Discussion Questions

Howard Voss insists that nonviolence “is not optional” but also “is not a strategy”; where do you feel the pull in your own thinking to justify enemy-love mainly because it “works,” and what does it reveal about what you believe God is like when you need guaranteed outcomes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When do you support loving your enemies mainly because it seems like it will “work”? What does that say about what you think God is like when you want guaranteed results?

The speaker says nonviolence is “the fruit of being faithful to the way of Jesus” and that it “can also bear great suffering”; what do these statements assume about how God conquers evil, and how does that reshape the way you interpret the cross in everyday decisions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If nonviolence comes from following Jesus and can lead to suffering, what does that suggest about how God defeats evil? How does that change how you think about the cross when you make everyday choices?

The speaker contrasts taking up arms with trusting that God “sovereignly…restores all things through the cross,” saying we use violence when we feel “it’s up to us to make things right”; where do you see that same “need to be in control” showing up in non-military forms (arguments, pressure, manipulation, social media), and what would repentance look like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where does your need to “be in control” show up in non-military ways, like arguments, pressure, manipulation, or social media? What would it look like to repent of that?

“We don’t actually…follow nonviolence. We follow the way of Christ.” How does that reframe the danger of making nonviolence into an identity marker, and what practices would keep “following Christ” central rather than a moral cause? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does “we follow Christ, not nonviolence” warn you against making nonviolence your main identity? What habits would help keep following Jesus at the center instead of a cause?

The speaker says loving the enemy is “the way to win the enemy” and also “an unconditional…witness,” even if the enemy is never won; how does that challenge common evangelical instincts about effectiveness, results, and “closing the deal,” and what changes if God—not you—decides the outcome? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If loving an enemy is a witness even when it doesn’t “work,” how does that challenge the urge to focus on results and “closing the deal”? What changes when you trust God to decide the outcome, not you?

In what ways would the earliest Christians—formed by Jesus’ teaching, foot-washing, and the cross—have expected their congregations to embody enemy-love publicly, and where does modern Christianity tend to privatize it into “personal piety”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How would the first Christians have expected enemy-love to be seen in public life, not just in private? Where does Christianity today treat enemy-love as only a personal, private thing?

Howard Voss’s line, “To worship Jesus is itself a politics, a politics that subverts the status quo,” challenges the idea of being “apolitical”; what forms of “status quo” does worship subvert in your context, and what would it cost your church socially to live that out? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If worshiping Jesus is a kind of politics that challenges the status quo, what “status quo” does it challenge where you live? What social cost might your church pay if it lived that out?

The speaker describes Jesus’ “politics” beginning with taking up a towel and washing feet, rejecting “coercion or having power over”; what are concrete examples where your church handles conflict, leadership, or decision-making in ways that look more like coercion than towels? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Jesus led by washing feet, not by forcing people—so where does your church use pressure or control in conflict, leadership, or decisions? What would a more “towel-like” approach look like in those situations?

The speaker claims that in God’s politics “there will not be rich nor poor” and “not…social stratification”; what specific financial habits, property assumptions, or class boundaries in your community would have to change for that to become more than rhetoric? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God’s kingdom leaves no rich and poor divisions, what money habits, property expectations, or class barriers in your community would need to change? What would you have to do differently for this to be real, not just talk?

The teaching says allegiance is to “King Jesus and the Kingdom of God,” a “transnational rulership” that critiques Christian nationalism and may “come into conflict with the governments of man”; where do your national loyalties most compete with your baptismal loyalties, and what public, concrete choices would reveal which kingdom you actually believe rules? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do your loyalties to your nation clash with your loyalty to Jesus and God’s kingdom? What specific public choices would show which one you really think is in charge?