Discussion Questions

David Bercot says Edmund Burke’s quote assumes “humans are in ultimate control,” and he counters, “So you think that praying and fasting is doing nothing?” What does this lesson reveal about God’s control of world events, and where do you see your own instincts still treating political action or force as the “real” power? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does this lesson teach about how much God controls what happens in the world? Where do you still act like politics or force is the real power instead of prayer and fasting?

Origen replies to Celsus that Christians decline public office not to “escape public duties” but to reserve themselves “for a more divine and necessary service…for the salvation of men,” because Christians belong to “another national organization” founded by Christ. How would an early Christian’s sense of having a different “nation” reshape the way we talk about civic duty, patriotism, and leadership ambition today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians saw themselves as part of Christ’s “nation,” how would that change how we think about civic duty, patriotism, and wanting to be a leader today?

Bercot calls it a “terrible waste” when gifted Christians use their abilities for a “temporal government,” and he mourns the founding fathers’ talents being spent on an earthly country. How do you discern whether your gifts (communication, strategy, leadership, money, influence) are being spent primarily for the Kingdom of God—or diverted to causes that feel righteous but are still “temporal”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can you tell if your talents and resources are mainly being used for God’s Kingdom or mostly for earthly causes that just feel right?

In John 6, Jesus withdraws when people want to make Him king, and Bercot argues Jesus could have set up Peter or Paul if political change were the plan. What does Jesus’s refusal to seize earthly power suggest about God’s methods for changing societies, and what parts of that feel impractical or even irresponsible to you? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Jesus refusing to become an earthly king say about how God changes society? What about that feels unrealistic or even irresponsible to you?

Tertullian is quoted saying, “If…Christians could have been Caesars,” and elsewhere, “nothing more entirely foreign…than affairs of state,” implying Christians shouldn’t rule—and that a ruler who becomes Christian should resign. What early Christian assumptions about holiness, coercive power, and bloodshed are behind those statements, and how do they collide with modern expectations that Christians should “take back” government? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What beliefs about holiness, using force, and killing led early Christians to avoid ruling the state? How does that clash with today’s idea that Christians should take control of government?

When Bercot discusses voting, he doesn’t call it a sin but presses the question of outcomes and alliances (Republican stances on abortion vs. war; divorce teaching ignored). How does his reasoning challenge common evangelical confidence that political participation is a straightforward way to “advance Christian values,” and what criteria would have to govern a Christian conscience if voting is permitted? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Bercot’s view of voting challenge the idea that politics is an easy way to promote Christian values? If voting is allowed, what should guide a Christian’s conscience when choosing?

The lesson’s Baptist/Jefferson story argues that political involvement can have long-term unintended consequences, and Bercot says they “would have…done God…a great favor if they had simply voted on their knees.” What does that phrase imply about how God does (or does not) work through elections, and how would it change the way your church community talks about candidates and political fear? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it mean to say people should have “voted on their knees”? How might that change how your church talks about candidates and political fear?

Origen claims Christians help kings more than soldiers do by prayer, godliness, and keeping “hands free from blood,” comparing Christians to pagan priests who are never enlisted. How would taking Origen seriously reframe what “supporting authorities” means in a time of war, and what practices (prayer, fasting, intercession) would have to become central rather than symbolic? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Christians help leaders most through prayer and keeping their hands free from blood, what would “supporting authorities” look like during war? What spiritual practices would need to become central, not just a symbol?

Bercot argues war is rarely “good vs evil,” using the American Revolution (taxes, land expansion, “smokescreens”), the Civil War (Christians on both sides; loyalty to region over the Kingdom), and World War II (alliances with Stalin; civilian bombings; “repay evil for evil”). Which of his examples most unsettles your inherited narratives, and what does that discomfort reveal about where you’ve located moral authority—Scripture, nation, or tradition? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which of Bercot’s war examples most challenges the story you grew up believing? What does that reaction show about where you get your moral guidance—Scripture, your nation, or tradition?

Bercot proposes “sacrificial love” alternatives—North reimbursing the South to end slavery, or allowing peaceful secession in exchange for abolition—and says it’s strange we “spend millions…to wage war” but won’t “wage peace.” What concrete “waging peace” sacrifices (money, status, security, being misunderstood) would your church actually be willing to make in a modern conflict, and how would you know whether the motive is Christlike love rather than self-justification? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What real sacrifices would your church make to “wage peace” in a modern conflict (money, comfort, safety, reputation)? How would you know you’re doing it out of Christlike love and not just to feel right?