Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 3

Bercot argues the article “cherry-picked negative things that would make the early Christians look foolish” while ignoring “many magnificent things they say”; what would be a fair method for evaluating the early Christians (or any historical group) that avoids both idealizing them and caricaturing them?

Another way to ask: What is a fair way to judge early Christians (or any group in history) that doesn’t make them look either perfect or stupid? How can we look at both their strengths and their flaws honestly?

Direct Answer A fair method, based on Bercot’s critique, would represent the sources honestly in context, avoid selecting only the “ridiculous” bits, and evaluate them using both their historical setting and the New Testament rather than modern assumptions.

Support from Transcript:

He calls it “cherry-picking negative things… ignoring all of the many magnificent things they say.”
He notes the five items weren’t even direct quotes but “summaries,” and they represented “only a few early Christian writers,” not “the early church.”
He repeatedly urges removing “glasses of presentism” and asking how something sounded in the “first or second century.”
He corrects misrepresentation by clarifying: “The early church never required” only white or undyed clothing.
He calls it “very dishonest to take the personal view of a single early Christian and represent it as a general teaching.”
On slavery, he says we must judge by “the standards of their day and also on the standards of the New Testament.”

Discussion Follow-ups What practices could help us read primary sources more carefully (whole passages, multiple authors, distinguishing advice vs law)? How can we be equally cautious about idealizing early Christians as “always right”?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 3 of 10