Discussion Questions

In the exam story, Mr. Gray tells Marcy, “You can hardly ask to be graded more leniently than you graded Janet’s paper.” What does Jesus’ warning in Matthew 7:1–2 add to that illustration about God’s character—especially about His fairness, transparency, and willingness to let us “choose” the standard used on us? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the exam story, Mr. Gray says Marcy should be graded the way she graded Janet. How does Matthew 7:1–2 help explain what God is like—fair, open, and letting us choose the standard we use on ourselves?

The chapter claims, “Jesus lets us decide how leniently or harshly we want to be graded on Judgment Day.” What parts of that idea feel spiritually clarifying to you, and what parts feel threatening or hard to reconcile with how you currently think about grace and final judgment? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says Jesus lets us choose how strict our “grade” will be on Judgment Day by how we judge others. What about that feels helpful to you, and what feels scary or hard to fit with grace and final judgment?

When Bercot says judging others means we “usurp the Lord’s own office,” what “offices” or roles do Christians commonly take on today (online, in churches, in families) that quietly assume God’s seat—and what motivates that move in the heart? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says judging others means taking God’s job. Where do Christians today act like they’re in God’s seat (online, church, family), and what’s going on in the heart that makes us do that?

Alexander Campbell is quoted condemning the impulse to “confine all goodness and grace” to “the elect few who are like us.” Where do you see that same “sublimated Phariseeism” showing up in modern Christianity—not mainly “out there,” but in your own tradition’s reflexes about who is really in or out? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Campbell warns about thinking only “people like us” have God’s grace. Where do you see that attitude in your own Christian tradition, especially in who seems “in” or “out”?

The chapter criticizes how quickly Christians say of other professing believers, “He’s not a Christian,” often on the basis of theology, and notes Jesus condemned no one to hell “because of their theology.” What boundaries, if any, should exist for evaluating another person’s profession of faith—and how do you keep boundaries from turning into pronouncements about their eternal destiny? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says Christians too quickly say, “He’s not a Christian,” often over theology, and that Jesus didn’t send people to hell for theology. What limits, if any, should we use when judging someone’s faith, and how do we keep those limits from becoming claims about their eternal destiny?

Bercot argues that in “easy believism,” many believe grace covers “every kind of sordid sin imaginable except a theological error.” Where have you seen this pattern in real life (church membership, social media debates, denominational identity), and what does it reveal about what we fear most: sin, shame, or being wrong? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says some people think grace covers almost any sin but not a theological mistake. Where have you seen that (church, social media, denominations), and does it show we fear sin, shame, or being wrong the most?

In discussing “the speck and the plank,” Bercot challenges the common interpretation that Jesus wants us to find specks as long as we first remove our planks; he suggests Jesus doesn’t want us “ever to be looking” for specks because we will “always have a plank” due to our deeper knowledge of our own sins. How does that reinterpretation confront the way you’ve been trained to do discernment, accountability, or “calling out” error? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Jesus may not want us looking for “specks” at all, because we always have a “plank” in ourselves. How does that challenge what you’ve been taught about discernment, accountability, or calling out error?

The chapter’s “recording” thought experiment (home, car, then even mind and heart) is meant to expose why our sins are a “beam” compared to others’ specks. If that exposure were real in your life, what categories would most embarrass you—anger, pride, gossip, envy, resentfulness, judgmental thoughts—and how might that awareness reshape the way you speak about other believers? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Imagine everything you did and thought was recorded and played back. What would embarrass you most (anger, pride, gossip, envy, resentment, judgmental thoughts), and how might that change how you talk about other believers?

Bercot distinguishes Matthew 7 “specks” (minor sins and imperfections to be overlooked in love) from Matthew 18 “serious sins” that can lead to excommunication. In your church experience, what tends to get treated like “Matthew 18” that is really “Matthew 7,” and what tends to get ignored as “Matthew 7” that is actually “Matthew 18”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Matthew 7 “specks” are small sins to overlook in love, but Matthew 18 is about serious sins that may need church discipline. In your church experience, what small issues get treated like big discipline cases, and what serious sins get brushed off as “small”?

The chapter says, “We must talk to our brother about these kinds of sin, for his eternal life is at stake,” and also, “Love requires both these things.” What would it look like—concretely—for your group to practice both: real confrontation of serious sin and deliberate overlooking of minor faults, without slipping into either cowardice or a “criticizing spirit” that feels respectable? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How could your group both confront serious sin and overlook small faults in love, without becoming afraid to speak up or turning into constant critics? What would that look like in real actions?