Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
In God We Don't Trust  /  Chapter 19: The Colonists Change Their Tune  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 1
David Bercot argues that the colonists’ new distinction—Parliament can levy duties only to “regulate commerce,” not to “raise revenue”—was “complete legal nonsense”; what do you think motivated the colonists to suddenly adopt that argument, and what does their shift reveal about how self-interest can reshape a person’s sense of “rights” and “justice”?
Another way to ask: Why do you think the colonists suddenly started saying Parliament could tax only to “regulate trade,” not to “raise money”? What does that change show about how self-interest can reshape what people call “rights” and “justice”?

Direct Answer Based on Bercot’s teaching, the colonists adopted the “regulate commerce vs. raise revenue” distinction because they simply didn’t want to share the costs of the Empire once the benefits no longer seemed worth it. Their shift shows how self-interest can quickly redefine “rights” and “justice” into whatever protects our comfort and finances.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says Parliament expected things to “go smoothly,” and “the colonists dutifully paid the Townsend tariffs,” but then “suddenly changed their story.”
  • The new claim: Parliament could levy duties only to regulate commerce, “not…for the purpose of raising revenue.”
  • Bercot’s legal evaluation: “their new claim was complete legal nonsense.”
  • He interprets their deeper motive: they “simply refused to share any of the costs for maintaining the British Empire.”
  • He frames it as conditional loyalty: they wanted the Empire “so long as the benefits outweighed the encumbrances.”
  • Once threats were removed, “the colonists didn’t need England any longer,” so they “refused to submit to the governing powers.”
Discussion Follow-ups When have you seen yourself switch from arguing “principles” to arguing “exceptions” once obedience becomes costly? How can Christians test whether a rights-claim is really conscience—or just self-interest?

Jumpstarter 1 of 10
Back Questions Next