Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 10 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Will the Theologians Please Sit Down  /  Chapter 12: What Happened When the Theologians Wrangled  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 10
Augustine is quoted redefining “turn the other cheek” as mainly an “inward disposition,” permitting killing if done “in love” and under “lawful authority,” even for a “wicked cause”; what parts of that reasoning feel persuasive or dangerous, and how does the chapter’s closing claim—that it effectively denies a real kingdom of God “in this life”—challenge how you understand obedience, patriotism, and enemy-love in concrete decisions today?
Another way to ask: Augustine said “turn the other cheek” is mostly about your attitude inside, and that killing can be done “in love” under “lawful authority,” even for a bad cause. What seems convincing or dangerous about that, and how does the chapter’s claim—that this denies God’s real kingdom in this life—challenge how you think about obedience, patriotism, and loving enemies today?

Direct Answer Bercot presents Augustine’s reasoning as dangerously persuasive because it keeps Christian-sounding language (“love,” “inward disposition,” “lawful authority”) while making Christians act like pagans—killing, persecuting, and returning evil for evil. The closing claim challenges believers to treat God’s kingdom as a present reality with different ethics, not merely a future idea.

Support from Transcript:

  • Augustine argues “turn the other cheek” requires “not a bodily action but an inward disposition,” so killing can be allowed if the heart is “loving.”
  • Bercot summarizes: “so long as you love the people you are killing, there is no objection to killing others in war.”
  • Augustine says good men undertake wars “in obedience to God or some lawful authority,” reframing war as obedience.
  • He even claims soldiers can fight for an “ungodly king” and still be “innocent… even… for a wicked cause.”
  • Bercot concludes this teaching implies “there really is no kingdom of God, at least not in this life,” and results in Christians behaving “no differently than the pagan Romans.”
  • Final contrast: they do evil “just as the pagans had,” but imagine it is “in love… out of honor for the real God.”
Discussion Follow-ups What decisions would change if you believed enemy-love must be embodied, not just inward? Where do you feel the pull between “lawful authority” and Christ’s kingdom ethics when the two conflict?

Jumpstarter 10 of 10
Back Questions Done