Discussion Questions

David Bercot calls today’s “Black Regiment” not only ministers but also Christian authors and textbook publishers; what motives does he imply are driving them when they “glorify” colonial pastors and “tickle the ears” of modern readers, and where have you seen similar pressures to make Christianity serve a political storyline? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When Bercot says today’s “Black Regiment” includes pastors, authors, and publishers, what does he think is motivating them to praise colonial pastors and tell readers what they want to hear? Where have you seen pressure for Christianity to fit a political story?

In responding to *The Light and the Glory* praising pro-revolution pastors as “men of considerable spiritual depth and maturity,” Bercot says instead they were “men of straw, ear-ticklers”; what standards from the chapter (not from our instincts) should a Christian use to judge whether a leader is spiritually mature when that leader is shaping public opinion? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the pro-revolution pastors were not spiritually mature but “ear-ticklers.” Using the chapter’s standards (not your gut), how should Christians decide if a leader is truly spiritually mature when that leader is shaping public opinion?

Bercot treats Romans 13:2 (“Whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God”) as “one of the most direct commandments in the New Testament,” not merely “a strong case”; how would early Christians—living under far harsher rulers than George III—have heard that verse applied, and what does that suggest about how they measured “tyranny”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians lived under rulers worse than King George III, how would they have understood Romans 13:2 about not resisting authority? What does that suggest about what they counted as “tyranny”?

The chapter calls it “unconscionable” for Marshall and Manual to claim the Holy Spirit led them to use Galatians 5:1 (“For freedom Christ has set us free…”) to justify resistance to England; what does Bercot’s reaction assume about how God speaks through Scripture, and what safeguards does it demand when someone says, “The Spirit showed me this verse means…”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does Bercot think it’s wrong to say the Holy Spirit led someone to use Galatians 5:1 to support resisting England? What checks should Christians use when someone says, “The Spirit showed me this verse means…”?

Bercot’s critique hinges partly on intellectual honesty: “I do expect a Christian publisher to be intellectually and spiritually honest… no excuse… to blatantly slant the facts or publish falsehoods”; what does this reveal about God’s concern for truthfulness beyond personal morality, and how should that reshape how Christians evaluate “Christian” media made for children? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Christian publishers must not twist facts or publish falsehoods. What does that show about God caring for truth beyond just personal behavior, and how should it change how we judge “Christian” kids’ media?

In the Stamp Act example, Bercot insists the issue wasn’t paying for the French and Indian War but “only for part of what it cost to guard the new frontiers”; how does his insistence on exact details function theologically in the chapter—why do these particulars matter for obedience to Christ rather than just for winning a history debate? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the Stamp Act example, why does Bercot think getting the exact details right matters for following Jesus, not just for arguing about history? What is the theological point of being that precise?

In the Quartering Act discussion, Bercot reframes Grenville and King George as “very sensitive to British rights” once the draft bill is distinguished from the final act; how does this undercut the moral narrative many Christians have inherited, and what does it expose about how quickly Christians may declare rulers “tyrants” to justify disobedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the Quartering Act discussion, how does Bercot’s fuller picture weaken the usual story that Britain was clearly evil and the colonies were clearly right? What does this show about how fast Christians may call leaders “tyrants” to excuse disobedience?

Regarding the Townsend tariffs, Bercot says it was Franklin who told Parliament about the internal/external tax distinction and that the tariffs were meant to fund frontier defense, not “England’s global adventures”; what does this do to the usual good-guys/bad-guys framing, and how does it challenge the way modern Christians treat “oppression” as a permission slip to break Christ’s commands? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the Townsend tariffs were meant for frontier defense and not just selfish British goals, how does that complicate the normal good-guys/bad-guys story? How does it challenge the idea that feeling “oppressed” gives Christians permission to break Jesus’ commands?

In the Boston Massacre section, Bercot leans on John Adams’ trial record and Patrick Carr’s dying words forgiving the soldier who shot him; what picture of Christian-like virtue (or lack of it) emerges from Carr’s response compared with the textbook’s heroic “path to independence” tone, and what does that contrast suggest about what kind of “heroes” Christians are tempted to celebrate? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Compared to the textbook’s heroic tone, what does Patrick Carr’s dying forgiveness show about Christ-like character (or the lack of it) in this story? What does this suggest about the kinds of “heroes” Christians are tempted to admire?

When Bercot labels pro-revolution arguments “situational ethics” and says if one of God’s laws isn’t absolute “in the end, all of His laws become mere suggestions,” how does that critique collide with modern evangelical ways of talking about grace, freedom, and assurance—especially the assumption that a good outcome (“they ended up winning the war”) implies God’s approval? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says if God’s laws depend on the situation, they become optional. How does that clash with common talk about grace, freedom, and assurance—especially the idea that a good result (like winning the war) means God approved?