Customer Reviews

Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

First off, let me say that I know the author and count the Novaks as friends of our family. Having said that, I am an actual Anglican, born to the old Episcopal church, baptized, confirmed, and married by the traditional Book of Common Prayer. I mention this because contemporary Episcopalianism has veered far off course from the Anglicanism of Washington's day, while I have made a serious study of just that: the Anglicanism of the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries.

I also state that I am a layman, albeit one with a very keen interest in my Christian heritate. Michael is somewhat hampered in his investigation by his own Roman Catholicism, which of necessity means he comes to Washington not as a coreligionist, and dependent on others for their perspective on the Church of England.

Chrisitanity of the 18th C is not the Christianity of today. Methodism and Evangelicalism as we know them were unheard of and would have been regarded as madness any earlier than they appeared. Until then, Protestants in particular took Christ's admonition to pray in one's closet -- privately -- very seriously. Congregational worship, according to the 1662 edition of hte Book of Common Prayer, left little room for improvisation or personal input. It was formal, elegant, ancient even then, and it was almost unthinkable to fiddle with its carefully considered proscriptions. It necessesarily formed the religous mind of those who worshiped by it in church. In the BCP, the Christian God is often called by "Almighty God", "Father in heaven" and similar Old Testament names. Jesus Christ's name is used, but in specific places in specific prayers, usually only at Holy Communion.

This is to say, the Anglican of old would be aghast to presume too much familiarity with Lord Jesus! Recall this is an age of excruciatingly specific ettiquitte and protocol. Being "buddies" with the Christ would have caused Washington a burst blood vessel in his head!

Also, public prayer was expected to be lead by a minister of God's word, not a layman. In the privacy of one's home, the husband and father was expected to act as chief priest and lead family prayer -- but this too was considered extraordinarily private and not something to be broadcast from a soapbox. It would certianly not be written about in letters.

As to the matter of the Lord's Supper, this too is not what modern Christians anachronistically make it to be. Anglicans were of mixed mind -- and still are today -- as to the meaning of the consecrated bread and wine of Holy Communion. Was it the Real Presence in transubstantiated form? Spiritually? Merely a symbol? Was Christ present bodily, spiritually, or only in memoriam? These were serious questions and not completely answered in 1776. They are not answered in 2006.

Whichever belief Washington may have had about the Supper of the Lord, one thing all Anglicans believed is that it was "Romish" to Communicate too frequently. The rubrics of the Prayerbook tell the faithful Anglican he must Communicate only on Easter Day! It was not uncommon in the Episcopal church as recently as the 1950s to take Communion only on very holy days, even as many observed Good Friday fasts.

Further, Anglicanism is particular in prohibiting any "notorious evildoer", anyone not in love and charity with his neighbors, or anyone conscious of grave sin from the Table of the Lord. This injunction is made before each Communion and it is not uncommon for communicants even today to refrain from the Eucharist if htey feel unworthy, lest they experience the eternal damnation of their soul as warned by Saint Paul.

It is entirely possible Washington, given his extraordinary sense of honor and keen sinfulness, may simply have believed himself unworthy of communicating while he was engaged in warfare.

In any case, most Anglican would have approached the Lord's Table on Easter and perhaps special days of Thanksgiving and not very much more often.

Dr. Novak is, sadly, unacquainted with this historical practice, and so he did not properly address it in his book.

Bottom line, Washington's public behavior was perhaps the epitome of a holy Anglican. Reserved, careful not to presume too much familiarity with the Lord Christ himself, fearful of unworthy Communication, too humble and reserved to dare brag of the Almighty's favour and goodness towards him.

No, Washington was no Deist and those who say so are ignoramouses. Washington was a Vestryman who understood his place with the Lord God Almighty and dared not presume on his Providence.

Please read the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which may be found online at http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/. Read it and you will understand Washington and his God. You might even join him in reverent worship.

While this book is not the most electrifying or entertaining book I have ever read (even on Washington), it did answer most of my questions regarding George Washington's faith, and how it effected his outlook and actions and helped shaped the life of one of the most important figures in American history. The writing is thorough and well documented, the style is informative without being overly academic, and while I still found Washington a bit distant and even at times (as he himself wrote about God/Providence so often) "inscrutable", I feel that the authors did as well as is possible delving into the personal beliefs of one of the most private and taciturn of `public' men that ever lived.

