Discussion Questions

David Bercot describes his “solemn commitment” to never again be an “unthinking, unquestioning Christian” after leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses; what would that kind of commitment demand of us when we evaluate our own traditions—especially traditions we emotionally love or have built our identity around? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot vowed not to be an unthinking Christian again. What would that require when we look at traditions we love or that feel like part of who we are?

He says he learned to “distrust secondary sources” because both Jehovah’s Witnesses and churches misrepresented each other; where do you most rely on caricatures of other groups (Catholic, Orthodox, evangelical, etc.), and what would it look like to go back to “the horse’s mouth” without becoming naïve or uncritical? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you depend on stereotypes about other Christian groups (Catholic, Orthodox, evangelical, etc.)? What would it look like to learn from their own best sources without being gullible?

Bercot claims Orthodox apologists told him icons “had always” been used and even that Luke painted the first icon; what do you think is at stake spiritually when a church grounds a practice in an origin story that the earlier historical record doesn’t seem to support? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If a church claims a practice goes back to the very beginning, but history doesn’t support it, why does that matter for someone’s spiritual life? What could be lost or gained by using a shaky origin story?

Several early writers he quotes (Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus) link images and crowned statues to paganism or to heretical groups like the Gnostics; what does that suggest about early Christian instincts regarding purity of worship, and how does that challenge the modern assumption that “it’s fine as long as we mean well”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christian writers linked statues and images with paganism or heresies, what does that say about how careful they were about worship? How does that push back on the idea, “It’s fine as long as our intentions are good”?

Tertullian’s language is severe: he connects homage rendered to images with “accursed spirits” and says demons are the “occupants” of consecrated images; how should we process rhetoric that strong—what view of God’s holiness and spiritual warfare is operating in those passages, and what makes modern Christians uncomfortable with it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian uses very strong words about images and demons. How should we handle language that intense, and what does it show about how he viewed God’s holiness and spiritual battle?

Origen says, “It is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images”; if that statement is even partly true, what might it reveal about how God intends faith, prayer, and “walking by faith not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7) to function in Christian life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Origen says you can’t truly know God and pray to images at the same time. If that’s even partly true, what does it say about how God wants faith and prayer to work—especially “walking by faith not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7)?

Bercot highlights the argument, “We don’t worship the object; we honor the person represented,” and then quotes pagans making essentially the same defense (Athenagoras, Arnobius, Lactantius); what does this parallel imply about how easily humans rationalize religious practices, and how can a group discern when a “pious-sounding argument” is actually self-deception? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says people defend images by saying, “We honor the person, not the object,” and pagans said the same thing. What does that tell us about how easy it is to fool ourselves in religion, and how can a church tell the difference between a good reason and self-deception?

He distinguishes between early Christian acceptance of biblical art (catacomb scenes; a 3rd-century house church baptismal room) and rejection of images in the worship space meant for veneration; what criteria do you think the early Christians were using to draw that line, and how would that criteria critique typical evangelical use of media, staging, and sensory atmosphere in worship? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Early Christians seemed okay with Bible art but not with images meant to be honored in worship. What do you think their rule was, and how might it challenge how evangelicals use screens, lighting, and atmosphere in worship?

The Epiphanius letter describes a bishop tearing down a curtain with an image in a church because it was “contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures”; what does this episode reveal about how seriously Scripture functioned as a limiter on worship practice, and how would our churches respond today if someone acted with that kind of conviction? JumpstartAnother way to ask: A bishop tore down a church curtain with an image because he thought it broke Scripture. What does that show about how Scripture limited worship practices, and how would our churches react if someone acted that strongly today?

Bercot argues incense and prayers to saints entered after Constantine through unconverted pagans bringing old habits and receiving “Christian rationalizations,” and he says true worship is a “reform of the morals” and prayer from a “chaste body…unstained soul…sanctified spirit”; what concrete changes to worship habits, personal prayer, and moral seriousness would follow if we accepted his claim that God is not impressed by religious aesthetics but by holiness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Bercot is right that God cares more about holiness than religious beauty, what specific changes should that bring to our worship habits, our personal prayer, and how seriously we take living right?