Discussion Questions

David Bercot opens with Romans 13:7 (“render…fear…honor”) and then describes colonists in Boston harassing British soldiers; what would it look like, in concrete terms, to apply Romans 13:7 toward disliked authorities without drifting into flattery or compromise? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Romans 13:7 says to show fear and honor to leaders. What are some real-life ways to treat leaders you dislike with respect without becoming fake, flattering, or giving in to sin?

In Captain Prescott’s testimony, he says he stood “between the soldiers and the mob…endeavoring…to persuade them to retire peaceably,” even while being struck; what does that picture suggest about the kind of peacemaking that actually risks harm, and how does it challenge the way Christians typically “take sides” in heated public conflicts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Captain Prescott tried to keep peace even while getting hit. What does that show about peacemaking that might cost you something, and how does it challenge the way Christians quickly pick a side in public fights?

The chapter argues that Samuel Adams deliberately renamed an “unfortunate shooting incident” a “massacre” and spread “complete lies” that most colonists believed; what does this expose about how easily political narratives can catechize Christians, and what practices would have helped believers refuse propaganda when it benefits “our cause”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Samuel Adams spread lies and called it a “massacre” and people believed it, what does that say about how politics can shape Christians like a teacher shapes students? What habits could help believers spot and reject propaganda, even when it helps “our side”?

Bercot connects Samuel Adams’s lying to Ephesians 4:25–29 and says Adams “apparently had never put on the new man”; what standards for truth-telling and speech does Paul require that would make much of modern political talk (selective facts, inflammatory labels, insinuations) impossible for a born-again person? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Based on Ephesians 4:25–29, what kind of truth and speech does Paul require? How would those rules rule out common political talk like cherry-picking facts, name-calling, and hinting without proof?

Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 5:41 (“whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two”) is applied directly to Boston; if Christians had obeyed Jesus, Bercot says, “there would have been no Boston Massacre” and even “there wouldn’t have been British soldiers in Boston”; what chain of cause-and-effect is he claiming, and where do you feel resistance to that conclusion? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says if Christians had obeyed Matthew 5:41, there would have been no Boston Massacre and maybe no soldiers in Boston at all. What step-by-step chain of events is he claiming, and what part of it is hardest for you to accept?

Bercot contrasts Roman soldiers (foreign conquerors with broad power to harm civilians) with British soldiers (restricted by law from firing without magistrate order); how does that comparison sharpen what Jesus was demanding of disciples, and what would early Christians have assumed about suffering under unjust or heavy-handed rulers? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Roman soldiers could harm civilians more freely than British soldiers could. How does that make Jesus’ “go the second mile” command even harder, and what did early Christians expect about suffering under unfair rulers?

In the Gaspee Incident, the Sons of Liberty shoot a captain and burn the ship, and colonial juries “always sided with their countrymen”; what does this reveal about partiality and justice, and how might Christians today replicate the same sin by excusing wrongdoing when it’s committed by “our people”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the Gaspee Incident, colonists hurt people and burned a ship, and juries still protected them. What does this show about biased justice, and how might Christians today excuse wrong actions when “our people” do them?

Parliament’s response is described as permitting suspected smugglers to be tried in Admiralty Court in Nova Scotia because colonial courts wouldn’t punish smuggling; how should Christians weigh “local rights” and “due process” claims when a community has already shown it will not judge fairly? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Parliament moved some trials because local courts wouldn’t punish smuggling. If a community won’t judge fairly, how should Christians think about “local rights” and “fair process” claims?

The chapter emphasizes that Parliament “made all the concessions” and left only a 1.7% tea tax (two to three cents per cup), yet Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty “didn’t want peace”; what does that suggest about how resentment, pride, or desire for control can keep conflict alive even after major concessions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says Parliament gave in on almost everything, but Adams and others still didn’t want peace. How can resentment, pride, or wanting control keep a conflict going even after big compromises?

Bercot renames the Boston Tea Party as “Boston Tea Vandalism,” highlighting threats, coercion, and destruction valued at “two to four million dollars” today, and notes Franklin’s insistence that the perpetrators should repay; what would repentance and restitution look like for Christians who supported (or benefited from) coercive political actions, and what modern “respectable” sins might require similarly costly restitution? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the Boston Tea Party involved threats and costly destruction, what would real repentance and paying back losses look like for Christians who supported or gained from it? What “acceptable” sins today might also require expensive payback?