THE COVENANT CONCEPT IN CONGREGATIONALISM

Independent Study: Congregational History and Polity

Eariham School of Religion Advisor: Tom Mullen

In partial fulfillment of requirements for:

The Congregational Foundation for Theological Studies

National Association of Congregational Christian Churches

Betsey Mauro

May 24, 1986

Page 2

PREFACE

The covenant concept forms the heart of the Congregational

Way and has its roots not only in the Reformation but in the very

Scripture itself. At its best, the covenant is a concept of

sophisticated relationship between humankind and God. At its

worst, it is reduced to a parity contract, neglecting the

richness of complex loving relationships. This paper shall

attempt to explore the covenant concept that is the heart of

Congregationalism.

"The idea of covenant had many proximate sources as it was

developed in the Netherlands, in England and in America during

the seventeenth century. It had roots in Calvin; it was

suggested and influenced, no doubt, by the development of

contract law and of commercial companies; it was raised to

special significance in religious circles by the reaction against

a mechanical version of Calvinistic determinism. But its chief

source in the Scriptures was available to all (people), and not

only available, but pervasively present" (Niebuhr, 1954, p.130).

The Covenant concept is a complex one with many different

understandings and facets. This paper will not attempt to be an

exhaustive study, but will attempt to bring forward the vital

elements of the covenant concept as understood in the

Congregational tradition focusing on the concept of the

relationship that is implied in the covenant idea. I will

Page 3

attempt to present some of the historical background, theological

understanding, and social understanding of the covenant concept

in order that this paper might further explore the relevance and

creative potential of the covenant concept today. To this end,

the historical, theological and social understandings of the

covenant concept will be developed in such a manner and to such

an extent as to address the understanding of the covenant

relationship.

INTRODUCTION

Early Congregationalism had its roots in the English

expression of the Reformation. It was largely a movement of The

Book, and early "English Congregationalists had no consciousness

that their views were derived from any other source than the New

Testament" (Walker, 1969, p.7). There were two different

expressions of early Congregationalism expressed in England that

later, in America, would be woven into a single expression.

These two expressions were Separatism and Puritanism. In

England, the rise of the covenant concept into prominence was a

product of the separatist strand of Congregationalism. The

Separatists felt that scripturally ordered spiritual life was

impossible under the English government and in the Church of

England. The Separatists sought to remove themselves from both

the government and the Church of England in order that they might

practice their religion, which they believed to be based on the

Page 4

Scriptures alone. The rise of the covenant concept was a direct

response to the dilemma of how the separated communities were

going to organize themselves. Since the Separatists were people

who believed that their lives should be ordered by the scriptures

alone, it was natural that they should turn to the scriptures to

find their communal organizing principle. Robert Browne, John

Robinson and others found that organizing principle in the New

Testament. They felt that "the believers should be united to God

and one to another by a covenant, entered into not by compulsion,

but willingly. Such a body, so united, and recognizing their

obligations to God the Father and to Christ as their lawgiver and

ruler, are a church. Of this church Christ is the head, and his

powers and graces are for the use of every member" (Walker, 1969,

p.13)

It would be a mistake to believe that the covenant concept

was a unique invention of the Separatists. Indeed, the concept

found expression in the earliest theologians of the Reformation.

"The elucidation of (the) covenant scheme, centering around the

personal relationship of the divine to the human, was a task

assumed almost wholly by the exponents of Calvinist theology",

such as the Puritans and Separatists (Greaves, 1967, p.151). It

is no surprise, then, that Calvin himself talked quite a bit

about the covenants. It is Calvin's Covenant of Grace that

framed the Puritan and Separatist theological understanding of

the covenant. The unique development of the covenant concept on

Page 5

the part of the early Congregationalists was in its adaptation as

a social organizing principle.

In England, the Puritans had no such impetus as separation

to bring the covenant concept into the fore of their expression.

They still believed that they would be able to establish

Puritanism as a national religion, and, as the religious,

political and social systems were already in place, there was no

need to reinvent them. It wouldn't be until the Puritans

immigrated to New England that they would have need for the

covenant concept as a communal organizational principle. By

then, the tool was to be in use at Plymouth Plantation, and

easily adopted by the Puritans in New England.

THE COVENANT IN HISTORY: PURITAN THEOLOGY

"A general view of the history of covenant theology from the

Reformation onwards presents us with three clues as to the

theological meaning of the covenant idea: 1. The concept of

covenant...implies an agreement between two...parties. When used

in reference to the God-man relation this means that both parties

must respond to certain obligations in order to establish the

covenant. On the part of man, the obligation is, broadly

speaking, that he 'walks in the ways of the Lord.' In other

words, the idea of the covenant stresses the moral responsibility

of man. 2. A further implication is that the idea of the

covenant is used to show the continuity in the history of

Page 6

salvation, from Adam through Moses to the present day. 3. A

second implication enters when this unchanging covenant is used

over and against the Law. As fallen, man is placed under the

law, but escape is offered through the covenant of grace (Moller,

1963, p.47)

The Puritan understanding of the theology of the covenant

centered on one issue: salvation. According to this theology,

they believed that God made the first covenant with Adam, and

this they called the Covenant of Works. When God created Adam,

God did so intending that part of Adam's creation would be as a

covenanted being. "(God) stipulated that if Adam performed

certain things He would pledge Himself to reward Adam and Adam's

posterity with eternal life. In order that man might know what

was required of him, Adam was given specific injunctions in the

form of the moral law. In addition, the law was implanted in his

heart, built into his very being, so that he might perform his

duties naturally and instinctively. The original covenant of

works, therefore, is the law of nature, that which uncorrupted

man would naturally know and by which he would naturally regulate

his life. Of course, Adam failed to keep this covenant, and by

breaking the bond incurred the just penalties" (Miller, 1981,

p.61). From this, the Puritans believed that all of humankind

carried the sin of Adam in his breaking of the covenant. But God

in His graciousness chose to make a new covenant with humankind,

and indeed made many new covenants with humankind, as evidenced

Page 7

by God's interaction

ultimately evidenced

Christ to dwell with

representing natural

relationship between

covenants, they gave

with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and

by the coming of God incarnate through Jesus

humankind. The Covenant of Works

law, was the name they gave to the

God and Adam. To the rest of these

the inclusive term "The Covenant of Grace."

