Discussion Questions

David Bercot opens by saying “there is no evil that God permits in this world…from which God can’t teach us lessons…if we’ll only let Him.” What picture of God’s sovereignty and intentions is he assuming here, and what kinds of suffering or “evil” make that claim hardest to accept without feeling like God is being made the author of evil? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says God can teach us something through any evil we face if we let Him. What view of God’s control and goals is he assuming, and what kinds of suffering make this feel like it blames God for evil?

When he applies Proverbs 18:17 (“The first one to plead his cause seems right…”), he insists we should hear “several viewpoints” even when “it’s involving my friends and members of my church.” What practices in church life (prayer requests, counseling, small group sharing, “discernment” conversations) subtly train us to do the opposite? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He says we should hear more than one side, even when it involves our friends at church. What parts of church life (prayer requests, counseling, small groups, “discernment” talks) train us to believe one side without checking?

In the story about Witness relatives vs. non-Witness relatives, he suspects “there’s probably a little truth on both sides” and that the Witnesses may often be the aggressors. Where have you seen “persecution” language used as a badge of faithfulness when it may actually be covering over pushiness, lack of love, or poor boundaries? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He says “persecution” stories can hide the fact that the group might be causing the conflict. Where have you seen people use “we’re being persecuted” to cover pushiness, unkindness, or bad boundaries?

Bercot says ex-members of a group are “not an unbiased source,” not usually because they lie, but because deep hurt narrows what they can see. How should a Christian community weigh testimonies of spiritual abuse or harm without dismissing them, while still applying his warning about one-sidedness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He says ex-members may not be neutral because pain can shape what they see. How can a church take stories of spiritual abuse seriously without brushing them off, but also not assume we’ve heard the full picture?

His attorney illustration (the pond/fence dispute) and “90% of lawsuits settle” point to the idea that “usually there is truth on both sides” and “both sides have committed wrong.” How does that realism challenge the way Christians often tell conflict stories—with a hero/villain narrative—and what would repentance look like in how we recount disputes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He suggests most conflicts have wrong on both sides, not just a hero and a villain. How does that challenge the way Christians retell conflict, and what would it look like to repent in the way we tell our side?

He tells the story of the newspaper carrier claiming her ex-husband knocked out her teeth, while the dentist said he pulled them because they were rotten. What does this example expose about how easily “sympathy” can be manipulated, and how should Christians balance compassion with the refusal to become a pipeline for accusations? JumpstartAnother way to ask: His story shows how someone can use a sad story to gain sympathy. How can Christians stay compassionate but not become a channel for rumors and accusations?

In his definition of stereotyping (oversimplified images based on limited knowledge), he uses Pharisees in John 7 and Jewish attitudes toward Samaritans and Gentiles, then parallels that with Jehovah’s Witness labels (“the world,” “Christendom”). What “labels” do Christians today use that function the same way—collapsing real people into a category so we don’t have to listen to them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He says labels like “the world” or “Christendom” can keep us from really listening to people. What labels do Christians use today that turn real people into categories so we can dismiss them?

His examples of evangelical stereotypes include the movie portrayal of the “evangelical marriage” vs. the collapsing unbelieving marriage, followed by his claim that divorce rates are statistically similar. What does it do to our theology of conversion and “victory” when we admit the visible fruit is often messier than our testimonies and media portray? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He says Christian and non-Christian divorce rates can be similar, even though movies and testimonies often say otherwise. How does admitting “results” are messy change how we think about conversion and Christian victory?

When he warns Anabaptists about judging someone’s spirituality by clothing (bright orange T-shirt, flip-flops) and says stereotyping is a form of judging that could affect “eternal destiny,” what specific judgments do we make quickly because they protect our sense of being the “faithful remnant,” and what would we lose if we stopped making them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He warns that judging spirituality by clothing is a kind of stereotyping that can have serious spiritual effects. What quick judgments do we make to feel like the “faithful remnant,” and what would we fear losing if we stopped?

His third lesson turns on the Watchtower’s interpretation of the dragnet in Matthew 13 (two dragnets: Witnesses vs. “Christendom”), and then he argues that modern commentaries and study Bibles often “directly contradict what the scriptures say” (Sermon on the Mount postponed, 1 Tim 2:9 softened, Hebrews 10 explained to protect eternal security). Where have you felt pressure—explicit or subtle—to distrust the plain reading of a passage, and how would early Christians (as he describes them, especially regarding the Sermon on the Mount and modesty) have responded to the way modern Christianity explains those texts away? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He says some modern teaching pressures people not to take certain Bible passages at face value (like the Sermon on the Mount, modesty, or Hebrews 10). Where have you felt pushed to distrust the plain meaning of a passage, and how do you think early Christians would respond to the way we explain those texts away today?