Discussion Questions

The speaker said Jesus “has inaugurated a kingdom that demands our loyalties” and that loyalty to one kingdom “creates a treason toward the other.” Where do you feel that demand for total loyalty most sharply collides with your assumptions about being a “good citizen,” and what does that collision reveal about what kind of King Jesus is? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where does Jesus’ call for total loyalty clash most with what you think it means to be a “good citizen”? What does that clash show you about what kind of King Jesus is?

In the cartel illustration (a “less legitimate” but very real authority that “probably kills them more”), what parallels did the speaker seem to draw to the Christian’s relationship with civil government, and what does the analogy suggest about fear, coercion, and the way rival kingdoms enforce loyalty? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the cartel example, what was the speaker comparing to a Christian’s relationship with the government? What does it teach about fear and how competing powers force loyalty?

The group distinguished between being “loyal to” one authority and merely “cooperating with” another (like curfews and “go 25 miles an hour” laws). How do you discern, in practice, when cooperation has quietly become loyalty? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can you tell when you are just following rules (like speed limits) versus truly giving your loyalty to that authority? What are the signs that cooperation has turned into loyalty?

When discussing Romans 13, the speaker called civil order “provisional”—“if you’re not going to follow Christ… you need to somehow keep every dog from eating every other one”—and said Christians are “called to a higher way.” What assumptions about God’s intentions for society are embedded in that claim, and how would early Christians (living under Rome) likely have heard it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When the speaker said civil order is only “provisional” and Christians are called to a higher way, what does that assume God wants for society? How do you think Christians under Rome would have understood that?

The conversation challenged the “one law” claim (“if it’s right for a police officer… then it’s also right for a Christian”) and suggested “somehow… two laws.” What do you think is at stake theologically in rejecting “one law,” and how does it reshape what “ministers of God” means in Romans 13? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Christians don’t follow the same rules as police (“two laws,” not “one law”), what important belief is being protected? How does that change what it means that rulers are “ministers of God” in Romans 13?

The speaker argued God can bring good through evil (Satan/Job; the crucifixion) without excusing the evil. How does that framework confront common modern Christian instincts to justify harmful methods because they “work” or produce “good outcomes”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the idea that God can bring good out of evil (without calling the evil okay) challenge the way Christians sometimes defend harmful actions because they “get results”? Where do you see that temptation in yourself or the church?

The group wrestled with whether calling police is like “reaching for the AK-47” by proxy, and raised the principle of “letting someone do the evil on your behalf that you wouldn’t do.” What motives would expose that you’re using the state as your weapon, and what motives might justify involving authorities as something other than vengeance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would show that you are calling the police to hurt someone through the state, like using it as a weapon? What reasons for involving authorities might be something other than revenge?

The teacher defined politics as “goals for a society and methods of getting there,” then argued that Jesus has a politics with radically different methods, making “Jesus for president” impossible—especially since Jesus fled when they tried to crown Him king. What does that reveal about Jesus’ view of power, and how does it challenge evangelical hopes of “taking America back” or legislating Christian outcomes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus has goals for society but uses very different methods, and He refused to be made king, what does that say about His view of power? How does that challenge the idea of “taking America back” by making laws that force Christian outcomes?

The group quoted Irenaeus (“be willing to be defrauded,” “not regarding their evil intentions”) and applied it to robbery—possibly not calling the police even after the fact. What kind of trust in God (His character and His future judgment) would be required to live that way, and what parts of your current discipleship would have to change for that to be remotely plausible? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you chose not to call the police after being robbed, what kind of trust in God would you need (His goodness and His future judgment)? What would you have to change in your discipleship to live like that?

The speaker rejected the caricature that nonresistance means “stand against the wall and do nothing,” describing methods like becoming a “human shield,” restraining without cruelty, and prayer as an active weapon. In what concrete situations (family threats, church violence, drunk drivers, child abuse) do you think your reflexes still belong more to the world’s methods than Jesus’—and what habits did the speaker say train the heart for those high-stakes moments (traffic, offense, daily forgiveness)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In what real situations do you still react more like the world than like Jesus (threats, violence, drunk drivers, abuse)? What everyday habits did the speaker say can train your heart for those high-pressure moments (like small choices, handling offense, daily forgiveness)?