Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 3

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?

Another 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?

Direct Answer Bercot presents the choice to organize “illegal resistance” as evidence the colonists were trusting in coercion and rebellion rather than trusting God through lawful, peaceful channels. A “trust God” response would have used the year for respectful feedback, proposed alternatives, and prepared to obey if the law stood.

Support from Transcript:

Grenville took an “unprecedented step”: the Stamp Act “wouldn’t go in effect for nearly a year.”
The delay was meant “to allow the colonists time to present feedback to Parliament” and even “propose a totally different way” to raise revenue.
Only “a few colonies, such as Pennsylvania, used this window of time to give peaceful input to Parliament.”
“The other colonies used the waiting period to organize illegal resistance to the Act.”
Bercot frames obedience as tied to faith: earlier they “hadn’t trusted God… and had disobeyed Caesar,” and with the Stamp Act he asks whether they would “finally trust in God… [and] obey.”

Discussion Follow-ups What does it look like today to use lawful avenues for change while still preparing to obey if change doesn’t come?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 3 of 10