Discussion Questions

David Bercot argues that “returning to the Christianity of Augustine’s day was in itself a major reform,” yet “by no means a return to the Gospel of the Kingdom”; what does this suggest about God’s priorities for “reform,” and how do we discern when a reform is merely a rollback of later abuses rather than a return to Jesus’ actual teaching? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it say about what God cares most about in “reform” if going back to Augustine is still not the same as going back to Jesus? How can we tell the difference between fixing later mistakes and truly returning to Jesus’ teachings?

The chapter says Augustinian reformers “invariably sought to accomplish their reforms through the power of the state”; what view of God’s kingdom and God’s methods is implied by state-powered reform, and where do you see that same instinct operating in modern Christian political strategies? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If reformers tried to change the church using the government, what does that say about how they viewed God’s kingdom and God’s way of working? Where do you see Christians today trying to use politics in the same way?

Bercot ties rejection of nonresistance to acceptance of church-state union, saying this led to approving “war, capital punishments, and torture”; what beliefs about God’s justice and God’s mercy have to shift in order for Christians to bless these practices, and what New Testament teachings does the chapter imply are being sidelined? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would Christians have to believe about God’s justice and mercy to support war, executions, and torture? Which New Testament teachings does the chapter suggest get pushed aside when they do that?

The chapter claims Augustinian movements taught that Jesus’ teachings on “wealth and oaths did not need to be followed literally” and usually said little about separation from the world; what would early Christians (pre-Constantine) likely assume about obedience in these areas, and what would have to be true about God for Jesus’ commands to be treated as non-literal ideals? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do you think early Christians would have treated Jesus’ teachings about money and oaths—like real commands or just ideals? What would someone have to believe about God to say Jesus didn’t mean those commands literally?

Bercot contrasts “theology as the essence of Christianity” with “lifestyle, not theology,” and adds that “in practice, it was always the Scriptures as interpreted by Augustine”; how does this challenge common evangelical instincts about “sound doctrine,” and how do you recognize when a revered theologian functions as an unofficial authority over Scripture in your own circles? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does this chapter challenge the common idea that “right doctrine” is the main test of real Christianity? How can you tell when a famous theologian is treated like the real authority over the Bible in your own group?

Wycliffe called the Roman Church “Satan’s synagogue” and the Pope “the Antichrist”; what do those kinds of labels accomplish spiritually and politically, and how do they compare with the New Testament’s approach to confronting error without training Christians to despise or dehumanize opponents? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do harsh labels like “Antichrist” and “Satan’s synagogue” do in people’s hearts and in politics? How is that different from how the New Testament corrects wrong teaching without training believers to hate their opponents?

Wycliffe taught that neither clerics nor the Church should own property, yet he “had no problem with kings and the nobility storing up treasures on earth”; what does this reveal about how easy it is to apply Jesus’ wealth teachings selectively, and where are Christians today tempted to demand sacrifices from “religious institutions” while excusing the economic practices of the powerful (or ourselves)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it show about us when we apply Jesus’ warnings about wealth to church leaders but not to rich rulers—or ourselves? Where do Christians today demand sacrifice from churches while excusing the money habits of the powerful?

Wycliffe’s claim, “Nobody in mortal sin is lord of anything,” is presented as directly contrary to Paul’s command to submit to pagan rulers; what picture of God’s sovereignty and God’s control of history is at stake in whether Christians submit, resist, or overthrow rulers, and what “exceptions” do we feel entitled to add to the New Testament? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does our response to rulers (obey, resist, or overthrow) say about how we view God’s control over history? What “extra exceptions” do we tend to add to the New Testament’s command to submit to rulers?

The chapter quotes Wycliffe’s absolute predestination: “everything that will happen will happen of necessity… if Paul is foreknown as damned, he cannot truly repent”; what does that do to the meaning of repentance, warning passages, and obedience, and how would early Christians—who emphasized practical discipleship—have responded to a theology that seems to make moral change impossible for the damned? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If everything is fixed ahead of time and some people can’t truly repent, what happens to the meaning of repentance, warnings, and obedience? How would early Christians who focused on daily discipleship react to a view that seems to make real change impossible for the condemned?

The Lollards argued that war contradicts the “law of grace,” saying when men fight “love is forgotten after the first blow,” and “whoever dies without love goes down the straight road to hell”; what does this claim expose about heart motives in violence, how does it confront modern assumptions about “just war” or “Christian patriotism,” and what concrete changes would it require in how we talk about enemies, self-defense, and national loyalty? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If fighting makes people stop loving, what does that say about what violence does to the heart? How does that challenge ideas like “just war” or “Christian patriotism,” and what would it change in how we talk about enemies, self-defense, and loyalty to our nation?