Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
In God We Don't Trust  /  Chapter 23: What Was Lacking Spiritually  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 6
The chapter contrasts “meek” and “peacemakers” (Matthew 5:5–9) with revolutionaries who “reviled and threatened” and refused to honor the king; where do modern Christians justify reviling, mocking, or threatening opponents as if it were compatible with following Christ’s steps?
Another way to ask: Where do Christians today excuse mocking, insulting, or threatening opponents as if it fits with following Jesus?

Direct Answer The transcript doesn’t list modern examples, but Bercot’s logic would challenge any situation where Christians treat mocking, reviling, and threats as acceptable “tools” against opponents—especially political or governmental opponents—because it contradicts Christ’s example and the call to meekness and peacemaking.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says the revolutionaries “reviled and threatened those they viewed as oppressors.”
  • He connects Christian identity with honoring rulers: “Honor all people… fear God, honor the King,” and says the revolutionaries “refused to honor the King.”
  • He reminds readers: “it is the meek who shall inherit the earth, and it is the peacemakers who shall be called sons of God.”
  • Jesus’ model in 1 Peter is explicit: “when He was reviled, He did not revile in return… when He suffered, He did not threaten.”
  • He cites Ephesians 4:31-32 against “bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking,” noting these characterized many revolutionaries.
Discussion Follow-ups What kinds of speech do we excuse because we think the other side is dangerous? How do we correct “evil speaking” while still speaking truthfully?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10
Back Questions Next