Discussion Questions

Paul’s command, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities,” is presented as a non-optional commandment for those already “saved by grace through faith”; how does David Bercot’s framing challenge common evangelical ways of separating “salvation” from ongoing obedience, and what does it reveal about what God intends the Christian life to look like after conversion? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul says Christians must submit to government, not as an option. How does Bercot’s view challenge the idea that you can be “saved” without ongoing obedience, and what does it say the Christian life should look like after conversion?

The lesson argues that resisting government brings “condemnation…from both the earthly authorities and from God”; what does that claim suggest about God’s relationship to political authority, and how do you reconcile it with the reality of governments that sometimes act unjustly? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If resisting the government brings judgment from both the state and God, what does that say about how God relates to political authority? How do you square that with governments that do unjust things?

Several early Christian writers are quoted as honoring rulers (Polycarp, Justin, Theophilus, Tertullian, Theonis); what assumptions about discipleship, witness, and loyalty to Christ seem to underlie their posture toward the Roman state, and how does that compare to typical Christian political instincts today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why did early Christians honor rulers while still following Christ first? How does their attitude toward Rome compare with how many Christians act in politics today?

Justin Martyr says, “To God alone we render worship. However, in other things we gladly serve you… and pray…”; what lines is he drawing between worship and civic service, and what kinds of modern political behavior by Christians might blur that line in ways the early Christians would have found dangerous? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Justin says worship belongs only to God, but Christians can still serve and pray for rulers. What’s the difference between worship and civic service, and what modern Christian political actions might mix the two in a risky way?

Theonis of Alexandria says to treat every imperial command “that does not offend God as though it has proceeded from God himself,” obeying “in love as well as in fear, with all cheerfulness”; what would “cheerful” obedience look like in concrete situations you dislike, and what inner motives (resentment, pride, fear, control) does this expose? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would “cheerful” obedience look like when the government tells you to do something you don’t like (but it doesn’t disobey God)? What does your reaction show about motives like resentment, pride, fear, or wanting control?

Bercot argues God instituted human government after the flood because the earth was “overrun with lawlessness,” and Irenaeus says God imposed “the fear of man” because people didn’t acknowledge “the fear of God”; what does this reveal about God’s view of human nature, and how does it confront modern Christian optimism about social change apart from transformed hearts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God set up government because people were lawless and needed “fear” to restrain them, what does that say about human nature? How does that challenge the idea that society will get better mainly through politics without changed hearts?

The lesson insists “even harsh totalitarian governments are almost always a better alternative than anarchy,” adding that God instituted many “forms of subjection” (husband/wife, father/son, master/servant, ruler/ruled); which of these comparisons feels most uncomfortable to modern ears, and what do you think Bercot is trying to accomplish by linking household order and civil order? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot compares civil authority to other kinds of “subjection” like family roles and slavery. Which comparison feels most troubling today, and why do you think he links order in the home with order in the state?

Bercot claims God “forever answered” whether Romans 13 applies under evil rulers by the timing of the letter under Nero; how does the Nero example pressure-test your own beliefs about civil disobedience, protest, revolution, or “resistance,” and where would you place the boundary of “except when they order us to violate Christ’s specific commands”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Romans 13 was written when Nero ruled, so what does that do to your views on protest, civil disobedience, or resistance under bad leaders? Where do you draw the line for obeying “except when they command us to break Christ’s commands”?

Tertullian boasts that no Christian conspiracies arose and that “No assumption of the purple…has ever…been affected by us”; what does that early Christian refusal to seize public office or use violence suggest they believed about the kingdom of God, and how does it critique modern Christian strategies that aim to “take back” political power? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian says Christians didn’t plot revolts or try to grab power. What does that show they believed about God’s kingdom, and how does it challenge modern Christian efforts to “take back” political power?

Paul says rulers are “the minister of God… an avenger to execute wrath” and that even corrupt governments still punish crimes like “murder, robbery, rape… fraud”; how should this shape the way Christians think about policing, courts, punishment, and the state’s use of force, especially when personal ethics of enemy-love and nonretaliation seem to point in a different direction? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If rulers are called God’s servants to punish wrongdoing, how should Christians think about police, courts, punishment, and the state using force? How do you hold that together with Jesus’ teachings on enemy-love and not getting revenge?