[Vision2020] Was George Washington an Orthodox Christian? (Was "Untruths of . . .)

[Gier, Nicholas]

Hi Mike:

Nothing in Lillback's 1,200 pages disputes what I said in my column: 

Anyone can do a word search of Washington’s published works, and only once does “Jesus Christ” appear. Washington never took communion (a requirement for being a Christian in Washington’s Episcopalian Church), refused to answer repeated questions about whether he was a Christian, and made it clear that no clergy should be present at his death.  For more on the liberal religion of our founders please read www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/foundfathers.htm.

Here is a review of the book by Jon Rowe, self-described as "a libertarian and college professor," posted at the well regarded Religion and American History website.

Here is the conclusion of the review for those who do not want to read the whole thing:

On Washington’s non-Christian death, where he asked for no ministers and said no prayers, Lillback likewise makes excuses. Indeed, in addition to a great deal of facts, “George Washington’s Sacred Fire” contains much idle speculation, illogical arguments, and redundant prose in 1200 pages. No respectable academic publisher would publish a book that length where so much could have been edited down. “Providence Forum Press,” the publisher, is part of a group of which Lillback himself is leader. This is essentially a glorified self published book.

Review of Peter Lillback's "George Washington's Sacred Fire"
by Jon Rowe

Peter A. Lillback’s George Washington’s Sacred Fire, now a top seller on Amazon.com thanks to Glenn Beck’s promoting it, attempts to overturn wisdom conventional in scholarly circles that George Washington was a Deist, but rather argues Washington was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. Lillback is President of Westminster Theological Seminary and a notable figure in the “Christian America” movement.
That “the masses” are buying the book in great numbers is ironic. Most ordinary folks will not, like me, finish or even read a fraction of a 1200 page book with 200 pages of fineprint footnotes. No, this book aims squarely at respected scholars, notably experts on Washington's life, from Paul F. Boller to James Flexner, who claim Washington was some kind of Deist.

Boller's George Washington & Religion, among respected historians, is the generally accepted standard-bearer work of scholarship on the matter. And Boller claims Washington some kind of "Deist," that evidence lacks for his Christian orthodoxy.

To his credit, Lillback is familiar with almost every claim Boller makes and seeks to answer them. Most "Christian America" scholars asserting Washington’s devout Christianity simply ignore such evidence, like for instance that Washington refused to take communion in his church such that his own minister termed him a "Deist" or "not a real Christian.”

Lillback does answer the claim that GW was a strict Deist, that is one who believes in a non-interventionist God and categorically rejects all written revelation. Though some notable scholars have so claimed, Boller did not. And Lillback didn’t need to write 1200 pages to demonstrate Washington believed in an active personal God. Michael and Jana Novak and Mary V. Thompson both have written books in the 300 page range that prove Washington’s belief in an active Providence.

Indeed, Boller admits that Washington’s Grand Architect “Deist” God was an active intervener. Here Lillback rightly objects that terming such theology “Deism” when that term, to too many modern ears, connotes a non-interventionist God, is problematic. George Washington was a theist, not a Deist.

But Boller rejects Washington’s “Christianity” because, as he put it,
 [I]f to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ and his atonement for the sins of  man and to participate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper are requisites for the Christian  faith, then Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be considered  a Christian, except in the most nominal sense.

So Boller and Lillback both agree that Washington believed in an active Providence. They disagree on whether Washington’s creed is properly termed “Deist” or “Christian.” And Lillback, to solidify the case for Washington’s “Christianity,” disputes Boller’s above passage and terms Washington “orthodox.”

The problem is, the evidence Lillback offers from Washington’s mouth, though it shows belief in an active Providence, fails to refute Boller’s challenge. Instead, Lillback strives mightily to "read in" orthodox Trinitarian concepts to Washington's more generic God words, and otherwise to explain away evidence that casts doubt on Washington’s belief in orthodox Trinitarianism.

