Discussion Questions

David Bercot calls “Christian nation” an oxymoron and says the only Christian nation in this age is the Kingdom of God; what does that claim suggest about God’s purposes for His people living under “kingdoms of this world,” and where do you feel internal resistance to that idea? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the only “Christian nation” is God’s Kingdom, what does that say about why God’s people live under earthly governments? Where do you feel yourself pushing back against that idea?

In Matthew 5:38–46 Bercot emphasizes Jesus’ “commandment” not to resist an evil person or take revenge; how would early Christians—who saw the Sermon on the Mount as their “chief code”—have evaluated the English settlers’ stated readiness to use “force of arms” and “pursue revenge with force”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Since Jesus says not to take revenge (Matthew 5:38–46), how would early Christians have judged settlers who were ready to fight and “pursue revenge with force”?

Bercot reads Sir George Peckham’s two “conditions” for lawful settlement (permission, or being “unjustly repulsed”); how do you see Peckham redefining “justice” to make English expansion automatically righteous, and what modern Christian-sounding arguments today function the same way? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Peckham use his two “conditions” to make English expansion sound automatically just? What similar Christian-sounding arguments do you hear today?

Peckham frames English military protection as a “benefit” to Native tribes (“ready with force of arms to assist and defend them in their just quarrels”); how does that “we will protect you” logic collide with Jesus’ call to love enemies and refuse retaliation, and how might Christians today baptize power as “help”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the idea “we’ll protect you with our weapons” clash with Jesus’ call to love enemies and not retaliate? How might Christians today label power and force as “help”?

Bercot argues the settlers had “already violated Jesus’ teachings in their hearts before they ever set foot in America”; what does that reveal about how God judges plans, motives, and national projects before outcomes are even seen, and how should that shape the way Christians talk about “good intentions”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If settlers broke Jesus’ teachings in their hearts before arriving, what does that say about how God judges our plans and motives before results happen? How should that affect how Christians talk about “good intentions”?

Discuss John Cotton’s “Divine Right to Occupy the Land,” especially his use of Old Testament texts (2 Samuel 7:10, Psalm 44:2, etc.) to justify land claims and “lawful war” under certain conditions; how does Bercot’s critique challenge common evangelical habits of applying Israel’s land/war passages to Christian political or national questions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Cotton use Old Testament land and war passages to defend taking land and “lawful war”? How does Bercot’s critique challenge how evangelicals use Israel’s stories for modern politics and nations?

Cotton argues that “vacant” land may be taken “though they neither buy it nor ask permission,” and Bercot says Europeans would never apply that logic to “civilized people”; where do you see partiality at work in this reasoning, and what does it expose about sin’s ability to disguise itself as “warrantable right”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What unfair double standard is shown when Cotton says “vacant” land can be taken without buying or asking, but Europeans wouldn’t say that about “civilized people”? What does this show about how sin can hide as “a rightful claim”?

Bercot says Jamestown was “saved…by tobacco,” then ties that to Matthew 6:24 (“You cannot serve God and mammon”); how does his description of tobacco dominating Virginia (currency, taxes, laws, export duties) confront modern Christian assumptions about prosperity, business success, and “God’s blessing”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If tobacco “saved” Jamestown but then ruled Virginia’s economy, how does that challenge the idea that prosperity and business success are always signs of God’s blessing (Matthew 6:24)?

King James (in 1604) called tobacco use sin—harm to the body, waste of money, inconsiderate harm to others—yet Christians still made it the economic engine of colonization; what does that episode suggest about how easily Christians can knowingly choose profit over conscience, and where might our own churches be normalizing something we “know better” about? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it show that Christians knew King James called tobacco sinful, yet still built colonization on it for profit? Where might our churches be accepting something we know is wrong because it benefits us?

After the 1622 attacks, Bercot describes the colonists poisoning a “toast” during a truce, then slaughtering and enslaving Indians, and later says similar cycles happened in New England as well; how should this pattern reshape the way Christians tell America’s origin stories (Pilgrims, Puritans, “Christian beginnings”), and what concrete repentance might look like in how we teach history, vote, spend, or speak about national identity today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How should the pattern of truce-breaking, poisoning, slaughter, and slavery change the way Christians talk about America’s “Christian beginnings”? What could real repentance look like in how we teach history, vote, spend money, or talk about national identity?