Discussion Questions

David Bercot points out that the first Navigation Act was pushed by Cromwell and Puritans in Parliament and aimed at the Dutch—fellow Calvinists; what does that reveal about how easily “Christian” political movements can prioritize national interest over the unity of the body of Christ, and how does that confront the way we talk about “Christian nations” today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Puritans targeted the Dutch even though they were fellow Christians, what does that show about how “Christian” politics can put national goals above Christian unity? How should that affect how we talk about “Christian nations” today?

The colonists responded to burdens on trade by widespread smuggling and “largely just ignoring” Parliament’s laws, creating “a culture…of ignoring Parliament’s laws when they didn’t suit the colonists”; how does Romans 13 (“customs…to whom customs”) challenge the moral logic behind selective obedience, and where do you see a similar mindset in modern Christian life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the colonists ignored laws they didn’t like, how does Romans 13 challenge the idea of obeying only when it benefits you? Where do you see that same attitude in Christians today?

Bercot emphasizes that Paul’s command in Romans 13 was given under Rome—an occupying power with heavy taxes and questionable legitimacy; what does that setting suggest about God’s purposes in commanding submission and tax-paying even under oppressive rule, and what picture of God’s sovereignty is being assumed? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Since Romans 13 was written when Rome ruled and taxed people unfairly, what might God be doing by still commanding submission and tax-paying? What does that say about how big God’s control is, even under bad rulers?

He calls it “utmost hypocrisy” that some Christians argue Romans 13 is absolute to justify military obedience “even if it violates the laws of God,” but then excuse tax resistance as “unjust”; what does this expose about how we choose which authorities to treat as binding, and how do we tend to define “unjust” when money, comfort, or national pride is at stake? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why do some Christians demand total obedience to authorities in war but excuse refusing taxes as “unjust”? What does this reveal about how we decide which rules count when money, comfort, or pride are on the line?

When discussing the Stamp Act, Bercot describes mob violence against tax collectors (beatings, threats, burning houses, tarring and feathering) and says, “Today we would call it…a terrorist act”; how does that description affect the way you’ve been taught to emotionally frame revolutionary-era violence, and what does it force you to reconsider about calling the Revolution “godly”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If mob attacks on tax collectors would be called terrorism today, how does that change the way you feel about violence in the Revolution? Does it make you rethink calling the Revolution “godly”?

Jesus’ answer on taxes (“Render therefore to Caesar…”) is treated here as directly addressing taxes perceived as improper or unlawful; what would it look like for a disciple to obey Jesus’ command in a situation where the tax feels exploitative, and what inner attitudes (fear, resentment, pride, love of enemy) would have to be confronted? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it look like to obey Jesus’ command to pay taxes when the tax feels unfair or greedy? What heart issues—like fear, anger, pride, or love for enemies—would you have to face?

Bercot notes parallels between Judea under Rome and the colonies under Britain (foreign rule, tax disputes, readiness to use force, “traitor” label for cooperating tax collectors), then argues the colonial situation was actually easier (shared religion, legal charters, lighter taxes); how does that comparison reshape the claim that Christians may resist because their situation is “unique” or “exceptional”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Judea under Rome had it harder than the colonies under Britain, how does that challenge the claim that Christians today can resist because their case is “special”? What excuses start to fall apart in that comparison?

Bercot argues that Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty spread “malicious lies” as propaganda and connects truth-telling to the Holy Spirit (“Spirit of Truth”), Satan (“father of lies”), and Revelation 21:8; how should those warnings shape the way Christians evaluate political messaging, especially when it’s “for a good cause” or “to defend liberty”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If lying is linked with Satan and truth with the Holy Spirit, how should that affect how Christians judge political messages and propaganda? Does it change anything when the lie is told “for a good cause”?

In the Boston Massacre account, the mob harassment and Crispus Attucks’ act of grabbing a musket are presented as key to understanding the soldiers’ “self-defense,” while Revere’s engraving is described as intentionally false; what does this teach about how public opinion is formed, and how should Christians respond when their side gains momentum through distortion rather than truth? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the Boston Massacre story show about how people’s opinions can be shaped by selective facts or false images? How should Christians act when their side is winning support through exaggeration or lies?

Bercot says Jesus’ teachings—“love your enemies,” “do not resist evil,” and going the extra mile for a soldier—would have prevented incidents like the Boston Massacre and likely “no American Revolution,” then contrasts this with early Christians staying out of wars even when their countries fought; what concrete changes would it require for us to adopt that early-Christian posture today in our speech, activism, voting expectations, and willingness to suffer financial loss or humiliation without retaliation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus’ teachings like loving enemies and not fighting back could have prevented the Revolution, what would it take for Christians to live that way today? What would need to change in how we talk, protest, vote, and accept loss or humiliation without getting revenge?