Discussion Questions

Russell says the starting point is, “What does Jesus call me to…what would loyalty look like to Jesus in this situation?” How does that starting point change the way you process election-year fears and “what-if” scenarios compared to starting with extreme cases like “What would you do if your wife were attacked?” JumpstartAnother way to ask: Russell starts with, “What does Jesus call me to do here?” How does starting there change how you handle election-year fears compared to starting with scary extreme stories?

In the 1991 Gulf War story, the phrase “our missiles and bombs” in a non-resistant church disturbed Russell. What does that kind of language reveal about where a Christian’s identity and loyalty are quietly located, and what alternative language (if any) would better reflect allegiance to Jesus? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the Gulf War story, saying “our missiles and bombs” bothered Russell. What does that kind of talk show about where a Christian’s loyalty really is, and what words would better show loyalty to Jesus?

Russell connects Anabaptist fascination with military success to churches “slacking off” in preaching non-resistance. What teaching (biblical and historical) do you think would have to be recovered for a congregation to stop feeling “awe” toward sophisticated weaponry? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Russell says churches stopped clearly teaching non-resistance, and that helped Christians admire military power. What Bible and church history teaching would your church need to recover to stop being impressed by high-tech weapons?

The Palestinian Muslim’s critique was: Christians say “we don’t want vengeance,” but “I’ve never seen anyone live like that.” If a neighbor watched your church for a year, what specific practices would either confirm or contradict Jesus’ way of overcoming evil in their eyes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: A Palestinian Muslim said, “Christians say they don’t want revenge, but I never see anyone live that way.” If someone watched your church for a year, what actions would prove—or disprove—that you fight evil Jesus’s way?

Russell argues that responding to evil with violence “only breeds more violence” and even fuels recruitment for groups like ISIS or Hamas. What would it look like to take that claim seriously when evaluating popular “national security” arguments that feel practical, urgent, and compassionate? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Russell says violence usually creates more violence and can even help groups like ISIS or Hamas gain support. How would taking that seriously change the way you judge “national security” arguments that sound practical and caring?

Russell distinguishes roles: the state “maintains order” with the sword, while the church is to “woo people to Jesus,” not coerce. Where do you see yourself tempted to move from wooing into coercion—whether through politics, social pressure, boycotts, or culture-war tactics—and what drives that temptation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Russell says the state uses force to keep order, but the church should invite people to Jesus, not pressure them. Where are you tempted to pressure or force people—through politics, social pressure, boycotts, or culture-war moves—and why?

Russell describes a shift in his own thinking: pro-life voting and marching began to feel like “imposing morality,” creating “a wall between her and Jesus.” What issues today most tempt you to pursue moral outcomes through force or law, and how might that strategy unintentionally make Jesus look like an enemy rather than a Savior? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Russell felt that some pro-life political action started to look like “forcing morality” and pushed people away from Jesus. What issues today tempt you to use laws or power to get the result you want, and how could that make Jesus seem like an enemy instead of a Savior?

Russell says political change is unstable (51% today, reversed next election) and calls it “not worth it” compared with “one by one” heart change. What costs—time, reputation, suffering, lack of visible wins—make the “one by one” approach feel unbearable, and what would repentance look like at that point? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Russell says political wins can flip next election, but changing hearts “one by one” lasts. What makes the slow “one by one” way feel too hard—time, reputation, suffering, no quick wins—and what would it look like to repent then?

He suggests wealth and fear of losing it can push Christians into political loyalty, and even replace “a real connection with Jesus.” What fears about comfort, safety, or the future most shape your political emotions, and how do those fears conflict with Jesus’s promise of “life more abundant” in a fallen world? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Russell says wealth and fear of losing it can pull Christians toward political loyalty and replace closeness with Jesus. What fears about comfort, safety, or the future shape your politics most, and how do they clash with Jesus’s promise of abundant life in a broken world?

Drawing from *The Patient Ferment of the Early Church*, Russell contrasts Roman virtues (loyalty/courage expressed through the sword) with Christian virtues (humility/patience), and redefines courage as willingness “to die for Jesus.” Where would adopting that definition of courage force concrete changes in how you talk, vote, post online, or respond to threats—and what would your community lose if it embraced patience as central again? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Russell contrasts Roman courage (using the sword) with Christian courage (being willing to die for Jesus) and Christian patience. If you used his view of courage, what would have to change in how you talk, vote, post online, or respond to threats—and what would your community give up if patience became central again?