Discussion Questions

David Bercot calls turning the other cheek and loving enemies “the biggest stumbling block” for conventional churches—what does that claim suggest about what God is like, and what part of God’s character modern churches may quietly be unwilling to mirror? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies” is the biggest problem for many churches. What does that say about what God is like, and what part of God’s character might churches not want to copy?

Jesus says, “I tell you not to resist an evil person,” then gives examples (slap, lawsuit for tunic, compelled mile, requests to borrow)—how do those examples define what Jesus meant by “not resist,” and what kinds of “rights” or protections do we instinctively treat as non-negotiable anyway? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Jesus says not to resist an evil person and then talks about a slap, a lawsuit, being forced to go a mile, and people asking to borrow. What do these examples show Jesus meant by “not resist,” and what “rights” do we still refuse to give up?

Bercot insists Jesus’ teaching is not only passive (“don’t resist”) but proactive (“love your enemies… bless… do good… pray”)—what would proactive enemy-love look like in a real conflict where you believe the other person is clearly in the wrong? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Jesus doesn’t just say “don’t resist,” but also “love, bless, do good, and pray” for enemies. In a real conflict where you think the other person is clearly wrong, what could that kind of active love look like?

He connects enemy-love to reconciliation (“leave your gift… first be reconciled”) and says Kingdom citizens should “be the first to offer the olive branch… even if we’re convinced we’re right”—what does that imply about God’s priorities in worship, and how does it confront the way Christians commonly handle relational tension? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says God wants reconciliation so much that we should reach out first, even if we think we’re right. What does that say about what matters most to God in worship, and how does it challenge how Christians usually deal with conflict?

In the toddler illustration (“grabs… screaming… hitting and biting”), Bercot argues non-resistance is not natural but must be learned—what does that reveal about the fallenness Jesus assumes in his disciples, and where do you see your own “toddler-level” instincts most active (family, work, online, politics)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot compares our natural reactions to a toddler who grabs and hits, saying non-resistance has to be learned. What does that show about the sinful instincts Jesus expects in his followers, and where do you see those “toddler” reactions most in yourself (home, work, online, politics)?

In the goat-pen story, Bercot absorbs extra cost (electric wire) rather than escalate conflict with his neighbor—what would you have wanted him to say or do instead, and what does your reaction reveal about the line you draw between “wisdom” and “obedience” in Jesus’ commands? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the goat-pen story, Bercot pays more money instead of fighting with his neighbor. What would you have wanted him to do instead, and what does your answer show about when you choose “being wise” versus obeying Jesus?

Bercot says non-resistance is not being a “doormat,” claiming Jesus and Paul were assertive yet chose “to receive injuries rather than to injure someone else”—how does that distinction challenge common Christian justifications for force, retaliation, or “strong leadership,” and how would you practice assertiveness without coercion? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says non-resistance doesn’t mean being a doormat: Jesus and Paul spoke strongly but chose to be hurt rather than hurt others. How does this challenge Christian excuses for using force, getting revenge, or using “strong leadership,” and what would it look like to be firm without pushing people around?

He notes Paul didn’t press charges against mobs who beat him, yet did appeal to legal protection to avoid an unlawful flogging—based on Bercot’s use of Paul, what’s the difference between using government protections and using courts to retaliate or reclaim losses, and where do you think modern Christians blur that line? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot points out Paul didn’t press charges after beatings, but he did use legal rights to avoid an illegal flogging. What’s the difference between using the law for protection and using the courts to get payback or recover losses, and where do Christians today mix those up?

When Bercot stopped handling lawsuits as a lawyer, he framed it as obedience despite financial loss and “limited faith”—what specific modern careers, ministry strategies, or “normal” church practices might become impossible if Christians took “why not rather accept wrong?” literally? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot quit handling lawsuits because he thought Jesus called him to, even though it cost him money. If Christians took “why not rather accept wrong?” literally, what jobs, ministry plans, or normal church habits might have to change or stop?

Bercot argues non-resistance only makes sense alongside forsaking possessions, refusing national pride, and Jesus’ statement “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight”—how does that deduction confront Christian nationalism and pro-war church culture (flags, “Pray for our troops” without praying for Iraqis), and what would repentance look like in a local church if this chapter is right? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says non-resistance only fits with letting go of possessions, rejecting national pride, and Jesus saying his followers don’t fight for his kingdom. How does that challenge Christian nationalism and pro-war church culture (like flags or only praying for our troops), and what might real repentance look like in a local church?