The Puritans, having had close contact with John Calvin in

Geneva, had a theological language and understanding of the

covenant idea that was implicit in Calvin's systematic theology.

It would have been difficult for the Puritans to have adhered to

a Calvinistic theology and lift out a concept of covenant as

praxis if the seeds of the idea were not already sown in Calvin's

work.

The basics of Reformational covenant theology were addressed

by Calvin. "Four fundamental aspects of the covenant idea in

theology can be noted. First, the covenant implies some sort of

agreement between God and man with mutual obligations. In

Calvin's words, it is 'as if God had said, "see how kindly I

indulge thee,.. .for whereas I owe thee nothing, I condescend

graciously to engage in a mutual covenant."' Second, man's

obligation is to do what God would have him to do. Again, Calvin

explains, 'In all covenants of his mercy, the Lord requires of

his servants in return uprightness and sanctity of life.' Third,

the covenant between God and man originated in Old Testament

times and continues through history. Calvin writes, 'The

Page 8

covenant made with the patriarchs is so much like ours in

substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same.

Yet they differ in the mode of operation.' Among the differences

that Calvin mentions are that in Old Testament times God

emphasized earthly benefits; in New Testament times he reveals

the grace of future life' and that the Old Testament dealt with

types and figures, 'shadow in place of the substance;' the New

Testament reveals 'the very substance of truth.' Fourth, the

covenant is a covenant of grace that succeeds an earlier

covenant, the covenant of works" (Emerson, 1977, pp.56-57).

"Puritan covenant theology may be viewed as an effort to

formulate the mechanism of redemption in terms set by the

dialectic of nature and grace. This theology presupposed God's

sovereign initiative throughout and insisted that fallen man is

entirely incapable, by himself, of satisfying the conditions of

both covenants. At the same time, covenant theology upheld

mankind's place in the created order by making the covenant of

works paradigmatic in both form and content of God's redemptive

activity. In the covenant of grace, blessedness is contingent

upon willing obedience to God's command and upon man's act of

faith. God, however, undertakes through Christ to supply the

first condition and through infusion of supernatural grace into

human faculties to enable individuals to fulfill the second.

There is thus a 'sweet concurrence' between divine grace and

natural human activity in regeneration, such that the

'

Page 9

distinctiveness and proper function of each is preserved and the

conditions of salvation established at the creation of the world

satisfied" (Stoever, 1978, p.9).

The covenant concept was to become more than just a

theology. It was to become, for a time, a living principle for

social and political organization, ethical conduct and a bond of

fellowship between people and between churches.

As stated earlier, the Separatists turned to their

understanding of the covenant as a social organizing principle.

The seeds of the social and ethical aspects of the covenant idea

are also to be found in Calvin's theology in his discussion of

the law. Calvin felt that in the Old Testament times, the law

was given as part of God's covenant of grace. The incarnation of

God in Jesus Christ was another act under the covenant of grace

which superseded other previous acts, and freed us from the law.

Only when one recognizes that Calvin links the law and the

Incarnation can it be understood that "freedom from the law" is

not an advocacy of lawlessness, nor is it a call to unabashedly

throw off the law. Calvin was saying that observing the laws of

the Old Testament, by virtue of the Incarnation, no longer

constitutes righteousness. "When the conscience is concerned

about standing before God's judgment, it is not the requirements

of the law that count, but rather '...Christ alone who surpasses

all perfection of the law, must be set forth as righteousness'"

( Douglas, 1983, p.71)

Page 10

Calvin went on to state that "consciences observe the law

not as if constrained by the necessity of the law but that freed

from the law's yoke they willingly obey God's will" (Institutes,

III:19:iv).

The Incarnation liberated us from

of the law, because, while our actions

because of Adam's fall, there is accep

works. Thus, we are free to go beyond

obey God's will. We can stop worrying

because it is impossible for our works

the compulsory fulfillment

are still imperfect

table good in our imperfect

the law, to cheerfully

about our perfection

to be perfect.

Calvin's concept of freedom, as seen under the covenant of

grace, frees us from doing works to save ourselves (which is

impossible) so that we may do works that arise out of a desire to

fill the precept of the law. "The precept of the law is that 'we

love our God with all our heart, with all our soul and with all

our strength (Deut 6:5)" (Institutes, III:19:iv).

In short, "freedom has been given to make Christians more

ready for all the duties of love" (Douglas, 1983, p.73).

Humankind's responsibility in the covenant of grace vis a vis the

Incarnation is one of responsibility to the works of love that

comes from the recognition that the Incarnation has come from

God's grace alone.

Calvin Lent on_.,to ; tatethat ", 'onsc idnces observe'. the.11ac

o.t as if _, onstcaine`d , ;by theanecessity_7. of thetlaw..._bu:t, t atef e d

brom,; th w' < yoke t i l.i.r g,l.y -,ob: ySG .w l " b nstitutes.