In quoting the thoughtful review by Al Zambone in Christianity Today, David Vinzant leaves out the favorable parts. Read a sample for yourself:

"The Novaks' central argument, following several chapters recapitulating Washington's life, is based upon Washington's incessant appeals to and observations of the ways of Providence. This is something ignored or dismissed by many biographers, which is foolish; Washington used 'Providence' so often that it can be characterized as one of his three ruling ideas of how the world works or should work (the other two, I believe, are 'West' and 'Union'). His idea of Providence was that it was the intervention of an all-powerful and all-merciful God in the events of mankind. This Providence was often seen as working the near-miraculous, such as in the Continental Army's escape through night and fog from Brooklyn past the British fleet. Washington's 'Providence,' the Novaks convincingly demonstrate, is not impersonal fate; moreover, Washington does not view Providence as always being on his side. While he often describes Providence as benevolent and God as merciful, his favorite description of Providence is 'inscrutable.' Providence is not the leader of America's team; It does what It does, and is not always understood by a humanity that is being done unto. In the face of Providence, Washington is both thankful and resigned. Indeed, Washington's very last words as he died, 'Tis well,' reflect the most important belief of his life."

"For Washington, Providence had a personality. Thus it is difficult, as the Novaks further argue, to describe Washington as a Deist in the classic 18th-century sense. Many if not all Deists would accept the concept of Providence in general terms, as the overarching care of the Creator-God for the world that He had established. However they would be quick to deride any idea that this God would intervene in the world using anything that seemed even vaguely miraculous; in theological terms, they denied the need for special providence. Washington, however, often appeals precisely to special Providence. Moreover, as in his letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Savannah, Washington identifies that special Providence as being none other than Jehovah, 'who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors' and whose 'agency has lately been conspicuous, in establishing these United States as an independent nation.'"

The small dissent in Zambone's review that Vinzant does quote, on the portraits of the Virgin Mary and St. John in Mount Vernon and Washington's unusually active work as a vestryman, occur on but three pages in WASHINGTON'S GOD (pp. 168-170). In fact, the review slightly misstates the points the Novaks made on those pages. Check it out yourself.

I still am a little uncertain about George Washington's faith. Washington's character, social standing and leadership skills were so well-regarded that he was called the "Indispensible Man," but Washington was never an obviously religious person. I have read extensively about the American Revolution and my understanding is that Martha Washington was a traditional Christian while George Washington was mainly a Freemason and an Anglican Christian, but not very religious, although he was a man of high character and high social standing in the wealthy planter class of Virginia. Deism also was highly popular in his time and seems to have influenced him, something which people today may have a hard time understanding.

Washington did attend an Anglican Christian church, but he was nothing like the evangelicals today, and he certainly did not live like someone who followed the Gospels religiously. He was a war general, a slave owner, and a shrewd politician who had to outmaneuver political challengers in his climb upward to fame and fortune. He was a man of good character.

This book relies much on Washington's public life - formal speeches written by political advisors for certain target audiences and comments from people whom Washington needed to impress - and not Washington's personal life. For a better perspective, I highly recommend reading the book called The Faiths of the Founding Fathers by David Holmes or one of the more famous general Washington biographies. Read Washington's Secret War: The Hidden History of Valley Forge.

This book portrays Washington as a subdued Anglican Christian with a dignified faith. For example, Jesus said to pray by yourself in a closet and not for show. In general, the educated Founding Fathers valued reason and disapproved of emotional religiosity. It also shows that, as president, George Washington spoke of basic Christian values in a way that many people could agree with. I think this is an important part of Washington's history that must be known. Prayer and references to religion in public life have been part of America's history, and Washington's presidency included them, even if his non-religious personal life sometimes differed from his official acts as a public servent.

Many Founding Fathers were Freemasons, including George Washington (sworn into office on a Bible from his Masonic Lodge, held by Robert Livingston, a Masonic Grand Master), Ben Franklin, Paul Revere, John Hancock, John Paul Jones, and most of the Continental Army generals. The cornerstone of the Capital was laid by Freemasons, led in a procession by Washington in Masonic dress. Washington D.C. was built with Freemason designs. The street layouts make Freemason symbols. The Washington Monument is a Freemason symbol, fitting for the devout Freemason George Washington. The Pyramid on the back of the $1 bill is a Freemason symbol with the message "New World Order. Many later presidents were Freemasons, although they were members mainly for social politicking and not seriously devoted. The freemason society that George Washington belonged to was more of a social club that emphasized personal character. Indeed, a letter from George Washington survives that defends his membership in his particular Freemason society as good and not like other suspect Freemasons in England.

Usually, when George Washington spoke of the Almighty, he did not specify Christ or the Christian God. So that suggests a freemason view and not Christian. On the other hand, he certainly believed God to be important and did believe in "the Hand of Providence," which is contrary to Deism. You decide!

