Discussion Questions

John Winthrop warned that if the colony “deal falsely with our God,” it would become “a story and a byword” that would cause enemies to “speak evil of the ways of God”; looking at the examples Bercot gives (treatment of Indians, intolerance, witch trials, smuggling, slave trade), what does this lesson suggest God cares about most when He puts “the eyes of all people” on a Christian community? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Looking at the harms Bercot lists (to Indians, dissenters, accused “witches,” and through smuggling and slavery), what does this suggest God cares about most when a Christian community is on public display?

Bercot argues evangelicals misuse the “city upon a hill” quote as if it were a founding vision for the United States, when Winthrop was speaking about a Bible-shaped English colony under the king; what changes in Christian thinking and behavior when the goal is “a Christian nation” versus a visible, local “Christian community” that exists under a government it doesn’t control? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do Christians think and act differently when they aim for a “Christian nation” versus building a faithful local Christian community under a government they don’t control?

Winthrop began his sermon by saying God “disposed” mankind so “some must be rich, some poor…some high…others lowly and in submission,” and Bercot ties this to Calvinist “stations in life”; how does that assumption about God’s purposes compare with Jesus’ kingdom teaching on greatness, equality, and servanthood, and where do you see modern Christians still justifying hierarchy as “God’s design”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If some people being rich and powerful is seen as God’s plan, how does that fit with Jesus’ teaching about serving others and not chasing greatness? Where do you see Christians today calling social rank or inequality “God’s design”?

Bercot says Massachusetts had no freedom of religion: the state would close churches that deviated from Calvinist doctrine, require state-licensed ministers, and banish dissenters; how would early Christians—who gathered without state permission and often under persecution—have judged a church system that needs government licensing and enforcement to preserve “orthodoxy”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How would early Christians, who often met without permission and faced persecution, view a church system that depends on government licensing and force to keep “right doctrine”?

The lesson claims Massachusetts was not a “theocracy” because, in practice, the governor and legislature were supreme over the churches (including the state’s job to ensure doctrine); what does this reveal about where the Puritans actually located spiritual authority, and what parallels do you see today when political power becomes the practical guardian of “true Christianity”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the government ended up acting as the top authority over the churches, what does that show about where the Puritans really placed spiritual authority? Where do you see politics today being treated as the protector of “true Christianity”?

Bercot highlights “enlightened” laws (protections for indentured servants, limits on lashes, due process rights, refuge from abusive masters, protections for widows and children) alongside death penalties for “sins” like blasphemy, spiritism/witchcraft, adultery, and homosexual acts; how does this mixture expose the difference between importing Old Testament civil penalties and living under Jesus’ kingdom, and where do you see Christians today wanting the benefits of biblical morality without adopting Jesus’ way of mercy and discipline? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it show when a society has some fair laws but also uses death penalties for “sins” like blasphemy, adultery, and homosexual acts? Where do Christians today want biblical morals enforced but resist Jesus’ way of mercy and correction?

In describing the Mystic Massacre—night attack, burning the village, shooting those fleeing, then hunting survivors and selling captives as slaves—Bercot says the Puritans imagined themselves as Israel in Canaan fighting “Philistines”; what does that reveal about how people can use Scripture to sanctify violence, and what “modern versions” of that same Israel/Canaan mindset tempt Christians in culture-war or nationalistic thinking? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the Puritans calling violence “God’s war” (like Israel in Canaan) teach about how people can use the Bible to excuse cruelty? What are today’s versions of that mindset in culture-war or nationalistic Christianity?

Bercot contrasts Puritan intolerance with Roger Williams, who advocated freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and fair dealings with Indians, and who believed if you can’t persuade with words you must allow conscience; how does Williams’ approach resemble the early Christian posture toward pagans, and what fears in us get exposed when we imagine giving that level of liberty to those we believe are wrong? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How is Roger Williams’ idea—persuade with words, and if you can’t, allow freedom of conscience—like how early Christians lived among pagans? What fears come up in us when we consider giving that much freedom to people we think are wrong?

The Halfway Covenant is presented as a pragmatic solution when most baptized second-generation colonists couldn’t give an “elect” conversion testimony and therefore couldn’t vote or baptize their children; what does this episode suggest about what happens when a church ties civic rights and social belonging to a particular conversion narrative, and how does that critique modern evangelical habits of equating “real Christian” with a specific testimony style? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What happens when a church ties voting rights and full belonging to telling the “right” kind of conversion story? How does that challenge today’s habit of treating a certain testimony style as proof someone is a “real Christian”?

Bercot says by the time of the Salem witch trials and beyond, “the new god of Massachusetts was mammon,” and he connects that to widespread smuggling and then New England’s central role in the rum-driven “Golden Triangle” slave trade; how does this lesson challenge the idea that doctrinal seriousness and church attendance protect a society from greed, and what concrete changes would show that our own churches are resisting mammon rather than merely condemning “worldliness”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Massachusetts’ slide into greed and the slave trade challenge the idea that strong doctrine and churchgoing keep a society from loving money? What specific signs would show our churches are truly resisting mammon, not just condemning “worldliness”?