Discussion Questions

When Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world… if it were… my servants would fight,” what does that reveal about the nature of Jesus’ kingship and the kind of power God intends His people to use—and what kinds of power it excludes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When Jesus told Pilate his kingdom is “not of this world” and his servants wouldn’t fight, what does that say about what kind of King he is? What kinds of power does God want his people to use—and what kinds does he rule out?

David points out that massive Jewish protests (like the uproar over Caligula’s statue in the temple) are basically invisible in Acts; what do you think the apostles’ silence and non-participation communicates about how they defined “faithfulness” when their own people were being publicly provoked and threatened? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Acts doesn’t mention big Jewish protests, and the apostles don’t seem to join them. What do you think their silence says about what they thought “being faithful” meant when their people were threatened?

In Acts 18, Aquila and Priscilla are expelled from Rome as Jews, and Paul treats it as a “kingdom opportunity” in Corinth; how does that episode challenge the modern instinct to treat political injustice as an urgent discipleship priority, and what might it expose about what we believe is truly “of no concern” to a citizen of heaven? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When Aquila and Priscilla are kicked out of Rome, Paul treats it as a chance to spread the kingdom in Corinth. How does that push back on the idea that fighting political injustice must be a top priority for discipleship, and what might it show about what a “citizen of heaven” should or shouldn’t worry about?

David argues Jesus “was no Jewish patriot,” refused to be made king (John 6), and could have endorsed Peter as an alternative if political rule were God’s plan; what does Jesus’ deliberate passing of that “golden opportunity” say about God’s purposes for His Son’s followers in relation to state power? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus refused to become king and didn’t back Peter as a political leader, what does that say about God’s plan for Jesus’ followers and government power? What might Jesus’ choice tell us about what Christians are supposed to seek instead?

Tertullian and Origen are quoted saying Christians avoided “affairs of state,” not to dodge duty but to reserve themselves for “more divine and necessary service” in the church; how would the early Christians’ assumption about leadership (“rule over churches,” not the state) confront the way many churches today celebrate political influence as a form of Christian success? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Early Christians said they stayed out of government so they could focus on serving the church. How does that challenge churches today that treat political influence as proof that Christianity is “winning”?

David insists political involvement inevitably requires alliances with unbelievers (“Politics makes strange bedfellows”) and applies “Do not be unequally yoked” even to voting; where do you feel that claim presses hardest against your own assumptions, and what would it look like to test whether your political habits have yoked you to non-kingdom goals or methods? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David says politics often ties Christians to unbelievers and even says voting can be an “unequal yoke.” Where does that idea challenge you most, and how could you check whether your political habits pull you toward goals or methods that don’t match God’s kingdom?

David lists actions and values that states permit or require (war, oaths, abortion, pornography, lawsuits, etc.) and then argues a candidate who fully embraced Jesus’ teachings (truthful self-disclosure, fair speech about opponents, enemy-love, forgiveness, non-resistance) couldn’t even win a primary; what does that argument imply about the possibility of “Christian politics,” and how does it challenge common evangelical ideas about “changing the nation”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David argues that a candidate who truly followed Jesus’ teachings (like loving enemies and not hitting back) couldn’t even win a primary. What does that suggest about whether “Christian politics” is really possible, and how does it challenge the idea of “changing the nation” through elections?

Using the ambassador illustration, David says Christians don’t vote in the host country’s politics because they represent another government; in what ways does your speech, media intake, and emotional investment around elections reveal whether you function as an “ambassador” or as someone who considers this nation your home? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David says Christians are like ambassadors who represent another country, so they don’t get wrapped up in the host country’s politics. What do your words, media habits, and emotions about elections show—do you act more like an ambassador or like this nation is your real home?

David’s “casino commissioners” example argues that even local voting leaves you with “not clean hands” because you empower officials who will oppose God somewhere; how should Christians weigh moral responsibility for downstream decisions made by leaders they helped install, and what does “clean hands” mean in the context of civic participation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the “casino commissioners” example, David says even local voting can make your hands not clean because leaders you support will do wrong things. How should Christians think about responsibility for what leaders do after we help put them in office, and what would “clean hands” mean when taking part in civic life?

David says fourth-century Christians achieved real social goods (ending gladiator games, banning abortion/infanticide, outlawing prostitution) but paid a “too steep” price (embracing war, torture/capital punishment, religious persecution) and “became the world”; what warning signs today would indicate the church is repeating that exchange, and what concrete practices could help a congregation pursue mercy and justice for the poor (as Julian observed) without crossing into that kind of entanglement? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David says Christians in the 4th century did some good for society but ended up copying the world in harmful ways too. What signs today would show the church is making that same trade, and what practical habits could help a church care for the poor and do justice without getting tangled up with power like that?