Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 9

King James (in 1604) called tobacco use sin—harm to the body, waste of money, inconsiderate harm to others—yet Christians still made it the economic engine of colonization; what does that episode suggest about how easily Christians can knowingly choose profit over conscience, and where might our own churches be normalizing something we “know better” about?

Another way to ask: What does it show that Christians knew King James called tobacco sinful, yet still built colonization on it for profit? Where might our churches be accepting something we know is wrong because it benefits us?

Direct Answer The episode suggests Christians can have enough moral knowledge to “know better” and still choose profit when mammon becomes master, even building an entire economy around what they recognize as harmful. The transcript doesn’t specify today’s equivalents, but it invites self-examination about what churches excuse because it is financially or socially convenient.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot says it was not an “innocent enterprise”: “Surprisingly, the answer is yes”—people did know significant problems with tobacco by 1610.
King James in 1604 wrote a tract calling tobacco use “sin” and “loathsome… hateful… dangerous to the lungs.”
James noted tobacco is addictive, like alcoholism, and some spent “300 to 400 pounds a year,” wasting money.
He also condemned how smokers “inconsiderately” imposed harm on others in dining rooms.
Bercot concludes: “there was enough information that Christians should have known better… But you see, mammon had become the master of the Virginia planters.”

Discussion Follow-ups What practices do we defend mainly because “that’s how we fund the ministry” or “that’s how we survive”? Are there industries, investments, or entertainment choices we quietly bless though we recognize their harm?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 9 of 10