Discussion Questions

David Bercot defines a “kingdom movement” by three marks—two kingdoms, grace given only to those who obey Jesus, and New Testament kingdom values replacing even Old Testament assumptions; which of those three feels most non‑negotiable to Jesus in the way Bercot argues from John 15, and what do you think modern Christians quietly try to soften or explain away? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says a “kingdom movement” has three marks. From John 15, which one seems most important to Jesus, and which one do Christians today try to water down?

Bercot states bluntly, “No obedience, no salvation,” while also insisting obedience is not “earning” salvation; what do you think he means by grace being “only given to those who love Christ,” and how does that challenge common evangelical categories like “assurance,” “once saved always saved,” or “obedience as optional evidence”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can Bercot say “No obedience, no salvation” without meaning we earn salvation? What does it mean that grace is only given to those who love and obey Christ, and how does that challenge ideas like “once saved always saved” or “assurance”?

In Bercot’s contrast, an Augustinian movement treats civil government as part of God’s kingdom and applies “Bible” morality to the secular realm (often functionally Old Testament ethics rather than the Sermon on the Mount); where do you see your own instincts lining up with Wycliffe’s assumption that “the Bible should govern the secular realm,” and what would actually change if you fully accepted the two‑kingdoms doctrine Bercot describes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you agree with the idea that the Bible should run the government and society? If you fully accepted Bercot’s “two kingdoms,” what would change in how you think about politics and law?

Wycliffe criticized church wealth so strongly that he said the crown should forcibly seize church property, yet he “had no problem with kings and the nobility storing up treasures”; what does that selective moral concern reveal about how hard it is to let Jesus’ teaching on wealth judge our “side,” and where might we have similar blind spots today (church budgets, personal investments, national prosperity narratives)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why was Wycliffe harsh on church wealth but okay with kings and nobles storing treasures? What does that show about how we excuse wealth on “our side,” and where might we do the same today?

Bercot argues Wycliffe’s claim—“nobody who is in mortal sin is lord of anything”—laid groundwork for armed revolution, unlike Paul’s submission under immoral emperors; how should Christians handle real political tyranny or corruption without drifting into either revolution‑justification or passive complicity, and what New Testament boundaries does the lesson force you to face? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How should Christians respond to a corrupt or abusive government without supporting violent revolution or just going along with evil? What limits does the New Testament put on our actions?

The Lollard Conclusions (1394) include strong critiques of Rome (transubstantiation, blessings as “necromancy,” pilgrimages, confession power games), yet Article 6 still calls the “temporal and spiritual…two halves of the entire Holy Church”; what do you learn from that mixture of insight and confusion about how reform movements can recover truth in some areas while staying captive in others? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The Lollards saw some real problems in Rome but still mixed church and state as “two halves” of the church. What does this teach you about how reform groups can be right in some areas but still stuck in old ways in others?

Article 10 condemns “manslaughter in war…expressly contrary to the New Testament,” arguing that after the first blow “charity is broken” and the one who dies without charity goes “the straight road to hell”; what do you make of their reasoning—especially linking killing with the loss of charity—and how does it confront modern Christian justifications for war, self‑defense, or “necessary violence”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The Lollards said killing in war breaks “charity,” and dying without charity leads to hell. What do you think of that link between killing and losing love, and how does it challenge Christian excuses for war, self-defense, or “necessary violence”?

Bercot highlights that Lollards pushed Scripture into English and emphasized “poor preachers” reading the Bible to common people; if early Christians assumed ordinary believers should hear and obey Jesus’ commands directly, what practices would need to change in how your church handles preaching, discipleship, and dependence on clergy or experts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If regular believers are supposed to hear and obey Jesus’ commands directly, what would need to change in your church’s preaching and discipleship? How dependent are you on pastors or experts to understand and obey Scripture?

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) is quoted as saying the burning statute was “mercifully carried out,” and that “great pains were taken to sift the evidence”; what does this episode reveal—both in the medieval actions and the later tone—about how institutions can normalize cruelty, and where might Christians today excuse moral evil because it’s “what everyone else was doing”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it show when people called burning heretics “merciful” and said they were careful with the evidence? How can churches or institutions start to excuse cruelty because it feels normal, and where might that happen today?

Bercot describes “Satan’s one‑two deadly punch”: persecution that weakens a kingdom movement, followed by governmental favor that seduces it into compromise (Diocletian → Constantine; Waldensians; then Lollards absorbed into the English Reformation); what would it look like for a present‑day congregation to resist the second punch—accepting relief and even public respect without surrendering Jesus’ teachings on two kingdoms, nonresistance, wealth, and enemy‑love? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How could a church accept freedom and public respect without selling out Jesus’ teachings on two kingdoms, nonresistance, wealth, and loving enemies? What would resisting that kind of “easy compromise” look like today?