Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 6

The chapter argues that many kingdom Christians have “thrown out the bulk of our forefathers’ teachings” and replaced them with the doctrines of Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, adding only nonresistance, free will, and the head covering; where do you see that blend in your own church tradition, and what do you think it costs a community when its theological framework is inherited from its historical persecutors?

Another way to ask: Where do you see a mix of “kingdom Christian” practices with theology borrowed from Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, or Calvin in your tradition? What might a church lose when its main theology comes from people who once persecuted its forefathers?

Direct Answer Bercot argues the blend shows up when “kingdom” groups keep a few distinctive practices but rely on mainstream doctrinal systems and commentaries for most theology; he implies the cost is continued dominance by the very voices that once bullied them.

Support from Transcript:

He laments: “We've thrown out the bulk of our forefathers' teachings and replaced them with the doctrines of those who have bullied us.”
He says typical Anabaptist/Moravian/Brethren textbooks “basically teach the doctrines of Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.”
The “mere addition” is “non-resistance, free will, and the head covering.”
He notes a habit: for sermons and lessons they “typically go to the works of the theologian commentaries, doctrinal textbooks, and popular writings.”
He challenges the assumption that these theologians “understood so little about Christ's kingdom” yet are treated as primary guides.

Discussion Follow-ups The transcript doesn’t list specific doctrines beyond that summary, but it presses a diagnostic question: whose categories shape your church’s thinking more—your spiritual forefathers, or the “heroes” from the persecuting traditions?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 6 of 10