As we approach the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States, I thought it might be worth reflecting not only on the events that shaped the nation’s birth but also on the ideas, convictions, and theological traditions that influenced those who lived through them. The American Revolution was not formed solely in government meetings or on the battlefields; it was also shaped in the meetinghouses and pulpits of New England, where generations of ministers wrestled with questions of authority, liberty, justice, and responsibility before God.
In this series, I will explore the relationship among covenant theology, the Congregational tradition, the New Divinity movement, and the role of the pulpit in shaping the moral imagination of the Revolutionary era. Beginning with the biblical foundation of the covenant, from Noah to the New Covenant established in Christ, I will trace how this theological idea shaped the Pilgrim and Puritan understanding of community, government, and human responsibility. Next, I will examine how ministers carried these convictions into public life and how the language of covenant helped frame the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
None of this will suggest that the founders or their religious traditions were without contradiction or failure. History and theology need to be examined without shying away from the disagreeable parts. The promises of liberty and equality were not fully extended to all people, and the nation’s history includes moments when its ideals were denied. However, the covenant tradition carried a call to repentance, renewal, and the ongoing work of seeking justice. The story of covenant is therefore not only about the past; it is about the continuing responsibility of each generation to live faithfully into the promises it proclaims.
The idea of covenant is at the heart of scripture and of this argument. Covenant is more than a legal agreement; it describes the relationship God establishes with humanity and the obligations that flow from it. Throughout Scripture, covenant forms communities, shapes identities, and calls people into lives of faithfulness. From Noah standing beneath the rainbow after the flood to the congregations of colonial New England and ultimately the political imagination of the American founding, covenant served as a theological framework for understanding both divine grace and human responsibility.
The logical place to begin is with God’s covenant with Noah. Following the flood, God declares:
“I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you” (Genesis 9:9–10, NIV).
This covenant is remarkable because it encompasses not only humanity but all creation. The rainbow becomes a sign of God’s enduring faithfulness, reminding future generations that God’s relationship with creation is grounded not in destruction but in mercy. In this way, the Noahic covenant establishes the pattern for all future covenants: God takes the initiative, humanity responds in trust, and creation itself becomes the beneficiary of divine faithfulness.[i]
With Abraham, the covenant takes on a more specific historical form. God promises:
“I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you” (Genesis 12:2, NIV).
The covenant with Abraham introduces the themes of vocation and mission. Abraham is blessed not for his own sake alone but so that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3, NIV). In this sense, covenant carries both privilege and responsibility.
The Mosaic covenant further develops this idea of community. At Sinai, Israel becomes a covenant people whose social, political, and religious life is ordered around God’s justice. This makes covenant not just private spirituality, but the framework for an entire society. As historian Sydney Ahlstrom observes, the biblical covenant joins religion and public life in ways largely unfamiliar to modern Western individualism.[ii] Israel understood itself not as a collection of individuals but as a community accountable to God and responsible for the welfare of all its members.
The prophets repeatedly called Israel back to faithfulness through the covenant. Their concern was not primarily the correct doctrine but social righteousness. The prophet Micah proclaims:
“What does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8, NIV).
The covenant relationship demanded ethical consequences. Accordingly, justice for the poor, care for the vulnerable, and faithfulness in public life were all signs of fidelity to the covenant.
Christians understand the covenant tradition reaching its fulfillment in Jesus. At the Last Supper, He declares:
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20, NIV).
The New Covenant expands the community beyond Israel and establishes the church as a people gathered by grace. In baptism and communion, Christians participate in a covenant relationship grounded in God’s self-giving love.
This understanding of covenant became important in the Protestant Reformation and found its most distinctive expression among English Puritans. According to Perry Miller, covenant theology became “the master key” for understanding the Puritan worldview.[iii] It provided a framework in which believers understood church membership, political authority, and social responsibility.
