militant secularists who twist facts to suitntheir narrow anti-religious politicalnagendas.”nSo writes Benjamin Hart near thenend of Faith and Freedom: The ChristiannRoots of American Liberty. Anyonenwho is aware of recent trials onnreligious liberty or church-state separationnissues must commiserate. Secularistsnhave buried our real heritage andnfabricated an idol in its place. Despitenthe difficulty and frustration, however,nHart has done an admirable job ofnexposing the true roots of Americannliberty, roots that drink deep not of thenheady spirit of the French Enlightenmentnbut of the Spirit in the Old andnNew Testaments; roots that grow despitenreligious persecution through thenages, and that culminate in the visionnof the Protestant (especially Puritan)ndissenters who fashioned a new order.nHart’s chief thesis is that libertynstands only on the foundation of ancommon faith in the God and moralitynof the Bible, and that it withers to thenextent that secular pluralism supplantsnthat faith. The outline of his argumentnappears in the first chapter: Christiannmorality is essential to social order; anconsensus about higher law is essentialnto a government by law rather than bynmen; the higher law is God’s lawnrevealed in Scripture and nature andnpassed on to Americans in Englishncommon law; secular/agnostic pluralism,nbecause it refuses to embrace thisnhigher law, strikes at the root of bothnsocial order and individual liberty, leavingnnothing but the state to define rightnand wrong; hence secular pluralism,nwhich dominates American politicalnlife today, leads inexorably to tyranny.nTherefore, “What is needed today isnless of a revolution than a reformationnin American thinking” in which thenChristian roots of our order and libertynare reaffirmed.nBy reference to the covenants andncivil codes of the colonies. Hart provesncompellingly that the founders of ourncountry intended “to live under lawsnspelled out clearly in the Bible,” notnunder laws founded only on the whimnof human sentiment. He urges us tonplace the Declaration alongside Deuteronomyn(particularly chapter 8), saying,n”The parallels and the obviousnconnection between the two documentsnare startling.” But they shouldnnot be surprising to anyone intimatelyn40/CHRONICLESnfamiliar with the heavy use of Deuteronomynby the Puritans in constructingntheir understanding of the commonwealth,nan understanding that largelyndetermined the shape of Americannpolitical philosophy and hence of bothnthe Declaration and the Constitution.nMany readers will be shocked —nsome pleasantly, others unpleasantly,nperhaps — to see the extent to whichnexplicitly theological notions shapednour founders’ vision of the civil order.nYet there is no denying the constantnappeal to Scripture, to God and Hisnlaws, to the gospel, to Christ as Kingnand His Church as Kingdom that formnthe warp and woof of their politicalnwriting, including their colonial andnstate charters and constitutions. Andnthe propensity among modern historiansnto discount the sincerity of thesenbeliefs, chalking the language up insteadnto some sort of “cultural Christianity,”nsimply cannot stand the test ofnhistorical investigation: over and overnthe most important figures, from Bradfordnand Cotton and Witherspoon andnthe Mathers to Washington, write passionatelynof their fidelity to Christ andnthe gospel, to the Bible and the Bible’snGod, and to seeing those objects ofntheir faith exalted through their lives,nboth public and private.nThere are some disturbing weaknessesnin the book, comprised mainlynof inconsistencies and errors of fact.nMost errors of fact are minor (if obvious).nHe tells us, for instance, of ann”astounding [Supreme Court] decisionnin 1962 banning all religious expressionnfrom the public schools.” Howevernlater decisions might have extendednthe ruling in Engel v. Vitale, the Courtndid not go so far in that case.n”America’s federalist political ordernwas patterned after the loose confederationnof self-governing local churchesnof the first century” and “[t]he Christianitynof Scripture is decidedly antiinstitutional,”nhe writes. Yet the OldnTestament is replete with instructionsnregarding societal structures, especiallynof family and church and state, thenthree chief seats of government; thenNew Testament has more than a littlento say about the structure of churchngovernment; and we know of at leastnone ecumenical council in the NewnTestament (Acts 15) whose functionnwas more like that of modern presbyteriesnthan of congregationalist church­nnnes. (It seems to me that Hart consequentlynexaggerates the effect ofncongregationalist ecclesiology onnAmerican political philosophy and underestimatesnthe effect of presbyterianism.)n”Calvin himself was a socialist,”nHart writes bluntly, without definitionnor proof Where we do find a definitionnof “socialist,” it is someone who deniesnproperty rights. Yet Calvin expresslynwrote that civil government properlyn”provides that each man may keep hisnproperty safe and sound.”nMore important are three othernweaknesses. Through most of thenbook. Hart lauds separation of churchnand state but fails to define it. Henfinally makes things clear late in thenbook, where he discusses competingnideas of separation of church and statenmore fully and explains that what thenfounders meant was that no denominationncould be made the official religionnof the federal union. He is right, but hencould have prevented a good deal ofnconfusion by explaining this earlier.nShowing a more libertarian thannChristian or conservative view. Hartnconcludes that civil government is “annecessary evil.” The Puritans, however,nbasing their view on Romans 13,nsaw it as a God-ordained good that wasneasily corrupted by corrupt men. Tooneasily does Hart accept the notionn(expressed by Madison) that if mennwere angels they would need no formnof government, for government isnneeded not only by the fallen but alsonby the finite, and there are degrees ofnauthority even among the angels, accordingnto St. Paul (Ephesians 1:21;nColossians 1:16).nFinally, Hart asserts, “It is on privatenproperty that all other freedoms rest.nFor if the government can seize one’snhome, money, or possessions, the individualnhas no means of resisting thenwhims of kings, ministers, courtiers, ornother agents of the state.” But it hasnlong been the testimony of Christiansnthat when they have stood firm in thenfaith despite the confiscation of theirnproperty and even of their physicalnlives, they have found themselves freento preach and live without fear ofnpersecution precisely because theynheld their faith and the freedom it gaventhem more dear than property or life.n”Let goods and kindred go,” wrotenLuther in A Mighty Fortress Is Ourn