|
| |
|
Washington Sacred Fire: Deist, Mason, Trinitarian? reviews from Amazon:
Format: Paperback
Lillback's thesis is pretty simple: "We believe that when all the evidence is considered, it is clear that George Washington was a Christian and not a Deist," and not just a Christian, but "an orthodox, Trinity-affirming believer in Jesus Christ, who also affirmed the historical Christian Gospel of a Savior who died for sinners and was raised to life" (26-27).
Ultimately, however, the conclusion rests on faulty premises and highlights the flaws of agenda-driven history.
The support Lillback offers for his conclusions can basically be boiled down to the following:
1. Washington mentioned "God," "Providence," "Maker," repeatedly, and mentioned Jesus Christ by name (once).
2. He had a vast knowledge of the Bible and frequently quoted it.
3. He grew up in an Christian culture and was raised in an Anglican home.
4. He used the Book of Common Prayer, served in the Anglican Church, publicly encouraged the work of clergy, offered public prayers, appointed chaplains, and extolled his men to be "Christian soldiers."
5. He was a good guy, and therefore must have been a Christian.
But does evidence really prove that Washington was an orthodox Christian?
First, Lillback starts off with a false dichotomy. He asks in his preface: "Was (Washington) a Christian or a Deist?" (26). Lillback does not allow for the possibility that he was actually probably something in between.
Lillback then repeatedly refutes the point that "there does not appear even a single reference to Jesus Christ" in Washington's writing by saying, no, no, there's ONE! There is only one quotation from Washington that even mentions Jesus, and this was in an address to Delaware Indians in 1779. Lillback cites this quote as evidence on FIFTEEN separate occasions (on pages 18, 26, 33, 51, 52, 53, 60, 72, 513, 559, 606, 616, 621, 713, 717), many times introducing it as if it was an entirely new quotation. Contrary to Lillback's reasoning, the fact that we only have one recorded instance of Washington even mentioning Christ is evidence _against_ him being a Christian.
Next, just because Washington used ideas from the Bible, does not mean he was an orthodox Christian. The Bible was a source of authority and read by most, and therefore could be used to back up a point. Even Thomas Paine, a declared and vehement atheist/deist, used Scripture as support in Common Sense.
Indeed, most of the `proof' Lillback offers was done in the public sphere. Lillback cites public statements that call on the people to follow the virtues of Christianity, and is incredulous that anyone could deny Washington's Christianity in the face of such statements. He ignores the Enlightenment view of the social utility of religion (the idea that religion is necessary to keep society from devolving into chaos is not anti-Enlightenment). Even vaunted deists like Voltaire and Montesquieu believed religion was necessary to keep the "common people" in line. Thus, Washington's public support of Christianity cannot be used to prove his private belief in it. One effect of the Enlightenment on Christianity was to divorce morality from Christianity. One could be moral without being a Christian. Washington could therefore extol the virtues of Christianity without actually believing in Christ.
However, even with all the flaws, Lillback successfully proves Washington was not a deist, at least by the modern, watchmaker definition of deism. However, he fails to prove that he was an orthodox, Trinitarian Christian. Washington was most likely something in between.
The importance of the entire purpose of the book should also be questioned. Is it really that important whether Washington was an orthodox Christian or not? If he was a Unitarian, or even a deist, does the entire foundation of the idea of a Christian America crumble? The answer is no. It is undeniable that Americans as a whole were Christians, and that even most of the founders were. Washington may not have been, but that does not change the fact that America was a nation founded by Christians, on Christian principles.
----
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
This is a massive book, more than a thousand pages
of seemingly endless rhetoric, speculating over and
over about things that simply cannot be clearly proven.
The author, at times, puts words in Washington's mouth,
making his vague declarations about God into "Christian"
doctrine. He refers to books that Washington would
have been required to read as a child, his implication
being that young Washington would have probably
believed the things contained in these books -- for
which there is no evidence. His suggestions are often
quite drawn out and illogical.
