Discussion Questions

David Bercot calls it a “sad inconsistency” that the revolutionaries fought Britain over taxes while denying Indians the right to fight for “their very existence”; what does that inconsistency expose about what the colonists believed God permits when “our” freedom is threatened versus when “their” survival is threatened? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The colonists fought Britain over taxes but said Indians couldn’t fight to survive. What does this show about what they thought God allows when our freedom is at risk versus when someone else’s life is at risk?

The chapter argues most Indians sided with Britain because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 protected their land and because they expected colonists to pour over the Appalachians if the revolution succeeded; how does that reframe the usual American narrative of “patriots vs. tyrants,” and what does it suggest about how Christians should evaluate political causes when another people’s destruction is a foreseeable outcome? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If many Indians sided with Britain because it protected their land, how does that change the simple story of “patriots vs. tyrants”? How should Christians judge a political cause if it will likely lead to another people being destroyed?

Washington ordered “total annihilation” of Mohawk villages and extended it to other Iroquois lands, resulting in burned villages, destroyed food supply, and mass death; how should Christians process a revered national founder using tactics the chapter labels “war crime and ethnic cleansing,” and what does that do to the way we attach moral meaning to national heroes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How should Christians think about Washington being honored as a great founder while ordering attacks that the chapter calls “war crime and ethnic cleansing”? How does this change how we judge the goodness of national heroes?

The Moravian Lenape at Jenaiden Hutton are described as embracing “all of Jesus’ teachings,” laying down weapons, adopting a quiet agricultural life, and staying neutral as “Kingdom Christians”; what early-Christian assumptions about discipleship and war does this story mirror, and where do those assumptions collide with modern evangelical ideas of patriotism and “defending our rights”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The Moravian Lenape chose to follow Jesus, lay down weapons, and stay neutral. What does their story teach about discipleship and war, and where does that clash with modern Christian patriotism and “defending our rights”?

When accused by the militia, the Moravian Indians explain they are “non-resistant Christians,” yet the soldiers vote to massacre them anyway; what does this scene reveal about how “Christian” identity can be used to justify violence against other confessing Christians, and where might similar dynamics show up today (even without physical killing)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The Moravian Indians said they were non-resistant Christians, but the soldiers killed them anyway. How can people use the label “Christian” to excuse harming other Christians, and where can we see that kind of thing today without murder?

Before being murdered, the Moravian Indians ask for an hour of prayer and reconciliation, and an elder urges them to die “without hatred…in imitation of Jesus”; what picture of God’s strength and wisdom is implied by that choice, and what parts of us instinctively resist calling that kind of death “victory”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Before they died, they prayed, forgave, and tried to die without hate like Jesus. What does that say about what real strength and wisdom look like, and why do we struggle to call that kind of death a “victory”?

The militia scalps and murders 28 men, 29 women, and 39 children, then loots and burns the village; what does this combination of brutality and plunder suggest about the heart-level forces driving the violence (fear, greed, vengeance, racial contempt), and which of those forces do you see most easily hiding inside “respectable” Christian reasoning? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The militia killed men, women, and children, then stole from them and burned the village. What heart reasons might be behind this (fear, greed, revenge, racism), and which ones can hide inside “respectable” Christian talk?

The chapter notes that many urban Americans were outraged but frontier settlers largely supported the massacre, and no charges were filed; what does this tell you about how community pressure can redefine sin, and how should churches respond when “our side” demands injustice and calls it necessary? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Many city Americans were upset, but frontier settlers supported the massacre and no one was punished. What does this show about how a group can start calling sin “normal,” and how should churches respond when “our side” demands injustice?

In the Treaty of Fort Pitt, Congress promises to guarantee Delaware territorial rights and even hints at a Delaware-led state, yet later “betrayed them” and ignored the treaty; how does repeated treaty-breaking by a professedly Christian people challenge common Christian claims about national righteousness, and what does it teach about trusting political promises versus trusting God’s ways? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Congress promised the Delaware land rights in a treaty but later broke the promise. How does this challenge the idea that a “Christian nation” is automatically righteous, and what does it teach about trusting political promises versus trusting God’s ways?

Bercot links America’s treatment of Indians to later European land grabs and even Hitler’s “real Indian war” language, concluding the Indians were betrayed by “professing Christians who did not trust in God and his methods”; what “methods” of God do you think he means in this chapter, and what concrete changes would have to happen in our voting, speech, and willingness to suffer loss for us to honestly say we trust those methods? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the Indians were betrayed because professing Christians didn’t trust God’s methods. What do you think God’s “methods” are in this chapter, and what would need to change in our voting, speech, and willingness to lose comfort to show we really trust them?