Discussion Questions

David Bercot claims that if the colonists had trusted God, “they would have paid their taxes, and there would have been no revolution”; what does that imply about God’s ability to accomplish His purposes (like eventual independence) without Christians using sin or violence to “help Him out”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says if the colonists trusted God, they would have paid the taxes and avoided revolution. What does that say about whether God can reach His goals (like independence) without Christians using sin or violence to “help” Him?

The chapter insists that “things always work out better when we handle matters God’s way…for the greater eternal good,” even when outcomes aren’t what we want; where does that challenge the way you typically measure “better” (comfort, liberty, prosperity, national success, safety), and what would it look like to measure “better” in eternal terms? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says things go better when we do it God’s way, even if we don’t like the results. How does that challenge how you define “better” (comfort, freedom, money, safety), and what would “better” look like if you think about eternity?

Bercot argues that if independence were God’s will, it could have happened without bloodshed, pointing to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and others; what assumptions about history and God’s providence do you find easiest to accept or hardest to accept in that comparison, and why? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says if God wanted independence, it could have happened without war, like in Canada or Australia. Which parts of that view of history and God’s control are easiest or hardest for you to accept, and why?

The chapter lists specific sins it says would not have happened “if the colonists had fully trusted in God” (annihilating Indians, slave trafficking, liquor trafficking, religious persecution, oppression of non-resistant Christians); which of these examples most exposes how “political necessity” can become a moral excuse, and what parallels do you see in how Christians justify wrongdoing today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter lists sins it says came from not trusting God (treatment of Indians, slave trading, liquor trading, religious persecution, oppressing non-resistant Christians). Which example best shows how “we had to” can become an excuse to do wrong, and where do you see similar excuses by Christians today?

Bercot says peacemakers “must always try to see the viewpoint of the other person” and cannot make “unreasonable demands,” then calls the no-taxation claim “unreasonable and unlawful” because England reserved tariffs in the charters; how does this redefine what Christian “standing up for our rights” should look like when we believe a government is unjust? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says peacemakers try to see the other side and don’t make unreasonable demands, and he calls “no taxation” unreasonable and unlawful. How does that change what it should look like for Christians to “stand up for our rights” when a government seems unjust?

The chapter frames the conflict as growing out of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, “the Indians’ Bill of Rights,” calling it “reasonable and just” and saying fairness to Indians “should have been obvious to anyone truly born of Christ”; what does this suggest about how new birth should reshape a Christian’s instincts about land, entitlement, and whose “rights” we reflexively defend? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter calls the 1763 proclamation fair to Indians and says that should have been obvious to anyone truly born of Christ. How should new birth change a Christian’s gut reactions about land, what we think we deserve, and whose rights we quickly defend?

“Where does our allegiance lie?”—Bercot says colonists had to choose between Christianity and politics, and that most showed politics came first by hating and killing fellow Christians; what are the modern equivalents of “politics before Christianity” in the church, and how can a group discern when a political stance has begun discipling our loves more than Jesus does? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the colonists chose politics over Christianity, even hating and killing other Christians. What are today’s versions of “politics before Christianity” in the church, and how can a church tell when politics is shaping our hearts more than Jesus is?

The chapter uses Jesus’ words (Matt. 10:37) and Paul’s rebuke of Christian lawsuits (1 Cor. 6:6) to argue it is better to be defrauded than to harm a brother; what would obedience to “love your enemies” and “not resist evil” require from Christians when they face real injustice—taxation, property loss, discrimination, or violence—and what do we fear would happen if we lived that way? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says it’s better to be cheated than to hurt a brother, and it points to loving enemies and not resisting evil. What would that kind of obedience require when Christians face real injustice (taxes, lost property, discrimination, violence), and what do we fear would happen if we lived that way?

Bercot describes both sides calling for prayer and fasting, clergy on both sides claiming God’s will, and “born again” believers contradicting one another; what does this reveal about the danger of confusing God’s kingdom with national cause, and how can Christians test whether their “God is on our side” language is actually self-deception? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot describes both sides praying and claiming God was with them, even “born again” believers disagreeing. What does this show about mixing God’s kingdom with a national cause, and how can Christians check if “God is on our side” is really self-deception?

The chapter argues that the violent precedent of the Revolution helped normalize violence, and it claims America uniquely fought a war to end slavery though many nations abolished it without bloodshed; how does that confront common evangelical narratives about war being “necessary for the greater good,” and what concrete changes might it demand in how you talk, vote, teach your children, or respond to national conflict today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says the Revolution helped make violence feel normal, and it says many nations ended slavery without war. How does that challenge the idea that war is sometimes “needed for the greater good,” and what might it change about how you speak, vote, teach your kids, or respond to national conflicts today?