Discussion Questions

David Bercot distinguishes “primary” persecution (outlawing Christianity or forcing another religion, as in Rome after ~AD 90 or North Korea today) from “secondary” persecution (laws not aimed at Christians but that force disciples to violate Jesus’ teachings); how does that distinction reshape what you expect persecution to look like, and what does it imply about how God is preparing His people in a “safe” society? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Bercot’s difference between “primary” and “secondary” persecution change what you think persecution will look like today? What might it mean about how God prepares Christians who live in a mostly “safe” country?

Bercot says that for “kingdom Christians,” military conscription has historically been a major trigger of secondary persecution, with tens of thousands imprisoned or killed; what assumptions about Jesus’ kingdom, allegiance, and nonresistance are embedded in that claim, and how do those assumptions compare to common evangelical ideas about patriotism and “just war”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If military drafts have often led to Christians being punished, what does that assume about Jesus’ kingdom, who we obey first, and nonresistance? How is that different from common evangelical ideas about patriotism and “just war”?

In the Middle Ages example, some Waldensians attended the Roman Catholic state church “going through the motions,” while other conscientious Christians refused and died for it; what do those two responses suggest about early/kingdom-Christian instincts regarding compromise, “participation,” and where the line of obedience is drawn? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do these two Waldensian choices—attending the state church just to blend in, or refusing and dying—teach about compromise? Where do you think the line is between “going along” and obeying Jesus?

Using Romans 13 as a starting place, Bercot argues Christians should be the most conscientious law-keepers—until a law directly conflicts with Christ’s commands; what picture of God (His authority, order, and moral seriousness) is implied by treating law-obedience as part of discipleship rather than merely a civic strategy? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Christians should obey laws unless a law directly goes against Jesus’ commands, what does that say about God’s authority and how serious He is about right and wrong? How does it change the way you think about following laws?

Bercot’s “food business” story challenges a common rationalization: breaking inconvenient regulations because the business supports ministry, family provision, or “time for the kingdom”; where do you see yourself tempted to use spiritual language to justify cutting corners, and how would you tell the difference between genuine secondary persecution and simple disobedience dressed up as faithfulness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where are you tempted to use spiritual reasons to excuse cutting corners or breaking rules? How can you tell the difference between real “secondary persecution” and simple disobedience with religious-sounding words?

Bercot spends significant time explaining that under Anglo-American jurisprudence “laws are made…by the courts,” and that the First Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means—not what we think it “literally says”; how does this sober realism confront the way Christians often talk about “rights,” and how should it affect the way we prepare to suffer rather than assuming the Constitution will protect us? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If courts end up deciding what laws and the First Amendment mean, how does that challenge the way Christians talk about “rights”? How should it change how we prepare to suffer instead of assuming the Constitution will protect us?

In the Ken Miller/Lisa Miller case, Bercot argues that the First Amendment protects preaching and church membership decisions but does not protect actions that infringe government-granted rights (like court-ordered visitation); what does this reveal about the limits of religious liberty in practice, and how should Christians think through obedience to Christ when the state frames conflicts as “other people’s rights”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the First Amendment may protect preaching but not actions the state says violate someone else’s legal rights, what does that show about the real limits of religious freedom? How should Christians respond when the state calls the conflict “other people’s rights”?

Bercot predicts the first major future conflicts will likely involve (1) children and (2) laws about discrimination/hate speech related to homosexuality; which of his examples (Texas CPS raid on the polygamous sect, the Dallas homeschooling/Gothard family, Canadian hate-speech conviction) feels most plausible as a pressure point on your own church community, and why? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says future pressure will likely involve children and laws about discrimination or hate speech tied to homosexuality. Which example he gives feels most likely to affect your church, and why?

When Bercot cites Martin Niemöller’s “First they came…” quote and then notes “a lot of people think we kingdom Christians are strange too,” he raises the possibility of policies against head coverings or homeschooling (even referencing France’s school head-covering ban and the Iran/vitamin D article); what would it look like to love truth without panic, yet also refuse the comfortable instinct to say, “That can’t happen to us”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can you stand for truth without panicking, but also not assume, “That could never happen here”? What would it look like to take possible new restrictions seriously without fear?

Bercot’s counsel includes changing professions, moving (“When they persecute you in this city, flee to another”), and even learning to go “low-tech” to avoid digital footprints if churches must operate covertly; what concrete decisions would you need to make now (career path, schooling choices, communication habits, church practices) if you truly believed obedience to Jesus may soon cost you legal safety, reputation, or stability? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If obeying Jesus might soon cost you legal safety, reputation, or stability, what changes would you need to start making now? Think about your job, schooling, communication habits, and how your church functions.