Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 9

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?

Another 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?

Direct Answer Bercot’s claim confronts the instinct to jump straight to resistance by arguing the colonists had legitimate political means available—lobbying—and should have pursued those rather than breaking the law. It implies that economic pressure does not automatically justify disobedience.

Support from Transcript:

He states: “What the Molasses Act demonstrated was that even colonists could effectively lobby Parliament.”
He clarifies the act “didn’t benefit the people of Britain… [but] the sugar growers of the English West Indies,” meaning interest groups could influence policy.
He says the English government didn’t want the Caribbean colonies to “sink into financial ruin,” but also didn’t want the 13 colonies to “descend into economic despair.”
Therefore, “If this act placed an excessive burden… they needed to do some serious lobbying of their own in Parliament.”
He contrasts this with their actual choice: “rather than trusting in God and following legal channels… the colonists decided to break the law.”

Discussion Follow-ups When do Christians treat lawbreaking as courageous rather than faithless? What counts as an available “legal channel” today, and when is it truly closed?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 9 of 10