Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
The Myth of Christian America  /  MCA (9 of 14): The Losers  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 4
The Moravian Christian Indians at Gnadenhutten (“huts of grace”) embraced “authentic kingdom Christianity,” laid down weapons, and died praying and singing hymns without resistance; what early-Christian assumptions about discipleship and martyrdom do you hear in their response, and what parts of their posture feel unrealistic or even offensive to modern Christians?
Another way to ask: What does the Moravian Indians’ choice to not fight back and to die praying teach about following Jesus and being willing to suffer? Which parts of their response seem impossible or even upsetting to Christians today, and why?

Direct Answer Their response assumes discipleship means obeying Jesus’ commands even when it leads to death, and that martyrdom should be endured without revenge, “just as Christ died.” To modern Christians, their nonresistance can feel unrealistic because it rejects the instinct to self-protect and retaliate.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot distinguishes “institutional Christianity” from “authentic kingdom Christianity,” saying they adopted Jesus’ teaching of “loving their enemies and turning the other cheek.”
  • He says they “lay down their tomahawks and bows and arrows” and lived a peaceful agricultural life.
  • When told they would die, they spent the night “praying and singing hymns.”
  • Their leader counseled them “to die without any thought of revenge, just as Christ died on the cross.”
  • He emphasizes: “Not one of the Indians offered any resistance.”
Discussion Follow-ups What do we assume Jesus “must have meant” when we feel nonresistance is impossible? Why might a posture of dying without revenge feel offensive in a culture that prizes rights and self-defense?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10
Back Questions Next