Discussion Questions

David Bercot argues that Jesus’ command to “forsake all” in Luke 14 should be read alongside Jesus’ command to “hate” one’s family—how does his interpretation (“dispose of these things from our souls if they interfere with following Christ”) reshape what obedience to Jesus looks like in daily life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says “forsake all” means letting go of anything in your heart that blocks following Jesus, like “hating” family in Luke 14. How would that change what obeying Jesus looks like in everyday choices?

The chapter claims it is “spiritually and intellectually honest” to treat some of Jesus’ words as not “absolutely literal” when the context requires it; what principles for interpretation are being assumed here, and where could that approach either protect obedience or unintentionally weaken it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says some of Jesus’ words aren’t meant to be taken fully literal when the context shows that. What rules for understanding Jesus’ words is it using, and how could that help people obey—or give them excuses not to?

Bercot lists New Testament believers who owned homes (Peter, Martha and Mary, house-church hosts in Acts, etc.) and even mentions believers who owned slaves; how do these examples challenge modern assumptions that the earliest Christians were either uniformly poor or uniformly communistic, and what do they suggest about “leaving all” in the apostles’ minds? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot points out early Christians who owned homes, and even slaves. How does that challenge the idea that all early Christians were always poor or shared everything, and what does it mean for what “leave everything” meant to the apostles?

Zacchaeus gives away half and makes restitution, yet Jesus announces, “Today salvation has come to this house”; what does this imply in the chapter about the relationship between repentance, restitution, generosity, and assurance of salvation—and how might that collide with common evangelical instincts about salvation being unrelated to money? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Zacchaeus gives away half and pays people back, and Jesus says salvation came to his house. What does the chapter say this shows about repentance, paying back wrongs, generosity, and knowing you’re saved—and why might that bother people who think money has nothing to do with salvation?

Acts presents both house ownership and also believers selling lands/houses and laying proceeds at the apostles’ feet for distribution; how should a serious Christian hold those two realities together without explaining one of them away, and what do you think early Christians assumed was “normal” for disciples? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Acts, some believers owned homes, but others sold land or houses and gave the money to be shared. How can Christians take both seriously without ignoring either one, and what do you think early Christians thought was normal for disciples?

The chapter quotes 1 Timothy 6:6–10 (“food and clothing…content” and the danger of desiring to be rich); what picture of God’s intentions for His people’s lifestyle and inner desires emerges from those verses as Bercot uses them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Using 1 Timothy 6:6–10, what does Bercot say God wants for our lifestyle and what we desire inside, especially about being content and not wanting to be rich?

Bercot says the human tendency is to focus on “everyone who owns more than we do,” then points out even lower middle-class Americans are in the “top 2% worldwide”; what specific comparisons, comforts, or “marbles” in your own life become hard to justify once you accept that framing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says we often compare ourselves to people richer than us, even though many Americans are in the top 2% worldwide. If you accept that, what comforts or “extras” in your life start to feel hard to defend?

The “American dream” is defined as “personal happiness and material comfort,” and Bercot calls pursuing it “nearly always” a spiritual nightmare; what signs does he list that possessions have become a master, and which of those signs are easiest for Christians (including church leaders) to excuse as “normal adult responsibility”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the “American dream” of comfort and happiness is usually a spiritual trap. What signs does he give that possessions are controlling you, and which signs are easiest for Christians (and leaders) to excuse as just being responsible adults?

The chapter claims it’s easier never to climb the ladder of materialism than to climb back down, especially after marriage; what heart-level shifts does Bercot describe happening to couples, and how should a husband and wife talk about “coming down the ladder” without one spouse becoming the spiritual enforcer? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says it’s easier not to chase materialism than to quit after you’ve built a life, especially after marriage. What changes does he say happen in a couple’s hearts, and how can spouses talk about living with less without one person becoming the “spiritual boss”?

Bercot’s “first step” is to stop accumulating and then he gives practical steps (avoid catalogs/media, limit shopping, lists, cash over credit, buy fewer features, give away goods, invite the poor, find a church where being poor is a virtue); which of these practices feels most threatening to your current lifestyle, and what would obedience cost you socially, relationally, or in perceived “security”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot suggests steps like stopping buying so much, avoiding ads, limiting shopping, using lists and cash, buying simpler things, giving away stuff, welcoming the poor, and finding a church that honors simplicity. Which step scares you the most, and what would obeying it cost you in friendships, family, or your sense of security?