Discussion Questions

Grenville is described as a “scrupulously honest accountant” who designed the Stamp Act to be equitable (poor vs. wealthy rates), self-executing, inexpensive to enforce, and to keep all revenue spent in the colonies—how does this portrayal shape the moral weight the chapter places on the colonists’ later resistance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Grenville is shown as honest and trying to make the Stamp Act fair, how does that change how we judge the colonists’ later resistance?

The chapter calls the thirteen colonies “a nation of lawbreakers” because tariffs yielded only about 1,800 pounds due to smuggling—what does that accusation imply about the colonists’ spiritual condition when “nearly all…professed to be Christians,” and what kinds of rationalizations do you think made lawbreaking feel compatible with faith? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the colonies were called “a nation of lawbreakers” because of smuggling, what does that say about their spiritual life if most claimed to be Christians? What excuses might have helped them think lawbreaking still fit with faith?

Grenville delayed enforcement for nearly a year to invite colonial feedback and even alternatives, yet most colonies used the time to organize “illegal resistance”—what does that choice reveal about where the colonists were placing their trust, and what would a “trust God” response have looked like in that waiting period? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Grenville gave the colonies almost a year to respond, but they used it to plan illegal resistance—what does that show about what they trusted? What would a “trust God” response have looked like during that time?

David Bercot ties Romans 13:7 (“taxes to whom taxes are due”) directly to the Stamp Act—how should Christians decide whether a specific tax is a “due” they must render, and what in this chapter pushes against common evangelical instincts about resisting “unfair” government demands? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How should Christians decide if a certain tax is one they truly “owe,” like Romans 13:7 says? What in this chapter challenges the common idea that Christians should resist taxes they think are unfair?

The chapter contrasts easy-to-evade disobedience (Molasses Act smuggling) with the Stamp Act’s “no easy way to evade it,” followed by mob violence—what does this progression suggest about the human heart when disobedience becomes inconvenient, and where do you see similar patterns in modern Christian behavior? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The colonists could easily dodge the Molasses Act by smuggling, but the Stamp Act was hard to avoid and then violence broke out—what does that show about the human heart when disobedience gets hard? Where do you see Christians acting like this today?

Mobs threatened, beat, tarred officials, and even attacked the Massachusetts governor’s house—how does the chapter want you to evaluate that violence in light of Christian ethics, and what does it imply about the danger of “crowd-driven” righteousness even among churchgoing people? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the chapter want you to judge the mob violence against officials using Christian ethics? What does it warn about letting a crowd decide what is “righteous,” even among churchgoers?

Jared Ingersoll Sr., a Congregationalist pastor, resigned after a mob threatened his life; he assumed colonists would prefer a fellow American collector—what does this incident suggest about early American church leaders’ assumptions about civic duty, and how would early Christians (as Bercot frames them) likely have judged both Ingersoll’s role and the mob’s response? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the story of Pastor Jared Ingersoll Sr. resigning under mob threats show about church leaders’ ideas of civic duty back then? How would the early Christians (as Bercot describes them) judge both Ingersoll’s job and the mob’s actions?

Some colonial legislators tried to nullify the Act, cut off salaries, and judges declared unstamped documents legal—based on Romans 13:2–4 as quoted, how does the chapter frame “legal nullification” and judicial refusal as spiritual rebellion, and what modern parallels might challenge Christians who see such tactics as virtuous? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Using Romans 13:2–4, why does the chapter treat nullifying the Act and ignoring it in court as spiritual rebellion? What similar actions today might challenge Christians who think these tactics are always good?

Franklin’s letter praises “prudence and moderation,” “firm loyalty to the Crown,” and warns that rebellious acts “draw on greater burdens,” yet the chapter notes he later “switched sides”—what does this reversal expose about how political narratives can reshape conscience over time, and how should Christians guard against being carried by “madness of the populace” or “blind leaders”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Franklin first warned against rebellion but later changed sides—what does that show about how politics can slowly change a person’s conscience? How can Christians avoid being swept along by popular anger or bad leaders?

The chapter ends by noting the Stamp Act applied to Nova Scotia and Quebec too, where citizens complained but paid “as required by Caesar’s law and God’s law”—what differences (spiritual, cultural, theological, or economic) might explain why the thirteen colonies chose violence, and what does that comparison force you to reconsider about American Christian identity and the stories we tell about “freedom”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Nova Scotia and Quebec complained but still paid the Stamp Act—why might the thirteen colonies have turned to violence instead? What should this comparison make you rethink about American Christian identity and our stories about “freedom”?