The Christian Ecclesiastical Polity Roots of the United States Constitution
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists Shaped the Federal System
In the summer of 1787, fifty-five men gathered in Philadelphia with the immense task of forging a new nation. This Constitutional Convention would ultimately shape the structure and future of the United States of America, but the debates and discussions that took place over those months were anything but simple. Among the delegates were men of different backgrounds, political views, and even faith traditions. The religious composition of the convention is often overlooked, but the influence of Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Congregationalist delegates can be felt throughout the foundational framework of our government. Each of these denominations had their own distinct polity—systems of governance shaped by centuries of theological and organizational evolution. When their adherents arrived in Philadelphia to draft a Constitution, these church traditions informed the delegates’ perspectives on authority, representation, and balance of power. Despite their differences, these men came together to forge a federal system of government that would protect both individual liberties and the collective interests of the states.
It’s no coincidence that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention came from religious traditions deeply engaged in debates over authority, governance, and individual rights. The very word polity, which means the structure or system of government, has its roots in the Greek polis—the city-state. But in the context of the Christian church, polity refers to how the church organizes itself for the common good, for the benefit of its members, and for the flourishing of the faith community. Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Congregationalist traditions all held distinct views on how authority should be distributed, who should hold power, and how the church—or the government—should balance the needs of the individual against the needs of the whole. And just as these denominations had wrestled with these questions within their own church structures, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention would wrestle with them in shaping the new American republic.
1. The Religious Roots of Political Thought
Let’s start with the Presbyterians. Presbyterians, with their representative form of church government, believed deeply in the shared distribution of authority. In their polity, no single individual held too much power. Instead, authority was divided among elected elders (presbyters), who represented the congregation at local, regional, and national levels. Sound familiar? The Presbyterian system of governance was a natural fit for a representative democracy, where power would be dispersed across various layers of government, ensuring accountability and preventing tyranny.
Take James Wilson and John Witherspoon, both staunch Presbyterians and influential figures at the Convention. Wilson’s advocacy for a strong, centralized government was tempered by his belief in representation—where elected officials serve at the will of the people. The Presbyterian tradition, rooted in representative councils of elders, influenced Wilson’s vision of a government that would balance federal authority with democratic principles. And Witherspoon, one of the few clergy members at the Convention, brought with him the Presbyterian belief in the necessity of checks on power—a belief that would shape the eventual structure of Congress and the executive branch.
Next, the Episcopalians. They came from a tradition that emphasized hierarchy and strong central leadership. Episcopalians had a system of governance where bishops held significant authority over their dioceses, though still subject to certain checks and balances within the broader church structure. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, both deeply influenced by this Episcopal background, carried with them an understanding that a strong executive was necessary for national stability. Yet they were acutely aware of the dangers of unchecked power.
Washington, in particular, embodied this delicate balance. A man who could have easily become a king—if he had wanted it—Washington understood that the president should have sufficient power to lead but must remain constrained by the Constitution. This Episcopalian sense of hierarchical yet accountable leadership shaped the presidency as we know it today: a strong executive, but one that must answer to both the legislative and judicial branches.
Lastly, the Congregationalists, who came out of the Puritan tradition, emphasized local autonomy and participatory governance. Congregationalists believed that each individual congregation was self-governing, accountable to its members and to God, but not subject to any external authority. This bottom-up approach to governance resonated with those at the Convention who feared the overreach of central power and advocated for the rights of states and localities. Delegates like Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both Congregationalists, played crucial roles in ensuring that the new federal government would allow the states significant autonomy within the union. This belief in local control would become the foundation of American federalism, with the states retaining their own sovereignty even as they joined a larger national government.
2. The Three Branches of Government: Reflections of Church Polity
What emerged from these theological and political discussions was a structure of government that mirrored the ecclesiastical systems familiar to the delegates. The Constitution’s separation of powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—bears striking similarities to the systems of governance used by the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Congregationalists in their respective churches.
The Presbyterian model of distributed authority and shared governance influenced the creation of a bicameral legislature, where power would be divided between the House of Representatives (representing the people) and the Senate (representing the states). Much like the layers of elders in Presbyterian polity, the legislative branch would be accountable to the people while maintaining checks on its own power.
The Episcopalian model of a strong but accountable executive shaped the presidency. Just as bishops led their dioceses but were subject to broader church governance, the president would have significant powers, but those powers would be checked by the other branches of government. The Episcopalian understanding of hierarchy, tempered by accountability, ensured that the president could lead the nation without slipping into the tyranny of monarchy.
And the Congregationalist emphasis on local autonomy and participatory democracy found expression in the federal system itself. The states would retain significant rights and powers, much like individual Congregationalist churches retained their independence. This local control, paired with a national government, created a balance between centralization and decentralization that would define the American federal system.
3. Forging a Federal System That the States Could Ratify
One of the most remarkable outcomes of the Constitutional Convention was not just the structure of the government that emerged, but the fact that it was a system that all the states could eventually ratify. The debates over centralization and decentralization—over how much power the federal government should have versus how much power should be left to the states—were not easy. These debates were, in many ways, a continuation of the theological and political arguments that had shaped the colonies from the beginning.
The Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, articulated the need for a strong national government with checks and balances, echoing the Presbyterian and Episcopalian models of governance. At the same time, the Anti-Federalists, many of whom came from more Congregationalist traditions, argued for greater protections for local control and individual rights. They feared the centralization of power and wanted assurances that the states would retain significant autonomy.
The result was the addition of the Bill of Rights, a compromise that ensured that individual liberties and state powers would be protected, even as a strong federal government was created. This balance—between federal authority and state sovereignty, between individual rights and collective good—was precisely what allowed the Constitution to be ratified by all the states.
4. The Legacy of Denominational Polity in American Government
In the end, the Constitutional Convention was more than just a political gathering. It was a coming together of different worldviews—shaped by different religious traditions—to create a system of government that could hold together a diverse and often fractious nation. The Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Congregationalists who were present at the Convention brought with them ideas about governance, authority, and representation that would shape the very fabric of the American Republic.
The genius of the Constitution lies in its ability to incorporate these different perspectives into a single, functioning system. Just as these denominations had learned to navigate their theological differences for the sake of a common faith, so too did the delegates of the Constitutional Convention navigate their political differences for the sake of a common nation.
As we continue to wrestle with the balance between federal and state power, between individual rights and collective responsibility, we can look back to the ecclesiastical debates that helped shape our government. The tension between centralization and decentralization, between authority and representation, remains at the heart of the American experiment—just as it did for the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Congregationalists who helped lay its foundation. And today, as ever, we are called to navigate those tensions with the same spirit of compromise and cooperation that brought forth the Constitution itself.