Discussion Questions

David Bercot says the Puritans “lived in a fantasy world” by imagining England as “Israel all over again”; what does that reveal about how they viewed God’s way of relating to nations, and where do you see modern Christians (including us) tempted to read our own country into Old Testament categories? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it show about the Puritans’ view of how God deals with nations when they treated England like “Israel again”? Where do Christians today (including us) wrongly treat our own country like it fits Old Testament roles?

The lesson describes Puritan certainty that “God’s moral law was still the law of Moses” (including putting witches and idolaters to death and enforcing Sunday as the Old Testament Sabbath); how does that view of God’s intentions compare with Jesus’ teaching and the early Christians’ understanding of the kingdom of God and “two kingdoms”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The Puritans thought the law of Moses still applied (like killing witches and forcing Sabbath rules). How does that compare with what Jesus taught and what early Christians believed about God’s kingdom and the “two kingdoms” idea?

Bercot notes that Puritan leaders felt they could “infallibly determine the reason” for disasters—droughts, plagues, defeats—down to specifics like sports on Sunday afternoon; what picture of God’s character and ways is created when leaders claim that level of interpretive certainty, and what safeguards should Christians have against that impulse? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If leaders claim they can know exactly why God sent a drought or plague (even blaming specific sins), what kind of picture of God does that create? What checks should Christians have so we don’t speak with false certainty about God’s reasons?

In the excerpts from Christopher Goodman, disobedience to a ruler is framed as rescuing “neighbor’s sheep” from wolves, and Mary is declared worthy of death as an “open idolater”; how does Goodman’s argument reshape Paul’s command to be subject to governing authorities, and what do the early Christians seem to have assumed about suffering under unjust rulers? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Goodman says resisting a ruler is like saving a neighbor’s sheep from wolves and calls Mary worthy of death for idolatry. How does that change Paul’s command to submit to rulers, and what did early Christians seem to expect when rulers were unjust?

The “root and branch petition” complains that ministers won’t preach predestination, perseverance, strict Sabbath, and teaching “against universal grace”; what does this reveal about what the Puritans considered “the truth of God,” and how does that collide with the Anglican conclusions Bercot mentions (human free will and grace available to everyone)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why were the Puritans so upset that ministers wouldn’t preach things like predestination and a strict Sabbath? How does their idea of “God’s truth” clash with the Anglican view that people have free will and God’s grace is for everyone?

The account of Archbishop Laud’s brutality (branding “SS,” cutting off ears, slitting a nose) is used to show Anglicans could be as cruel as others; what does this episode suggest about what happens to Christian doctrine and piety when the state enforces church uniformity—no matter which “side” is in charge? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Archbishop Laud’s cruelty suggest can happen when the government forces one church style on everyone? Does it matter which church group is in control?

Bercot calls Cromwell’s “it’s all of God” language “counterfeit faith,” arguing that faith is unmasked when believers take “the exact same steps as would a non-believer” and then claim God did it; where do you see that pattern in Christian activism today, and what would “non-counterfeit” faith look like in political or cultural conflict? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says it’s “fake faith” to act the same way a non-Christian would and then say, “God did it.” Where do you see that in Christian activism today, and what would real faith look like during political or culture fights?

In the Second Civil War, both Puritan sides “pruned their armies” for sanctified soldiers, prayed earnestly, and then interpreted slaughter and victory as proof God was with them; what does this do to our discernment of God’s will, and how does it challenge common evangelical assumptions that victory, growth, or success equals God’s endorsement? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If both sides prayed hard and then used victory and slaughter as proof God was with them, how does that confuse our ability to know God’s will? How does it challenge the idea that success means God approves?

Cromwell’s slaughter at Drogheda and Parliament’s “National Day of Thanksgiving” (“an act both of justice… and mercy to others”) are presented as Christians praising God while acting like “pagan barbarians”; what does that reveal about the danger of mixing certainty of salvation with violence, and how should the teachings of Jesus and the early church confront such “holy” justifications? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What danger shows up when Christians are sure they’re saved and still use violence, like at Drogheda, and even thank God for it? How should Jesus’ teaching and the early church push back against “holy” reasons for cruelty?

Under Puritan rule, theaters were closed, festivals prohibited, Sundays made gloomy, and even Sunday travel required permits—yet the “saints” also “scrambled for property and privileges” and heavily taxed the people for wars; what does this contrast expose about external moral discipline versus inner righteousness, and what concrete habits or motives in our own lives might mirror that same mismatch? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The Puritans enforced strict rules (no theaters, gloomy Sundays) but also chased property and raised heavy war taxes. What does that show about strict outward behavior versus a truly right heart, and where might we have the same kind of mismatch today?