Covenantalism and the American War for Independance

The War for Independence had causes based not on land, power, or even lower taxes, but rather covenantal law. Thousands of patriots would not give their lives for a bit of extra money for taxes. The taxes weren’t what fired the American people, it was the breaking of a Covenant and a law that any Christian society is based on. It was a covenant that their Scottish forefather’s died for from the beginning of Scottish Christianity.

Let me explain. Even before Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex Rex, (Law over King) or the Scottish Presbyterians signed their covenants, the Scottish people understood this basic principle. In fact, even the ancient Celts during the Roman Empire did not buy into Rome’s centralized government plans. Do you think William Wallace and Robert the Bruce would live and die for simple political matters? The Scottish Rebellions throughout history were not about politics; they were about a belief system based from the word of God. (See Romans 13, etc.)

So what was this belief system about? First, let’s go to a Greek-Latin word that will help explain this. The word is Verthos. Verthos comes from the word Vertex in Greek meaning a swirling environment that draws toward the center such as a whirlpool. The second word Verthos comes from is the Latin word Arthos, meaning an absolute standard or rule. In this case, the word means the word of God. Verthos is a culture that forces everything back to the principles found in the Word of God. This culture was exactly what our founding fathers were fighting for.

A covenantal body is not something that we individualistic Americans can understand easily today, but this principle is foundational in the Word of God. A Covenant differs from a contract in that a contract is made in between two parties; a covenant is made between two parties and God. A covenant cannot be broken but by God. There are three covenantal institutions God has ordained, the family, the church, and the state. Since it would take many pages and too much of your time to go into the different aspects of the applications of this thinking into baptism, family economics, citizenship, and church splits, I will digress.

The founding father’s believed that they were part of the covenantal body, or nation, of England; therefore they did not coddle thoughts of Independence. The last thing they wanted was to fight against there own country. I don’t think you would jump right in if I announced an attack of Washington D.C. tonight. It wasn’t because they were afraid of the resources it would take or even the death they might have to face, but of the consequence of breaking this God-ordained covenant.

John Dickinson, for example, understood another important aspect of a biblical covenant nation: the law. In the grain of society, laws are made by a king or ruler who has the power to control any regulations or commands. Not so with the English Common Law. Although I won’t go into the details of Common Law history, it was created almost solely on the bible by one of the early Saxon kings. In Blackstone’s commentary, however, he defines this law as coming from two sources, The Scriptures and Natural law. To borrow a phrase form Calvin, natural law is, “The knowledge of God implanted in the human mind.” Common Law, although reinforced by kings and judges, it applies to everyone form the lowliest stable boy to the royal family. And if a king or ruler defies this law, the people, as a whole not individuals; have a God-given right to bear arms against the king until he is brought back into submission. This is why the Jacobites took the step to break another covenant body of Britain and Scotland; England brought a new king into power that was not only ignorant of the law, but also went beyond his power to tyrannize the people. The Jacobite’s lose would change the annuals of history by severing the first tie of England and it’s colonies. America would sever the final tie, and they were reluctant to do so, knowing the immense changes this would make to their posterity. Such an inward battle is no easy fight and it came no easer to John Dickenson. Although he himself signed the declaration of Independence, many, many founders refused on such a basis-the covenant.(2)

In conclusion, the Declaration of Independence states,

“When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation…That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, derived their just Powers form the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of the Ends, it is the Right of The People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying it’s foundation on such Principles, and organizing it’s Powers in such a Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”( 1)

(1) The Declaration of Independence

(2)Many of the ideas in this article are based upon George Grant's Gileskirk lectures, especially Reluctant Revolutionaries