In over 20,000 pages of Washington’s known recorded writings, the name “Jesus Christ” appears only once. One other time Jesus is mentioned by example, not name. And both of these were in public addresses, written by aides but given under Washington’s name. Nowhere in Washington’s many private letters is the name or person of Jesus Christ invoked. Though Washington’s private correspondence mentions “Providence” and other more generic God words very often.

Why this is so, Lillback can only speculate. And Lillback slams Boller for enaging in similar speculation. For instance, Lillback, not Washington himself, claims GW didn’t discuss Jesus because he was afraid of profaning Jesus’ holy name. When pondering why Washington let the one references to Jesus written by an aide pass, Boller claims Washington must have been pressed for time, or would have revised the document before he signed it. Lillback terms Boller’s speculation “feeble.” If so, Lillback’s speculation on why Washington avoided mentioning Jesus’ name is equally “feeble."

Though Washington didn’t, as far as we know, identify as a “Deist,” Lillback can marshal only one letter, to Robert Stewart, April 27, 1763, where Washington claims to have been a “Christian.”

More often, he talked of Christians in the third person, as though he weren't part of that group. The following statement of Washington’s, to Marquis De LaFayette, August 15, 1787, is typical: "I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest, and least liable to exception."

Or, to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792: "I was in hopes, that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far, that we should never again see their religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of Society." (Emphasis mine.)

Since Lillback can’t prove Washington’s Trinitarian orthodoxy from his words, he instead turns to GW’s membership in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church. Since that body formally adhered to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, Lillback argues, Washington, as an Anglican, did as well.

Indeed, Lillback charges if Washington were a member of an orthodox church, at times taking oaths to its officially orthodox doctrines, but didn’t believe in those doctrines, he was a hypocrite. And he saddles more “secular” or “skeptical” scholars with smearing the Father of America as a hypocrite. As we will see below, Lillback’s logic falters.

Lillback doesn’t do well with the reality that deistically and unitarian minded figures abounded in the churches that professed orthodoxy in that era. Washington’s church attendance of, on average, once a month is consistent with such reality. Further, the two American Presidents who followed Washington, without question, fit that description. And the three who followed them likely did as well.

Deistically and unitarian minded members of orthodox churches were the ones who, like Washington, systematically avoided communion in said churches because they didn’t believe in what the act symbolically represented: Christ’s Atonement.

This was the explanation that Washington’s own minister, Rev. James Abercrombie, offered when he reacted to Washington‘s behavior. He noted, "I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace."

Lillback offers another explanation, which again, is sheer speculation: That GW didn’t commune because he had problems with “Toryish” ecclesiastical authorities. Instead Washington was a “low church,” latitudinarian Anglican, while still an orthodox Trinitarian Christian.

No doubt, as a leader of a Whig rebellion, Washington did have a problem with Tories. Lillback’s explanation, however, doesn’t avoid the charge of hypocrisy that he accuses skeptical scholars of making. Washington, when he became a Vestryman for example, didn’t take an oath to “low church” latitudinarian Anglicanism, but rather, those oaths were “high church” and demanded loyalty to the crown. And those oaths and doctrines demanded Anglican believers partake in the Lord’s Supper.

Many Anglicans remained loyalists precisely because their church taught a theological duty to remain loyal. Washington was in rebellion, then, not just against England, but against his church’s official doctrines. If not to believe in the official doctrines of your church, indeed, doctrines in which you took oaths, makes you a hypocrite, then Lillback unavoidably falls into a trap that he set for scholars who argue GW was not an orthodox Christian.

Lillback attempts to marshal other facts that prove Washington’s orthodox Christianity. As President, Washington communicated with many pious churches in a friendly manner, and friends and acquaintances often would send him sermons for which GW invariable gave perfunctory thanks.

Straining, Lillback sees this as evidence of Washington’s orthodox Christianity. True, Washington did seem to approve orthodox figures and sermons. But, trying to be all things to all people, Washington also seemed to approve heterodox and heretical figures as well.

