord’s Table. What do your own limits on communion show about what you think the Table means, and what fears or loyalties shape those limits?

Campbell calls the impulse to “make our own nest…confining all goodness and grace” to our group “the quintessence of sublimated Phariseism,” and says “all sectarianism is the offspring of hell”; what specific modern church practices (membership requirements, labels, conference circuits, social-media tribes, “discernment” culture) most closely resemble the “bandbox of our own little circle”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Campbell warns about trapping “goodness and grace” inside our own small circle and calls sectarianism evil. What church habits today (membership rules, labels, conference groups, social-media tribes, “discernment” culture) most look like that, and why?

Bercot criticizes “sterile biblicists” and notes Jesus’ sheep-and-goats judgment scene mentions nothing about doctrine, then contrasts that with churches that “ignore and even trample” Jesus’ explicit commands (divorce/remarriage, nonresistance, materialism); how do you personally weigh doctrinal precision versus obedience in real decisions—who you trust, where you worship, who you follow? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says some churches focus on correct doctrine while ignoring Jesus’ clear commands (like divorce/remarriage, nonresistance, and materialism). In real life, how do you balance being right in doctrine with actually obeying Jesus when choosing who to trust, where to worship, or who to follow?

Near the end, Bercot uses Jesus’ vine-and-branches illustration: if Jesus is pouring His Spirit into someone and there is visible fruit, refusing them as a brother may be Pharisaical; what concrete markers of “fruit” would you look for before extending brotherhood, and how can a group practice that without sliding into either “easy believism + baptism” ecumenism or the harshness of Mr. Independent Baptist? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says if someone shows the Spirit’s fruit, refusing them as a brother may be Pharisaical. What signs of real “fruit” would you look for before calling someone a brother or sister, and how can a church do that without becoming either too loose (“easy believism + baptism”) or too harsh like Mr. Independent Baptist?