Discussion Questions

David Bercot says his “erroneous ideas” about discipline came from his background and were corrected by reading early Christian writings; what specific assumptions about discipline have shaped you (family, denomination, culture), and how might those assumptions be keeping you from “seeing the Scriptures for themselves”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What beliefs about church discipline did you learn from your family, church, or culture? How might those beliefs keep you from reading the Bible with fresh eyes?

Bercot contrasts two extremes: Jehovah’s Witness-style shunning (e.g., not helping a disfellowshipped person, even in danger) and evangelical non-discipline (“essentially nonexistent”); what do these two extremes reveal about what we instinctively believe God is like—harsh and retaliatory, permissive and unconcerned, or something else? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do the extremes of harsh shunning and no discipline at all suggest about how people think God is? Do we picture Him as harsh, uncaring, or something else?

Public rebuke (1 Tim. 5:20) is presented as normal in early churches and described by Tertullian as “judging… with great seriousness”; what would have to change in a congregation’s spiritual health, trust, and shared expectations for public rebuke to be received as “love” rather than scandal? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would need to change in a church for a public rebuke to feel like loving correction instead of gossip or scandal?

Clement of Alexandria defends rebuke as “a little pain” that “secures exemption from everlasting deaths”; how does that logic confront modern instincts to protect comfort, privacy, and reputation, and what fears does it expose in us about confronting sin? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the idea that rebuke brings “a little pain” now to prevent worse harm later challenge our desire for comfort, privacy, and a good image? What fears do we have about calling out sin?

When Jesus says “treat him like a heathen and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17), Bercot argues the interpretive key is how Jesus treated such people (eating with them to bring repentance) rather than how Pharisees treated them; what does this approach demand of us when we interpret difficult passages that our tradition has historically used to justify harshness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If we read “treat him like a heathen and a tax collector” by looking at how Jesus treated them, what does that require from us when we interpret hard verses our tradition has used to be harsh?

Bercot claims the early church mainly applied Matt. 18:17 as exclusion from “sacred functions,” especially communion as a “channel of grace”; how does that early Christian view of communion challenge common evangelical understandings where communion is primarily symbolic and church membership is less tied to salvation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians saw communion as a real “channel of grace” and barred people from it as discipline, how does that challenge the view that communion is mainly a symbol and membership is less serious?

The transcript says being put out of communion put one’s “status of salvation in severe jeopardy” in early Christian thinking; what theological assumptions about assurance, perseverance, and “once saved always saved” get confronted by that claim, and how should a group handle the tension without dodging the warnings? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If being removed from communion was seen as putting someone’s salvation at serious risk, how does that challenge ideas like assurance and “once saved always saved”? How should a group face that tension without ignoring the warnings?

Bercot cites long restoration periods (e.g., 10 years for denying Christ under persecution) and notes the Montanists accused the wider church of laxity for allowing restoration at all; what does this reveal about early Christian seriousness regarding repentance, and what would “credible repentance” look like in a modern church that wants to be neither lax nor cruel? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do long restoration times and debates about whether to restore people at all show about how seriously early Christians took repentance? What would “real repentance” look like today without being too soft or too cruel?

In describing the third level (1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thess. 3:14), Bercot insists the church may refuse meals/social fellowship with unrepentant “named a brother” sinners, yet still not treat them with inhumane neglect; what boundaries would that require in real life (family events, business dealings, hospitality, texting), and what motives would make those boundaries either loving medicine or self-righteous punishment? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If a church avoids meals and close social time with an unrepentant person who claims to be a believer, what should that look like in real life (family events, business, hospitality, texts) without becoming cruel? What motives would make it loving correction instead of proud punishment?

Bercot argues the fourth level (2 John 10–11) was applied narrowly to itinerant Gnostic teachers who denied “Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh,” not to sincere believers with doctrinal errors or those leaving a congregation peacefully; what present-day situations might genuinely match John’s scenario, and where have you seen (or been tempted toward) the “terrible sin” of applying 2 John to people it doesn’t fit? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What modern situations truly fit 2 John’s warning about welcoming traveling teachers who deny Jesus came in the flesh? When have you seen, or felt tempted, to use that verse against people it doesn’t really apply to?