Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 6

When Dean and his wife visit concentration camps and feel indignation—then later mentions Stalin, African massacres, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and Saddam Hussein—what does the chapter assume Christians should do with outrage at massive evil, and what responses does it rule out?

Another way to ask: After seeing huge evils in history, what does the chapter suggest Christians should do with that anger and pain? What kinds of responses does it say are not acceptable?

Direct Answer The chapter assumes Christians should not numb their outrage or stay passive, but should channel it into spiritual warfare—using God’s weapons rather than fleshly ones. It rules out both “quietly doing nothing” and “war after the flesh,” insisting on real engagement through non-carnal means.

Support from Transcript:

The visit produces a strong reaction: “we rose up with indignation” when seeing the camps, the shoes, and the oven.
He extends that outrage to other atrocities: “Stalin’s genocide…African massacres…Hiroshima and Nagasaki…Saddam Hussein.”
He rejects passivity: “quietly doing nothing was out of the question.”
Yet he redefines the fight: Ephesians 6 clarifies “we wrestle…against…spiritual wickedness,” not merely people.
He rules out fleshly war for Christians: “we do not war after the flesh…weapons…are not carnal, but mighty through God.”
He names positive outlets: “arm myself with the weapons of prayer, fasting, and gospel preaching.”

Discussion Follow-ups When you face news of evil, do you drift toward apathy or toward fleshly anger? What would it look like to respond with the “weapons of God” instead?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 6 of 10