1 1 f l 9 ?' . .Prc . s i g x f .., -. ,. Lt is i.L o s s f. .d'v

l.lii I ^ 'aY."` 1 e `'rs^^• , il'°t)7 _ rl r r ' ^' ... n:rnh n - 'I. ^t^ r; ,..,

The Incarnation liberated us from the compulsory fulfillmentct... ,.. t, w.... w, _Yj ^t 4^ .v: w..,.. t., s:^ ; 3 ' .. .., i 1

of the law, because, while our actions are still imperfect

because of Adam's fall, there is acceptable good in our imperfect

works .,^:; t:r s twel ,are ee .:to „go ,beye rid the :aw, to cheerfully

he rh.° Gadv 1. h ,c ncs ep worryi rig :'boat` *u r', Vetfection

beca1u ^d i 4 >i' ii 11Yf ^rworksitoIbe Petfect: seals`

.7 7) ;;_ 1 1 p ., jt.^"_ ;r 1 7 'tea

Calvin's concept of freedom, as seen under the covenant of

grace, frees us from doing works to save ourselves (which is11 .., ...s. s i, c

impossible) so that we may do works that arise out of a desire to

fill the precept of the law. "The precept of the law is that 'wea.. ., i J,}:: e,::^: <.•1 :; i 3:a i s,. 1<a C L 4 : c; L'

love our God with all our heart, with all our soul and with allI .., _ ... ._ .?Z" ,.,. Cf ", i . n .. r.i^.

lS 4^',! ^, «g

our strength (Deut 6:5)" (Institutes, III:l9:iv).l he5 ^u3 ^,t,t^,^^l ^^ ng?to i. o''a.^'l oil i.a :t?`it`'. '^̂ -, aa.

. , ln shor t. °` feedorn k a's beeri -q v.er to make r: h i;stiari.s amore

ready for. all the ,duties ;of loves,.;, Ddt c las t l! 9 3, .p son

car at+ki d.'srespesns } itr irsJ the 'ac ven n,t>3ofh >rAce! ir..l a vis the

arnzti on a a Ion ,espc n sib i i y . c the << i.r 4 lc ve ," that .=

c3ni:, f oixt, t ^c c c; t ora .that;: he t arnatt_ n has ;cme, from

Ced^ E.f;C r Cs°eC ai eSd?1..lC errie s -" in covenar&t E x,er'ms, Their so ci_"`

f cl.t:: X11. al 'i h th cc"• ar'n' n 4< 4it'a.ce which

proffered to G: hnz:-se he called i. n to a saving relationship with

:

,

' I . -.

_ ! . ...

,

i

J ­

• I I I . ­

l ^

-`

`

Page 10

Calvin went on to state that "consciences observe the law

not as if constrained by the necessity of the law but that freed

from the law's yoke they willingly obey God's will" (Institutes,

III:19:iv).

The Incarnation liberated us from

of the law, because, while our actions

because of Adam's fall, there is accep

works. Thus, we are free to go beyond

obey God's will. We can stop worrying

because it is impossible for our works

the compulsory fulfillment

are still imperfect

table good in our imperfect

the law, to cheerfully

about our perfection

to be perfect.

Calvin's concept of freedom, as seen under the covenant of

grace, frees us from doing works to save ourselves (which is

impossible) so that we may do works that arise out of a desire to

fill the precept of the law. "The precept of the law is that 'we

love our God with all our heart, with all our soul and with all

our strength (Deut 6:5)" (Institutes, III:19:iv).

In short, "freedom has been given to make Christians more

ready for all the duties of love" (Douglas, 1983, p.73).

Humankind's responsibility in the covenant of grace vis a vis the

Incarnation is one of responsibility to the works of love that

comes from the recognition that the Incarnation has come from

God's grace alone.

Page 13

"The inner organization of the (separatist) sect(s) was

necessarily democratic. Its strength depended directly upon the

number of those who freely consented to the authority of the

group and its leader" (Haller, 1938, p.180). However, the social

covenant as the ordering principle of the communal ideal did not

involve social equality. They believed strongly that they were a

people called together by God and as such they were participating

in a divinely ordained system of life. "The Puritans believed

that God was the author of variety, hence all men were not

created alike or with equal station or ability" (Carden, 1984, p.

25). They were dedicated to a covenantal freedom. "The only

freedom they were willing to offer their religious opponents was

the chance to conform to their Way or permission speedily to

leave their settlements. ...Far from being egalatarians, New

England Puritans described freedom 'only as a voluntary

acquiescence in a divinely ordained system of authority and

deference" (Thompson, 1976, p.160).

In New England, the covenant concept as a social ordering

principle, coupled with the Puritan soteriology of being the

"visible saints," gave rise ti-o another aspect of the covenant:

the national covenant. In similar fashion to the function of the

Mayflower compact of 1620, John Winthrop helped to 5?Fri - the

covenant idea into that of a national covenant, between God and

an entire people (understanding his model to be the Israelites in

the wilderness). Ile wrote, "'Thus stands the cause between God

Page 14

and us, wee are entered into covenant with him for this worke,

wee have taken out a Commission, the Lord hath given us leave to

draw our owne Articles, wee have professed to enterprise these

Accions upon these and these ends, wee have hereupon besought him

of favour and blessing: Now if the Lord shall please to heare

us, and bring us in peace to the place wee desire, than hath bee

ratified this Covenant and sealed our Commission (and) will

expect a strict performance of the Articles contained in it, but

if wee shall neglect the observacion of these Articles which are

the ends wee have propounded, and dissembling with our God, shall

fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnall

intencions, seekeing greate things for ourselves and our

posterity, the Lord will surely breake out in wrathe against us

be revenged of such a perjured people and make us knowe the price

of the breache of such a covenant.' By stretching the original

idea of covenant between God and each individual believer to

embrace the bond between God and the people as a whole, Winthrop

laid the foundation of Puritan social theory. The concept of a

unified society bound together by a formal covenant with God

himself placed very heavy obligations upon every member for a

strickt performance' of its terms" (Goen, 1976, p.12).

