Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
In God We Don't Trust  /  Chapter 3: What would Jesus have done  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 2
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?
Another 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?

Direct Answer Bercot contrasts verbal desires for peace with concrete actions like taking land without permission, using trickery, and forming military alliances that fueled wars. The transcript implies Christians today can also claim peaceful goals while using coercive or harmful methods.

Support from Transcript:

  • He states plainly: “Wishing peace isn’t enough. Christians have to behave in a manner conducive to peace.”
  • He says peace required that settlers “treat the Indians as they would have wanted to be treated” and not move in “without permission or through trickery.”
  • He calls land-taking a violation of God’s law: “taking land owned by someone else violates God’s law against stealing.”
  • Instead of practical gifts, settlers “almost always offered… a military alliance” as the first material “blessing.”
  • Those alliances disrupted “the delicate balance of power,” leading to wars where the English “annihilat[ed]” tribes or forced them off their land.
Discussion Follow-ups Bercot doesn’t list modern examples, but his principle raises questions: where do churches justify harsh tactics because they say they want a good outcome? How do we tell the difference between peace-talk and peace-practice?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10
Back Questions Next