Jumpstarter 10 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 10

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?

Another 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?

Direct Answer Accepting Bercot’s premise would require Christians to repent of celebrating disobedience as righteous, adopt a posture of honoring authorities, and refuse participation in lawless or violent resistance unless obedience would directly require sin.

Support from Transcript:

He concludes: “he certainly expected the American colonists to pay tariffs to a government that professed to be Christian. The colonial Christians were without excuse.”
He intensifies the moral claim: “They weren't merely disobeying Parliament; they were disobeying God.”
His framework says government force can be legitimate “wrath” (Romans 13), so Christians shouldn’t reflexively condemn enforcement as tyranny.
He insists Jesus commands taxes with “no exceptions whatsoever,” even under oppressive, idolatrous, occupying Rome.
He limits disobedience to Acts 5:29—only when commanded to violate God’s law—implying most protest grounded in taxation or claims of illegitimacy is not justified.

Discussion Follow-ups What would it look like for churches to publicly distance themselves from “organized lawlessness” even when the cause sounds morally urgent or patriotic?

Jumpstarter 10 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 10 of 10