The aspect of the national covenant would be relatively

short lived as compared to the other aspects of the covenant

concept, deteriorating with the rise of Rationalism, and the

theology of Jonathan Edwards, and dying with the success of the

'

Page 15

American Revolution. But the first generation Puritans on

American soil understood their lives as visible saints to have

three underlying causes as described in the theology of Puritan

theologian, Thomas Hooker. He "described the church as having

three underlying causes: 1. The 'principal' cause is the

initiative God takes in calling the Christian life and its

institutions into being. 2. The 'material' cause are the

people, the visible saints, of whom the church is composed, who

are called and who respond by witnessing to their calling. 3.

The 'formal' cause is the point at which the people covenant

together binding themselves to each other and to God" (Kaan,

1977, p.157).

With the passing away of the first generation of settlers in

New England and the rise of Rationalism, the covenant concept was

to undergo some major transitions. The most notable transition,

and the one this paper shall briefly concern itself with, was the

Puritan understanding of being in a national covenant, which

became increasingly problematic as America's population grew. It

was inevitable, with the influx of settlers of different

religious persuasions, that the communal exclusiveness of the

Puritan way would be challenged as to its National character.

Within the Puritan way itself, this aspect of the covenant would

be laid aside, most notably in the theology of Jonathan Edwards.

His theology was one that incorporated the new teachings of

Rationalism, and the terms and concepts of Puritan covenant

Page 16

theology were notably absent in Edwards' theology. Edwards'

theology affirmed God in nature, and as such, forced Edwards into

a global perspective of humankind, far different than his Puritan

colleagues who felt their communal ideal was God ordained

exclusively. "He accepted what his Congregational colleagues

were unwilling to admit - that the Holy commonwealth and its'

national covenant' were gone, utterly dead. The church was

living in a new age; it stood in a new relation to the world. He

rejected the older view that New England's total corporate errand

was part of God's design" Ahlstrom, 1975, p.374).

Concurrently, with the shifting effects of the Enlightenment

on theology came shifts in political and social thoughts and

understandings. "The influence of the Enlightenment and its

leading themes upon many thinkers and religious movements of the

eighteenth century is evident, but after 1769 its political uses

and implications came to be drawn upon with special fervor, and

in this connection John Locke...became a much valued source.

. Government.. .is not absolute, but rather the result of a

social compact' made by free, equal, and independent men. It is

instituted with the consent of the governed and should be

reformed or replaced if it fails to fulfill its purpose"

( Ahlstrom, 1975, p.440). The success of the American Revolution

forced the inhabitants of America to face the issue of self

government, and in the face of the religious diversity that was

of America, the organizing of self government was no easy task.

'

Page 17

Any dreams that a particular religious group retained of becoming

a national church faded, and religious liberty for the practice

of all religions in America was established. The established

government was not without Puritan marks. Americans, "reflecting

a typical Puritan emphasis on inward experience... shifted (their)

emphasis from the order of nature and government to the reality

of natural rights. In other words, they 'interiorized' the

significance of natural law and rendered it more man-centered,

stressing human rights rather than cosmic order, the individual

rather than the state, liberty rather than obedience. To a

remarkable degree these solemnly proclaimed 'rights' were the end

product of centuries of English legal and constitutional history,

clarified by the momentous revolutions of the seventeenth

century, and deepened by the Puritan's emphasis on covenantal

responsibility" (Ahlstrom, 1975, pp.440-441).

Historically, Congregationalism was to go through a series

of ebbs and flow as it, like other religious practices, found its

own unique form of expression in a new country of religious

liberty, where denominationalism would come into its own.

Congregationalists were to keep the covenant concept as its

ordering church principle and acceptance of membership (with

various challenges to it, and union experiments with it.)

Page 18

It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into further

detail on the historical development of the covenant idea.

Rather, I shall now turn to an exploration of the dynamics of the

praxis of the covenant idea, and the relationship implied in the

covenant idea.

THE COVENANT IDEA: PRAXIS

The Puritans and Separatists of the Reformation insisted

that genuine reform had to extend to practice as well as to

doctrine, so from the start, the movement of The Book was a

movement of both theological reform and praxis. "To build a

church even in part around rules and regulations which are not

sanctioned by God and which would not edify his saints would be

to break God's law, to disregard His directives for the structure

and life of His Church, and to impose a lethal bondage upon the

people of God. In contrast, the Puritans wanted the church to

conform voluntarily in spirit and details to God's order as

disclosed in the Bible" (Thompson, 1976, p.159).

"The communal ideal was formalized for New England Puritans

by means of the covenant . ...Both towns and churches were

organized by use of covenants, voluntary agreements outlining

goals and promises of those voluntarily entering into the

community at hand" (Carden, 1934, p.31).

Page 19

With the end of the Revolutionary War and the subsequent

rise of Congregationalism as a denomination among many

denominations, the covenant shifted from a socio-political

ordering principle, to a socio-religious organizing principle,

which still exists and is operative today. "The local church was

given its character by its covenant - the mutual agreement as to

essence and function. The only way you could tell one local

church from another...was by its 'form.' 'This form is the

visible covenant, agreement or consent whereby they give up

themselves unto the Lord, to the observing of the ordinances of

Christ together in the same society, which is usually called the

Church-Covenant'" (Butman, pp.63-64). Functionally, "it is in

their living of the covenant, through their witness and service

(rather than in the drafting of or assent to binding and absolute

creedal statements) that Congregationalists have tended to

respond to the call to confess the faith in the world, and that

Congregational polity itself became an expression of that faith.

