John Eidsmoe And The U S Constitution
A Review of Christianity And The Constitution

John Eidsmoe argues for a heavy Christian influence on the U S Constitution in his book Christianity and the Constitution. Published in 1987 by Baker House, the book is a hefty 415 pages in length.

The author kicks off with a discussion of the philosophical background of the U S Constitution in Calvinism, Puritanism, Deism, and Freemasonry. The heart of the book is a series of short biographies on 13 of the Founding Fathers. The third and concluding section of the book revisits the Constitutional Convention and attempts to make a case for biblical principles to be found in the U S Constitution.

The book begins with a survey of various philosophical influences operative in the 18th Century with an emphasis on Calvinism. The author establishes the fact that a majority of Americans were influenced by Calvinism, but fails to make the connection with the Founders themselves.

Nonetheless, he summarizes the key points of Calvinism in an emphasis on total depravity, the priesthood of believers, Biblical law, covenant theology, and limited government. The narrative touches only briefly on the “secular expression” of the covenant idea found “in John Locke’s social contract theory.”

Typical of Christian Federalists, Mr. Eidsmoe glosses over this secular emphasis, which was clearly dominant in the Founders. For example, he whitewashes Locke’s humanism with the conclusion that he was “a Puritan by background” and “based his political theories on Rutherford’s Lex Rex.” This is an extremely tenuous conclusion, given Locke’s Latitudinarianism. John Locke was a Puritan prodigal, not a faithful son.

The author's most damaging error is his repeated confusion of Bible covenant and social contract theory. He carelessly misreads the preamble of the U S Constitution as an expression of biblical covenantalism, rather than the social contract, which excludes God. This is exactly the wrong conclusion and sadly typical of most Christian Federalists.

Another chapter discusses features of Puritanism such as postmillennialism and the application of biblical law with the assumption that these carried over into the U S Constitution. The first Great Awakening of 1742 is mentioned as a revival of Puritanism, again leaving the inaccurate impression that it influenced the Constitution in 1787.

There is also a discussion of several aberrant philosophies afoot in the colonies, including Deism and Freemasonry. As usual, the latter is brought up and then dismissed casually as an innocuous social club, useful for business and political contacts. Mr. Eidsmoe’s naivete regarding the anti-Christian oaths inherent in freemasonry is breathtaking.

Blackstone’s Common Law is presented as a pristine summary of biblical law, when in reality it was a convoluted mess by the mid-18th Century. For example, some 200 crimes, mostly petty, were subject to capital punishment in England. Disrespect for the Common Law was rampant, with most juries refusing to enforce it. Blackstone himself made scant reference to biblical law in the Commentaries.

The author glosses over Locke’s humanism and denial of original sin with his “blank slate” theory. Again he concludes that Locke’s “social compact theory is similar to the Calvinist idea of covenant.” Nothing could be further from the truth because the two ideas are diametrically opposed.

All of these misconceptions are carried into the religious biographies of the founders that constitute the bulk of the book. In overall tone, we detect the typical Christian bent toward painting a rosy picture of the founding Federalists.

For example, Mr. Eidsmoe states of John Witherspoon, that “He devoted his life to instilling the principles of Holy Scripture into the minds and souls of young men who then used these principles to shape America.”

It is clear from this statement that the author has not read Witherspoon’s notes for the class on moral philosophy he taught all the graduating seniors at the College of New Jersey. There is very little of Scripture in them, much of natural law and secular social contract theory.

The book takes the usual tack of Christian apologists for the U S Constitution by arguing for the Christian character of the founders. The assumption is that if the founders’ Christian character can be proven, the Constitution they produced will of necessity be Christian.

But what if all of them were proven to be true-blue, straight-arrow, born-again Christians? Would that excuse their rebellious act of breaking our national covenant with God?

Much more could be said of these biographies, but space does not permit. The final section stretches to find biblical principles in the U S Constitution. But most of the principles cited are based on Enlightenment theories of the natural rights of man, egalitarianism and natural law. Government authority is said to derive from the “consent of the governed” rather than from God.

The author is correct in locating the Constitution’s limited, delegated powers in a Biblical understanding of the sinfulness of man. This is one point at which the Founders got it right, and we have Witherspoon to thank for that.

But on the whole the shortcomings in this book make it risky reading. I would not recommend it for a person just starting to explore this field.