Discussion Questions

David Bercot calls the way American (including Christian) history books portray the Navigation Acts “dishonest,” and he quotes *The Light and the Glory* calling them “oppressive, greed-motivated measures”; what specific claims in that quote does Bercot directly dispute from the statutes themselves, and what does this raise about truth-telling as a Christian responsibility when we’re defending “our side”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which exact parts of the quote about the Navigation Acts does Bercot say are false when you read the actual laws? What does that teach Christians about telling the truth even when it helps “our side”?

The chapter stresses that the 1651 Navigation Act was passed by the Puritan Parliament under Cromwell, aimed at the Dutch, and even treated colonial-owned ships as “English ships”; how does that complicate the common story of “Christian England vs. oppressed Christian colonists,” and what does it suggest about how easily believers can confuse national narratives with moral clarity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does it change the story when the 1651 Navigation Act was made by Puritans under Cromwell and targeted the Dutch, even counting colonial ships as “English”? What does that show about how Christians can mix up national stories with what is truly right?

Bercot argues the Navigation Acts were “a huge boon” to the colonies (lumber, shipbuilding, sailors, and New England fishing), even claiming that by 1775 one-third of all British ships were built in America; how does the chapter’s economic detail challenge the instinct to interpret government restraint as automatically tyrannical, and what does it reveal about God’s ability to bring unexpected benefits through policies we might not like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do the chapter’s economic facts challenge the idea that any government limit is automatically “tyranny”? What might this show about God bringing good results from policies we don’t like?

When Parliament in 1663 required European goods to be shipped through England/Wales first (unloaded, inspected, taxed, reloaded), Bercot frames it as “payback” in international trade wars rather than pure exploitation; how does that explanation affect the moral evaluation of the Staple Act, and how would early Christians—who lived under empires and trade systems they didn’t control—likely have responded to such “politics of nations”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the 1663 rule was mainly “payback” in a trade war, not just greed, how does that change how we judge the Staple Act? How might early Christians living under empires have reacted to this kind of national politics?

The Staple Act restricted seven commodities (sugar, tobacco, ginger, cotton, wool, indigo, Jamaica wood) and Bercot notes it hit the West Indies and southern colonies more than New England; how should Christians think about laws that burden one region/group more than another, and what kind of communal responsibility (or lack of it) does the chapter imply among the colonies? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How should Christians think about laws that hurt one region or group more than others? What does the chapter suggest about whether the colonies felt responsible to help each other or not?

Bercot quotes Walton and Rokoff arguing the requirements were “less onerous” because of shared “ties of blood and language,” established credit contacts, and duties being remitted; what assumptions about human relationships, profit, and “shared identity” are operating in that argument, and where do you see similar assumptions shaping modern Christian thinking about economics and justice? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What beliefs about relationships, money, and “shared identity” are behind the claim that the rules were easier because of shared language, family ties, and business connections? Where do you see Christians today thinking the same way about economics and fairness?

Bercot insists the “Molasses Act” is a euphemism and should be called the “Rum Act,” noting the taxed molasses was mainly for making rum; why does he emphasize rum so strongly, and what uncomfortable questions does that raise about the colonists’ economic dependence on a product that isn’t morally neutral? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does Bercot insist the “Molasses Act” should really be called the “Rum Act”? What hard questions does this raise about colonists depending on making and selling something that may not be morally neutral?

The chapter says the Molasses Act benefited the English West Indies “at the expense of all British citizens,” and Bercot shrugs, “welcome to the world of politics,” comparing it to modern subsidies (ethanol, sugar); how does that comparison push against the idea that the American colonial grievance was uniquely righteous, and what does it reveal about God’s expectations for His people living under imperfect political systems? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does comparing the Molasses Act to modern subsidies challenge the idea that the colonists’ complaint was uniquely righteous? What might this say about what God expects from His people under unfair political systems?

Bercot argues the Molasses Act shows “even colonists could effectively lobby Parliament,” and he says if it was an excessive burden they should have pursued “serious lobbying”; how does that claim confront modern evangelical instincts that treat political resistance (or lawbreaking) as the natural Christian response to economic pressure? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If colonists could lobby Parliament, how does Bercot’s point challenge the idea that Christians should naturally resist or break laws when money is tight? What does it suggest Christians should try first?

The chapter ends with the sharp contrast: “rather than trusting in God and following legal channels to find relief, the colonists decided to break the law”; what does “trusting in God” look like in the specific scenario Bercot describes (taxes, trade limits, competitive disadvantage), and where do Christians today justify breaking rules, cutting corners, or “doing what we must” for economic survival while still calling it faith? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Bercot’s example, what would “trusting in God” look like when taxes and trade rules put you at a disadvantage? Where do Christians today excuse breaking rules or cutting corners to survive financially while still calling it faith?