Discussion Questions

David Bercot opens with modern Greece “at the mercy of militant activists” and authorities who won’t enforce the law; what parallels is he trying to draw between “organized lawlessness” in Greece and the dynamics leading up to the American Revolution? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot starts with lawless activists in Greece and leaders who won’t enforce the law. How does he compare that kind of “organized lawlessness” to what happened before the American Revolution?

The chapter asks whether a government should appease lawless mobs or “crack down… and establish law and order”; how does Romans 13 (“the wrath that Paul spoke of”) shape the way Bercot wants Christians to evaluate state force, punishment, and public unrest? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter asks if the government should give in to mobs or enforce order. How does Romans 13 shape how Bercot thinks Christians should view police force, punishment, and riots?

Bercot describes Britain’s post–Boston Tea response (the Boston Port Act closing the harbor until restitution and “peace and order”); in what ways does his telling of that policy challenge common Christian instincts to automatically sympathize with the colonists as the underdog? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot talks about Britain closing Boston’s harbor until the damage was paid back and order returned. How does this story push against the usual Christian habit of siding with the colonists just because they seem weaker?

John Wesley argues that “no taxation without representation” collapses into rejecting Parliament’s authority to make any laws at all; what do Wesley’s points about “purely passive” consent and being “born… consenting” expose about modern Christian political slogans built on consent, rights, and legitimacy? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Wesley says “no taxation without representation” really means denying Parliament’s right to make laws. What do his ideas about “passive” consent and being born into consent say about today’s Christian slogans about consent, rights, and government legitimacy?

Bercot stresses that the tea tariff was only “three-penny” and that the Tea Act lowered prices so the tax was “completely erased”; how does the smallness of the stated grievance function in his argument about propaganda, moral perception, and how easily Christians can be mobilized? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the tea tax was tiny and the Tea Act lowered prices so the tax didn’t really cost more. How does he use this to show how propaganda can shape what seems “right,” and how Christians can be stirred up easily?

Bercot calls it “more disturbing” that “professing Christians” were inflamed to “directly disobey their God”; what does this accusation suggest about what he believes the American church had lost (“mooring,” “power,” “trust in God”), and where might that same loss show up in today’s churches? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says it’s worst that Christians were stirred up to disobey God. What does this claim say he thinks the church had lost back then, and where might we see the same problem in churches today?

When Jesus says, “Render therefore to Caesar…,” Bercot emphasizes that Rome’s taxes were oppressive, funded armies of occupation, and even supported idolatry; what does this reveal about God’s priorities in commanding obedience even when government spending is morally compromised? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot points out that Rome’s taxes supported harsh rule, occupying armies, and even idol worship—yet Jesus still said to pay. What does that suggest about what God cares about when government uses money for wrong things?

Bercot pushes the issue further by calling Rome’s rule an “illegally occupied” land whose only claim was conquest; how does his claim—“there never will be a setting in which Jesus’ commandment does not apply”—confront the way many modern evangelicals carve out exceptions for “illegal,” “unconstitutional,” or “tyrannical” taxes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Rome ruled Israel by conquest and had no rightful claim, yet Jesus’ command still applies. How does that challenge modern evangelicals who say we don’t have to obey “illegal,” “unconstitutional,” or “tyrannical” taxes?

The chapter limits disobedience to Acts 5:29—only when government commands what “directly violates God’s laws”; what real-life situations today would test that boundary (tax resistance, civil disobedience, speech mandates, wartime policies), and how would an early Christian likely reason through them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says Christians should disobey only when the government commands something that directly breaks God’s laws (Acts 5:29). What situations today would really test that rule, and how might early Christians think them through?

Bercot concludes that if God expected obedience to pagan Rome, “he certainly expected the American colonists” to obey a government that “professed to be Christian,” calling them “without excuse”; if you accept his premise, what repentance, public posture, or practical changes would it demand from Christians who celebrate the Revolution—or from Christians who participate in modern protest movements? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says if God expected obedience to pagan Rome, then the colonists had no excuse to rebel against a “Christian” government. If that’s true, what would it change about how Christians view the Revolution and how they join protests today?