A key point is that George Washington was a Freemason,
and his writings reflect Masonic beliefs. Lillback
seems to know very little about the doctrines of
Freemasonry, which allow the Mason to profess any of
a variety of religions. The Masonic belief is that all
"gods" are one and the same -- which is at the very
heart of the doctrine of "religious freedom" that
Washington and the other revolutionaries fought for.
It is a Masonic doctrine, and a Jesuit doctrine; but
not a Biblical one.
In his letters, Washington had no problem referring
to the "Great Architect of the Universe" -- the god of
Freemasonry; but when he was compelled by the clergy
of Philadelphia to make a public confession of Jesus
Christ, he refused to do so (see The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson, Vol. I, page 284). Jefferson goes on to
say that, (according to Governeur Morris) George Washington
had no belief in the system of Christianity.
Washington's Masonic views are further expressed in
a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, which is actually
documented in this book (see pg. 453); but because the
author does not understand Masonic beliefs, the quote
gets by him. Washington speaks about Christianity as
an outsider, implying that he merely "indulges" Christians.
This is especially significant because he is writing
to his fellow Mason, LaFayette.
Yes, Washington spoke of and to some extent practiced
the "Christian Religion," by going to church and so
forth. But any true believer can tell you that Christianity
is not a religion, it is a relationship with Jesus Christ.
That personal relationship with Christ, which is the
true salvation (John 17:3) is not shown to be true
of Washington.
What the author either avoids or brushes over is
that the clergy of Philadelphia doubted Washington's
faith, as did the three pastors who knew George Washington
best (Bishop William White, the Rev. James Abercrombie,
and Dr. Ashbel Green). All either had serious doubts
about Washington's faith, or they believed he was a
Deist (as Abercrombie says -- the author suggests Abercrombie
"retracted" this statement, which he did not), or that
he was an unbeliever (Dr. Green).
The following account is given by Dr. Ashbel Green, who
was the Congressional Chaplain for the eight years that
Washington served as President in Philadelphia. Dr. Green
knew the President personally, had lunch with him
regularly, and spoke often with him. Dr. Green said
that:
"... from his long and intimate acquaintance with
Washington he knew it to be the case that while he
respectfully conformed to the religious customs of
society by generally going to church on Sundays, he had
no belief at all in the divine origin of the Bible,
or the Jewish-Christian religion." (Six Historic
Americans, by John E. Remsburg, citing an article
from The Chicago Tribune, by B.F. Underwood)
Certainly, George Washington had faith in a higher
power -- but to be a Christian, one must believe that
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life; and that no
man comes to God the Father but by Him (John 14:6).
I have found nothing presented in this book that proves
G.W. believed that. Meanwhile, there is significant
historic evidence to suggest he did not believe the
Gospel, but merely obeyed the concept of "Christian
character" which had to do with morality and personal
conduct.
---
sacred fire, scarred text
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
There are many who have asserted (academically), and many who have accepted the premise (popularly) that George Washington, along with the rest of the Founders, were Deists. Although this is true, and easily verifiable, for some of them (e.g., Thomas Jefferson), such a sweeping historical statement refuses to hold water. And that is where Lillback's volume comes into the discussion.
At first blush it is an impressive book: 725 pages of text, 228 pages of appendices, and 198 pages of footnotes (the print of which strains the naked eye). The weight of this volume has no doubt already sent many curious readers heading the other direction. But this is part of the problem one will encounter when publishing within one's own organization. Lillback is the the president of Providence Forum, and thus probably did not receive an honest and challenging editorial process for his own work (Providence Forum Press should be concerned with other volumes being produced, which would have helped this book become more solid and would have helped clear the air of editorial bias and charges of self-publishing).
Indeed, the writing style of this book is often redundant and repetitive. Often the primary source material is presented two or three times as though it were unique. Those who would wish to challenge the book's credibility could easily point to this as an attempt to make the source material appear more abundant than it actually is. Further, such writing style is frustrating to the reader who quickly begins to gloss over and lose portions of the argument. Certainly, a more strenuous editorial process would have caught and challenged this disappointing aspect of the book.
