Discussion Questions

David Bercot compares the “intruder threatens your family” scenario to being commanded to deny Christ or sacrifice to Satan; what does that comparison reveal about how he believes Jesus ranks family protection, national loyalty, and obedience to His commands? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot compares defending your family from an intruder to being told to deny Jesus or worship Satan. What does that say about what he thinks matters most: protecting family, being loyal to your country, or obeying Jesus?

In the chapter, Bercot argues that murdering a neighbor or assaulting his wife under government threat would be “denying Christ by actions”; how does this redefine what “denying Christ” means beyond spoken words, and where do you feel resistance to that definition? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says if you hurt someone because the government orders it, you are “denying Christ by actions.” How does this change what “denying Christ” means beyond just words, and what part of that is hard for you to accept?

Bercot says the best protection he can give his family is entrusting them to Jesus’ care, calling it “not naive,” and he claims harm to “kingdom families” is rare outside persecution; what view of God’s providence and kingship is he assuming, and what fears surface when you imagine living that way? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the best way to protect his family is to trust them to Jesus and that this is “not naive.” What does he believe about God being in control, and what fears come up when you picture living like that?

The Stephen Roy Carr story portrays a violent fugitive living five days with a non-resistant Mennonite family without harming them; what do you think Bercot wants that story to prove, and what alternative explanations might someone raise—and how would you evaluate them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: A violent fugitive lived with a non-resistant Mennonite family for five days and did not hurt them. What does Bercot want this story to prove, what other reasons could explain it, and how would you decide what to believe?

Using the Blondon tightrope “wheelbarrow” illustration, Bercot says genuine faith is “getting into the wheelbarrow for Christ” and that other faith is “just words”; in what specific ways does his definition of faith confront common evangelical ways of talking about belief, assurance, and “trusting God”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says real faith is like getting into the wheelbarrow for Jesus, not just talking. How does this challenge common evangelical ideas about believing, being sure you’re saved, and “trusting God”?

Bercot includes the accidental shooting of a daughter and cites the statistic that a home gun is “22 times more likely” to kill a family member or friend than an intruder; how does this argument challenge the moral intuition that a weapon is an act of love and responsibility, and what would “less dangerous methods” look like in practice? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot tells a story of a child accidentally being shot and says a gun at home is far more likely to hurt family or friends than an intruder. How does this challenge the idea that owning a weapon is loving and responsible, and what safer ways to protect a family could replace it?

In the motel robbery account, Olivia’s singing “Jesus loves me” functions as a kind of nonviolent resistance that disarms the attackers; what does this story suggest about the power of worship, testimony, and prayer in moments of threat, and what would you be willing (or unwilling) to do if that approach failed? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the motel robbery story, Olivia singing “Jesus loves me” seems to stop the attackers without violence. What does this suggest about worship, sharing faith, and prayer during danger, and what would you do if that didn’t work?

When asked “But what about Hitler?” Bercot flips the question and claims Hitler’s evil depended on professing Christian soldiers, implying non-resistance by the whole church could have prevented his rise; what assumptions is he making about the church’s social power, and how does that collide with the way Christians usually interpret “responsibility” in the face of mass evil? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When people ask, “What about Hitler?” Bercot says Hitler’s power depended on soldiers who claimed to be Christians and that if the whole church refused violence, he might not have risen. What does he assume about the church’s influence, and how does that clash with how Christians usually think about duty when facing great evil?

Bercot argues the Pax Romana was God’s intervention preparing the world for the Prince of Peace, and he quotes Origen and Arnobius claiming Christ’s teachings actually diminished wars; how does this claim reshape your understanding of God’s purposes in history, and what would it require you to believe about prayer as a public, world-shaping force? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the Pax Romana was God preparing the world for the Prince of Peace, and that Jesus’ teaching helped reduce wars. How does that change how you see God’s plan in history, and what would it mean to believe prayer can shape nations and events?

The chapter challenges the “two hats” idea (private Christian vs. state agent) using “how many men to change a crime into a virtue?” plus Exodus/Leviticus/Deuteronomy to argue Jesus replaced state-level “eye for eye”; if Jesus’ non-resistance applies to national justice and warfare, what modern Christian beliefs about Romans 13, citizenship, and “supporting the troops” have to be rethought—and what concrete changes would that force in your life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says you can’t be one way as a Christian and another way as a government worker, and that Jesus replaced “eye for eye” with non-resistance even for nations. If that’s true, what would Christians need to rethink about Romans 13, citizenship, and “supporting the troops,” and what changes would that require in your daily life?