Discussion Questions

Dean describes twisting wire around an M16 barrel while holding a grenade launcher and asking, “What would Jesus do?”—what does that scene suggest about what he believes Jesus is like (and is not like), and how does it confront the ways Christians often compartmentalize “spiritual” questions from “work” responsibilities? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When Dean asks “What would Jesus do?” while working on a weapon, what does that show he thinks Jesus is like (and not like)? How does it challenge the way Christians separate “faith stuff” from “work stuff”?

In the “deadly force briefing,” Dean realizes his “funny ideas” have real consequences and worries that hiding his convictions could end up hurting others in the unit—what does this reveal about honesty, responsibility, and love of neighbor in morally compromised systems? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the deadly force briefing, Dean sees his beliefs could affect real people—what does that teach about telling the truth, taking responsibility, and loving others when you’re stuck inside a broken system?

Dean says he would have felt “completely alone” without the early church writings; what do you think it means for God to use a “cloud of witnesses” from the first 300 years to steady a modern believer’s conscience, and what does that imply about how God intends tradition/history to function in discipleship? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Dean says early church writings kept him from feeling alone—how might God use Christians from long ago to guide someone’s conscience today? What does that say about why tradition and history matter for following Jesus?

Dean claims that “the closer I got to the apostles, the simpler, purer, and more biblically literal their teachings became”; where do you feel the pull to explain away or soften Jesus’ commands, and what would it cost you socially or professionally to become more “biblically literal” in the areas this chapter highlights? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where are you tempted to explain away or tone down Jesus’ commands? What might it cost you at work or with friends to take Jesus more literally in the areas this chapter talks about?

The chapter stresses that at Christ’s coming “He set up His kingdom in which He alone reigns as King,” and that early Christians meant “Thy kingdom come” literally—what practical differences would show up in your calendar, spending, voting, career plans, or conflict habits if Jesus’ kingdom were treated as your primary political reality? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus’ kingdom was your main loyalty, what would change in how you use time, spend money, vote, plan your career, or handle conflict?

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both appeal to Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” prophecy as something already being fulfilled in the church; what assumptions are they making about prophecy, the church, and the present availability of obedience, and how does that differ from common modern readings that postpone this to a future era? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When Justin and Irenaeus say “swords into plowshares” is already happening in the church, what are they assuming about prophecy and obeying God right now? How is that different from people today who say it won’t happen until the future?

Clement writes that Christians “are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins” and that they won’t even train men for war—how does that challenge modern Christian instincts about “using force for good,” including parenting, policing, social media fights, church discipline culture, or “strongman” leadership? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Christians shouldn’t use violence to fix sin or train for war, how does that challenge the idea of “using force for good”? How might this affect parenting, policing, online arguments, church discipline, or liking tough “strongman” leaders?

Tertullian argues that after Christ, it is “no longer lawful to attack others even with words,” and he presses, “What point is there in discussing the merely incidental when that on which it rests is to be condemned?”—what “incidental” debates do Christians tend to hide behind (rules, exceptions, edge cases) to avoid facing the chapter’s central moral claim? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What side debates (rules, exceptions, tricky edge cases) do Christians use to avoid the main moral point of this chapter? Why do those debates feel safer than facing the big issue?

Hippolytus’ church guideline says a would-be soldier “must be rejected, for he has despised God”; what do you think the early church believed about baptism, communion, and allegiance that could justify such a boundary, and how would a church applying that today expose what we actually believe about grace, obedience, and assurance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why might the early church think a soldier couldn’t be baptized or take communion and still be loyal to Jesus? If a church did that today, what would it reveal about what we really believe about grace, obedience, and being sure of salvation?

When accused of “not helping us” while enjoying peace provided by the army, Dean turns to Origen’s claim that Christians help kings more through prayer—“a special army, an army of godliness”—what would need to change in your life for that argument to feel credible rather than like spiritualized avoidance, and how would you respond to someone who says your nonviolence makes you a free rider? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would need to change in your life so the claim “we help more through prayer” sounds real and not like an excuse? How would you answer someone who says nonviolence means you benefit from others’ fighting without helping?