Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 2

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?

Another 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?

Direct Answer The transcript argues Romans 13 directly condemns the colonists’ selective obedience: Christians are commanded to pay “taxes” and “customs” and to be “subject” to authorities, not to ignore laws whenever they feel inconvenienced. Bercot suggests a similar mindset appears today whenever Christians claim obedience is absolute in one area but optional when it costs money or comfort.

Support from Transcript:

Colonists responded to Navigation Acts by “smuggling” and “largely just ignoring these navigation laws.”
This produced “a culture…of ignoring Parliament’s laws when they didn’t suit the colonists,” including “professing Christians.”
Romans 13 is quoted: “Let every soul be subject,” and “Render…Taxes…Customs (tariffs and import duties).”
Bercot says their behavior was “directly against God’s law,” not merely Parliament’s.
He rejects the excuse “unfair laws” and points out Paul wrote under Rome, where the system “was simply a foreign power” and taxes were burdensome.

Discussion Follow-ups Where do we excuse ourselves with “unjust” or “unfair” mainly when the command hits our wallet, convenience, or lifestyle?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 2 of 10