Discussion Questions

Cliff distinguishes non-resistance from “classical pacifism” by saying Christians don’t have to believe the government has no place for war or capital punishment; what view of God’s authority and purposes is implied when the state can bear the sword while disciples refuse it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the government can use force but Jesus’ followers refuse to, what does that say about how God uses the state and what God wants from Christians?

The speaker insists a Christian life must be “unified,” not split into secular vs. following Christ; where do you see that split operating in your own habits (workplace, online life, political talk, family conflict), and what would repentance actually look like there? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you split your life into “regular life” and “following Jesus” (work, online, politics, family)? What would real repentance look like in that area?

Some students disliked the term “non-resistance,” and Cliff suggests “radical love” because Jesus’ commands are proactive (“give a drink of cold water,” “heap coals of fire”); how does changing the label expose ways you might be obeying Jesus only by avoidance rather than by costly action? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If we call it “radical love” instead of “non-resistance,” how does that show ways you obey Jesus by just avoiding trouble instead of taking costly action?

Cliff warns Anabaptists can become “the quiet in the land,” and he cites the need to “get in the way of evil” without petitions, protests, or coercion; what kinds of “getting in the way” fit his boundaries, and what kinds feel effective to us precisely because they use pressure and force? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What are some ways to “get in the way of evil” without using petitions, protests, or force? Which ways seem effective mainly because they pressure or coerce people?

The transcript rejects the “madman in the house” hypothetical as a distraction and redirects to “real situations we face every day”; what everyday conflicts (hurt feelings in church, rivalry, disrespect at home) reveal whether you actually believe Jesus’ way works? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What everyday conflicts (in church, at home, with friends) show whether you really believe Jesus’ way works?

In Matthew 5 Cliff quotes Jesus saying enemy-love is “that you may be the children of your Father”; what does this teaching reveal about what God is like, and how does it challenge any picture of God as mainly retaliatory or easily offended? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Jesus’ command to love enemies show about what God is like? How does it challenge the idea that God is mostly about payback or gets offended easily?

Cliff says we teach children “not to hit back” but “to do something nice instead,” admitting it “goes across our natural grain”; what does that imply about conversion, the Holy Spirit’s power, and the expectation of visible difference between Christians and the world? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If loving instead of hitting back goes against what feels natural, what does that say about conversion and the Holy Spirit changing us? What difference should people be able to see between Christians and others?

Romans 12 is applied to envy, jealousy, cynicism, and even secret satisfaction when someone you dislike suffers; which of these “respectable” sins do you excuse most easily, and how would “rejoice with them that rejoice” or “weep with them that weep” confront your motives? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which “respectable” sin do you excuse most—envy, jealousy, cynicism, or feeling glad when someone you dislike suffers? How would rejoicing or weeping with others expose what’s really in your heart?

Cliff emphasizes “Jesus wasn’t only mercy—He’s also truth and justice,” yet he says God retains vengeance and Christians are not “ministers of justice” but of “truth and grace”; where do modern Christians (including evangelicals) tend to demand the right to punish while still calling it righteousness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do Christians today try to claim the right to punish people and still call it righteousness, even though Cliff says Christians should give truth and grace instead?

Cliff ties Romans 12 to Romans 13: God repays, the state bears the sword, and Christians return to “love is the fulfilling of the law”; what concrete decisions would change this week if you really accepted that overcoming evil with “bullets and bombs” is not the church’s calling, and what fears make you resist that conclusion? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you truly believed the church is not called to defeat evil with bullets and bombs, what choices would you make differently this week? What fears make that hard to accept?