Why Have Scholars Underplayed George Washington’s Faith?

Why Have Scholars Underplayed George Washington’s Faith?
By Peter A. Lillback

http://hnn.us/articles/34925.html


Historian Peter A. Lillback, Ph.D., is president of The Providence Forum,
president of Westminster Theological Seminary, and senior pastor at
Proclamation Presbyterian Church in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. He is the
author of the bestseller George Washington’s Sacred Fire (2006, Providence
Forum Press).

The faith of our founding father, George Washington, has been the source of
debate among scholars throughout the 20th, and now into the 21st century.
Prior to that, it was generally the case that very few questioned the
strength or validity of the claim that George Washington was a Christian.
It was not until around the time of the bicentennial of Washington’s birth,
in 1932, that the consensus began to shift to the view that Washington was
a Deist, that is, one who is generally non-religious, believing merely in a
very remote and impersonal God.

The definitive change in scholarly attitude seems to have occurred in 1963
when Professor Paul Boller wrote his book entitled George Washington and
Religion. Professor Boller wrote, “Broadly speaking, of course, Washington
can be classified as a Deist.” Most recent scholars have accepted Boller’s
thesis and have developed this perspective. Thus recent works on
Washington’s faith describe our Founding Father as: “A lukewarm
Episcopalian,” “a warm Deist,” “not a deeply religious man,” “not
particularly ardent in his faith,” “one who avoided, as was the Deist
custom, the word ‘God.’” If these evaluations of Washington’s faith are
accurate, then it would seem appropriate to minimize the role of faith in
Washington’s life.

The question is, however, why so many scholars have uncritically followed
Boller’s viewpoint on the question of Washington’s faith. It is tricky
business to assign motives to scholars, although the maxim that the living
can make the dead do any tricks they find necessary comes to mind.
Obviously no scholar can divine the reasons for the selection and weighing
of evidence by another historian, so my remarks here must be viewed merely
as suggestive.

The reasons for the scholarly minimizing of Washington’s faith seem to be
due to factors related to three reasons: the uniqueness of Washington
himself, the perspectives of recent historians, and the nature and
availability of the relevant evidence.

The uniqueness of George Washington as well as his historical milieu make
the task of discovering Washington’s personal faith a challenge. He was an
inward man who prided himself on non-self-disclosure. Indeed, his motto was
“deeds not words.” His public and political life sought to unite a very
diverse group of colonial soldiers in the military and competitive bodies
of citizens in early federal America. This process of unification was
facilitated by seeking the largest common denominator. This meant that
personal religious concerns were normally subordinated in his public life.
Moreover, his more private life as a Virginian gentleman in a distinctively
Anglican historical context did not require him as a non-theologian to be
overtly expressive of his faith. The evangelical fires of the Great
Awakening with its open evangelistic zeal had not impacted Virginian
culture as much as they had other colonies. Washington’s evangelism was far
more expressive when it touched the need for Native Americans to be reached
through missionary outreach. His outreach to his fellow Americans, however,
was typically through example and providing leadership and contributions.
His Christian “deeds” included the provision of ministers, chaplains,
church buildings and sacramental items, as well as liturgical involvement
for the spiritual growth of his family, neighbors and soldiers.

The perspectives of recent historians also help to account for why they
have underdeveloped the importance for faith in Washington’s life. Simply
put, Washington has been caught in the crosshairs of the culture wars. If
the recent zeitgeist has been a conscious move toward secularism in the
academy and in the courts, then it stands to reason that Washington would
begin to take on a more compatible secular image in the hands of such
authors who so significantly shape our American culture. If the separation
of Church and State is a fundamental tenet of our view of American culture,
then the scholarly shaping of Washington’s life to fit this view is an
inexorable result. After all, everyone would like to have Washington on
their side!

