Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 10 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 10
Bercot says listeners bear “just about as much guilt” as gossipers and suggests changing the subject, then explicitly naming the line (“we’ve unwittingly crossed into gossip”), and even seeking the other person’s side to straighten the record; what would it cost socially in your circles to do this, and how would practicing it change the culture of your church over the next year?
Another way to ask: What might it cost you socially to stop a conversation and say, “We’ve crossed into gossip,” or to seek the other person’s side? If people practiced that for a year, how might it change your church’s culture?

Direct Answer Bercot implies the social cost may be losing access to certain conversations—gossipers may avoid you—but the spiritual gain is huge: refusing to listen can largely eliminate gossip in a church and create a culture where people seek truth, fairness, and reconciliation. Over time it would reduce rumor-based opinions and increase upbuilding talk.

Support from Transcript:

  • He assigns guilt to listeners: “the one who listens to gossip bears just about as much guilt as the one who gossips.”
  • First response: “quickly change the subject… and if it gets back… change it again.”
  • If needed, speak plainly: “I think we’ve unwittingly crossed the line into gossip,” which “will definitely bring it to a stop.”
  • Social consequence: next time they want to gossip, “it won’t be with you… They’ll find someone who doesn’t mind listening.”
  • He says eliminating listeners would eliminate the sin: “If everyone… refused to listen… it would eliminate that sin from our churches.”
  • He adds responsibility after hearing gossip: “hear that person’s side… hold judgment… [and] straighten it out with the people who… passed the original story.”
Discussion Follow-ups Who in your circle would react most strongly if you named gossip for what it is? What changes might happen if even a small group in your church consistently practiced “change the subject,” “name the line,” and “seek the other side”?