Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 5

Bercot recommends reading “great spiritual classics” as insights from “fellow travelers along this narrow way,” yet insists they are fallible; how do early-Christian assumptions about learning from predecessors (without treating them as Scripture) confront modern evangelical instincts either to idolize teachers or to dismiss church history?

Another way to ask: Bercot says we can learn from spiritual classics, but they are not Scripture and can be wrong. How does that challenge the way Christians today either put teachers on a pedestal or ignore church history?

Direct Answer Bercot’s approach challenges both extremes: he encourages learning from historical Christians as “fellow travelers,” but he insists their writings are not Scripture and must be read discerningly. This confronts the instinct to idolize favorite teachers by treating them as final authority, and it also confronts the habit of dismissing church history as irrelevant.

Support from Transcript:

He recommends “a portion of your devotional hour reading some of the great spiritual classics.”
He clarifies, “we don’t read them the same way we read Scripture, for they were written by fallible humans.”
Yet he says they “contain useful insights from fellow travelers along this narrow way.”
He warns that even when he quotes them, he is “not implying that I agree with everything these men taught or practiced.”
He uses the image: read them “the way we eat a fish, watching out for the bones.”
He notes some kingdom-life groups (Waldensians, Czech Brethren, early Anabaptists) didn’t write much because of persecution—implying we should value what we do have without over-trusting it.

Discussion Follow-ups What would it look like to treat spiritual writers as helpful guides but not authorities? Do you lean more toward “teacher worship” or toward assuming the past has nothing to teach you?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 5 of 10