Scholars of the Old Testament point out that the covenant theme found in the Bible has affinities, if not roots, in the political treaties of the ancient Near Eastern world. Historians of Western political theory, conversely, remind us (sometimes) that the contract theory and constitutionalism of the modern world has theological roots and affinities. Glenn Moots, in his recent volume, falls into the second category, reminding us that the idea of covenant is both a political idea with theological ramifications and a theological idea with political ramifications. Moots's volume explores the intersection between political theory and Christian and Jewish theology that is found in the outworking of the biblical theory of covenant in the Western world.

Starting from the premise that the covenant theme in Western political thought has been eclipsed during the last 200 years, Moots points out that the church and some subcultures have continued to maintain the covenant idea and the practice of covenanting in modern times in the face of a secularized Western political agenda. Moots sees the covenant and the practice of covenanting as a possible route for the future as the Western world experiences the effects of the expansion of radical Islam and the strengthening of a secular agenda in the public square.

Moots divides his book into three sections. After three introductory chapters that focus on what he terms “political theology” and the biblical background to the covenant idea and covenanting, he turns his attention to the main section of the book: the early modern Protestant world and the political implications of what emerged as “covenant theology” in the period that stretched from the career of Heinrich Bullinger to the American Revolution (1530–1783). He then concludes by fast-forwarding to how the contemporary theory of the covenant is utilized by three political theorists: Eric Voegelin (1901–1985), Daniel Elazar (1934–1999), and David Novak (b. 1941). Moots's goal is to tie together the political aspects of the covenant theme in the early modern and modern Western world, a theme that is a complex cluster of ideas that has many variations over at least 4,000 years.

In his introductory section, Moots makes his case for “political theology” as opposed to civil religion. For Moots, political theology is not civil religion. Civil religion attempts to make religion and religious concepts subservient to political ends. Nor is political theology the familiar church and state debate, although concepts of political theology do touch on that. Political theology, according to Moots, is an attempt to find proper jurisdictions for religion and politics, specifically in a Western world where church, religion, and the state have often been separated. Theological concepts formed and nurtured the Western political tradition until late modern times. For Moots, not all political theology is defensible, and there is a spectrum of political theologies that range from the stance that all politics should be rooted in scripture to the stance that no political activity should be rooted in scripture. Moots maintains that the general population of the early modern world was not looking to Spinoza, Hobbes, or Locke for their political theology. Rather, the average person answered these questions with Bible in hand. Specifically, the “Reformed” branch of Christianity sought to develop its political theology through the covenant idea and the practice of covenanting, resulting in an influence over other branches of Protestantism far out of proportion to its numbers in the Protestant world. The term “Reformed” is important, because Moots consciously does not use the term “Calvinist.” Rather, he articulates a tension within the Reformed world between the Calvinist strain and the Zwinglian/Bullingerian strain of “Reformed.” While this is well-trodden territory for those interested in the history of covenant theology, Moots's interest is in the implications of the two schools of thought for politics and political theology. In essence, the Calvinist strain of covenant theology has more “bite” to it, while the Bullingerian strain has a more irenic side. In a series of densely argued assertions, Moots contends that the subtle differences in political theology between Calvin and Bullinger can be traced to the different soteriological stances of the men. While both should be considered covenant theologians who structured some of their theology around the biblical covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Christ, Bullinger's single predestinarian stance allowed for a more all-encompassing gathering of people in Christian community, whereas Calvin's double predestinarian stance led to a sharp demarcation between the church and the unregenerate and unredeemed world. Moots argues that these two strains of thought worked themselves out in tension with each other in events and movements in the British and American world that utilized covenantal thought: the English Puritan movement, Scottish Presbyteranism, the English Revolution, the Great Awakening and the theology of Jonathan Edwards, and the American Revolution. Ultimately, Moots concludes, the covenant tradition emerging from Calvin was much more willing to challenge tyrannical rule.

The final section of the book discusses three contemporary thinkers and their analysis and utilization of the covenant idea in contemporary political thought. Moots chose these three figures not so much for the present but for the future. Eric Voegelin was much more taken with the ancient, biblical, and medieval conception of the covenant. As far as Voegelin was concerned, the Protestant Reformation and its use of the covenant theme detracted from the earlier conception of the covenant in the Bible and the ancient Near East. For Voegelin, the covenant was the middle point or meeting point between the transcendent God and the mundane duties and joys of this world. But the covenant was something that was symbolic, even inaccessible, to the contemporary world. Daniel Elazar, on the other hand, saw much more promise in the utilization of the covenant theme and the practice of covenanting in contemporary times. For Elazar, political covenanting was the most effective way to fulfill the political ideals of liberty, equality, justice, and the balance between the three ideals. The covenant limited the power of the state and is the foundation of modern constitutionalism. Finally, for David Novak, the two most important, genuine, and everlasting covenants are the Noahide and Sinaitic. The Noahide covenant was made with all humanity, whereas the Sinaitic was made only with Israel. Unlike Elazar, Novak posits that the Noahide covenant cannot serve as the foundation of modern constitutionalism. The Sinaitic covenant with Israel, however, is a stronger covenant that binds the Jewish community together through time and space. This religious, ethnic, and familial covenant commitment is of far greater importance than one's national citizenship. Moots concludes that the stances of all three commentators have pitfalls. For Voegelin, the covenant is only symbolic and inaccessible. For Elazar, the covenant is useful, but in its utilitarian value the covenant loses its transcendent value. For Novak, the value of the covenant is lost to the civil community because the civil community cannot truly covenant.

Like many works that deal with the covenant theme, Moots's relatively brief work is a complex but rewarding account. It draws important connections between the theological framework of early modern Reformed thought and political theory and practice. That Moots leaves out consideration of the period 1800–1945 gives the book a somewhat disjointed structure. While he admits that modernity—at least political modernity—eclipsed the covenant and replaced it with constitutionalism and contractualism, we are never given a reason for that eclipse. And why is it that, beginning with Perry Miller in the 1930s, the late modern world renewed its interest in the covenant, so that Moots, in common at least with Elazar, can propose that the covenant idea and the practice of covenanting is an option for the post-modern political world? From time to time throughout the book it is evident that Moots's strength is the history of political theory and not the history of Christianity and Christian theology, especially in his discussion of Bullinger and Calvin and later on of the American Revolution. Furthermore, one wonders whether some form of political theology and political theory based on the theme of covenant can be found, perhaps implicitly, in Lutheranism, Anabaptism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, this book is useful for readers and scholars in the history of Christianity who do not spend a lot of time reading political theory—ancient, medieval, early modern, or modern.