Early congregations were organized around voluntary church covenants. Membership was not inherited through geography or state citizenship but entered through conscious commitment. When gathered, the church represented a community of believers who covenanted with one another before God. Edmund Morgan argued that this ecclesiastical structure trained New Englanders in habits of self-government long before the Revolution.[iv] Church meetings, covenant agreements, and congregational decision-making created a context where authority was understood as arising from mutual consent under God.
The Pilgrims carried this idea with them to the New World. When they arrived in 1620, the passengers of the Mayflower declared that they had “covenanted and combined ourselves together into a civil Body Politick.”[v] Although not a theological document, the Mayflower Compact reflected a deep understanding of covenant and society. Thus, the same principles that governed church life would increasingly inform civil life.
Perry Miller argues that New England’s founders understood themselves as participants in a sacred “errand into the wilderness.”[vi] Their purpose was not merely economic survival but the creation of a new, covenanted society that would reflect God’s purposes in history.
The covenant tradition continued to evolve throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. By the time of Jonathan Edwards and the New Divinity theologians, covenant theology had become closely linked with ideas of moral responsibility and public virtue. As a result, genuine faith was expected to produce benevolence toward others and concern for the common good.[vii]
Mark Noll argues that much of American political thought emerged from this theological soil. While Enlightenment philosophy certainly influenced the founders, New Englanders often understood political questions through inherited covenantal assumptions.[viii] In this view, liberty was not merely freedom from restraint; it was the ability of a moral people to govern themselves according to principles rooted in divine justice.
The Declaration of Independence reflects aspects of this covenantal worldview. Its appeal to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” its assertion that human beings possess inherent dignity, and its appeal to “the Supreme Judge of the world” reveal a moral framework transcending mere political expediency.[ix] In this sense, although the Declaration is not a covenant document in a biblical sense, the assumption is that governments are accountable to standards higher than themselves.
The covenant tradition also provides a lens through which to understand the limitations of the founding era. The promise that “all men are created equal” was not fully realized in the lives of enslaved Africans, Indigenous peoples, women, and many others. Even so, covenant theology contains within itself a principle of self-critique. If societies are accountable to God’s standards of justice, then every generation must examine whether it has remained faithful to its professed ideals.[x]
The story of covenant therefore remains unfinished. From Noah’s rainbow to the waters of baptism, from the gathered churches of New England to the aspirations of the American experiment, covenant reminds us that communities are sustained not by power alone but by shared moral commitments. In this way, covenant calls every generation to remember God’s faithfulness, repent of its failures, and renew its commitment to justice, mercy, and the common good.
As Harry Stout has observed, the New England pulpit stood at the center of this covenantal culture.[xi] There, Scripture, theology, and public life met. There, ministers reminded their hearers that freedom carried obligations and that a people blessed by God were also accountable before God. It is to that story, the story of covenant and the pulpit, that we must next turn in order to understand the religious foundations of the American Revolution.
[i] Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 367–404.
[ii] Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 35–39.
[iii] Perry Miller, The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953), 1–35.
[iv] Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), 76–95.
[v] William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, ed. Samuel Eliot Morison (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952), 75–76.
[vi] Perry Miller, Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), 1–15.
[vii] Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2, ed. John E. Smith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), 95–125.
[viii] Mark A. Noll, America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 23–30.
[ix] Pauline Maier, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997), 223–225.
[x] Annette Gordon-Reed, The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family (New York: W. W. Norton, 2008).
[xi] Harry S. Stout, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 3–12.
Bibliography
Ahlstrom, Sydney E. A Religious History of the American People. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.
Bradford, William. Of Plymouth Plantation. Edited by Samuel Eliot Morison. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952.
Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Religious Affections. In The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2. Edited by John E. Smith. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959.
Gordon-Reed, Annette. The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008.
Miller, Perry. Errand into the Wilderness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956.
Miller, Perry. The New England Mind: From Colony to Province. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953.
Morgan, Edmund S. The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop. New York: Harper & Row, 1958.
Noll, Mark A. America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Stout, Harry S. The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
