Discussion Questions

Nathan says God has “condoned, if not ordered” force and war at times in the Bible, yet Christians are now called to love enemies and not take up arms; what does that contrast reveal about God’s character and purposes across the covenants, and how should it shape how Christians talk about God’s justice today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The Bible sometimes shows God allowing or even commanding war, but Jesus tells Christians to love enemies and not fight. What does this contrast show about God’s goals, and how should Christians talk about God’s justice today?

The “consistent ethic of life” is framed as opposition to killing in war, capital punishment, abortion, and euthanasia; which of these do you instinctively treat as most/least urgent, and what does that reveal about what you believe gives human life its value? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The “consistent ethic of life” opposes killing in war, the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia. Which of these feels most urgent to you and which feels least, and what does that show about why you think human life matters?

Nathan argues that Romans 13 gives governments “leeway” with the sword, but that this is “not our calling as people in Christ’s kingdom”; how do you understand the relationship between God ordaining government authority and God forbidding kingdom Christians from participating in that authority? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Nathan says Romans 13 allows governments to use force, but Christians in Christ’s kingdom aren’t called to do that. How can both be true at the same time?

Felix Manz was charged (among other things) with opposing the government’s use of capital punishment; why would that stance have been especially bold in a culture where executions were common and used against “kingdom Christians,” and what early-Christian assumptions about allegiance and witness does that reflect? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why was it especially brave for Felix Manz to oppose the death penalty in a place where executions were common and even used against “kingdom Christians”? What does that show about early Christians’ loyalty and how they wanted to be a witness?

Menno Simons reasons that executing a repentant transgressor ignores repentance, and executing an unrepentant one “cuts off their chance” to repent; what does this argument assume about God’s desire to save, the church’s mission, and the moral weight of giving someone time to turn? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Menno Simons says killing a repentant person ignores repentance, and killing an unrepentant person stops them from ever repenting. What does that say about God’s desire to save people and the importance of giving them time to change?

Nathan says, “Just because the government has that right doesn’t mean that we as the church vocally support it,” and warns against sounding like “cheerleaders for war or for capital punishment”; what would “cheerleading” look like in everyday speech, voting talk, news consumption, or church culture—and why is it spiritually dangerous? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it look like to be a “cheerleader” for war or the death penalty in normal talk, voting conversations, news habits, or church life? Why could that be spiritually harmful?

He claims, “If it’s sin for us, then it’s sin for others as well,” and then shifts the focus from legislation to calling individuals (soldier, executioner, woman considering abortion) to repentance; what challenges or objections rise up in you against that claim, and what would it require to treat “other people’s jobs” as moral discipleship issues? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Nathan says, “If it’s sin for us, then it’s sin for others too,” and focuses on calling individuals (like soldiers, executioners, or someone considering abortion) to repent. What makes you push back on that, and what would it take to treat people’s jobs as a discipleship issue?

In the Wisconsin book-study story, the group found it easier to protest the Iraq war than to talk to their own relatives joining the military; what does this reveal about the kinds of “activism” that can avoid personal cost, and what costly conversations might obedience require in your own family or friendships? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why was it easier for the group to protest the Iraq war than to talk with relatives who were joining the military? What hard, personal conversations might obedience require in your own relationships?

Nathan appeals to John the Baptist telling soldiers, “Do violence to no man,” noting John didn’t denounce Rome or demand soldiers quit; how does that example shape (or unsettle) expectations many evangelicals have about political denunciation, culture-war language, and what “prophetic witness” should sound like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: John the Baptist told soldiers, “Do violence to no man,” but he didn’t attack Rome or demand they quit. How does that shape—or challenge—what you think “prophetic witness” should sound like in politics and culture-war talk?

Using the Timothy McVeigh execution and John Paul II forgiving his would-be assassin, Nathan emphasizes how the death penalty can remove the opportunity for apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation; how does this reframe justice in your mind, and what practices (visiting prisoners, praying for enemies, seeking face-to-face forgiveness) would make this teaching concrete in your church? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Nathan says the death penalty can end the chance for apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation, like in the McVeigh story compared with John Paul II forgiving his attacker. How does that change how you think about justice, and what could your church do to live this out (like visiting prisoners or praying for enemies)?