Discussion Questions

David Bercot argues that “No Taxation Without Representation” wasn’t the colonists’ real driving slogan; based on his evidence (lack of concrete proposals for seats in Parliament and the population math), what does this suggest about how self-interest and moral language can mix—and how should Christians discern that mixture in political causes today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the colonists didn’t really expect seats in Parliament, what does that say about how people mix self-interest with moral-sounding slogans? How can Christians tell the difference in today’s political causes?

The chapter claims the colonists most often insisted, “As British subjects, we cannot be taxed without our consent,” yet Bercot says no English statutes or judicial decisions supported that claim in 1775; what does this reveal about the human tendency to treat strongly held beliefs as “rights,” and what might Scripture suggest about where legitimate authority and rights actually come from? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If there was no British law in 1775 that said “no taxes without consent,” what does that show about how people turn strong opinions into “rights”? What does the Bible say about where real authority and rights come from?

Bercot emphasizes that in Britain “every act passed by Parliament and accepted by the king was automatically constitutional”; how does that description of authority and constitutionality challenge modern assumptions (especially American ones) about when disobedience is justified? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If something was “constitutional” in Britain just because Parliament passed it and the king accepted it, how does that challenge the way many Americans think about when it’s right to disobey the government?

The chapter notes that colonists boldly called the Stamp Act and Townsend Acts “unconstitutional” but never cited a single statute, charter, or decision; what does their silence imply about the role of selective history, propaganda, or confidence without proof—and how might early Christians have evaluated such claims if they were hearing them preached as righteous? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the colonists called the taxes “unconstitutional” but gave no legal proof, what might that say about propaganda or confidence without evidence? How might early Christians have judged those claims if preachers called them righteous?

Bercot says the colonists’ real goal was to have colonial legislators “stand on the same level as Parliament” in taxation, calling it “novel and brash,” even beyond what Scotland and Wales had; what does this reveal about the colonists’ view of political equality, and how does that compare with the early Christian assumption that believers are “aliens and strangers” under earthly governments? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the colonists wanted their local lawmakers to be equal to Parliament in taxation, what does that show about their idea of political equality? How does that compare to Christians seeing themselves as “aliens and strangers” under earthly governments?

The chapter argues that “it wasn’t Parliament that was making unconstitutional claims; it was the colonists,” and then compares the colonists’ position to the king’s illegal “suspending the laws” without Parliament’s consent; what does this comparison suggest about the temptation to claim moral exception for ourselves, and where do you see that temptation in modern Christian political rhetoric? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the colonists were the ones making the questionable legal claims, what does that say about our temptation to give ourselves special moral exceptions? Where do you see that same temptation in Christian political talk today?

In the Puerto Rico analogy, Bercot highlights taxation without voting, plus conscription and war deaths “all without the right to vote”; what response does this evoke about justice and authority, and how does it challenge the instinct to treat the American Revolution as obviously righteous while ignoring similar arrangements today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Puerto Rico can be taxed and sent to war without voting, what does that make you think about justice and authority? How does that challenge the idea that the American Revolution was obviously right while similar situations today get ignored?

Parliament’s response to violent colonial reaction was to invite Franklin and seek “a way out of the impasse”; what does this portrayal of Parliament’s posture do to common “oppressor vs. oppressed” narratives, and how should Christians handle historical stories that complicate our moral certainty? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Parliament tried to negotiate by inviting Franklin, how does that complicate the simple story of “oppressors vs. oppressed”? How should Christians respond when history makes us less sure who was right?

Franklin’s distinction between external taxes (you can refuse by not buying) and internal taxes (forced without consent unless by representatives) persuaded Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act; what assumptions about consent, coercion, and representation are embedded in Franklin’s argument, and how do those assumptions fit—or clash—with Jesus’ and the early Christians’ teaching about paying taxes and submitting to rulers? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What ideas about consent, force, and representation are behind Franklin’s difference between external and internal taxes? Do those ideas fit with, or conflict with, what Jesus and the early Christians taught about paying taxes and obeying rulers?

After Parliament accommodated the colonies by shifting to external taxes “as Franklin had suggested,” Bercot says “the colonists suddenly changed their tune”; what does that pivot expose about consistency and integrity in political grievances, and what concrete practices could help Christians avoid baptizing inconsistency as “principle” when it affects our money, comfort, or autonomy? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the colonists changed their argument after Parliament switched to external taxes, what does that show about consistency in political complaints? What practical habits could help Christians avoid calling something “principle” when it’s really about money, comfort, or control?