Discussion Questions

The chapter describes the colonies as investment ventures with evangelism language in charters but profit as the driving motive; what does that combination suggest about how easily “God-talk” can be used to bless economic self-interest, and what does it reveal about what God actually values? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the colonies used religious words but were mainly chasing profit, what does that show about how “God-talk” can cover selfish money goals? What does it suggest God really cares about?

The settlers assumed they had “the absolute right to settle in America” and that “the Indians had to make room for them”; how does that assumption collide with the God revealed in Jesus, and where do you see similar “rights-based” instincts shaping Christian thinking today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the belief that settlers had an absolute right to take the land clash with what Jesus shows us about God? Where do you see that same “I have rights” mindset shaping Christians today?

David Bercot argues that people in 1610 had enough information to discern tobacco was harmful (doctor’s warning, King James’ tract, addiction, wasted money, harm to others); what standards for moral responsibility does that imply when we profit from something damaging even if we don’t have “all the medical facts”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If people back then had enough clues that tobacco was harmful, what does that say about our responsibility when we make money from something that hurts people, even if we don’t know every medical detail?

King James condemned tobacco as sin because it harms bodies, wastes money, and imposes on others (“loathsome…hateful…dangerous”); which of those moral categories feels most neglected in modern evangelical discussions of “Christian freedom,” and why? JumpstartAnother way to ask: King James said tobacco was sinful because it harms the body, wastes money, and affects others. Which of those concerns gets ignored most when people today talk about “Christian freedom,” and why?

The chapter says planters “were making too much money” and “didn’t have sufficient trust in God to believe that He could sustain their colony with a different product”; what would “trust in God” have looked like economically for Jamestown, and what would be the modern equivalents of choosing a different “product” at real cost? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it have looked like for Jamestown to trust God by choosing a different way to make money besides tobacco? What are modern examples of switching to a different “product” even when it costs a lot?

Tobacco becomes currency, taxes and fines are paid with it, and “all the processes of government, society, and domestic life began and ended with tobacco”; how does the chapter challenge the idea that a society can build its stability on something morally corrupt and still claim God’s blessing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If tobacco became the center of money, government, and daily life, what does that say about building a stable society on something morally wrong? Can a society do that and still claim God’s blessing?

The text ties tobacco’s profitability to black slavery (“chief source of labor for growing tobacco”); how does this link challenge the way Christians sometimes separate “economic success” from “the system required to achieve it,” and what parallels exist in the goods and services we rely on now? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If tobacco profits depended on black slavery, how does that challenge the idea that you can separate “success” from the system used to get it? What similar links might exist in the products and services we use today?

The settlers depleted soil, grabbed more land, and displaced the Powhatans repeatedly; what does this pattern of exhausting resources and moving on reveal about human nature, and how does it confront modern Christian habits of consumption, land use, or “growth at any cost”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the pattern of wearing out the land, taking more, and pushing people away show about human nature? How might it challenge Christian habits today like over-consuming, land use, or “growth at any cost”?

After the 1622 attacks, the settlers did not “turn the other cheek” or forgive; instead they poisoned a peace-toast, slaughtered more, and launched a campaign that brought the Powhatans near extinction—how would early Christians (with their assumptions about enemy-love and retaliation) have judged these actions, and what does that imply about the sincerity of the settlers’ Christianity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How would early Christians, who taught enemy-love and not getting revenge, have judged the settlers’ poisoning and killings after 1622? What does that suggest about how real the settlers’ Christianity was?

Bercot concludes that ignoring Christ’s teachings in commerce and treatment of others produced “evil fruit,” and that the settlers’ prosperity “was not a prosperity that came from God”; what criteria does the chapter give for discerning whether prosperity is from God, and what prosperity in your life or church might need to be re-examined in that light? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What signs does the chapter give for telling whether prosperity comes from God or not? What kind of “prosperity” in your life or church might need to be questioned because of that?