For instance, Washington stated, “I have seen and read with much pleasure,” an address by Richard Price, a non-conformist minister and author, that slammed the Athanasian creed, the quintessential statement of Trinitarianism that Washington’s Anglican church used. Washington also stated to the Universalists, a notoriously controversial church that preached universal salvation,

It gives me the most sensible pleasure to find, that, in our nation, however different are the sentiments of citizens on religious doctrines, they generally concur in one thing; for their political professions and practices are almost universally friendly to the order and happiness of our civil institutions. I am also happy in finding this disposition particularly evinced by your society.(Emphasis mine.)

Twice when speaking to uncoverted Native Americans, Washington referred to God as the “Great Spirit,” suggesting they all worshipped the same God. This is even more generous than claiming the Muslims’ “Allah” is the same God Jews and Christians worship -- a sentiment to which most “Christian Americanists” balk -- because Allah at least claims to be the God of Abraham, while the “Great Spirit” made no such claim.

Lillback, of course, tries to dismiss these as outliers. Yet the two times GW referred to God as the “Great Spirit” are exactly as many times the name or person of Jesus is found in Washington’s entire writings.

On Washington’s non-Christian death, where he asked for no ministers and said no prayers, Lillback likewise makes excuses. Indeed, in addition to a great deal of facts, “George Washington’s Sacred Fire” contains much idle speculation, illogical arguments, and redundant prose in 1200 pages. No respectable academic publisher would publish a book that length where so much could have been edited down. “Providence Forum Press,” the publisher, is part of a group of which Lillback himself is leader. This is essentially a glorified self published book


Nicholas F. Gier, Professor Emeritus
Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
"The Palouse Pundit" on Radio Free Moscow, 92.5 FM
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO www.idaho-aft.org/ift.htm
208-882-9212, 1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843



-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of Mike Hall
Sent: Tue 8/31/2010 12:13 PM
To: nickgier at roadrunner.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Untruths of Glenn Beck and America's Honor
 
Nick,

No comment on Beck.  However, I heard a talk by Dr. Peter Lillback once that was pretty engaging.  Here is what is listed on the Amazon site about his book you reference in your article.

Mike 

http://www.amazon.com/George-Washingtons-Sacred-Peter-Lillback/dp/0978605268 

Review
An enlightening, engaging, and long overdue correction of the falsehood that Washington lacked faith. --Rodney Stark, Baylor University

. . . . Dr. Lillback burries the myth that Washington was an unbeliever - at most a "deist" - under an avalanche of facts . . . . --Robert P. George, Princeton University

Secular historians ignore George Washington's ward Nelly Custis, who wrote that doubting his Christian faith was as absurd as doubting his patriotism. But they cannot ignore this mountain of evidence suggesting Washington's religion was not Deism, but just the sort of low-church Anglicanism one would expect in an 18th century Virginia gentleman. His "sacred fire" lit America's path toward civil and religious liberty. --Walter A. McDougall, Pulitzer Prize Winning Author 

Product Description
What sets "George Washington's Sacred Fire" apart from all previous works on this man for the ages, is the exhaustive fifteen years of Dr. Peter Lillback's research, revealing a unique icon driven by the highest of ideals. Only do George Washington's own writings, journals, letters, manuscripts, and those of his closest family and confidants reveal the truth of this awe-inspiring role model for all generations. Dr. Lillback paints a picture of a man, who, faced with unprecedented challenges and circumstances, ultimately drew upon his persistent qualities of character - honesty, justice, equity, perseverence, piety, forgiveness, humility, and servant leadership, to become one of the most revered figures in world history. George Washington set the cornerstone for what would become one of the most prosperous, free nations in the history of civilization. Through this book, Dr. Lillback, assisted by Jerry Newcombe, will reveal to the reader a newly inspirational image of General and President George Washington.


-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of nickgier at roadrunner.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:44 AM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] The Untruths of Glenn Beck and America's Honor

Good Morning Visionaries:

This is my radio commentary and column for the Idaho State Journal for this week.  The full version is attached.

