Discussion Questions

David Bercot opens with the Pyrrhus/Cineas story and then asks, “What do we look forward to doing in eternity?”—what picture of eternal life is assumed in the chapter, and how would that picture expose ways we may be using “heaven” as an excuse to postpone obedience, worship, or surrender now? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does this chapter assume we will do in eternity, and how might that view make us use “heaven” as an excuse to delay obeying, worshiping, or surrendering to God now?

The chapter’s implied logic is: if you want to worship, praise, and obey God forever, “Why then don’t we simply do that now?”—what does that reveal about God’s desires for the present life, and what does it suggest about the purpose of time, suffering, and “ordinary” daily routines? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If we plan to worship, praise, and obey God forever, why don’t we do it now? What does that say about what God wants from our life today, even in suffering and normal routines?

Bercot contrasts “real” surrender with “artificial surrender” and ties it to Jesus’ words about losing your life to find it (Matthew 16:25)—what kinds of surrender can look convincing to others (or to ourselves) while still protecting self, and what does “completely lose ourselves in Christ Jesus” actually threaten in us? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What kinds of “surrender” can look real but still keep us in control? What part of us feels threatened by truly losing our life to find it in Jesus (Matthew 16:25)?

The chapter describes a “master decision” that “will decide all other decisions down the line,” echoed by Tozer’s “one great volitional act” and Wesley’s resolution to dedicate “all my thoughts, words, and actions”—how does that way of speaking challenge modern evangelical instincts about spontaneity, “freedom,” or refusing to talk in absolute terms? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the idea of one “master decision” that shapes all other choices challenge modern Christian ideas about staying spontaneous, “free,” or avoiding absolute promises?

William Law says you are to “will nothing, design nothing, do nothing” unless you have reason to believe it is God’s will, and to see yourself as having “no other business in the world”—how would early Christians, especially those facing pressure to blend in with society, have heard that claim, and what parts of our current lifestyles seem built on the assumption that we *do* have other “business” besides obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How might early Christians, under pressure to fit in, have heard William Law’s claim that we should do nothing unless we believe it is God’s will? What parts of our lifestyle act like we have other “business” besides obeying God?

Samuel Logan Bringle frames surrender as living each day as though you would die that evening—what specific relational and ethical actions does he list (giving up grudges, asking forgiveness even if you were wronged, restoring stolen goods), and what do those examples imply about God’s priorities compared to our usual priorities? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you lived today like you would die tonight, what actions does Bringle say you would take (drop grudges, ask forgiveness, return stolen things)? What do these show matters most to God compared to what usually matters most to us?

Bringle says that in that “sunset tonight” mindset you “would not stop to think how they would treat you” and “would not care”—what fear of outcomes or reputation does that confront, and how does it reshape what we call “wisdom,” “boundaries,” or “self-protection” in Christian living? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When Bringle says you wouldn’t worry about how people treat you or what they think, what fear does that challenge? How might that change what we call “wisdom,” “boundaries,” or self-protection as Christians?

Francis de Sales’ language includes “renounced all willful sin forever” and “There is no longer any me or mine. Rather, my me is Jesus.”—what do those lines assume about the possibility of real change, and how does that collide with modern Christian normalizing of ongoing “pet sins,” private compromises, or a permanent double-life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do Francis de Sales’ words assume about real change, like “renounced all willful sin forever” and “my me is Jesus”? How does that clash with treating “pet sins,” secret compromises, or a double-life as normal?

Bercot warns against making commitments “rashly” in an “emotional rush,” yet he still urges a formal commitment and even provides a prayer that includes both rigorous intention (“will nothing…unless…your will”) and realism about stumbling (“I will pick myself up, repent, and continue”)—how does this balance confront either presumption (“I’m fine”) or despair (“I’ll never change”), and what would repentance-as-continuation look like in practice? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the chapter hold together two things: don’t make promises in a quick emotional moment, but still make a serious commitment and keep going after you fail? How does this challenge both overconfidence (“I’m fine”) and hopelessness (“I’ll never change”), and what would it look like to repent and continue in daily life?

Leonard Shimer’s “Potion in the Bottle” describes a drink that makes someone “different,” with “no concern for money or life,” produced by a heart “crushed by the mortar called the cross,” and he wrote it shortly before dying for his faith—how would early Anabaptists have understood this “cross-crushed” Christianity, and what would have to change in our churches for neighbors to “take notice” in the way Shimer describes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How would early Anabaptists have understood Shimer’s picture of being changed by a “cross-crushed” life with no concern for money or even life itself? What would need to change in our churches for neighbors to notice that kind of difference today?