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
The Life of the Early Christians  /  Modest Dress & Cosmetics  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 10
Bercot connects costly apparel to stealing from the poor by quoting John Wesley (“the blood of the poor”), and he adds that saving money isn’t enough unless it’s actually given to feed and clothe the needy; if your wardrobe and grooming budget were examined as a spiritual practice, what specific changes would reflect obedience to Jesus rather than merely a new aesthetic?
Another way to ask: Bercot links expensive clothing to taking from the poor and says saving money isn’t enough unless you give to people in need. If someone looked at your clothes and grooming spending as part of your faith, what real changes would show obedience to Jesus and not just a new style?

Direct Answer Bercot’s standard is not merely “dress plainer,” but intentionally limit spending to what is necessary, avoid luxury and ornament, and then redirect the savings to the poor in real acts of charity. Obedience looks like simplicity plus generosity, not a new “style” that still serves self-indulgence.

Support from Transcript:

  • He cites Luke 7:25 to argue Jesus and the disciples did not wear “fine or luxurious garments,” and ties this to Paul’s “not… costly clothing.”
  • Early Christian counsel: clothing should be “plain becoming and clean,” “not… steeped in luxury,” even “homemade” where possible.
  • He says the theme is “simple, not expensive… clean and tidy,” and warns against “extravagance or artificiality” that “attract[s] attention.”
  • Wesley: the more spent on apparel, the less left to “clothe the naked… feed the hungry,” concluding needless spending is “stolen from God and from the poor” and “the blood of the poor.”
  • Bercot adds his own application: it’s “not enough” to save money and then spend it on “some other indulgement”; “make sure” the savings “really” go to feed/clothe the poor.
  • He also minimizes “ornaments,” saying in that category “that’s essentially nothing.”
Discussion Follow-ups What would count as “need” versus “admiration and applause” in your current purchases? What specific plan could ensure saved money actually becomes mercy—regular giving, sponsoring needs, or direct assistance to the poor?

Jumpstarter 10 of 10
Back Questions Done