Nick

THE UNTRUTHS OF GLENN BECK AND AMERICA'S HONOR

Glenn Beck is small man with a mean message. He is provocateur who likes to play with matches in the tinderbox of racial and ethnic confrontation.

--Bob Herbert, Washington Post columnist

Fox News commentator Glenn Beck says that he held Saturday's Lincoln Memorial rally to celebrate three American principles: truth, honor, and integrity. These are eminent values that no one nation or people can claim to possess. Nevertheless, let us see if Beck has embodied this great trinity of virtues.

Does Beck preserve America's honor or the truth when he spreads the insulting falsehood that President Obama is a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture"? Admitting to Chris Wallace that he has a "big fat mouth" and was behaving badly, he apologized for this comment, but the damage was already done. To this self-described "entertainer" and "rodeo clown," Wallace asked Beck the perfect question: "How can you have any credibility?"

Does Beck have any intellectual integrity left when he hosts people on his show who systematically distort American history? A frequent guest on Beck's "Founders Fridays" is David Barton, an evangelical minister and Republican activist with a B.A. in religious education from Oral Roberts University.
 
Pretending to be a historian, Barton cannot give primary resource citations for 11 quotations that he attributes to Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison.  He is also responsible for spreading, along with those in the neo-Confederacy, the myth of the happy American slave.  Barton conveniently forgets that those slaves who attended "integrated" churches in 1790 (Barton's big discovery) were there as their white owner's property. His claim that many Founding Fathers were abolitionists is simply false, but it is true, according to historian Diana Bass, for many Founding Mothers.

Another guest on Beck's show was Peter Lillback, another conservative preacher parading as a historian. Primarily because of Beck's enthusiastic promotion ("Wow, all the scholars are wrong!"), Lillback's book "George Washington's Sacred Fire" has risen to number two at Amazon.com. Lillback's self-published, 1,200-page tome is nothing but an exercise in wishful thinking that Washington was an orthodox Christian. 

Anyone can do a word search of Washington's published works, and only once does "Jesus Christ" appear. Washington never took communion (a requirement for being a Christian in Washington's Episcopalian Church), refused to answer repeated questions about whether he was a Christian, and made it clear that no clergy should be present at his death.  For more on the liberal religion of our founders please read www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/foundfathers.htm.

After decades of opposition from the right to the civil rights movement, Beck has the audacity to declare that America's social conservatives "are the people of the civil rights movement. We are the ones that must stand for civil and equal rights, justice, equal justice. Not special justice, not social justice. We are the inheritors and protectors of the civil rights movement. They [liberals I supposed] are perverting it."

In King's day "liberal" wasn't a dirty enough word for many conservatives for describing him.  Would Beck now support Republican Senators Jesse Helms, John P. East, and John McCain, who in 1983 voted against (along with 15 other Republicans and 4 Democrats) the King Holiday primarily because of his presumed communist connections? Conservatives smeared King just as badly back then just as Beck and his ilk are slandering Obama today.

King's Dream Speech was the culmination of the March on Washington, a huge rally for social justice (Yes, Beck, that is what "equal" justice means) organized by labor unions and civil rights organizations. King frequently spoke of America's "debt to the poor" and called for an "economic bill of rights" that would "guarantee a job to all people who want to work and are able to work." Quoting these words columnist Kate Zernike states: "In Mr. Beck's taxonomy, this would make him a Marxist."

Will a perfectly good man--regardless of the merits or demerits of his presidential leadership--be destroyed by right-wing extremists? Elaborating on an old saying, lies shouted loud enough and long enough become destructive pseudo truths. 

Rodeo clowns stick to their job of being funny, but this one, incredibly enough, may bring down a presidency. I conclude by redirecting the famous denunciation of Senator Joseph McCarthy by army lawyer Joseph Welch: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

 Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 years.
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100831/6edb437a/attachment-0001.html