Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 6

The chapter insists Jesus’ words in John 16:2 mean it is never Christ’s disciples who kill, but those “outside the kingdom”; how does that claim confront common categories like “Christian nation,” “Christian empire,” or “Christian use of force,” and what would it mean to take Bercot’s boundary-marker seriously?

Another way to ask: The chapter says John 16:2 means Jesus’ followers don’t kill; killers are “outside the kingdom.” How does that challenge ideas like a “Christian nation” or “Christian use of force,” and what would change if we took that line seriously?

Direct Answer Bercot’s claim challenges the idea that a nation or empire can act as “Christian” while killing for God; if killing and persecution mark those “outside the kingdom,” then “Christian empire” becomes a contradiction. Taking his boundary-marker seriously means identifying the persecuted, not the persecutors, as Christ’s disciples.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot quotes John 16:2 and stresses Jesus did not say disciples would kill others for God; rather, “whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.”
He concludes: “So it is never the disciples of Christ who do the killing. They are the ones being killed.”
He says killers are “always a third party, someone outside the kingdom.”
He ties this to kingdom identity: when professing Christians persecute/kill, “they’ve taken themselves out of God’s kingdom… They have become outsiders.”
He calls uniting God’s kingdom with worldly kingdoms “impossible” and cites John 18:36.

Discussion Follow-ups If persecution is a defining mark of discipleship, how should Christians view state power and “religious violence”? What would change in how we talk about national identity and faith?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 6 of 10