Bound together under the terms of the covenant, a local

fellowship would be committed to corporate faithfulness to God,

and thus be constantly alert to his ways 'so far forth as He hath

revealed or will reveal them unto us by His word'" (Kaan, 1977,

p.159)

The effects of the covenant praxis were many-fold. "It

fostered the communal ideal by requiring the people...obediently

to cooperate, not only because the laws of God and man (at least

Page 20

in New England) were right, but also because the inhabitants

themselves had agreed to obey them. ...The covenants of New

England produced a sense of unity and purpose and at the same

time forced the community as a whole to take an active interest

in the behavior of its individual members. ...(It) fostered a

communal spirit by convincing New Englanders that they were on a

special mission, and by emphasizing that in a real sense, each

one was personally responsible for the success or failure of that

mission" (Carden, 1984, pp.32-33).

With the fading away of the hope of a nationally covenanted

society, the scope of the communal ideal as envisioned and

practiced by the first generation Puritans necessarily narrowed.

Today, the covenant functions socio-religiously to organize a

group of people into a fellowship of believers who are in

acknowledged relationship to God and to organize these autonomous

fellowships into mutually recognized fellowship with one another.

However, there is another layer, a foundational layer,

beneath the socio-religious organizing functions of the covenant.

That foundational layer is the covenant relationship.

THE COVENANT: A RELATIONSHIP

The distilled essence of the covenant concept is

relationship. This relationship that is intrinsic to the

covenant concept occurs between many different parties. It

Page 21

implies a relationship between the believer and God, between

individual believers, and between different autonomous

fellowships of believers. To further explore these aspects of

relationships, I am going to turn to the Kansas City Statement

( adopted 1913) as an example of a Church-Covenant [from Atkins

and Fagley, 1942, pp.404-405. ( It must be borne in mind that

each autonomous fellowship of believers has adopted their own

covenant, and I turn to the Kansas City Statement only as an

example of an adequate covenant. Form and content will vary from

covenant to covenant, but I believe an adequate covenant will

highlight the dynamics that are found in the Kansas City

Statement.)]

The God-believer relationship is defined in the Faith

section of the Kansas City Statement and reads as follows:

"We believe in God the Father, infinite in wisdom, goodness

and love; and in Jesus Christ, his Son, our Lord and Saviour, who

for us and our salvation lived and died and rose again and liveth

evermore; and in the Holy Spirit, who taketh of the things of

Christ and revealeth them to us, renewing, comforting, and

inspiring the souls of men. We are united in striving to know

the will of God as taught in the Holy Scriptures, and to our

purpose to walk in the ways of the Lord, made known or to be made

known to us. We hold it to be the mission of the Church of

Christ to proclaim the gospel to all mankind, exalting the

worship of the one true God and laboring of the progress of

Page 22

knowledge, the promotion of justice, the reign of peace, and the

realization of human brotherhood. Depending, as did our fathers,

upon the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead us into

all truth, we work and pray for the transformation of the world

into the kingdom of God; and we look with faith for the triumph

of righteousness and the life everlasting."

The Statement begins by stating with whom we, as accepters

of the covenant, are in relationship: God, through Jesus Christ

and the Holy Spirit. The nature of the relationship is that of

striving to know the will of God, and to walk in God's ways.

Biblically speaking, it is the call for obedience to God. The

Statement also recognizes that this obedience is dynamic, not

static, having been made known to God's people in the past, and

expected to be made known to God's people in the future.

What do the dynamics of this relationship look like?

Because the idea of the covenant is a Scripturally based

relationship, we may look to the Scriptures to understand these

dynamics, beginning with the covenantal dynamics of the Old

Testament. Since the Puritans adopted the paradigm of Israel in

the wilderness as their self-understanding, it is to the Mosaic

covenant that I shall turn to set forth some of the dynamics.

In Exodus 19:3b-8, "Yahweh and Israel conclude a bilateral

relationship: He will grant them special status, one shared by

none of his other people, if only they will agree to obey Him.

Page 23

This they agree to do sending their assent up the mountain to God

by way of the mediator of this new relationship, Moses"

( Levenson, 1985, pp.24-25).

The two participants in the covenant, Yahweh and Israel, have

different roles within the covenant relationship. Yahweh is the

initiator of the covenant, and Israel is the respondant. These

roles have implications for other aspects of the covenant

relationship, notably in the distribution of power within the

covenant. No one but Yahweh could have been initiator of the

covenant relationship, for Yahweh offered to Israel that which

only Yahweh could give: holiness [Exodus 19:6b: "And you shall

be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (one begins to

see how the Puritans were able to pick up easily on a national

covenant ideal)]. In exchange for this holiness, Yahweh

requested Israel's obedience. If no one else could initiate the

covenant because no one else had the power to give what Yahweh

could give, this gives testimony to Yahweh's power (Lordship)

within the covenant. Yahweh's role in the relationship is that

of Lord, with the power to bestow holiness by virtue of His own

holiness. That Israel had been chosen to receive this gift at

the cost of obedience defined Israel's role as vassel.

"Yahweh's station within the covenant...was that of Lord.

He was the Lord of the covenant, its initiator, its defender, its

preserver. He and he alone upheld it. Only he could break it"

( Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, p.81). This was

Page 24

true because only Yahweh could bestow the holiness that was the

promise of the covenant. Israel had no power to invoke her own

holiness. Thus, while the covenant set up a bilateral

relationship between Yahweh and Israel, it did not set up an

egalitarian one in terms of power. Because of this inequality of

power, sovereign freedom in regard to the covenant resided with

Yahweh. Once Israel had accepted the covenant by promising her

obedience, Israel had no freedom not to be in covenant. She had

the freedom to obey or disobey, but only Yahweh could revoke the

covenant.

