Discussion Questions

David Bercot defines bullying as repeated, purposeful aggression in a power-imbalanced relationship, often using non-physical tools like ridicule, ostracism, and “arguing the victim into submission”; where have you seen those exact tactics show up in theological disputes, and what “power imbalance” was functioning in those moments? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen people use ridicule, shutting others out, or “arguing someone down” in church or theology debates? What power difference (status, education, position, crowd support) made it work?

The chapter compares theologians to the scribes and Pharisees, quoting John 7:47–49 (“this crowd…is accursed”); what does that incident reveal about how religious leaders can use theology to shame ordinary believers, and what does it suggest about God’s concern for people who “do not know the law”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In John 7:47–49, what do you learn about how religious leaders can use theology to shame regular believers? What does it show about how God cares for people who “don’t know the law”?

Bercot claims Christian theologians have a worse track record than the Pharisees, highlighting Athanasius approving exiles and not objecting to death penalties connected to Arian writings; what do these examples force you to wrestle with about the relationship between “defending doctrine” and the spirit or methods of Christ? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do Athanasius’s actions (supporting exile and not opposing death penalties) make you rethink about “defending doctrine”? How should the way we defend truth match the spirit and methods of Christ?

The chapter says many of Athanasius’s foes “were not actual Arians” but were painted as despicable and damned; how does mislabeling opponents (or attaching the worst possible label) function as a bullying strategy in church life, and what would it look like to refuse that strategy even when you strongly disagree? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How is slapping the worst label on an opponent a bullying move in church life? What would it look like to refuse that move even when you strongly disagree?

Bercot describes “kingdom Christians” (Anabaptists, Moravians, Brethren, etc.) as being silenced by centuries of persecution until they became “the quiet in the land”; how should that history affect the way you interpret today’s reluctance toward evangelism and public witness in those streams? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If some “kingdom Christians” were silenced for centuries by persecution, how might that history explain why some of their groups are quiet today about evangelism and public witness? How should it change the way you judge that reluctance?

The chapter argues that many kingdom Christians have “thrown out the bulk of our forefathers’ teachings” and replaced them with the doctrines of Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, adding only nonresistance, free will, and the head covering; where do you see that blend in your own church tradition, and what do you think it costs a community when its theological framework is inherited from its historical persecutors? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see a mix of “kingdom Christian” practices with theology borrowed from Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, or Calvin in your tradition? What might a church lose when its main theology comes from people who once persecuted its forefathers?

Bercot questions why people who “understood so little about Christ’s kingdom” are treated as having an “inside track on understanding scripture”; what assumptions about God’s character and priorities are exposed when Christians instinctively trust “advanced learning” over simple obedience to Jesus’ commands? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why do Christians often trust highly educated experts more than simple obedience to Jesus? What does that say about what we assume God values most?

Using the Philistines’ ban on blacksmiths in Samuel’s day, Bercot compares modern reliance on commentaries to Israel “crawling” to enemies for weapons; in what ways can dependence on theologians function like a loss of spiritual “weapons,” and what practices would help a group become capable of reading and obeying Scripture without that dependency? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can relying too much on theologians and commentaries make Christians feel weaker or less prepared spiritually? What habits could help a group read and obey Scripture without needing experts all the time?

In the “quantum optics” illustration, Bercot argues a commentary can be clear yet worthless if the writer doesn’t actually understand the subject; what criteria should a serious Christian use to judge whether a commentary is genuinely helping you hear the New Testament as the first-century believers would have heard it, rather than just making a modern system feel “clear”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can you tell if a commentary is helping you hear the New Testament like first-century believers would, instead of just making a modern system sound neat and clear? What tests would you use to judge it?

The snarling dog story portrays the bully as courageous behind a fence but cowardly face-to-face, and Bercot says theologians are often “all bluff” and can be “unmasked”; what would “unmasking” look like in a real disagreement—what questions would you ask, what standards would you insist on (Scripture, early Christian practice, fruit), and what fears or loyalties might keep you from doing it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In a real disagreement, what would it look like to “unmask” someone who is bluffing? What questions and standards would you use (Scripture, early Christian practice, fruit), and what fears or loyalties might stop you?