Monsma's recent book Pluralism and Freedom: Faith-Based Organisations in a Democratic Society, examines the challenges confronting faith-based services that are funded by the United States government. Faith-based organisations deliver key social services such as international relief and development, foster care and adoption services. Throughout his analysis, Monsma advocates for a new way of viewing and understanding faith-based organisations to preserve religious freedom for all in the public square. His work complements a growing body of existing research that explores church–state responses in conditions of diversity across the United States, Europe and other parts of the world. Monsma's work will be of interest to those scholars who closely follow religion and politics issues and church–state issues literature.

The book begins by raising topical and contentious questions about the religious autonomy of faith-based organisations in the United States. How do faith-based organisations preserve their religious identity when in receipt of government funding? Should faith-based organisations be bound by general non-discrimination regulations? One limitation to assessing the limits of religious freedom in faith-based organisations is that there is no ‘agreement on concepts and theories that underlie the religious autonomy of faith-based organisations and how they fit into a free, pluralistic society’ (p. 12). As a consequence, the status quo can restrict the religious autonomy of faith-based organisations, and limit an organisation's ability to stay true to their faith-based identity.

As the book progresses, Monsma then considers the limitations of existing attitudes towards faith-based organisations in the United States. According to Monsma the strict-separation, no-aid-to religion standard does not accurately reflect the practice of church–state relations, and can no longer be used to consider the appropriateness of government funds to faith-based organisations. After reviewing Supreme Court decisions on church–state relations, Monsma observes that there is no fully developed or widely accepted standard that respects the religious autonomy of faith-based organisations. Against this backdrop, he makes it clear that ‘we as a society need certain criteria, or standards, by which to judge what practices of faith-based organisations are truly discriminatory . . . and which are rationally related to their faith’ (p. 80). In an effort to improve the status quo, Monsma advocates in favour of an equal treatment, neutrality principle that treats religious and secular interests in an even-handed manner. Monsma begins an important conversation on how a diversity of interests can be better accommodated in the United States.

Monsma then moves on to critique the contrasting views of the political left and the political right towards faith-based organisations. The political left are suspicious of traditional values and religion in the public arena, and embrace a strict separation of church and state which does not support state aid to religion. The left insist that religious elements be removed from government-funded faith-based organisations, and have not developed a discourse to respond to the needs of faith-based organisations. The right, in contrast, support a place for religion in the public square and do not back the strict separation of church and state. Monsma claims that because the left and right hold contrasting views towards faith-based organisations; both sides are unable to develop a common set of theoretical concepts and beliefs to govern the religious autonomy of faith-based organisations. However, the idea that both the political left and the political right should acknowledge the religious autonomy of faith-based organisations alongside other service providers is contentious. I suggest that party-political positions towards faith-based organisations are unlikely to change without direct advocacy from US voters and party members.

Finally, Monsma proposes a new framework to understand the place of faith-based organisations in the United States. He advocates in favour of structural pluralism, a theoretical concept that can provide a framework to preserve the religious autonomy of faith-based organisations. Structural pluralism defends a place for religion in the public arena, and draws on the principle of substantive neutrality, where the government treats religious and secular interests in an even-handed way. He states that ‘under structural pluralism religious organisations are not accorded a favoured position in public life, but they do have a right to a voice in the public arena’ (p. 150). Against a backdrop of increasing diversity, Monsma provides a timely challenge for the political left and the political right to accommodate all voices in public policy debates.

Monsma concludes with examples of how his new framework can be applied to a pluralistic public square. For example, he explains that under his new model, faith-based organisations would have a right to hire and fire on the grounds of religion; the government would be prevented from funding faith-based programs that have a spiritual or next-world benefit; and faith-based organisations must provide an opportunity for recipients to opt out of faith-based programmes. One limitation of Monsma's work is that he fails to adequately explore how conflict between freedom of religion and other human rights claims could be resolved in an even-handed way.

Overall, the book successfully describes the challenges of protecting religious freedom for all. The idea that an overarching framework or standard can be developed to safeguard the freedom of persons and organisations of all religions is laudable and worthy of further research and public debate. The book marks a fresh direction for church–state research by attempting to bridge the gap between academia and practice. Monsma's advocacy for a neutral state will ultimately depend on the willingness and ability of US citizens to preserve a legitimate place for faith-based and secular interests in the public life of the nation.