Washington personally was never a religious person. He steadfastly refused to take communion. Martha did, but Washington would wait in his carriage. Washington was an active Freemason, was influenced at least party by the popular Deism, had no clergy present at his anticipated death, showed virtually no interest in Christian rituals in his daily personal life, and his personal writings do not mention Jesus at all or anything at all about Christianity.

President Washington once gave a very progressive speech about religious liberty written by Thomas Jefferson, who was Washington's secretary of state and advisor (and a libertarian, Deist and soft Anglican Christian. On the other hand, Washington gave several sincere speeches espousing God and endorsing basic moral values for the country that would be generally acceptable to all -- often written by the conservative Alexander Hamilton, who was Washington's secretary of treasury and advisor (and who was a publicly exposed adulterer and was never religious until becoming a cabinet member). Regardless of what he believed, it is fair to say that he spoke forcefully and sincerely about the Almightly while president.

Washington also certainly had a love affair with another man's wife before he courted and then married Martha. We know that from letters that survive. Washington married Martha, at least in large part, for her social status and money, which was not unusual for that time. There also have been rumours of Washington having a mistress, although that seems weak to me.

By the way, Washington used his career in the army to gain land and riches, climbing up the social ladder. During the Revolutionary War, he extensively used his expense account for lavish luxuries. He lived in style. While attending the Constitutional Convention, he stayed at the home of an extremely rich man, which was how he always lived.

Washington was a man of character, yet his character stemmed from several sources, including Anglican Christianity, his officer military training, Freemasonry, the social norms of landowner Virginia, maybe the popular Deism. He must be viewed in the context of his reserved Anglican religion and the social norms of his social class.

I strongly recommend reading "The Faiths of the Founding Fathers" by David Holmes. The most authoritative (and slightly pro-Washington) biographies are James Thomas Flexner's multi-volume biography of George Washington, which won the Pulitzer Prize, and the single-volume biography of George Washington by Joseph Ellis, who won the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award. After that, seek out the Washington books that show his more secret side.

Was George Washington a deist or a Christian? It is an important question, as Washington was not only the first president but the most respected of all of America's founding fathers.

In their book, "Washington's God," Michael and Jana Novak investigate Washington's public and private life to answer this question. The evidence is mixed:

Toward the view that Washington was a deist: Washington rarely referred to Jesus Christ (although he did write a letter to the Delaware Indians and recommend the religion of Jesus Christ), but instead he preferred the term "Providence," or generic terms like "the Author of our Blessed Religion." Washington regularly refused to take communion at church. When asked point-blank if he believed in Jesus Christ, he would not answer the question. When he died, he did not ask for a minister, and simply said, "'Tis well."

Toward the view that Washington was a Christian: Washington was a member of the Anglican church, which he attended regularly, including overseeing business of his local church. He agreed to be godfather to eight children, something the less religious Thomas Jefferson refused to do. He spoke of "Providence" in Christian terms, not deist terms. A deist believes God is like a watchmaker who makes the world and then is not involved; Washington instead spoke of divine Providence intervening and bringing together the events that led to his victory in the American Revolution. His reluctance to explicitly state his faith in Jesus Christ can be understood as typical for an Anglican who is more reserved about public expressions of faith. Nevertheless, there are reports of him privately praying during the war, and he insisted on having chaplains in the Continental Army. After his death, Martha Washington spoke of it as a Christian death.

On balance, Novak concludes that while he was very private about his faith, George Washington was, indeed, a Christian. He notes that Washington believed in religious liberty and opposed a state church, but Washington supported an accomodationist view of church and state that allows for public expresssions of general faith in the public square, without an endorsement of any particular denomination.

I chose this book because I had been reading some shorter biographies on George Washington and I became interested in the "truth" about his faith. This book hits on some interesting points but the writing style is very choppy (the author constantly goes back and forth in time) and the style of narrative just didn't draw this reader in. David McCullough's epic volume on John Adams - as long and detailed as it is - proves that an author can provide tremendous detail and still keep the reader wanting to turn the page to learn more. Still, for some strong evidence that George Washington was no passive deist, but actually had a compelling Christian faith, one can turn to Washington's God as a good source of information.

