Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 3

Bercot claims the colonists wanted to be part of the British Empire only “so long as the benefits outweighed the encumbrances,” and that once threats were removed they “refused to submit to the governing powers, despite what God has said”; where do you see similar “conditional submission” in modern Christian thinking about government, church authority, or even everyday obligations?

Another way to ask: Bercot says the colonists stayed loyal only while it benefited them, then refused to submit to rulers even though God commands it. Where do you see that same “I’ll submit only if it works for me” attitude in Christians today?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests “conditional submission” happens whenever people accept authority only when it serves them, but resist it when it becomes costly or inconvenient. Bercot uses the colonists to illustrate how easily “benefits” can define our willingness to obey what “God has said” about submitting to governing powers.

Support from Transcript:

He claims the colonists “refused to share any of the costs for maintaining the British Empire.”
They wanted the Empire “so long as the benefits outweighed the encumbrances.”
He ties their attitude to changing circumstances: once England removed “French and Spanish threats,” they “didn’t need England any longer.”
He interprets their refusal as spiritual, not merely political: they “refused to submit to the governing powers, despite what God has said.”
Their resistance showed up practically in “riots, threats… and rampant smuggling,” even when duties were lawful.

Discussion Follow-ups Where do we treat obedience (to laws, employers, church leaders, parents) as optional until it touches money, comfort, or pride? How can we recognize when our submission is based on Christ’s commands rather than personal benefit?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 3 of 10