Discussion Questions

David Bercot says the conservative story of “Christian America” is untrue at every point except that America has moved away from biblical teachings in the last 50–60 years; what does that claim assume about God’s relationship to nations, and how does it challenge the way many Christians interpret national “setbacks” as God’s judgment? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the “Christian America” story is mostly false, what does that say about how God relates to whole nations? How does it challenge the idea that national problems are always God’s judgment?

Bercot insists “the gospel Jesus preached was the gospel of the kingdom,” and that “we can’t take the king without his kingdom”; where have you personally been tempted to want Jesus as Savior without embracing the kingdom’s concrete laws, values, leadership, and worldview? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where are you tempted to want Jesus as Savior but not want to follow the kingdom’s rules, values, and way of life? What parts do you want to leave out?

He argues that the “nation” receiving the kingdom is defined by producing “the fruits thereof,” not by geography, ethnicity, or any existing country or church; how would early Christians have recognized who belonged to this “holy nation,” and what modern markers of Christian identity does that definition disrupt? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God’s “nation” is defined by producing good fruit, not by land or ethnicity, how would early Christians tell who belonged? What common modern “signs” of being Christian does that question?

Using Matthew’s temptation narrative, Bercot emphasizes that “the kingdoms of the world” are shown by Satan and concludes that Satan “controls these kingdoms” (by God’s permission); how does that framing reshape the way you evaluate patriotism, political hope, and the emotional pull of national power? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Satan shows and influences “the kingdoms of the world,” how does that change how you think about patriotism and putting hope in politics? Why do you think national power feels so attractive?

Bercot calls Jesus’ refusal of being made king (John 6:15) a deliberate rejection of political solutions and says governing “any kingdom of this world” requires breaking Jesus’ laws; what specific commands from Matthew 5 (turning the other cheek, not resisting evil, loving enemies) feel most “unworkable” to you in public life, and why? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If ruling a country forces you to break Jesus’ teachings, which commands in Matthew 5 feel most impossible in public life (like turning the other cheek or loving enemies)? Why do they seem unworkable?

He claims the “theory has been tested” for 1,600 years and “without even one exception” every professedly Christian nation trampled Christ’s teachings; what examples or counterexamples come to mind, and what would you need to see (from primary sources, as Bercot models) to be persuaded one way or the other? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Do you think every “Christian nation” has failed to follow Jesus’ teachings, as Bercot claims? What examples would you point to, and what original sources would you need to be convinced either way?

Early Christian voices he quotes (Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius) say Christians declined public office not to avoid duty but to reserve themselves for “more divine and necessary service,” and because they couldn’t imprison, torture, execute, or accuse capitally; what would it look like for a church today to take that reasoning seriously in how it disciples ambitious, politically minded believers? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians avoided public office because it required things like imprisoning or killing, how should a church today disciple believers who want political power? What would you tell them to pursue instead, if anything?

Lactantius argues it is “always unlawful to put a man to death,” even by “word” through a capital accusation, and says God forbids not only what is illegal but also what is “lawful among men”; how does that collide with modern Christian views on policing, capital punishment, military service, and even the way we speak about criminals? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If it is always wrong to kill or even to accuse someone in a way that could get them executed, how does that challenge Christian support for police force, the death penalty, and the military? How should it change the way we talk about criminals?

Bercot highlights a pagan critique that Moses and Jesus seem to teach opposite ethics, and he presents the Christian reply that God ended the Jewish state and now advances a non-state kingdom; what does this suggest about God’s purposes in giving Israel land/government and then refusing those tools to the church, and how should that affect appeals to a “Judeo-Christian ethic”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why might God have given Israel land and a government but not give those tools to the church? How should that affect the way people talk about a “Judeo-Christian ethic” in politics?

When discussing Constantine and “Christian Rome,” Bercot describes Christians using state violence to outlaw real evils (abortion, gladiator games, idolatry) and then sliding into coercion, war, and even Christians killing Christians; what does this episode reveal about the kind of “good” God is (and is not) trying to produce in the world now, and where do you see the same temptation to “force righteousness” operating in current Christian political strategies? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “Christian Rome” used state force to stop real evils but then moved into coercion and violence, what does that teach about what kind of “good” God wants today? Where do you see Christians tempted to “force people to be righteous” in politics now?