Discussion Questions

David Bercot points out that in Romans 13 Paul speaks to Christians as “the ones being governed” (second person) and refers to rulers in the third person (“he does not bear the sword in vain”); what conclusion does he draw from that grammatical observation, and how convincing do you find it as evidence that Paul “nowhere…contemplates Christians being part of the governing authorities”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Romans 13 talks to Christians as people being ruled, not as rulers. What conclusion does he make from that, and do you think it really proves Paul did not expect Christians to be government leaders?

Tertullian’s thought experiment about a Christian ruler lists what he would have to avoid (temple oversight, festivals, oaths, judging, indicting, chaining, imprisoning, torturing); which of those conflicts feel most “inevitable” if someone holds public office today, and where do modern Christians tend to assume compromises are acceptable that Tertullian treats as unbelievable? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian lists many things a Christian ruler would have to avoid (like oaths, judging, imprisoning, or torturing). Which of these clashes seem unavoidable for public office today, and where do Christians today accept compromises that Tertullian would not?

The lesson argues that “positions of authority…will invariably cause a Christian to either directly or indirectly violate Christ’s teachings”; what picture of God’s priorities does that assume (for example, purity of obedience versus influence), and how does that collide with the modern instinct to “get Christians into power” for good outcomes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says having authority will always push Christians to break Jesus’ teachings in some way. What does that say God cares about most—clean obedience or having influence—and how does that challenge the idea of “getting Christians into power” to do good?

Origen responds to the pagan Celsus by saying Christians should “rule over churches instead of governments” because they belong to “another national organization…the kingdom of God”; how does that early Christian framing reshape ideas of citizenship, ambition, and leadership gifts among believers? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Origen says Christians should lead churches, not governments, because they belong to God’s kingdom. How would that change how believers think about being citizens, chasing success, and using leadership gifts?

Paul’s command to be subject “not only on account of wrath, but also for conscience sake” is applied to things like taxes and avoiding fraud; what does this reveal about God as the one who watches even when the state cannot detect wrongdoing, and how might that challenge loophole-hunting or “technically legal” behavior Christians justify today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul says obey not just to avoid punishment, but for conscience, and he connects this to paying taxes and not cheating. What does that say about God watching us even when the state can’t, and how should it affect “legal but shady” choices Christians make?

Chrysostom is quoted saying Paul turns taxation—something “burdensome and annoying”—into “a proof of the ruler’s care for men”; how does that argument land in a context where people distrust government, and what would it look like to obey Romans 13 without needing to first approve of how rulers use tax money? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Chrysostom says taxes, even when annoying, can show a ruler’s care for people. How does that sound when people don’t trust government, and what would it mean to follow Romans 13 even if you dislike how tax money is used?

The lesson insists Christians must show “fear” (as “great respect,” not guilty terror) and “honor” to rulers, even as public mockery of leaders grows; what practices of speech, posture, and online behavior would actually embody “rise in their presence” and “uncover their heads” today, and what inner resistance does that expose in us? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says Christians should show respect and honor to rulers even when people mock leaders. What would that look like in how we talk, act, and post online today, and what does it reveal about what we don’t want to submit to inside?

On “war taxes,” Bercot argues Jesus and Paul knew Roman taxes funded war and pagan worship, yet still commanded payment; what does that imply about moral responsibility for how “Caesar spends his money,” and where do you draw the line between complicity and obedience when your required payments support evil? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Jesus and Paul knew Roman taxes paid for war and idol worship, but they still told people to pay. What does that mean for your responsibility for how the government uses your money, and where is the line between obeying and helping evil?

The lesson’s boundary for disobedience is narrow: “The only time a Christian can disobey Caesar…is when the government’s laws violate Christ’s laws,” with Acts 4–5 as the model; what are realistic modern examples where obedience to Jesus would force illegal action, and how willing are we—really—to accept “penal labor…dishonor and death” rather than adjust Jesus’ commands? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says you can disobey the government only when it tells you to break Jesus’ commands, like in Acts 4–5. What are modern situations where obeying Jesus could make you break the law, and would we really accept prison, shame, or death instead of softening Jesus’ commands?

When addressing conscription and war, the lesson treats killing enemies as a direct violation of “love your enemies” and “we do not wage war according to the flesh,” citing early Christians who refused the sword and claimed prayer as their “special army”; what assumptions about God’s power and the church’s mission make that stance possible, and what changes would be required in our discipleship if we embraced that as normative rather than exceptional? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says killing in war breaks “love your enemies,” and points to early Christians who refused the sword and fought by prayer. What beliefs about God’s power and the church’s mission make that possible, and what would need to change in our discipleship if we treated this as normal for Christians?