Discussion Questions

The hosts ask, “Can a person be a follower of Christ without following Christ?”—where in your own discipleship have you been tempted to separate “believing in Jesus” from actually obeying Jesus’ commands, and what does that reveal about what you think God is like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When have you tried to say you “believe in Jesus” but not actually obey what He says? What does that show about how you think God is?

In discussing King Agbar and Edessa, they suggest political and economic motives could have shaped “public records” and later legend (pilgrims, money, developing stories, icons)—how does that possibility challenge modern Christian instincts to treat any ancient “Christian nation” story as a sign of God’s kingdom advancing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If politics and money helped shape old “Christian nation” stories, how does that affect the way you read those stories today? Does it challenge the idea that they automatically prove God’s kingdom was growing?

They argue that when the conversion story ends (Agbar; Cornelius), we should not assume the convert continued in a vocation that conflicts with Christ—what specific “modern exceptions” do Christians tend to grant today (career paths, political loyalties, violence, sexuality, financial practices) that we would never grant to Matthew continuing as a tax collector? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What kinds of jobs or lifestyles do Christians excuse today that don’t fit Jesus’ way? Why do we make those exceptions when we wouldn’t say Matthew could keep being a tax collector?

The conversation highlights early Christian mercy toward soldiers who couldn’t simply resign, citing Hippolytus: a soldier could be baptized only if he agreed not to use the sword and not to swear oaths—what does that policy suggest about God’s character (justice, mercy, patience), and what would “merciful but uncompromising” discipleship expectations look like in the church now? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Hippolytus’s rule for soldiers (no sword, no oaths) show about God’s justice and mercy? What would “kind but firm” expectations for following Jesus look like in churches today?

They note the Pax Romana context and “gray areas” (building roads, policing) where someone could be a soldier yet never use the sword—how does that complicate modern all-or-nothing debates about Christian participation in state systems, and what principles from this lesson should govern those decisions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If a soldier could serve and still avoid violence in the Roman world, how does that affect today’s debates about Christians working in government or state systems? What guiding rules should shape those choices?

The “Lightning Brigade” story is used not to justify Christian violence but to show Christians praying instead of fighting, with God intervening—how does that confront modern evangelical assumptions about “God working through our force,” and what does it imply about the kind of deliverance God may prefer to give His people? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the “Lightning Brigade” story challenge the idea that God mainly works through our strength and force? What does it suggest about the kind of rescue God may want to give His people?

Dean brings up “On Killing” and the idea that many humans resist killing even when forced into battle—how should that observation shape a church’s pastoral care and moral expectations for Christians in military or law-enforcement roles today, especially around repentance, formation, and conscience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If many people naturally struggle to kill, even in war, how should a church care for soldiers and police today? What should we expect about their conscience, training as disciples, and need for repentance?

Ignatius’s language about the bishop (“presides in the place of God”) initially sounds extreme, yet he also says, “I do not issue orders to you as if I were some great person… I speak to you as fellow disciples”—how should a serious Christian read and weigh intense language in early writings without either dismissing it or weaponizing it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How should we handle strong statements in early Christian writings without throwing them out or using them to control people? How do we take them seriously while also reading them wisely?

The hosts frame Ignatius’s urgency around a specific threat: Gnostics drawing people into rival meetings with “new revelations,” and they connect bishop/elder unity to guarding the flock—what would be the closest modern equivalents to those “Andronica’s house” gatherings (para-church movements, influencer-led online churches, private “revelation” circles), and what would it cost you to stay loyally accountable to your local church? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What are today’s versions of secret or rival Christian meetings led by someone with “new revelations” (online influencers, parachurch groups, private prophecy circles)? What might you have to give up to stay accountable to your local church?

They critique the claim that “the church gave you the Bible, so the bishops can make doctrine,” and cite an Orthodox scholar saying Ignatius saw Jesus’ passion/resurrection as the “only complete revelation,” with a Christ-centered reading of Scripture handed down from the apostles—how does that challenge both Protestant individualism and Catholic/Orthodox authority-claims, and what would it change about how your group evaluates teaching, tradition, and “fresh words from God”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus’ death and resurrection are the full and final message, how does that challenge both “I decide truth on my own” and “church leaders can declare new doctrine”? What would change in how your group tests teaching, tradition, and claims of “fresh words from God”?