The Golden Triangle of Freedom

If this content resonates with you, share your thoughts in the comments below.

Political scientists Donald S. Lutz [1943-2024] and Charles S. Hyneman [1900-1985] undertook an exhaustive examination of American political writing from 1760 to 1805.1 Their research identified 916 works containing substantive political argument, and Lutz then conducted a citation analysis to determine which authorities the Founding generation relied upon most heavily.

The finding should arrest our attention: the Bible was the single most frequently cited source in Founding-era political literature, substantially outpacing Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, and every other European authority.

This is not pious nostalgia. It is empirical evidence.

As Lutz and Hyneman observed: “The importance of public virtue for a self-governing people, and the importance of religion for public virtue, were constant themes during the founding era.”

America’s Founders inherited a conclusion forged through the persecution of English Nonconformists, the religious conflicts of the 17th century, and the covenantal experience of the American colonies that self-government is impossible without self-restraint. Contemporary secularists have forgotten that truth - not through the innocent slippage of memory, but through willful neglect and historical revision. A republic can write constitutions, establish courts, and hold elections, but unless its people possess the moral character necessary to govern themselves, liberty eventually collapses into license, and license invites tyranny.

Even more remarkably, Deuteronomy was the single most frequently cited individual work in Founding-era political literature: the sermons, pamphlets, essays, speeches, letters, legislative debates, and public documents through which Americans debated liberty, law, virtue, government, and republican self-rule. Deuteronomy surpassed even Montesquieu’s 1748 masterpiece, The Spirit of the Laws, the most frequently cited secular work of the age. It was referenced nearly twice as often as all the writings of John Locke [1632-1704] combined - the English philosopher commonly called the ‘Father of Liberalism’.

But why Deuteronomy?

Dr. Bruce K. Waltke, one of the world’s leading Old Testament scholars, once remarked: “I do not recall hearing one sermon on [Deuteronomy] over my 70 years of attending church services.” When was the last time you heard one?

Jesus did not share that neglect. When Satan tempted Him in the wilderness, Christ answered all three temptations by quoting from Deuteronomy. Three times He declared, “It is written” and three times He reached into Israel’s covenant-renewal document.

Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the Pentateuch, but it is much more than just a summing-up of miscellaneous statutes. It is Moses’ final covenant-renewal sermon to Israel before the nation entered the Promised Land, explaining what a people living under the sovereign rule of Yahweh should look like: religiously, morally, socially, economically, and politically.

At the heart of that covenant lies a revolutionary political premise: ruler and ruled were placed under the same transcendent law. Throughout the ancient Near East, royal ideology commonly presented the king as divinely authorized to administer and preserve justice. Israel’s arrangement was different at its foundation. Its king was not the ultimate lawgiver. He was himself a man under law.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 placed explicit restraints upon royal power. The king was forbidden from multiplying horses, wives, silver, and gold. He was required to write his own copy of the Law, read it throughout his life, and obey it, so that “his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers.” The king was not a god. He was not the ultimate sovereign. He did not stand above the Law. He was Yahweh’s servant, exercising delegated authority under a covenant he had no power to repeal.

There, as a basic, foundational declaration, stands one of Sinai’s most politically consequential legacies: civil government is a limited and delegated trust, never an unbounded sovereignty. No ruler may claim absolute authority, because no ruler occupies the place belonging to God alone.

Sinai did not hand the Philadelphia Convention a finished American Constitution. It did something more fundamental; it established the premise without which constitutional government cannot endure that political power must be limited because man is fallen, rulers must be restrained because power corrupts, and law must stand above those entrusted to administer it. The separation of powers, checks and balances, enumerated federal authority, and rule of law are not identical to the governmental structure of ancient Israel. But they rest upon the same indispensable recognition: no human being can safely be trusted with unlimited power.

This movement toward American covenantal government did not suddenly appear in Philadelphia in 1787. Its seedbed had been cultivated throughout the 17th and 18th centuries in colonial covenants, church compacts, election sermons, days of fasting and prayer, and the conviction that a people entered political society by mutual consent under the authority of God. This is the legacy Os Guinness and others identify with the ‘Hebrew Republic’: a political order grounded in covenant rather than conquest, consent rather than mere command, and law rather than the arbitrary will of rulers.

Guinness calls the logic that sustains it his Golden Triangle of Freedom: “Freedom requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom.” Freedom cannot sustain itself. Freedom requires virtue - the moral capacity to exercise liberty without destroying oneself or one’s neighbor. Virtue requires faith - a moral authority higher than personal aspiration, political fashion, or governmental command. And faith requires freedom, because coerced faith is not faith at all. Secular Enlightenment rationalism, standing alone, can describe liberty. It cannot generate the character required to preserve it.

The British constitutional tradition and Scottish Enlightenment gave the American Republic much of its political vocabulary - natural rights, consent of the governed, moral philosophy, the language of liberty itself. But the Hebrew Republic revealed at Sinai supplied its architecture: the covenantal scaffolding that vocabulary was built to fit, centuries before Jefferson ever picked up a pen.

America will not be renewed merely by rediscovering its constitutional machinery. It must recover the moral and spiritual architecture without which that apparatus cannot stand. We must rediscover God in America.

Gideons and Rahabs have begun to stand.

Please Note: We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the content. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at the author or other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.