In terms of content, the book does well at providing a good amount of source material which allows Washington to speak for himself when he can. The difficulty here is that Washington doesn't always speak for himself, and it becomes the role of historical scholarship to fill in the gaps with speculation - hopefully informed and responsible speculation. Lillback is no exception to this, although he perhaps could have demonstrated more scholarly humility in this fact. For as much as he charges other Washington scholars (most notably Boller and Flexner) for their theorization, he does not always accomplish a greater method.
My point in challenging Lillback is this: The argument he presents should have (and could have) been presented better, seeking a more sound case for the faith of George Washington. There are many points at which I think Lillback gets it right, and a few places where his assertions wear thin and are not supported by the evidence in front of us. Although I am a biblical scholar, I do know how to evaluate an argument, consider evidence and understand the historical method. Hence, I believe that my comments are justified here - there is a better case to be made.
Lillback succeeds in making the case for George Washington to be separated from the Deists. Simply, this can be done by setting him next to Hume and Jefferson and watching the worldviews quickly part ways. Many look to the context of the Age of Reason and dismiss the impact which it held on the entire world, even the church. I learned a long time ago that every age has its impact on the faith of those who live through it, and the Founders are more apt to look like Deists from our perspective than from their own. We are examining Christianity in conversation with the Age of Reason, a world that we do not experience.
The words and deeds that survive George Washington (along with the testimonies of those who knew him well) give us a strong probability that he was a Christian in his belief, though a few disappointing unanswered questions linger. Perhaps the strongest conclusion which Lillback makes is the founding of the United States as a whole, with a figure like George Washington leading the way: A nation with these values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, defined in the manner which the Founders have demonstrated in their own work could not have come about by people who believed that God was not present in the daily affairs of the world.
George Washington's words captured this often throughout his life as he demonstrated a strong faith in Divine Providence for the forging of this new nation. Overall, I recommend this book - even with its shortcomings and disappointments - to those who would be interested in understanding Washington's faith from the inside, as we see his own words exhibit a deeply rooted and embedded faith.
---
Achieves Its Purpose, Repeatedly
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Lillback achieves his purpose. He shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Washington was a believing, practicing orthodox Christian. Yes, Boller and Steiner are wrong, wrong, wrong. The bodies of both men should bear the marks of a kitchen sink having hit them. So, 4 stars for that.
The volume does have some weaknesses, which keeps me from suggesting 5 stars. Here are some...
1. Redundancy and repetition; repetition and redundancy.
2. Lillback is so singularly focused, that he simply ignores or glosses over outliers, such as Washington's reference to Elysium (rather than Heaven), or his reference to Judaism as a "denomination." The former he cites as a "classic" (vs. "pagan") reference; the latter doesn't seem to bother this seminary president. Yes, Lillback is careful not to try to paint Washington as a modern-day evangelical Christian, but he doesn't even seem curious about some of the references that smack of Masonic or Unitarian thinking.
3. Did I mention redundancy and repetition?
4. To his credit, Lillback does not totally ignore Washington's Masonic ties, and like David Barton, seeks to show that American Masons were quite Christian back then, but this important part of Washington's life and America's spiritual history certainly deserves more than 9 pages. Lillback futher provokes by saying what many call the "Eye of Horus," is actually the "Eye of Omnipotence/Providence" (part of the U.S. Great Seal), with no Masonic connection (actually the website given says that Masons adopted it in 1797, after the Great Seal was adopted. Is it Horus or God? Why would an evangelical seminary president's publishing group even mess with this? Puzzling. Of even greater concern is the seeming embrace of Noahide ethics by Washington/Freemasonry. That doesn't get serious treatment in this book. Templars/Masons seemed to abhor popes and kings. Did that fuel Washington's "sacred fire," or not? Don't know. Lillback seems incurious about such things.
5. Lillback is not immune to anachronisms of his own. For instance, he cites Benjamin Hart in asserting that at the beginning of the American Revolution, 99.8% of Americans were professing Christians, and yet Lillback speaks of Washington's "Judeo-Christian" worldview, a term that some have asserted was invented in the late 19th century. Though Washington never used the term, would it have had meaning to him? If so, why? Does the term even make sense to a Trinitarian Christian? Is it a term that is more Masonic (Blue Lodge, i.e., first 3 degrees) than New Testament? Lillback doesn't address this--he just throws around the term here and there.
