Discussion Questions

David Bercot applies Jesus’ “Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matt. 7:12) by asking how the English would respond to foreign settlers building in “an uninhabited English forest”; what does that thought experiment expose about how we tend to excuse ourselves when we have power, and how does it test whether we really believe Jesus’ commands are practical? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Bercot’s “foreign settlers in an uninhabited English forest” example show about how people excuse themselves when they have power? How does it test whether we really think Jesus’ command is practical in real life?

The chapter says, “Wishing peace isn’t enough. Christians have to behave in a manner conducive to peace”; what specific behaviors in the colonization story show the difference between wanting peace and practicing peace, and where do Christians today settle for peaceful intentions while tolerating unpeaceful methods? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the colonization story, what actions show the difference between wanting peace and actually living in a peaceful way? Where do Christians today say they want peace but still use unpeaceful methods?

In the Massachusetts charter provision, taking land was considered wrong if “actually possessed or inhabited by any other Christian prince or state,” but acceptable if inhabited by “heathens”; what view of God and neighbor is operating behind that distinction, and what modern Christian “exceptions” resemble it (where someone’s perceived spiritual status changes how we treat them)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why did the charter treat taking land from “Christian” rulers as wrong but taking it from “heathens” as okay? What similar “exceptions” do Christians make today when someone’s spiritual status changes how we treat them?

Bercot argues that “the gospel message doesn’t consist merely of theological doctrines” and ties that to “observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20); what does this imply about what obedience is supposed to look like publicly and socially—not just privately—and why might that make some evangelicals uneasy? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the gospel is not just doctrines but also obeying Jesus’ commands (Matt. 28:20), what should obedience look like in public life, not just private life? Why might that make some evangelicals uncomfortable?

The chapter contrasts Jesus and the apostles as “ambassadors of God’s kingdom, not as colonizers”; what does the ambassador picture suggest about how Christians should relate to land, power, and local peoples when they move into new places, and what early-Christian assumptions about citizenship and possessions seem to be in the background? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Christians are “ambassadors” of God’s kingdom and not colonizers, how should they relate to land, power, and local people when they move somewhere new? What early-Christian views about citizenship and possessions help explain this?

Bercot calls land-grabbing “stealing” and says “The English were claiming a right they didn’t have”; what kinds of “rights” do Christians commonly assume today (legal, cultural, political, economic) that might not actually be moral rights under Jesus’ teaching? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What “rights” do Christians today assume they have (legal, cultural, political, or economic) that might not be moral rights under Jesus’ teaching? How could those assumptions lead us to justify wrong actions?

The chapter insists it was “not wrong for Christians to come to America” if they obtained permission, and it describes trade as a realistic “win-win”; what does this reveal about God’s purposes—working through ordinary fairness, consent, and mutual benefit rather than coercion—and how does that challenge the idea that God’s will is mainly advanced through conquest or dominance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the chapter’s focus on permission and fair trade (a “win-win”) say about how God works through consent and fairness instead of force? How does that challenge the idea that God’s will advances mainly through conquest or control?

Bercot says Christians should have come intending to be “a blessing” with practical gifts (metal hoes, kettles, tinderboxes) rather than weapons, and he warns against acting like people “owe us a favor” for bringing the gospel; where does that transactional attitude show up in missions, church planting, or cultural engagement today, and how would it change relationships if we aimed first at tangible, humble good? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do we act like people “owe us” because we bring the gospel—in missions, church planting, or culture work? How would relationships change if we aimed first to bless people with humble, practical help?

The English “almost always offered” a military alliance as their first material “blessing,” and even without “a Machiavellian scheme” it functioned as divide-and-conquer; what does that teach about unintended consequences of “protective” partnerships with violent power, and what parallels exist when churches or ministries align with political or cultural powers for security or influence? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does offering military alliances as a “blessing” teach about the unintended harm that can come from partnering with violent power? What similar risks happen when churches team up with political or cultural power for safety or influence?

Bercot cites “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16) and “love your enemies… bless… do good” (Matt. 5:43–44), then says it’s hard to teach Jesus’ commands when you aren’t practicing them; what would it have looked like for settlers to teach enemy-love between rival tribes without becoming wolves among wolves, and what concrete changes in our conflicts (personal, church, national) would be required for our teaching to be credible? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What could settlers have done to teach rival tribes to love enemies without becoming violent themselves? What specific changes would we need in our own conflicts (personal, church, or national) so our teaching about Jesus’ commands is believable?