Calvin took God's sovereignty in the relationship very

seriously, calling God's initiation of the covenant relationship

an action of God's grace, for humankind had done nothing to merit

such initiation. It is in this same posture of an action of

grace that God came to dwell with humankind incarnate in Jesus

Christ. The Incarnation changed neither God's sovereignty in the

covenant relationship nor the requirement of obedience to God'

will as humankind's part in the covenant relationship.

Obedience, however, changed from doing acts of the law, to doing

acts of love, as exemplified in Jesus Christ.

All of these dynamics are implied in the Faith section of

the Kansas City Statement. Humankind's station in the covenant

is that of the obedience ("our purpose to walk in the ways of the

Lord"). It is the responsibility of the obedient ones to be

attentive to the Lord's will, for whatever the Lord wills will

Page 25

define the nature of our obedience. God, as the sovereign one in

the relationship, can change the nature of our obedience as He

continues to reveal His will to us ("We are united in striving to

know the will of God as taught in the Holy Scriptures, and to our

purpose to walk in the ways of the Lord, made known or to be made

known to us"). Notice, however, that the fact that God may

change the nature of our obedience is checked against radical

individualism by rooting an essential component of God's teaching

in the Scripture, as a traditional authority and discernment

check for continued guidance of the Holy Spirit (a modern day

expression of Calvin's concern that freedom from the law is not

lawlessness, but freedom from the law to the responsibilities and

duties of love?) The tension of human freedom and responsibility

has always been the object of many resolution attempts of secular

and religious ethicists, and that Congregationalism is vulnerable

to criticism at this point is nothing unique to

Congregationalism. Suffice it to say that paradox is an

essential and unavoidable component of life and, while paradox

becomes particularly uncomfortable when it circumscribes a

relationship, not all paradoxes can or should be reconciled. The

dialectical aspect of the covenant should be taken seriously, and

will be discussed later in this paper.

The polity section of the Kansas City Statement, begins with

a statement of belief in this very paradox, describing the

fellowship of individuals within the covenant relationship:

Page 26

"We believe in the freedom and responsibility of the

individual soul, and the right of private judgment. We hold to

the autonomy of the local church and its independence of all

ecclesiastical control. We cherish the fellowship of the

churches, united in district, state and national bodies, for

council and cooperation in matters of common concern."

The relationship of individual believer to individual

believer is implicit in the free and voluntary acceptance of the

Faith section of the statement and is undergirded by a statement

of trust in the free and voluntary posture in which a person

"owns the covenant". The covenanting bond is egalitarian between

individuals (only God is Sovereign in the relationship) and is

the commonality of the endeavor to walk in the Lord's way; the

statement of trust that voluntarily owning the covenant exhibits

a movement of sincere responsibility to "striving to know the

will of God" upholds the uniqueness of each individual as an

individual creation of God. Implied in this is an affirmation of

God as the author of diversity, once again stressing the common

denominator of fellowship between individuals as God.

Included in the polity section of the Kansas City Statement

is the characteristic affirmation of the autonomy of the local

church from all forms of ecclesiastical control. It also

includes an acknowledgement of the "fellowship" relationship of

that exists between churches, affirming a respect for each other

but denying any right of control of one body over another.

Page 27

Calvin's doctrine of predestination caused him, as well as

the Separatists and Puritans, to maintain that God initiated a

covenant relationship with the elect only. Today, we may say

that the covenant relationship is extended to all and humankind

is free to accept or reject it. Also, we can provide that

acceptance of the covenant relationship may call individuals into

varying modes of relational behavior.

The final section of the Kansas City Statement is a

statement concerning the wider fellowship, recognizing the unity

of all believers in the Church of Christ:

"While affirming the liberty of our churches, and the

validity of our ministry, we hold to the unity and catholicity of

the Church of Christ, and will unite with all its branches in

hearty co-operation, and will earnestly seek, so far as in us

lies, that the prayer of our Lord for his disciples may be

answered, that they all may be one."

THE COVENANT: ITS DIALECTICAL NATURE

As stated earlier, the dialectical nature of the covenant

relationship is a component of the relationship that needs to be

taken seriously. "A covenant relationship implies both...freedom

and... constancy in all participants. It is the combination of

the two that characterizes covenants. ...To enter into a

covenant is a decision. ...Only free beings - God and his human

Page 28

creatures - can enter into covenants. But the covenant is an act

of commitment. Covenanting partners freely accept some

restraints upon their freedom. They accept a responsibility to

be faithful.

"To understand God as the initiator of a covenant is to

believe in the freedom of God. A free God is not totally

predictable. Such a God is capable of surprises. ...Yet in all

his mystery God is not arbitrary. Faith can count on God's

fidelity.

"Similarly, to understand ourselves as covenant partners

with God is to affirm our freedom. We have made our resolve to

enter into the covenant. We believe that the covenant shows us

the way to freedom. We will not simply repeat the words and

deeds of our ancestors; we are capable of surprises. But the

surprises, insofar as we live up to the covenant, will be acts of

fidelity. Thus worship is an act both of freedom and

faithfulness.