All this makes one wonder if Lillback's purpose is Christian theology (his day job) or Americanist (see David Gelernter, Americanism:The Fourth Great Western Religion). His other books and all 1179 pages of this one seem to suggest the latter.
So, was Washington an orthodox Christian, pure and simple, or did he help set in motion a trajectory that would further the soft unitarian reaction to both Templar-perceived tyranny (popes and kings) and Cromwellian Puritanism that has now apparently blossomed into today's Americanist crippling of New Testament Christianity?
It will take others to answer this important question, since so many of today's neo-Puritan evangelicals are still fighting the historical battles that progressives, by definition, see as irrelevant, having evolved beyond all that.
---
Glorified Self Published Book
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
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 reference 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 invariably 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.
---
IMO Mr Washington was a pure Deist
Format: Paperback
It seems the main reason Dr. Peter Lillback calls George Washington a Christian,and not a Deist is because he believed in Divine Providence,or the belief that God is active in peoples lives. When we think of Divine Providence we think of the word Theism, and all the Abrahamic faiths that claim God personally spoke to key individuals called Prophets in the form of personal revelations.
Understandably as words do change from their original meaning, Mr.Lillback confuses the word Deist with the word Atheist (non-Theist) which really is the opposite of Theist.
In todays world the word Atheist for the most part implies that there is no God. The word Atheist has changed from its original meaning,but we know that whenever you add an "a" in front of a word it means the opposite,so its the Atheist that believes in a inactive God,and not a Deist.
The word Deist is derived from the word Deism that is derived from the word Deity which is simply the Latin word for God. A Deist is just someone who believes that God is,and the word Deism just implies a path of understanding.
George Washington IMO was a Deist who was a Theist who followed the path called Deism. He believed in God,he thought that God was active in his life,and he knew to look towards the Creation (the product that comes from God) to gain true insight.
Since Mr. Lillback uses Thomas Paine for an example of a Deist we should at least take Thomas Paine's definition on who,or what a Deist is,and what a true Deist believe.
"Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed.
It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation"
Thomas Paine thought that anyone who believes in God was a Deist (including all Christians) in the first article of his creed, which is the belief in a God.
Mr. Lillback states in his book that Thomas Paine was a "hard Deist". "Hard Deist", apparently a new title that Mr. Lillback says he made up to describe a Deist that doesn't believe in Divine Providence,or again the belief in the God that went away,and no longer intervenes in mans affairs. Again a "Hard Deist" if we must use the phrase describes what an Atheist would think,and not what a pure Deist would think.
Dr. Peter Lillback either never read Thomas Paines works,or he's out right lying about Thomas Paines character in matters of God. All self professed Deists in our founding fathers day believed in Divine Providence even Thomas Paine. So "Hard Deist",or even Atheist would not apply to Mr. Paine because Thomas Paine was a Deist (he believed in God) who was a Theist (he believed that God was active in his life) who followed the path called Deism.
In Mr. Lillbacks book he quotes Thomas Paine several times,but he takes his words out of context to make his point clear about who,or what a Deist is,and what a true,or pure Deist really believes about our Maker.
Before I quote some key phrases from Thomas Paine that clearly prove that he, like George Washington believed in "Divine Providence" I ask the reader to examine
"A Discourse At The Society Of Theophilanthropists"
This was a Theistic church that Thomas Paine was a key founder. Proving that Mr. Paine believed in an active God right up till the end of his life.
Thomas Paine called God "the Almighty lecturer". God had something to say to Thomas Paine,and luckily for us he wrote most of it down in all his Theological writings.
