Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 7

Constantine’s edict confiscated Donatist property and imprisoned/exiled them, and Bercot says church leaders bore “heavy responsibility” through silence even if they didn’t initiate it—what does this teach about God’s concern for complicity, and how should it affect how we respond when “our side” benefits from coercion or censorship?

Another way to ask: Constantine took Donatist property and jailed or exiled them, and Bercot says church leaders shared blame through silence. What does this teach about being guilty by going along with wrongdoing, and how should we respond when “our side” gains through force or censorship?

Direct Answer Bercot teaches that silence in the face of injustice is not neutral; church leaders shared “heavy responsibility” because they did not protest coercion done on behalf of “orthodoxy.” It implies God cares not only about who initiates wrong, but also about who benefits from it and refuses to speak.

Support from Transcript:

Because Donatists rejected Constantine’s ruling, he issued a “severe edict…confiscating their property and subjecting them to exile and prison.”
This was ironic since Constantine had earlier granted “freedom of religion” in the Edict of Milan.
Bercot says the state was now persecuting “on behalf of the so-called Catholic Church…orthodoxy.”
“None of its leaders protested against the persecution of the Donatus,” and thus “the Church had gone from being the persecuted to now being the persecutor.”
Though the church claimed it “had not personally instigated” it, Bercot says “by the church’s silence…leaders incurred a very heavy responsibility.”

Discussion Follow-ups What would “protest” look like in practice—public statements, refusing benefits, or refusing cooperation—when coercion helps our preferred side?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 7 of 10