Discussion Questions

The chapter argues that “any restoration of primitive Christianity must entail a radical transformation of lives”; what does that claim reveal about what God is aiming to produce in His people, and how does that challenge a Christianity centered mainly on correct beliefs or religious experiences? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If restoring early Christianity requires lives to change deeply, what does that say God wants to form in His people? How does that challenge a faith focused mostly on right beliefs or strong religious feelings?

David Bercot says the Anabaptists came close to recovering the early Christian “ethos of the two kingdoms” and insists Christians “cannot serve two masters”; where do you see the strongest tensions today between seeking God’s kingdom first and being “embroiled” in political, military, or commercial pursuits? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see the biggest clash today between putting God’s kingdom first and getting pulled into politics, the military, or making money? Why is that tension so strong?

The Anabaptists were “furthest removed from the intellectual centers,” yet Bercot says they arrived at many early-Christian conclusions because they followed the “literal words of Scripture”; what does this suggest about how God intends Scripture to function for ordinary believers, and where do you think “literal obedience” is most resisted or reinterpreted in your own church culture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it suggest about how Scripture should work for regular believers if the Anabaptists learned so much just by taking it at face value? In your church culture, where is simple, literal obedience most often resisted or explained away?

The chapter presents separation of church and state as an Anabaptist “revolutionary” teaching that most Christians in the 1500s assumed would lead to anarchy; what assumptions about God, order, and human power are exposed when Christians feel the church must be propped up by the state (or vice versa)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When Christians think the church needs the government to survive (or the government needs the church), what does that show they believe about God, order, and power? What fears or assumptions are underneath that belief?

The Anabaptists criticize other churches for allowing their own poor to beg while members live in “silk and velvet…pomp and splendor,” and they ask, “Where is the power of the Gospel you preach?”—what “sign of true Christianity” are they claiming was lost, and what would it require for your congregation to recover it in concrete, costly ways? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What “sign of true Christianity” were the Anabaptists saying was missing when believers lived in luxury while their own poor begged? What would your church have to do to recover that in real, costly ways?

The quote “If the head had to suffer…how shall his servants…expect peace and freedom as to their flesh?” frames suffering as normal for Christians; how does that view of God’s purposes in suffering collide with modern expectations of safety, comfort, or “freedom,” and what changes if we treat hardship as part of discipleship rather than a problem to solve? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If suffering is normal for Christians, how does that go against today’s focus on comfort, safety, and “freedom”? What changes when we treat hardship as part of following Jesus instead of something to quickly fix?

In the story of Dirk Willems returning to save his pursuer and then being burned alive, what picture of God’s love and Jesus’ commands does this embody, and what situations today would feel like “turning back to rescue” someone who is actively harming your interests? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Dirk Willems turning back to save his pursuer show about God’s love and Jesus’ commands? What situation today would feel like helping someone who is hurting you?

The Anabaptists refused retaliation, refused the sword “either for protection or for executing criminals,” and refused to take oaths “in obedience to Jesus’ words”; which of these teachings feels most unrealistic or dangerous to you, and what does your reaction reveal about what you believe God will (or won’t) do for His people? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which Anabaptist teaching seems most unrealistic or risky to you: no retaliation, no sword even for protection or punishment, or no oaths because of Jesus’ words? What does your reaction show about what you think God will (or won’t) do for His people?

Bercot says the Anabaptists taught salvation is a gift, yet “conditional…which can be taken away from the disobedient,” and they rejected predestination in favor of real human choice; how does that combination (gift + condition + responsibility) confront common evangelical instincts about assurance, grace, and “faith alone,” and where do you feel internal pushback? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the idea that salvation is a gift but can be lost through disobedience, and that people have real choice, challenge common evangelical views about assurance, grace, and “faith alone”? Where do you feel resistance to that idea inside yourself?

The chapter claims toleration and prosperity led to decline: withdrawal from evangelism, growing interest in “things of this life,” fragmentation over discipline, and a drift from inner transformation to clothes and grooming; where do you see similar patterns in modern Christian communities (including “new Anabaptists,” Mennonites/Amish, or your own tradition), and what practices might keep zeal, inner change, and evangelism from being smothered by comfort and externals? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see comfort and prosperity making churches lose zeal, evangelism, and inner change, and focus more on outward things? What habits or practices could keep a community from drifting that way?