"The Almighty Lecturer, by displaying the principles of science in the
structure of the universe, has invited man to study and imitation. It is as if He said to the
inhabitants of this globe, that we call ours, 'I have made an earth for man to dwell upon,
and I have rendered the starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He
can now provide for his own comfort, and learn from my munificence to all, to be kind to
each other.' "
"The world has been amused with the term revealed religion, and the generality of priests apply this term to the books called the Old and New Testament. The Mahometans apply the same term to the Koran. There is no man that believes in revealed religion stronger than I do; but it is not the reveries of the Old and New Testament, nor the Koran, that I dignify with that sacred title. That which is revelation to me, exists in something which no human mind can invent, no human hand can counterfeit or alter.
The Word of God is the Creation we behold; and this Word of God revealeth to man all that is necessary for man to know of his Creator."
Mr. Lillback is using his own definition of what a Deist is to prove that George Washington wasn't a Deist,and his definition is wrong. Instead of making up your own definition of these words (Deist,or Deism) to prove your point why not get the correct definition from those who actually claim to be true,or pure Deists? Most (not all) of todays self professed Deists of today like days of old will tell you that they believe in a active God.
Did George Washington believe that our Creator overshadowed a young virgin girl who was engaged to be married to save us from the sins of the world,and all the mythologies,allegories,tales,and legends that would also need to be believed as fact to prove this absurdity?
George Washington was enlightened enough to know mythologies from reality. Lets not taint this great mans legacy by saying he believed the Bible as an absolute literal truth just because you do Mr. Lillback.
This book IMO in no way proves George Washington was a "true" Christian. Like they did with the man called Jesus years after his death making him into something he was not Dr. Peter Lillback does this with our great American hero George Washington. Turning,or perverting true 'history" into his story,and twisting reality in the process. People who look for truth will know the difference.
Note for Mr.Lillback:
We're all Deists who believe that God is. Where we differ is our path of understanding. If you want to learn all about the faiths of our ancestors then the Bible,Koran,and the like are a great place to gain insight, however if you want to learn about God then you must look towards the Creation,or all the products that come from God. I think George Washington knew this truth as he was surrounded by other enlightened "pure" Deists.
This book will look great next to the other fat book in the evangelical library. Remember just because a book is thick,and fat doesn't make it fact.
---
Truly the Faith of our Fathers
Format: Paperback
Dr Lillback gives us a masterful display of Christian historiography.
Thesis: George Washington was neither a Deist nor a modern Fundamentalist Evangelical. Rather, he was an orthodox Latitudinarian within the Anglican church. This means that while he did not have the outward, expressive, emotional zeal of 20th century counterparts, he did have a real faith in a Personal Triune God, and sucha faith did inform his public policies and inspire commitments.
Critics object that Washington never referred to Jesus; refused to partake of the Lord's Supper, and among other things, used Deistic language. Lillback skillfully rebuts all claims:
(1) Washington did refer to Jesus, and those who say otherwise just ignore several letters where he recommends "the author of our Faith" (a reference to Christ in the book of Hebrews), and the religion of Jesus to the Indians. Also, Washington didn't like to speak of himself at all. It is not the case that he refused to speak of his Faith. Rather, he refused to speak of Washington.
(2) It is true at times that Washington refused to take communion, but a number of points need to be made: a) this was not like the modern, high church Episcopalism. Due to the lack of ministers, and the frontier nature of the church, congregations would celebrate communion only a few times a year. Given that other evidence shows Washington took communion, this objection is actually a strong argument for Washington's faith: it is only a few times that Washington actually missed communion!
(3) Did Washington use Deistic language? I think we can answer no on two counts. Dr Lillback shows that terms that Deists use were actually Christian terms that were subsequently stripped of their orthodox meaning. Therefore (2) if he used Deistic language, his lifestyle and other references indicate that he did not mean by it the same thing Deists meant by it.
Conclusion:
Over 200 pages of valuable endnotes. Reading Washington's letters is quite devotional and reading of his struggles is inspiring. Was Washington a practicing Christian? I leave on the following count: Given the nightmare and stress of Valley Forge, wouldn't it make sense if Washington indeed got down on his knees and prayed? In fact, that is the only explanation that explains the historical data.
