Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 9

Bercot uses the “eat a fish, watching out for the bones” approach to reading imperfect authors; what practical criteria would you use to identify “bones” without becoming cynical, and how would your criteria differ if you were reading like early Christians who expected costly discipleship as “the narrow way”?

Another way to ask: Bercot says to read imperfect authors like eating fish and spitting out the bones. What simple rules would you use to spot the “bones” without becoming negative, and how might that change if you expected discipleship to be costly and narrow?

Direct Answer Bercot doesn’t list detailed criteria, but he implies “bones” are anything in human writings that shouldn’t be treated like Scripture and may not align with the kingdom-life focus; the key is grateful discernment rather than cynicism. Reading with a “narrow way” mindset would likely mean taking challenges to surrender seriously while still remembering the authors are “fallible humans.”

Support from Transcript:

He repeatedly stresses the difference between Scripture and classics: classics “were written by fallible humans.”
He says we should read them like “we eat a fish, watching out for the bones.”
He clarifies that quoting them doesn’t mean total agreement: “I’m not implying that I agree with everything these men taught or practiced.”
He recommends reading classics “prayerfully” and reflecting on “how each passage applies to us personally.”
He says we should “let the authors challenge us to a closer walk with God and to a more complete surrender of our lives,” which suggests we shouldn’t use discernment as an excuse to ignore conviction.

Discussion Follow-ups What does “prayerfully” evaluating a passage look like in real time—do you pause, compare with Scripture, and ask for humility? How do you keep discernment from becoming a way to dodge uncomfortable calls to surrender?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 9 of 10