Discussion Questions

David Bercot compares Christians living under earthly governments to “Joe American” living in Germany; where does that analogy clarify your own assumptions about citizenship, rights, and obligations, and where does it start to break down when applied to the kingdom of God? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Bercot’s “Joe American in Germany” example change how you think about citizenship, rights, and duties? Where does that comparison stop working when you think about God’s kingdom?

The chapter quotes 1 Peter 2 and Romans 13 to argue that earthly governments “ultimately derive their authority from God”; what does that reveal about God’s purposes in allowing non-Christian governments to rule, and how should that shape the way Christians talk about (and emotionally respond to) civil authority? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If governments get their authority from God (1 Peter 2; Romans 13), why would God allow non-Christian rulers? How should that affect the way Christians speak about government and how they feel about it?

Bercot calls it a “seeming irony” that “to be obedient to Christ, we first must be obedient to Caesar”; what specific kinds of law-keeping does he seem to have in mind, and how does that confront Christian instincts to treat civil disobedience as inherently spiritual? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What kinds of obeying-the-law does Bercot mean when he says we must obey Caesar in order to obey Christ? How does that challenge the idea that breaking civil laws is automatically the spiritual choice?

When Jesus answers the tax question by bringing God into the equation (“Render therefore…”), Bercot says Jesus exposes the interrogators’ “too narrow a focus”; what modern “tax-like” issues tend to narrow our focus in the same way, and how does Jesus’ logic about images (“Caesar’s image” vs. “God’s image”) reorder what we think belongs to God? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What issues today work like the tax question and make us focus too narrowly? How does Jesus’ point about Caesar’s image and God’s image change what you think belongs to God?

In his reading of Romans 13 (“Render therefore… taxes… customs… fear… honor”), Bercot emphasizes what Paul includes and what he “quite noticeably” does not include (military service); how persuasive is that argument from omission, and what do you think early Christians would have assumed “relative obedience” to Caesar looked like in practice? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How convincing is Bercot’s point that Romans 13 lists taxes, respect, and honor but does not mention military service? What do you think early Christians saw as “limited” obedience to Caesar in everyday life?

Bercot quotes Tertullian: “What will be God’s if all things are Caesar’s?” and then claims many professing Christians have given Caesar “their money, their youth, their souls, and their unqualified allegiance,” leaving God “leftover crumbs”; what concrete signs would expose that pattern in a church community, and what would repentance look like beyond simply “trying harder”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it look like if a church gives Caesar people’s money, time, and loyalty and gives God only leftovers? What would real repentance look like besides just “trying harder”?

The apostles’ refusal to stop preaching (“We ought to obey God rather than men”) is presented as the model for conflict situations—even when the authorities involved had real, recognized authority; what kinds of commands today would qualify as that level of conflict, and what fears (social, legal, financial, reputational) most commonly keep Christians from apostolic-style obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What kinds of government commands today would force a choice between obeying God and obeying people? What fears usually stop Christians from obeying God in that kind of moment?

The chapter uses two legal analogies—corporation vs. state, and state laws vs. the U.S. Constitution—to argue that God’s laws always overrule conflicting human laws; how does that framework challenge common evangelical language about “freedom,” “rights,” or “personal conscience,” and where might someone misuse Bercot’s framework to justify stubbornness rather than obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the idea that God’s law outranks human law challenge common Christian talk about “freedom,” “rights,” and “following my conscience”? How could someone misuse this idea to excuse being stubborn instead of truly obeying God?

Bercot says Caesar’s laws and Christ’s laws “most often conflict in the area of non-resistance,” especially military service, because Jesus commands love of enemies; how do you reconcile (or fail to reconcile) the chapter’s claim that you “cannot obey both Christ and Caesar” with the normal Christian acceptance of war, self-defense, and national loyalty? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus calls us to love our enemies and not fight back, how can someone support war, self-defense, or strong national loyalty? Do you agree with the claim that you can’t fully obey both Christ and Caesar here, and why?

Near the end, Bercot insists Christians should be respectful toward soldiers and police, argues governments have been “entrusted… with the sword,” and even calls low soldier pay a “genuine social injustice”; how does the chapter hold together both (a) refusing to participate in the sword and (b) honoring those who wield it, and what would that look like in your actual speech, voting, advocacy, and relationships? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can Christians refuse to use violence but still respect soldiers and police who do? What would that look like in your words, voting choices, public support, and personal relationships?