"A covenant implies responsibility on the part of all

covenanting partners. It does not imply equality: there is a

difference between Creator and creatures, even when the creatures

are creators. But there is an equal responsibility of all

covenantors. ...The acknowledgment of a divine-human covenant

does not solve the perplexities of relating God's mystery to his

faithfulness. It does not tell us how to relate the

Page 29

impenetrability of the divine to the assurance affirmed in the

covenant relationship. But it testifies to both mystery and

constancy, both expectation of surprises... and assurance of

fidelity" (Shinn, 1973, pp.176-177).

"For those Puritans who were able to sustain the tension

inherent in it and avoid excessive simplification, covenant

theology succeeded quite well in maintaining a balance between

divine efficacy and creaturely integrity... The distinction

between divine decree and the means of its execution...made a

place within the context of the divine sovereignty for the

activity of second causes according to their own natures,

including human faculties" (Stoever, 1978, p.117).

What about our reception of the covenant concept today? Do

we or can we sustain the tension inherent in it? Do we or can we

avoid excessive simplification of it? It is to these questions

that I shall turn in an attempt to reflect on the contemporary

importance of the covenant concept.

THE COVENANT: CONTEMPORARY REFLECTIONS

Edgar Richards' statement that "the free churches have

always insisted that life comes before organization, that faith

is prior to order, that the church as an institution is only a

means to promoting the spiritual ends of the kingdom" (1969,

p.242) is a vital affirmation for Congregationalists today.

Page 30

Congregational doctrine is a doctrine of the Spirit, building a

theology not on creeds but rather on personal encounters with God

and Jesus Christ through the Spirit. In this way, our life is

based on a living, dynamic, pulsating relationship with God, and

not on static creedal affirmations. "The emphasis on the

personal character of relationship to God is the dominant

note...implied in the 'covenant' of which Congregationalism

speaks. As against the organic conception of the Church

characteristic of Catholic thought, the covenant-church insists

upon a personal faith based on an encounter with God in Christ"

( Thomas, 1956, p.303). Or do we?

In order for our faith to remain a vital and dynamic living

faith with our churches reflecting that, we must take very

seriously the affirmations and implications of our covenant

foundation. This means that we must live with the dialectical

nature of freedom and responsibility implied in the covenant; and

we must also take great care not to over simplify the covenant

concept. One way over simplification of the covenant concept

occurs is when the dialectical tension of the relationship is not

upheld. To try and resolve the tension is to deny God's

sovereignty in the covenant relationship, which then falsifies

the relationship, making it impossible to be attentive and

obedient to God's will.

Page 31

One of the most tragic over simplifications of the covenant

concept is to relate to it in "contract" language and paradigm.

A covenant relationship is not a contract relationship, and in no

way should it be equated as such. The paradigm of contract in

the legal sense implies that two parties negotiate a set of

actions and expectations that are arbitrarily binding by the

social structures in which each of the contracting parties

relate. The power of each party is implicitly negotiated and

agreed to. Either party may initiate the negotiation of the

contract. The covenant relationship, as a human-God

relationship, is one that transcends our social structures and is

binding by God's judgment alone. We do not have equal power

within the relationship, and we have no freedom to initiate a

covenant with God. We have only the freedom to accept or reject

the covenant. The content of the covenant is not a series of

prescribed actions. It is a call to a posture of obedience to

God's will in our lives, which is received by each of God's

people in his or her own way. The covenant does not tell us how

to obey; thus, it is our responsibility to be attentive to God's

leading voice in our lives that will constantly reveal to us the

actions that constitute obedience on any given day, in any given

situation. In this way, the relationship is constantly moving

and we must be constantly dialoguing with God. "'Man's capacity

to apprehend God's truth makes communication possible, but man's

inclination to misapprehend God's truth makes communication

necessary'" (Thomas, 1956, p.304).

Page 32

Without a sense of a living relationship with God, the

covenant holds no meaning. "The particular point about a

covenant is that it is essentially a commitment to a

relationship. It is not a contract stating conditions to which

the parties must subscribe in order to be acceptable to one

another. ...What needs to be said about covenants, and what we

can say from our history and experience, is that they are as fine

as any way of uniting people and enabling them to walk together

providing that they are true covenants, that is, that they are

about a commitment to a relationship, not about making rules and

agreeing conditions. Where covenants do not try to impose

conditions, or beliefs, where they conscientiously respect the

beliefs of those participating without asking them to compromise

the truth as they see it, then covenants can be the way to bring

Christians together, to enable them to cooperate and work

together in Christian fellowship and love" (Travell, 1982,

pp.9-l0)

Any relationship based on grace, love, forgiveness, trust,

is not a relationship that can be proscribed in a contract. To

suggest "contract" as an alternate word to covenant is to miss

the sophistication, depth, and complexity of our created capacity

to be in deep, complex and satisfying relationships with God and

with each other. Implied in relationships where love, trust and

forgiveness operate is one pole of the dialectic:

responsibility. That we can forsake or abuse that responsibility

Page 33

is the other pole of the dialectic: freedom. That we were

created with capacities for both is the reality of the human

condition. This is why it is vital to maintain the dialectical

tension of the covenant concept if the covenant is going to be

faithful to our living relationship to God and Jesus Christ

through the Holy Spirit.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I believe that the teaching of an adequate understanding of

the covenant relationship can be our greatest tool of church

renewal and renaissance in an age where "we seek order,

understanding, and love in a world in which disorder,

misunderstanding, and hate are the prime motivating forces" (Moe,

1948, p.14). To reacquaint ourselves with the complexity and

depth of the covenant relationship, and the seriousness of our

responsibility in our living relationship with the Lord invites

us all into the transformative possibilities that exist as we

orient ourselves into an ongoing, dialogical relationship with

God. The time of "owning the covenant (joining the church) "must

be a time of decision, a time of study, a season of prayer, an

act of commitment" (Rouner, 1972, p.49) . In a world where we are

not sure whether to conform or individuate, the covenant

relationship can provide a healthy, simultaneous balance of

individual needs, social needs and spiritual needs which meets

the totality of our created existence.

