Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 9

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?

Another 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?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests early Christians believed faithfulness to Christ meant non-conspiracy and non-violence even under persecution, rather than trying to seize power. This posture critiques modern strategies that treat political control as the church’s mission or as a solution to oppression.

Support from Transcript:

Tertullian: “No Christian ever attempted” plots against the state “even when persecution was scattering them abroad with every atrocity.”
He adds: “No conspiracy has ever broken out from our body. No Caesar’s blood has ever fixed a stain upon us…”
“No assumption of the purple, i.e., public office, has ever…been affected by us.”
Bercot reinforces this historically: even with Nero, Christians “did not try to assassinate” him or “stir up a rebellion.”
The broader principle given is submission because rulers are “ordained by God,” with only the exception of commands that violate Christ.

Discussion Follow-ups If early Christians refused power when it might have helped them, what did they think would actually advance God’s purposes? How do we evaluate political activism in light of their fear of staining Christ’s people with violence or conspiracy?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 9 of 10