Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 7

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?

Another 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?

Direct Answer The irony challenges moral certainty by showing the Revolution’s stated ideals were quickly abandoned as unworkable, suggesting the cause was not as morally clear as later stories claim. Based on Bercot’s teaching, Christians should be wary of calling revolution “obedience to God” when its outcomes reverse its own principles and lead to new coercions.

Support from Transcript:

He says the Revolution produced “13 free and independent states,” but “what they wanted lasted only about five years.”
Reason given: “13 independent countries didn’t work very well.”
They needed “a larger, central government with taxing power and the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce.”
Bercot notes these were “some of the very things they had fought against in their quest for political freedom.”
He adds: “No sooner did the new constitution go into effect than Congress basically duplicated all the British policies the colonists had complained about.”

Discussion Follow-ups If a movement’s ideals collapse so quickly, what does that say about our confidence in its righteousness? How can Christians test whether political zeal is actually guided by God?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 7 of 10