Discussion Questions

In David Bercot’s “stepping through the gate” illustration, time “doesn’t move” on one side while seasons mature on the other; what does that picture suggest about what God is doing when someone enters the kingdom, and how does it challenge the way you normally think about “eternal life” as only a future reality? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Bercot’s “gate” picture, what is God doing in a person when they enter the kingdom? How does this change the idea that “eternal life” is only something we get later?

Bercot quotes Jesus, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,” and then quotes William Law: “If you have not chosen the kingdom of God first, it will in the end make no difference what you have chosen instead”; what practical “first choices” in your life would expose whether the kingdom really has “no second option” for you? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God’s kingdom must come first, what “first choice” in your real life would show whether you truly mean that? What choices would reveal you still treat the kingdom as just one option among many?

He claims that in New Testament times this kingdom-focused experience was “normative” for the first 300 years, but after the fourth century “the world sucked them in”; what specific shifts does he name (Christian nations, killing, torturing, class distinctions, persecuting Jews, swearing oaths, ignoring Jesus’ commands), and which of those temptations do you think the modern church is most vulnerable to repeating in different forms? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the early church was pulled into the world after the 4th century (Christian nations, violence, class levels, persecuting Jews, oaths, ignoring Jesus’ commands). Which of these same traps do you think churches today are most likely to repeat in new ways?

Bercot distinguishes “the gospel of Jesus” (what Jesus preached and commanded) from “the gospel about Jesus” (truths about His identity and saving work), and says most preaching since the early fourth century emphasizes theology over how we live; where do you see your own church tradition placing its “center,” and what would have to change in preaching, discipleship, and assurance of salvation if Jesus’ way of life became central rather than optional? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Does your church focus more on what Jesus taught us to do, or mainly on facts about who Jesus is and what He did? If living Jesus’ way became the main focus, what would need to change in preaching, discipleship, and how people find assurance of salvation?

He says kingdom Christians interpret Scripture by starting with Jesus’ teachings, refusing to interpret epistles in a way that contradicts Jesus, and not treating the Old Testament as the “final statement” on Christian living; what doctrines or ethical issues today feel like they are commonly built from Romans or the Old Testament first, and what happens to those positions if the Sermon on the Mount is treated as the controlling authority? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What beliefs or moral issues today are often built from Romans or the Old Testament first instead of Jesus’ teachings? If the Sermon on the Mount had the final say, how would those views change?

Using the “legal alien” illustration (Sean from Ireland), Bercot argues Christians should obey laws and pay taxes but not participate in politics or government because they are “guests” and citizens of another kingdom; what reasons does he give for political noninvolvement, and what fears or losses (identity, influence, protection of values, etc.) make that teaching hard for you to accept? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does Bercot say Christians should obey laws and pay taxes but not join politics or government as “guests” of another kingdom? What worries or losses make this hard for you (like identity, influence, or protecting values)?

When “Caesar wants God’s things,” Bercot says governments demand “unqualified allegiance,” and he cites “What will be God’s if all things are Caesar’s?”; what forms of allegiance does he accuse conventional Christians of giving Caesar (money, youth, souls, risking life), and what would it look like in your actual schedule and spending to stop giving God “leftover crumbs”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says many Christians give Caesar what belongs to God (money, young people, souls, even life). In your week and budget, what would change if you stopped giving God only the leftovers?

He calls war-making incompatible with Jesus’ commands to love enemies, not resist evil, and be peacemakers, and he describes fourth-century compromise when church and state joined; how do his examples (Billy Sunday saying men could be saved by dying in WWI; churches as “recruiting offices”) confront modern Christian language about patriotism, military service, and “just war,” and what would repentance look like if he’s right? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do Bercot’s stories about World War I and churches helping recruitment challenge Christian talk about patriotism, the military, and “just war”? If he is right, what would repentance look like today?

Bercot treats Jesus’ prohibition of oaths as absolute (“don’t swear oaths, period”), says theologians like Augustine created loopholes to satisfy rulers, and notes kingdom Christians across centuries converged on refusing oaths; what does this reveal about God’s priorities for truth-telling and integrity, and where do you see yourself tempted to accept “theologian’s rationalizations” because obedience would be costly or socially disruptive? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus meant “don’t swear oaths” with no exceptions, what does that say about how much God cares about honest speech? Where are you tempted to accept clever excuses because obeying Jesus would cost you something or make life awkward?

Bercot insists Jesus’ commandments don’t change with culture and calls it “one of the worst heresies” to say the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t apply to Christians today; how does his argument from Hebrews 13:8 and the vineyard parable (“no new lawgivers after Jesus”) challenge popular evangelical ideas of freedom, dispensations, and “not under law,” and what contemporary “politically incorrect” commands he mentions (divorce permanence, head coverings, modesty) most expose whether you treat Jesus’ words as binding or merely admirable? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Bercot’s claim that Jesus’ commands never change challenge ideas like “not under law” or dividing the Bible into different rules for different times? Which “hard” commands he names (divorce, head coverings, modesty) most reveal whether you treat Jesus’ words as required or just good advice?