Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 4

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?

Another 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?

Direct Answer Bercot says this exposes a self-serving double standard: some Christians treat authority as absolute when it supports their preferred commitments (like military obedience), but suddenly treat authority as optional when it demands unwanted taxes or inconveniences. In the transcript, “unjust” often functions as a label for whatever threatens personal comfort or national interests.

Support from Transcript:

He notes some “institutional Christians” argue Romans 13 is absolute “when it comes…to military service.”
He describes their logic as obeying “even if it violates the laws of God…even if it means you are killing your fellow Christian…on behalf of a wicked ruler.”
He then contrasts this with excusing colonial disobedience: “Oh no, the colonists didn’t have to obey those laws. Those laws were unjust.”
Bercot calls this “the utmost hypocrisy,” especially when the issue is “just inconvenient…pay taxes or custom duties that we don’t want to pay.”
He insists “the commandment is crystal clear” regarding taxes/customs.

Discussion Follow-ups When we use the word “unjust,” are we applying a consistent Jesus-based standard, or mainly defending our economic interests and patriotic narratives?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 4 of 10