Discussion Questions

David Bercot frames hardship-producing commandments as a “test” of whether we trust God’s care and best intentions; what does that suggest about God’s character, and how does it challenge the way you interpret inconvenient commands of Jesus? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says hard commands test whether we trust God’s care. What does that say about what God is like, and how does it change how you read Jesus’ “inconvenient” commands?

In connecting “Render therefore to Caesar” (Matt. 22:21) directly to the Molasses Act, Bercot argues the colonists weren’t merely breaking Britain’s law but “Christ’s law as well”; what assumptions about Jesus’ authority over economic life and civil obligations are embedded in that claim? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says breaking Britain’s tax law also broke “Christ’s law.” What does that assume about Jesus’ authority over money, business, and obeying the government?

The chapter describes smuggling as a society-wide system involving shipowners, merchants, buyers, dockworkers, and even churches that “turned a blind eye”; where do you see modern parallels of broad, normalized “small” lawbreaking that many Christians indirectly benefit from? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Smuggling involved almost everyone, and even churches looked away. What are some “small” laws people often break today that many Christians benefit from without thinking about it?

Bercot criticizes Christian history textbooks for softening the moral problem with lines like “Had the Molasses Act been enforced…”; what does that reveal about the stories Christians are tempted to tell about themselves, and what might we be protecting when we edit out incriminating details? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says textbooks soften the story with “if the law had been enforced.” Why do Christians want to tell nicer stories about themselves, and what are we trying to protect by leaving out the bad parts?

He insists, “Let’s not kid ourselves. Parliament expected its laws to be obeyed,” comparing it to Pennsylvania’s state laws enforced locally; how does this argument press against the common justification, “Everyone does it” or “They don’t really enforce it,” and what does it expose about our ethical reasoning? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Parliament expected its laws to be obeyed, even if enforcement was uneven. How does that challenge the excuses “everyone does it” or “they don’t enforce it,” and what does it show about how we justify wrong choices?

The admission that paying taxes “would have seriously hurt the colonial economy” is tied to rum, the slave trade, taverns, and selling rum to Indians; how does this link between prosperity and morally compromised industries confront the way Christians often evaluate economic “blessing” or national success? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter links colonial “prosperity” to rum, slavery, taverns, and selling rum to Indians. How does that challenge the way Christians often view economic success as a sign of God’s blessing?

Richard J. Mayberry is quoted celebrating an underground economy where “for all practical purposes, there were none” (taxes), and Bercot responds, “But I don’t think Jesus was praising them”; what competing “gospels” of freedom and prosperity are colliding here, and how do you see those same messages preached or assumed today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Mayberry praises a near tax-free underground economy, but Bercot says Jesus wasn’t praising it. What different messages about freedom and prosperity are clashing here, and where do you hear those same ideas today?

Bercot notes the colonists were politically, economically, and religiously privileged—more voting participation, opportunity, and liberty than anyone else—yet still moved toward resistance; what does the chapter imply about the human capacity to feel oppressed while actually advantaged, and how should Christians discern that in themselves? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The colonists had more freedom and opportunity than most people, yet still felt oppressed. What does this say about how people can feel mistreated even when they have advantages, and how can Christians check for that in themselves?

The chapter emphasizes that colonial prosperity was partly underwritten by the British Navy’s protection while colonists paid “only a token part of the costs”; what moral obligations arise when we benefit from a system’s protection or infrastructure without bearing its costs, and how might early Christians have viewed that responsibility? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Colonists benefited from the British Navy but paid only a small part of the cost. What responsibility do we have when we enjoy protection or public services without paying our fair share, and how might early Christians have seen that?

Bercot says, “Planned or not, the colonists ended up enjoying the benefits…while bearing only a token part of the costs,” and that this would test trust in God again; where might God be testing your trust through financial obligations you dislike (taxes, fees, pricing, compliance), and what would obedience look like in concrete decisions this month? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says these costs tested whether the colonists trusted God. Where might God be testing your trust through money duties you don’t like (taxes, fees, rules), and what specific act of obedience could you make this month?