Discussion Questions

David Bercot opens with his own exit from Jehovah’s Witnesses after reading Charles Russell directly and discovering “cherry-picked” quotations and reversed claims about 1914; what does that story suggest about God’s expectation that Christians test claims by primary sources rather than trusting “official histories,” and where do you see a similar temptation in your own church life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Bercot’s story about leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses teach about God wanting Christians to check original sources instead of trusting “official” stories? Where do you feel that same pull to just trust the approved version in your own church?

In the Orwell *1984* illustration, Bercot calls falsifying history “lying on a mass scale”; when he later says this same kind of history-making has entered the church through feminism, what picture of spiritual warfare and deception about God’s order is he presenting, and how should that reshape how we evaluate popular Christian narratives? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If changing history is “lying on a mass scale,” what is Bercot saying is happening in the church, and why does he connect it to feminism? How should this affect the way we judge popular Christian stories and trends?

When Bercot describes his son’s 5th-grade American Revolution textbook omitting men like Lafayette and Nathanael Greene to make the war look like “equal opportunity,” what parallels does he want you to see in the way some Christians retell New Testament history—and what details about the biblical text itself tend to get omitted when the goal is to push an agenda? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How is the “equal opportunity” textbook like the way some people retell New Testament history today? When someone is pushing an agenda, what parts of the Bible story tend to get left out?

Bercot defines a “feminist” as anyone rejecting “God’s order of headship in the home, the church, and society,” then says many Christians “embrace half of God’s order” (responsibilities without authority); where have you seen that exact imbalance preached or practiced, and what does it do to both men and women spiritually? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen the idea of “responsibility without authority” taught or lived out in homes or churches? What does that imbalance do to men and women spiritually?

He challenges listeners to ask whether their pastor could preach four specific passages (1 Cor 11:3–8; 1 Cor 14:33–37; 1 Tim 2:8–15; 1 Pet 3:1–6) “without watering them down”; what would “watering down” look like in real terms (language, framing, omissions), and why does Bercot call that approach “cowardly” and “politically correct”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it look like for a pastor to “water down” those passages in how he speaks, frames them, or leaves things out? Why does Bercot think watering them down is cowardly and driven by wanting to please people?

After quoting 1 Peter 3 (Sarah calling Abraham “lord”), Bercot asks whether any prominent modern woman (Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Condoleezza Rice) would accept these teachings; what does that comparison expose about how cultural respectability pressures the church, and what might it cost a congregation to align itself with Scripture here? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Bercot’s comparison to famous modern women show about how culture pressures churches to look respectable? If a church follows Scripture on this point, what could it lose or risk?

Using a law-school strategy (“when the law is against you, pound the facts”), Bercot claims modern theologians portray first-century men as monsters and women as helpless victims so people “won’t care what the law says”; what are examples you’ve heard of “fact narratives” about Bible times being used to neutralize a command, and how do you discern when context is clarifying Scripture versus negating it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What “stories about Bible times” have you heard that make a command seem easy to ignore? How can you tell when background information is helping you understand Scripture versus being used to cancel it?

In his critique of the “Jesus was the first feminist” claim, Bercot argues Jesus never taught changing headship order and was never accused of causing women to rebel; what does that argument assume about Jesus’ mission and priorities, and how does it challenge the modern instinct to treat Jesus primarily as a social reformer? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What is Bercot assuming about Jesus’ main mission when he says Jesus was not trying to change headship order? How does that challenge the idea that Jesus should be seen mainly as a social reformer?

Bercot cites his own book’s discussion of John 4, arguing the surprise at the well was ethnic (Jew/Samaritan), not gender-based (“For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans”); how does his reading of that passage confront common preaching tropes, and what does it imply about the danger of building doctrines on a single, out-of-context line (“they marveled that He talked with a woman”)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Bercot’s reading of John 4 challenge the common way this story is preached? What danger is there in building big beliefs from one line taken out of context?

When Bercot lays out his research rules—“start with a blank slate” and “go back to primary sources,” then warns that authors can cite sources yet still mislead through selective use—what practical habits should a serious Christian adopt (in reading books, checking footnotes, evaluating claims about the Mishnah and first-century culture), and what heart-level motives might keep us from doing that work honestly? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What simple habits can help Christians check claims, like reading original sources, using footnotes, and not trusting selective quotes? What fears or desires in our hearts might keep us from doing that honestly?