Discussion Questions

In the Scotland portrait gallery story, the speaker describes plaque-after-plaque putting a “big X” over historic figures, and then a sign calling celebrities “the real heroes of Scotland”; how does that illustrate “chronological snobbery,” and where do you see that same reflex showing up in the way Christians evaluate earlier believers? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does crossing out old heroes and praising celebrities show “chronological snobbery”? Where do Christians today look down on earlier believers just because they lived long ago?

The speaker argues that people who condemn slave-owning figures from the 1700s–1800s would likely have behaved the same if they had lived then; what does that claim reveal about the human heart, and how does it challenge the modern instinct to assume “I would have been the righteous exception”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it say about human nature that many of us would likely have owned slaves if we lived back then? How does that challenge the idea that we would have been the “good exception”?

The speaker contrasts outrage over historic slavery with modern acceptance of abortion and calls unborn children “nobody more vulnerable”; how does his comparison force a re-evaluation of what counts as “justice,” and how should Christians discern when a culture’s moral consensus deserves resistance rather than approval? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does comparing past slavery with today’s abortion change how we think about what “justice” means? How can Christians tell when to resist a culture’s values instead of going along with them?

Using the example of European slavery under the Turks being treated as “politically incorrect” to mention, the speaker suggests selective moral memory; what does that selective outrage teach about how moral narratives are constructed, and how might similar selectivity affect church history and doctrinal debates? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does ignoring some kinds of slavery while talking a lot about others show about how people shape moral stories? How could the same kind of selectiveness affect how we talk about church history and doctrine?

The speaker calls military conscription “slave soldiers” and predicts future generations may condemn it; how does that example function in his argument that “present ethics” are unstable, and what present-day “normal” practices might Christians be most reluctant to question because they feel untouchable? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does calling conscription “slave soldiers” show that what seems moral today might look wrong later? What “normal” things today might Christians refuse to question because they feel off-limits?

When the speaker shifts to Bible interpretation, he argues that revelation works opposite from science: “the further you get from the New Testament…the more things get murkier”; what implications does that have for how much weight you give to second-century interpretations versus modern seminary-trained interpretations? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the speaker is right that things get less clear the farther you get from the New Testament, how much should we trust second-century views compared to modern seminary-trained views? Why?

The speaker mocks the idea that “if Paul walked into our congregation today, he’d feel right at home,” while “the guys in the year 125…didn’t understand Greek”; what assumptions about progress, expertise, and spiritual authority are being exposed, and where do you personally rely on those assumptions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the speaker’s joke about Paul not fitting in today, but Christians in 125 not knowing Greek, reveal about our beliefs in progress and expertise? Where do you lean on those ideas in your own faith?

The speaker says reading the anti-Nicene fathers pushed him to re-read the entire New Testament and conclude their views were “the most literal reading” with “no problem verses”; what doctrines or passages today function as “problem verses” that we feel pressure to reinterpret, and what would change if we refused to “gut” them to protect a system? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What Bible passages or doctrines today feel like “problem verses” that we are tempted to explain away? What would change if we refused to weaken those verses just to protect our system?

In his account of Arius and Athanasius, the speaker argues that trying to defeat error can lead to “moving away from the historic faith,” especially by innovative reinterpretations like “Jesus only meant as a human”; what guardrails should a church have so that “winning the debate” doesn’t replace faithfulness to what the text actually says? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can trying to beat false teaching accidentally pull a church away from what the Bible actually says? What safeguards should a church use so “winning” doesn’t matter more than being faithful to the text?

The speaker appeals to Tertullian’s argument that early Christians’ widespread doctrinal unity is evidence they hadn’t apostatized, contrasting it with “a jillion different directions” (Gnostics) and “40,000 denominations” after the Reformation; how convincing is unity as a test of faithfulness, and what does this argument imply about modern claims to “the historic faith” while dismissing the early church as “legalistic” or “wrong”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How strong is the idea that widespread unity is proof the early church stayed faithful? What does that mean for modern groups that claim “the historic faith” but say the early church was mostly wrong or legalistic?