Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
In God We Don't Trust  /  Chapter 34: What if they had trusted in God  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 3
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?
Another 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?

Direct Answer Bercot’s comparison assumes God can guide national outcomes without war and that peaceful paths are possible; the hardest assumption for many is that war was not necessary, even for a “good” end like independence.

Support from Transcript:

  • He states his premise: “If it was God's will for the United States to be independent… then the United States still would have obtained its independence.”
  • He adds a moral condition: independence could have come “without ever lifting a sword against fellow Christians.”
  • He appeals to historical precedent: “Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a host of other countries all obtained their independence from England without bloodshed.”
  • He challenges outcome-based thinking: if it turned out “this well doing things man's way, imagine the outcome if the colonists had done it God's way.”
  • He frames the underlying issue as trust: believing violence was required implies we “don't fully trust in God.”
Discussion Follow-ups Why do we tend to believe a good goal requires sinful means? What would it mean to interpret history through “God’s way” rather than “what worked”?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10
Back Questions Next