Moreover, historians on all sides of this debate over Washington’s true
faith would agree that the sheer greatness of Washington makes him liable
to hagiography and exaggeration. The unsubstantiated legends of a previous
era had to be subjected to the rigorous canons of critical historiography.
While some of the testimony for Washington’s faith falls in the arena of
unsupportable legend, there is a temptation simply to dismiss all evidence
of his faith by assuming that there is only hagiographical and apocryphal
testimony to support it. So self-evident did Washington’s Christian faith
seem to prior generations, that they only slightly felt the need to
establish a scholarly case. Thus when this earlier case for Washington’s
Christian faith was examined under the microscope of serious scholarship,
it was unable to withstand the assault.

However, that did not mean there was no evidence for the claim of a strong
faith life in Washington. Rather, it meant that the case had to be built by
a careful return to original sources and historically sound arguments. Thus
there has been a significant need to reassess this whole debate by an in
depth analysis of the relevant data. That, of course, is what I have sought
to do in George Washington’s Sacred Fire. It has simply been too easy for
all parties in this debate to rely on secondary sources. Ultimately,
Washington’s own words and his own actions in his own context establish the
truth about his own faith.

The character of the extant historical evidence also in part explains why
scholars have missed the importance of faith in Washington’s life. So much
of what is essential for this debate is not available for study. For
example, very few ecclesiastical records remain from the early years of
Washington’s life. The war years were a period when many records were
inevitably lost or never kept. With the passing of over two centuries since
Washington’s death, the likelihood that such records will come to light is
very small.

The sheer magnitude of Washington’s writings and correspondence makes it
difficult to get a handle on his faith given that it was not the central
point of his daily work. Only recently has this question been made easier
to address. The digital revolution now makes searching Washington’s vast
corpus possible from the comfort of one’s personal computer simply by
accessing the sources through the University of Virginia and the Library of
Congress. Similarly, the letters to which Washington was responding have
only recently been published or been put online, finally making them
readily accessible to scholarly research. These letters are important for
this debate in particular since they give added depth and insight to
Washington’s words as he expresses his faith and religious concerns.

Even the physical location of the relevant data enters into this question.
For example Washington’s library is difficult to access since it is in a
limited access archive at the Boston Athenaeum. Yet Washington’s personally
bound collections of now mostly out of print sermons as well as his
correspondence to the clergymen who wrote them provide a treasure trove for
understanding his religious thinking.

Within this vast collection of Washington’s own words and writings, we now
have a remarkable ability to uncover what earlier scholars were unable to
access. And when we let Washington’s own words and deeds speak for his
faith we get quite a different perspective than that of most recent modern
historians. Washington referred to himself frequently using the words
“ardent,” “fervent,” “pious,” and “devout.” There are over one hundred
different prayers composed and written by Washington in his own hand, with
his own words, in his writings. He described himself as one of the deepest
men of faith of his day when he confessed to a clergyman, “No Man has a
more perfect Reliance on the alwise, and powerful dispensations of the
Supreme Being than I have nor thinks his aid more necessary.”

Rather than avoid the word “God,” on the very first national Thanksgiving
under the U.S. Constitution, he said, “It is the duty of all Nations to
acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be
grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor.”
Although he never once used the word “Deist” in his voluminous writings, he
often mentioned religion, Christianity, and the Gospel. He spoke of Christ
as “the divine Author of our blessed religion.” He encouraged missionaries
who were seeking to “Christianize” the “aboriginals.” He took an oath in a
private letter, “on my honor and the faith of a Christian.” He wrote of
“the blessed religion revealed in the Word of God.” He encouraged seekers
to learn “the religion of Jesus Christ.” He even said to his soldiers, “To
the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to
add the more distinguished Character of Christian.” Not bad for a
“lukewarm” Episcopalian!

Historians ought no longer be permitted to do the legerdemain of turning
Washington into a Deist even if they found it necessary and acceptable to
do so in the past. Simply put, it is time to let the words and writings of
Washington’s faith speak for themselves.

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************