FOR FURTHER STUDY

There are many areas of study that could have been pursued

in this paper which time and length considerations prohibited.

Two areas I would define as next steps of inquiry in the dynamics

of the covenant are related to church membership. The first

area I would define is the concept of the double covenant as

seen in John Calvin and in the Congregational tradition as they

translated Calvin's theology into their tradition. The second

area I would explore is the area of church membership and the

covenant as it applies to being a relational/faith decision

and not simply a joining of the church based on knowing the

rules and regulations of the church. This is significant for

the question of whether the covenant based polity can work

if people don't have an active faith and belief.

These lines of inquiry are important and will be the next

step of further understanding the relevence of the covenant

today.

Page 34

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahlstrom, Sidney E.1975 A Relig ious Histor y of the Ameri can People. Garden

City: Image books.

Atkins, Glenn Gaius and Fagley, Frederick L.1942 History of American Congr egat ion alism. Boston: The

Pilgrim Press.

Butman, Harry R.19xx The Lor d 's Free People . Milwaukee:

Hammersmith-Breithaupt Printing Co.

Calvin, John.1960 Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 Vols.

Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Edited by John T.McNeill. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Carden, Allen.1984 "The Communal Ideal in Puritan New England:

1630-1700." Fides et Historia . Vol.17 No.l:pp.25-38.

Douglas, Jane Dempsey.1983 "Christian Freedom in Calvin's Theology: The

Foundation and Significance of Christian Freedom." ThePrinceton Theol ogical Bul letin . Vol.4 No.2:pp.69-83.

Emerson, Everett.1977 Puritanism in Americ a: 1620-17 50. Boston: Twayne

Publishers.

Goen, C. C.1976 "Puritanism and the American Experiment." Revie w and

Exposito r. Vol.73: pp.5-21.

Greaves, Richard L.1967 "John Bunyan and Covenant Thought in the Seventeenth

Century." Church Hi story . Vol.36 No.2: pp.151-169.

Haller, William.1938 The Rise of Puritan ism . New York: Columbia

University Press.

The Interpre ter's Dictionary of the B ible1962 "Covenant." S.v. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Page 35

Kaan, Fred H.1977 "The Local Church: Some Congregational Voices." The

Ecumenical Review. Vol.29 No.2: pp.154-161.

Levenson, Jon D.1985 Si nai and Zion. Minneapolis: Winston Press.

Maclear, James Fulton.1957 "The Birth of the Free Church Tradition." Church

History . Vol.26: pp.99-131.

McGiffert, Michael.1982 "Grace and Works: The Rise and Division of Covenant

Divinity in Elizabethean Puritanism." H arvardTheological Revi ew. Vol.75 No.4: pp.463-502.

Miller, Perry.1981 Errand in to the Wilderness . Seventh printing.

Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard UniversityPress.

Moe, Ronald C.1984 "Congregationalism in the March of History." The

Congregational lecture delivered June 27, 1984 at the30th Annual Meeting of the National Association ofCongregational Christian Churches, meeting at Fresno,California.

Moller, Jens G.1963 "The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology." The

Journa l of Ecclesi a stical History. Vol.14 No.l:pp . 46-67.

Niebuhr, Richard H.1954 "The Idea of Covenant and American Democracy." Churc h

History . Vol.23: pp.126-135.

Richards, Edgar.1969 "Is There a Free Church Doctrine of the Ministry?" The

Expository Times . Vol.80 No.8: pp.242-245.

Rouner, Arthur A., Jr.1972 The Congr ational Way of Lif e. Milwaukee:

Hammersmith- Breithaupt Printing Co.

Shinn, Roger L.1978 "Covenant: Heritage and Responsibility." Reformed

World . Vol.35: pp.174-179.

Page 36

Simpson, Alan.1955 Purit anism in Old and New Engl and. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Stoever, William K. B.1978 "A Faire and Easie Way to Heaven." Middletown:

Wesleyan University Press

Isaac.1956 "A Glance at Contemporary Theology by a

Congregationalist." The Congregational Quart er.Vol.34: pp.297-304.

Thompson, J. Earl.1976 "The Contradictions of Liberty." Andov er Newton

Qua rte r. Vol.17: pp.155-167.

Travell, John C.1982 "The Congregational Contribution." The Congregational

lecture delivered July 9, 1982 at the 28th AnnualMeeting of the National Association of CongregationalChristian churches, meeting at Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania.

Walker, Williston.1969 The Cre eds and Pla tforms of Conqrega tionali sm. Second

printing. Boston: The Pilgrim Press.

SUPPLEMENTAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brachlow, Stephen.1981 "John Robinson and the Lure of Separatism in

Pre-Revolutionary England." Chu rch History . Vol.50No.3: pp.288-301.

Holifield, E. Brooks.1974 The Covenan t Sealed : The Development of Puritan

Sacramental Theology in Old and New Engl and,1570-1720. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pettit, Norman.1966 The Heart Prepared: Grace and Conversion in Puritan

Spiritua l Life . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Rutman, Darrett B.1970 Ameri can Puritanism: Fa ith and Practice.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company.

—

Page 37

Torrance, James B.1970 "Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological

Background of Worship in Seventeenth CenturyScotland." Scottish Jou rnal of Theol29. Vol.23:pp.51-76.

Wilson-Kastner, Patricia.1977 "Jonathan Edwards: History and the Covenant." Andrews

Universi ty Semin ary Studies. Vol.15 No.2:pp.205-217.