Discussion Questions

David Bercot says the “doctrine of the two kingdoms” was “universally believed by the primitive Christians” and is now “almost totally…lost”; what specific parts of his definition (a real present kingdom, concrete laws/values/leadership, and separation from the world order) feel most unfamiliar—or most resisted—in your own church background? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says early Christians believed God’s kingdom is real right now, has clear ways of living and leaders, and stays separate from the world’s system. Which of those ideas feels most strange or hardest to accept in your church background, and why?

The lesson claims God’s kingdom is “here and now in the true disciples” and “not…symbolic or figurative”; what does this imply about what God intends the church to visibly look like inside a nation, and how would a watching pagan (like Rome) be able to “take note” that another kingdom is present? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God’s kingdom is real “here and now” in true disciples, what should the church look like in public inside a nation? What would make non-Christians clearly notice that a different kingdom is present?

Origen answers Celsus by saying Christians avoid public office “not for…escaping public duties” but to reserve themselves for “a more divine and necessary service…for the salvation of men”; what does that reveal about how early Christians ranked “public good” versus the church’s mission, and what activities today get treated as “more necessary” than the salvation of people? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Origen said Christians avoided public office to focus on serving God and saving people. What does that show about what early Christians thought mattered more: doing public good through government or the church’s mission, and what do we treat as “more important” than saving people today?

Multiple early sources are quoted saying “this world and the next are two enemies” and “we cannot…be the friends of both”; where do modern Christians most commonly try to keep friendship with both kingdoms at the same time, and what costs (spiritual, moral, witness) does Bercot argue inevitably follow? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Early Christians said you can’t be friends with both this world and God’s kingdom. Where do Christians today most try to hold on to both at once, and what damage does Bercot say will happen because of it?

Tertullian’s line—“The Caesars…would have believed…if…Christians could have been Caesars”—assumes the offices themselves require loyalties Christians can’t give; what do you think early Christians believed about political power that made “being Caesar” incompatible with following Jesus, and how does that collide with modern expectations of “Christian leadership” in government? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian implied Christians couldn’t be Caesars because the job demands loyalties they can’t give. What do you think early Christians believed about political power that made top leadership incompatible with following Jesus, and how does that clash with today’s idea of “Christian leaders” in government?

Bercot uses Jesus in John 6:15 (refusing to be made king) and “no one can serve two masters” to argue political involvement is a deeper conflict than money; what does this suggest about God’s wisdom in keeping Jesus from seizing earthly rule, and what does it expose about what we think “responsibility” and “making a difference” should look like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot points to Jesus refusing to be made king and says you can’t serve two masters. What might God have been protecting by keeping Jesus from taking earthly power, and what does that say about how we define “responsibility” and “making a difference”?

The “alien/foreigner” illustration from Honduras is used to frame Christian life under earthly governments; what would change in your emotional investment (news cycles, elections, patriotic identity, fears for the future) if you truly viewed yourself as a resident alien whose “citizenship was somewhere else”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you truly saw yourself as a “resident alien” with citizenship somewhere else, how would that change how you feel about news, elections, patriotism, and fears about the future?

Hermes warns that those who “provide lands…accumulate dwellings…useless buildings” may become unable to “return again to [their] own” city; what kinds of modern “preparations” (financial, lifestyle, security, social status, career paths) function like permanent investments in “this city,” and how might those investments quietly redefine what kingdom you feel accountable to? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Hermes warns that building up too much in “this city” can make you unable to return to your real city. What modern things (money plans, lifestyle, safety, status, career) tie you down here, and how might they quietly shift which kingdom you feel you answer to?

The lesson insists early Christians held to nonretaliation in concrete ways—no “blow for blow,” no lawsuits, no violence, no defending even property taken by force—and connects this to the claim that “the means…is just as important as the end”; where do you most instinctively believe “the end justifies the means,” and what would repentance look like if Jesus’ commands (Matthew 5:38–41; Romans 12:19–21) were taken as day-to-day kingdom law rather than ideals? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Early Christians practiced nonretaliation in real life—no payback, no lawsuits, no violence, not even defending stolen property—and said the way you act matters as much as the goal. Where are you most tempted to think “the end justifies the means,” and what would it look like to obey Jesus’ commands as daily rules, not just ideals?

In the historical sections (Constantine, the English Civil War, the modern Religious Right), Bercot argues “gains” like outlawing abortion or closing immoral theaters were outweighed by losses like war, persecution, and the church becoming worldly (e.g., divorce rates and shifting views on headship); what “victories” do you most want the church to achieve through worldly power, and what would you be willing to lose spiritually to get them—especially if Satan’s “bargain” is that the church absorbs corruption in exchange for society absorbing some goodness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says using worldly power can bring some wins, but it often makes the church more worldly and causes serious harm. What changes do you most want the church to achieve through political power, and what spiritual cost would you be willing to pay for them if it also meant the church slowly absorbs corruption?