Discussion Questions

The chapter opens by saying the Roman Empire was crumbling and “the Church was sinking into the world instead of turning the world upside down”; what picture of God’s intentions for His people is implied by that contrast, and what does it suggest God expects the Church to do when a society is unraveling? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the contrast suggest God wants His people to be like, and what does He expect the Church to do when a society is falling apart?

David Bercot argues that Augustine’s debate method was to take a heresy that contained a partial truth (blue) and respond with the opposite partial truth (yellow) rather than calling people back to the apostolic “green”; where do you see this “opposite extreme” strategy operating in the chapter, and how might it still show up in the way Christians defend orthodoxy today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see Augustine answering one error by swinging to the opposite extreme instead of returning to the apostles’ teaching, and how do Christians still do that today when defending right belief?

In responding to the Manicheans, Augustine denied that Jesus’ moral teaching was different from the Old Testament and argued that “killing was just as lawful under the New as it was under the Old”; how does that claim pressure your assumptions about “continuity” between Old and New, and what would early Christian writers like Irenaeus/Tertullian be trying to preserve that Augustine’s approach risks losing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Augustine’s claim that killing can be lawful in the New Testament challenge your view of how the Old and New Testaments fit together, and what were early writers like Irenaeus or Tertullian trying to protect that Augustine may have weakened?

Augustine argues that Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” requires “not a bodily action, but an inward disposition,” making it possible to kill while “loving” the person; what do you think Bercot means when he says that kind of reasoning is “playing games with Christ,” and what does it reveal about how God weighs inner motives versus outward obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does Bercot call Augustine’s idea—killing someone while still “loving” them—“playing games with Christ,” and what does this say about whether God cares more about motives or about obeying Jesus’ words?

The chapter insists, “in Christ’s Kingdom, the means is always just as important as the end,” and criticizes Augustine for endorsing coercion (even “the pain of the whip”) to bring Donatists back; what do these examples suggest about God’s character and Kingdom methods, and where are you tempted to justify coercive or worldly means to achieve a “good” outcome? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do the chapter’s examples about using force to bring people back to church show about God’s character and His Kingdom’s methods, and where are you tempted to use pressure or worldly tactics to get a “good” result?

Bercot lists the later medieval “Just War” conditions (last resort, authority of a ruler, proportionate force, etc.) and then mirrors them using the language of sexually assaulting women to expose their moral absurdity; what is the argument accomplishing emotionally and morally, and why do you think violence is easier for Christians to rationalize than sexual sin under what he calls the “Constantinian hybrid”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What is Bercot trying to make you feel and see by comparing Just War logic to sexual assault, and why do you think Christians may excuse violence more easily than sexual sin in the “Constantinian hybrid”?

The chapter claims the Just War criteria directly violate Jesus’ teaching about not resisting evil, giving up tunic/cloak, and going the extra mile; if a Christian tried to harmonize those teachings with participation in war, what interpretive moves would they need to make, and where do those moves start to “nullify the teachings of Jesus” in practice? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If someone tried to make Jesus’ teachings (don’t resist evil, give your cloak, go the extra mile) fit with fighting in war, what kinds of Bible-interpretation tricks would they need, and when do those tricks end up canceling Jesus’ commands in real life?

Augustine is quoted saying that even under an ungodly king, “the soldier is innocent because his position makes obedience a duty,” and Bercot calls this a transfer of moral responsibility away from the individual; what does this imply about how God will judge Christians—individually or institutionally—and what modern forms of “I was just following orders” exist outside the military? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If a soldier is “innocent” just for obeying orders, does God judge Christians mainly as individuals or as part of a system, and what are modern examples of “I was just following orders” outside the military?

The chapter contrasts obedience to Christ with military/state codes (Tsarist Russia’s articles; U.S. military justice) that demand obedience unless an order violates the state’s standards rather than Jesus’ commands; what would it look like to actually live as if “our absolute obedience belongs to him” when your job, church culture, or family expectations reward compliance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it look like to live like Jesus deserves your highest obedience when your job, church, or family rewards you for simply going along?

Regarding Pelagius and Augustine, Bercot says historic Christianity held both (a) God’s enabling grace is necessary and (b) humans “play a role” by letting go of the world and crucifying the flesh, while Augustine swung to predestination that makes obedience impossible and warnings pointless; as you read Bercot’s string of questions (“Why preach the gospel…? Why warn…?”), which New Testament warnings become non-functional under Augustine’s system, and what changes in daily discipleship if you treat the New Testament as an “open book” versus “a book dotted with landmines”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Augustine’s predestination view is true, which New Testament warnings stop making sense, and how would everyday discipleship change if you read the New Testament as clear and workable versus as full of hidden traps?