Discussion Questions

David Bercot says, “The answer was simple: the Colonists should have trusted in God,” grounding that in God’s commands to submit to governing authorities and pay taxes—what does this chapter suggest God is trying to protect in His people by giving those commands, even under “heavy taxes” like the Roman Empire imposed? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the Colonists should have trusted God and obeyed commands to submit and pay taxes. What does the chapter suggest God is trying to protect in His people by giving those commands, even when taxes are very heavy?

The chapter claims “no Christian should ever consider refusal as an option” regarding taxes; what do you think Bercot assumes about the relationship between obedience to God and outcomes in society, and where do you feel tension between that assumption and how many Christians today talk about justice, rights, and resistance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says Christians should never refuse to pay taxes. What does Bercot seem to believe about how obeying God affects what happens in society, and where does that clash with how Christians today talk about justice, rights, and resisting wrong?

Bercot argues that the apostles “were too focused on preaching about Jesus and His kingdom to become involved in political issues,” and that first-century Christians paid taxes without seeing Rome as “oppressive”—what early Christian instincts or priorities does he think modern believers have lost, and what would it look like to recover them without becoming passive or indifferent to suffering? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the apostles focused on preaching, not politics, and that early Christians paid taxes without calling Rome “oppressive.” What priorities does he think Christians today have lost, and how could we get them back without ignoring people who are suffering?

He quotes Hebrews 13:5–6 (“I will not fear. What can man do to me?”) as a foundation for refusing violent or unlawful responses—how does he expect confidence in God’s presence to reshape a Christian’s emotional reactions (fear, outrage, resentment) to government actions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot uses Hebrews 13:5–6 to argue against violent or illegal responses. How does he think trusting God’s presence should change a Christian’s feelings—like fear, anger, and bitterness—when the government does things they dislike?

In the “Bringing Legal Challenges in Court” section, Bercot says the colonists’ constitutional claims were “merely a smokescreen,” and points to Paul using Roman courts (Acts 22; 25); what does this reveal about when Bercot thinks appealing to legal rights is legitimate, and how might that challenge common Christian instincts either to idolize rights or to dismiss them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the colonists’ legal claims were mostly a cover, but he notes Paul used Roman courts. When does Bercot think it’s right to appeal to legal rights, and how might that correct Christians who either worship rights or ignore them?

Bercot argues the colonists could have lobbied Parliament effectively (citing Benjamin Franklin, West Indian planters, and the East India Company) and even funded sympathetic candidates—what assumptions about providence and human responsibility are embedded in his claim that “The Colonists could have worked effectively within the system without breaking a single commandment of God”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot argues the Colonists could have worked within the system (lobbying and supporting candidates) without disobeying God. What does that assume about God’s control and our responsibility to act?

The chapter notes that “most English people at the time…felt that the Colonists were already represented in Parliament” because MPs were viewed as representing all English citizens—how does Bercot’s use of that historical detail function in his moral argument, and what parallels do you see in how Christians today justify disobedience or activism based on representation, voice, or fairness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says many English people thought the Colonists were already represented in Parliament. How does Bercot use that fact to make a moral point, and what similar arguments do Christians use today about having a voice, being represented, or being treated fairly?

Bercot highlights William Wilberforce’s 26-year political fight against slavery, emphasizing that he “never once resorted to illegal or unchristian methods”—what definition of “unchristian methods” is implied here, and what modern tactics (online outrage, coercion, intimidation, vandalism, “ends justify means”) does this implicitly confront? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot praises Wilberforce for fighting slavery for 26 years without using illegal or “unchristian” methods. What do you think he counts as “unchristian,” and what modern actions does that criticize (like online mob attacks, threats, vandalism, or “the ends justify the means”)?

When discussing the Boston Tea “Vandalism,” Bercot says Christian colonies should have denounced it, reimbursed the owners, arrested and punished those responsible, and that Britain “responded more mildly than would most governments”—what does this expose about his view of property, restitution, and accountability, and how does that collide with narratives that celebrate destructive protest as morally heroic? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Christians should have condemned the Boston Tea Party, repaid the owners, and punished the people who did it, and that Britain responded mildly. What does this show about his views on property, paying back what was harmed, and accountability, and how does that clash with stories that praise destructive protest as heroic?

Bercot calls boycotts “devastatingly effective” yet says he doesn’t advocate Christians joining organized boycotts, while insisting voluntary boycotts were lawful and non-violent—where do you personally draw the line between lawful economic pressure and becoming “entangled in political issues,” and what might “the first and natural response for all born-again Christians” look like in a real conflict you’re facing right now? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says boycotts work but doesn’t urge Christians to join organized ones, even though voluntary boycotts can be legal and non-violent. Where do you draw the line between using money pressure in a legal way and getting too involved in politics, and what would a “first and natural response” look like in a real conflict you face right now?