"Washington's God", by Mr. Novak & his Daughter, is a commendable contribution to our understanding of this first American President's character.
He was indeed a noble man in both demeanor and action. Noble in the sense of being notably virtuous. Herein lies the rub which so troubles our contemporary biographers of the man George Washington. It is fallacious to "re-invent" Washington outside the social context of his moral environment--- and his was more demanding of virtue...
The secular argument descries that there is no written evidence that Washington was a Christian. While their premise appears to be appealing, it fails to be neither logical nor supportable.
The Believers' argument in contrast, is both logical and well-evidenced.
Even the simplest common sense logically reveals through the tomes of Washington's own writings, speeches, & his behaviour that he firmly and deeply believed in a personal God.
The first-hand accounts of Washington by his own contemporaries who personally observed and knew him over the years, poignantly confirm Washington's spiritual lifestyle in their own diaries, notes, and journals.
It is vitally imperative that we restrain ourselves from being caught up in the comtemporary cultural warfare in such a manner that we would distort the factual, witness evidence of history by introducing our own inferences and innuendoes apart from the facts and then rewrite our distortions as "fact".
It is clear in "Washington's God" that the authors have well- researched and referenced their document-supported narrative biography. The agnostic prolific historians Will and Ariel Durant would acknowledge this book's meticulous accuracy, as would contemporary history research expert David Barton.

This book was commisioned to provide a take away item from Mt Vernon for the general interest visitor in order to provide some more insight, but not an in depth book for a historical researcher. I personally highlight most books that I read, therefore not really being welcomed at a public library -- I enjoy lending, but not borrowing most of the books that I read. There is a lot of yellow after my read.

Four members of a morning Bible study requested that I purchase copies, based upon my excitment alone. The revelation of Washington's activities as vestryman over 12+ years, attending church services 6 to 12 miles away from Mt Vernon on a regular basis, even when the local minister was absent, and so forth confirm the fact that Washington truly acted as the result of the Holy Spirit, but did not wear his faith on his sleeve nor attempt to convert others.

I personally feel much more in touch with this one facet of our founder as a sort of fill in the numbers of a painting of Washington. He cannot be tied down to beliefs by his direct written words, but his correspondance with others indirectly confirms his beliefs. The author had many unpublished letters available specifically for this project. This is a masterly crafted exposition of a founder that seems to have been presented to the public as a very stoic statuesque surface only figure.

This is a well-written book about George Washington's life and religious beliefs. The authors start the book by positing some of the 20th century interpretations about George Washington beliefs, which claim that he was deist. These interpretations also scoff at Washington's oft-expressed views about Providence and Christian beliefs as mere platitudes and window dressing expressed primarily to satisfy the political needs of the day. The authors refute and rebut these interpretations based on a careful study of Washington's life starting with his formative years, growing up, early experiences in the French Indian war, participation in the pre-independence colonial state-politics, acceptance of the command of the Continental army and his leadership throughout the war of Independence, his public life thereafter and presidency and ultimately his late years and death.

The authors pursue a professional study of the subject matter. They cite hagiographical writing about George Washington such as Parson Weems famous story about the young man cutting the cherry tree and discount its authenticity. They cite the views of those who doubted Washington's Christian beliefs both ancient and modern and provide adequate reasoned rebuttals supported by extant historical evidence.

Throughout his life George Washington showed himself to have been a man of very high integrity. What Washington said he also practiced. Thus the post-modernist interpretation of political expediency as a motive for Washington's expressions of his religious views, attendance for religious services and life-long participation and support of his local Anglican church are refuted and laid to rest. However Washington was also a statesman, who did not wish to impose his religious views upon others, and he diligently used a langauge accepatble to the sensibilities of the vast majority of people in his time. The authors further review the historical evidence about George Washington as a Christian both pro and con. They cite numerous testimonies of his contemporaries, such as the Reverend Alexander MacWhorter of New Jersey on December 27, 1799 that General Washington was a uniform professor of the Christian faith, and the Reverend Eliab Stone of Massachusetts who proffered proofs that Washington had lived and died a Christian. Throughout his life Washington acknowledged the interpositions of Providence and gave thanks to the LORD for his manifested grace, such as his Thanksgiving proclamation of 1789, in which he beseeched the Lord to pardon our national and other transgressions and asserted the duty of all nations in regard to God.

I highly recommend this book for use by parents to educate and inspire their children. I further recommend it for high school and college students.

I got a lot of great information from this book, but the overall theory that George Washington was a deeply religious man was inconclusive. The authors presented evidents that can surely be interpreted multiple ways. The presentation was a little too informal for my taste too. The Novaks used a great amount of primary resources, but presented it in a many of an underaged school report. I believe that is just how George Washington would have wanted it in the end though. I don't believe George Washington was an aethist and clearly he writes on regular occassion about God and the importance of freedom of religion. However, his personal feelings don't necessarily shine through because he was such a private man and took measures to protect his privacy. We will never truley know the answer to George Washington's personal views on religion and our first President is likely very satisfied at that!