Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 6

The chapter says, “If the colonists had only behaved as Christians and had trusted in God, Britain would not have been forced to enact the enforcement measures it did”; what does “trusting in God” look like in the specific situation Bercot describes (duties, smuggling, enforcement), and how does that definition confront common evangelical instincts about self-protection and getting ahead?

Another way to ask: In this situation—taxes, smuggling, and enforcement—what would “trusting God” actually look like? How does that challenge common habits of self-protection and trying to get ahead?

Direct Answer In Bercot’s specific setting, “trusting in God” looks like obeying lawful duties and refusing smuggling, even when disobedience would be profitable and easy. That challenges the instinct to protect ourselves financially through dishonest shortcuts and then blame authority for the consequences.

Support from Transcript:

He connects Christian behavior to lawfulness: “If the colonists had only behaved as Christians…Britain would not have been forced to enact the enforcement measures.”
The obedience he has in mind is concrete: “if the colonists had obeyed the earlier Molasses Act,” new enforcement wouldn’t be needed.
He notes the colonists “couldn’t be trusted to enforce British tariffs,” implying Christian trustworthiness.
He presents the alternative as smuggling: colonists “largely evaded…tariffs through smuggling.”
He links trust in God with submission: they “refused to submit to the governing powers, despite what God has said.”
He implies a Christian posture toward taxes: “paid back Caesar’s things to Caesar.”

Discussion Follow-ups Where are you tempted to justify minor dishonesty as “survival” or “being wise”? What would it look like to accept loss rather than violate conscience, trusting God to provide?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 6 of 10