Discussion Questions

David Bercot opens by contrasting 25,000 deaths (and the “2 million today” equivalent) with the fact that the only disputed tax at the start was “a three-penny tax” on tea; what does that comparison expose about what human beings tend to call “worth dying for,” and what does it suggest about God’s view of our moral scale of importance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does Bercot compare thousands of deaths to a tiny tax on tea? What does that show about what people think is “worth dying for,” and what might God think about our sense of what matters most?

John Wesley’s description of colonial prosperity highlights wealth, “unbounded plenty,” and luxury that was “applauded as generosity and hospitality”; how should Christians discern the difference between true hospitality and celebrated indulgence, and what would early Christians have found spiritually dangerous about that kind of prosperity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can Christians tell the difference between real hospitality and showing off with luxury? Why might early Christians see that kind of wealth and comfort as spiritually risky?

Wesley later describes post-war America as having “universal scarcity” where even “necessities of life” and “wholesome food” were hard to obtain; how does the chapter pressure our modern assumptions that political independence and economic growth are signs of God’s favor? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If America had severe shortages after the war, what does that say about the idea that independence and economic growth prove God’s favor? How should this challenge our assumptions today?

Theodore Roosevelt’s account includes “no cash,” “paper currency…nearly worthless,” heavy debt, “mob violence,” and a “relaxation of the bonds of law and order”; what does this portrayal suggest about the moral and social costs of violent upheaval, and how does that square with the way many Christians tell national founding stories? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Roosevelt’s description of debt, violence, and weak law and order show about the cost of a violent revolution? How does that fit—or not fit—with the way many Christians talk about America’s founding?

The chapter argues that independence hurt the colonies economically because they lost a “captive market” in Great Britain; how does this undercut the idea that freedom is primarily the removal of external restraints, and what might it reveal about God’s wisdom in tying human flourishing to interdependence rather than absolute autonomy? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If independence hurt the economy because the colonies lost a guaranteed British market, what does that say about freedom being only “no outside control”? What might it teach about God designing people to depend on each other instead of being fully independent?

Bercot’s statistics on exports and the collapse of the indigo trade emphasize that “They got what they wanted, but it didn’t work”; where do you see the same pattern in modern Christian political hopes, and what would repentance look like when “winning” produces outcomes we didn’t want? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see people today pushing for political “wins” and then finding out the results are harmful? If our “winning” leads to bad outcomes, what would repentance look like?

The chapter notes that the 13 “free and independent states” lasted only about five years before the push for a stronger central government with taxing power and commerce regulation—“some of the very things they had fought against”; how does this irony challenge the moral certainty with which Christians sometimes defend revolution as obedience to God? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why is it ironic that the states soon wanted a stronger central government with taxing and commerce power—the same kinds of things they fought against? How should that affect the confidence some Christians have that revolution is clearly God’s will?

After the Constitution, Congress imposed tariffs on most imports, including rum and molasses tariffs “higher than what the British had imposed,” even though the tea duty had been the main contested tax; what does this say about the human tendency to label something “tyranny” when others do it but call it “necessary” when we do it, and how does God address that kind of double standard? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it show about human nature when we call something “tyranny” when others do it, but call it “necessary” when we do it? How does God deal with this kind of double standard?

The whiskey excise tax favored large distilleries and hit frontier settlers, who responded with refusal, threats, assaults, and riots—only to be met with 13,000 troops; how does this episode complicate popular Christian narratives about righteous resistance to taxation, and how would the early Christians’ assumptions about submission, suffering, and nonviolence critique both the rebels and the government response? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the Whiskey Tax rebellion—and the huge military response—challenge simple Christian stories about “rightful” resistance to taxes? How might early Christian views on submission, suffering, and nonviolence question both the rebels and the government?

Bercot concludes that the framers “turned their backs on many of the ideals” and “also turned their backs on God”; based on the chapter’s details (economic self-interest, violence, shifting principles, coercion), what specific ways does a society “turn its back on God,” and where might those same impulses be discipling modern evangelicals more than Scripture does? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Based on the chapter, what are some clear ways a nation can “turn its back on God” (like self-interest, violence, or changing principles when it helps)? Where might those same habits be shaping modern evangelicals more than the Bible does?