Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 4
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?
Another 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?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The speaker’s point is that moral outrage can be curated: some evils are highlighted while others are minimized because they don’t fit the preferred story. He suggests similar selectivity happens in church history when groups dismiss early Christian evidence that challenges their current doctrines.
- He describes the Istanbul slave market image and notes the Turks enslaved “a lot of Europeans,” with some historians claiming “more Europeans enslaved by the Turks” than Africans taken to the New World.
- He says it was condemned anyway because it was “politically incorrect” to mention Europeans as slaves: “You don’t talk about Europeans who were made into slaves. So they ran that down.”
- His conclusion: people can be “dig[ging] into their life, see if we can find something we can condemn them,” shaping a villain narrative.
- He parallels this to doctrinal selectivity: churches quote early fathers when convenient (his Jehovah’s Witness example) but call them apostate when they disagree.
- He notes everyone claims “historic faith” yet refuses to “go back and look,” assuming today’s teaching must be right.