EDIT: Several years later I feel i have to qualify my initial praise. I'm still judging the book in terms of Lillback's aims and goals: if you are wanting to see what Washington said concerning religion, and what he could and could not have meant by them, Lillback gives you close to 1,000 pages. While Lillback is correct to point out Washington was not a Deist, he does not rescue Washington from the Masonic charge--and given the diabolical nature of masonry from masonry's own testimony (see below). While some of the openly satanic writings appear after Washington, and one shouldn't commit the anachronistic fallacy, one is safe to presume continuity between 18th century freemasonry and Hall.
Further EDIT: I had quoted in my review Masonic authority Manley Hall where he states Masons worship Lucifer. People got angry. Either Masonic sources speak authoritatively and represent Masonry, or they don't. If the latter, then why do they bother writing? Also, and this point is routinely ignored by critics/defenders of Washington/defenders of Lucifer, is that I realize Washington probably didn't believe the same type of devil-worship that Hall and Pike believe. I am simply pointing out his legacy is in brotherly communion with such people.
Now, Lillback's book is 1200 pages long. Perhaps there is a section where Lillback clears Washington from the masonic charge. I can't remember it, though.
Still, as a research and resource guide, it is worth getting.
---
None of Lillback's arguments hold any water
Format: Paperback
Lillback really has to stretch the evidence and indulge in a lot speculation to make Washington an orthodox, trinitarian Christian. Here is the essence of his argument: Anglicans are orthodox Christians; Washington was an Anglican; therefore, Washington was an orthodox Christian.
Thomas Jefferson was also a vestryman in the Anglican church and attended church regularly throughout his life, but Lillback would never draw the conclusion that Jefferson was an orthodox Christian. This fact leads us to believe that Lillback’s major premise is obviously false. Washington was a nominal Episcopalian who attended church irregularly, ceasing after his retirement.
Washington’s diaries show that he frequently dishonored the Sabbath. We learn from one entry that he would have collected his rents on Sundays, but he declined because the people living on his land were “apparently very religious.” This is the real “honest George,” making no pretenses about being pious.
The weakest arguments in the book are the ones devoted to proving that Washington believed in the deity of Christ and the Trinity. In all of his voluminous writing only once does he speak of Jesus and this single incident, a speech to the Delaware Indians, most likely written by an aide more orthodox than he. On the manuscript of another presidential speech to Indian leaders, we can clearly see the word “God” crossed out and the phrase “Great Spirit” written in Washington’s own hand. Church historian Forrest Church states that on the question of his belief in Christ Washington was “deafeningly silent.”
With so little evidence to work with, Lillback is forced to make some very indirect and dubious inferences. For example, he thinks that Jesus is the referent in phrases such as “divine author of our blessed religion,” when in fact it most likely means God himself or Providence, which is more characteristic of Washington.
The only argument that Lillbeck can make that Washington believed in a triune deity is that as an Anglican he would have affirmed church creeds, which contain that doctrine, and he would have read from the trinitarian Common Book of Prayer. Jefferson attended church more often than Washington did, and he, too, would have joined the congregation in reciting the trinitarian creeds. Scholars at Mt. Vernon state: “Washington’s diaries show no church attendance by anyone in the family after they returned to Mount Vernon at the end of his presidency.” In stark contrast to Washington, Jefferson, after his retirement, rode all the way to Charlottesville to church.
In a recent biography of Washington Joseph J. Ellis describes the scene at Washington’s death: “There were no ministers in the room, no prayers uttered, no Christian rituals offering the solace of everlasting life.”
Dr. Benjamin Rush reported to Thomas Jefferson that upon leaving office Washington met with a group of clergy who submitted a number of questions for Washington to answer. Since he had never made any public affirmation of Christianity, one of their questions was whether or not he was a Christian. Washington very kindly answered all of the questions except that crucial one. As historian Paul Boller concludes: “If Washington was a Christian, he was surely a Protestant of the most liberal persuasion.”
Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31. Read the full version at [...]
|
Creation date: Mar 22, 2015 3:48pm Last modified date: Mar 22, 2015 4:13pm Last visit date: May 3, 2024 1:05am
|
