Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 8

Patrick Henry is shown as devout and moral yet supportive of state-sponsored financial support for churches through the 1784 Assessment Bill; how do you think early Christians would have reacted to the idea of funding “the church of your choice” through taxation, and what would they fear it would do to the church’s purity and witness?

Another way to ask: How do you think early Christians would respond to taxes funding “the church of your choice”? What would they worry it might do to the church’s purity and witness?

Direct Answer The transcript doesn’t directly state how early Christians would react, but based on Bercot’s “kingdom Christian” framework, a reasonable inference is they would distrust state-funded religion and fear it would entangle the church with political power and compromise Jesus’ distinct way.

Support from Transcript:

Patrick Henry favored a tax-based plan: “all heads of household will once again pay an annual… assessment towards religion,” choosing which church or minister receives it.
Bercot summarizes Henry’s view: the state should help maintain religion—“particularly Christian religion”—by supporting “churches and ministers and meeting houses.”
Henry argued morality decayed when the tax was suspended; his plan aimed at “state-sponsored encouragement for virtue and morality.”
Bercot explicitly distances himself: “I’m not saying I agree with his views as a kingdom Christian… he and I are in two different worlds.”
Bercot’s repeated emphasis on “two kingdoms” implies Christians shouldn’t blend Christ’s kingdom with state mechanisms.

Discussion Follow-ups What kinds of compromises might come with depending on tax money for ministry? Would state support change the church’s message, membership expectations, or discipline?

Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 8 of 10