History has always been one of my favorite subjects. It was my minor field in my formal education, and the history representative on the dissertation committee said that if I chose, the dissertation would qualify in the History Department if the declared major were bypassed. Throughout history the writers of it have shifted in emphases focusing on variant matters such as the military, economics, sometimes elections, education and society. At this writing there is prediction that religion has become an interest of historians in that the contention between Islam and the west (identified as Christian by some Islamists) has led to lengthy warfare, violence, and terrorism. The story carries over to various practices, clothing patterns, and laws. It is from history that we find the modifications and substitutes of Christianity, and other religions.
One wonders to what degree some eminent historians may be trusted. For example, (as reviewed several times in these Pages) the reporting of the faith of George Washington is stretched from deism to evangelical Christianity, which is quite a stretch. The most common assertion in the period following World War II relates him to a position close to Jefferson’s (also accented in these Pages). Jefferson was openly a deist, likely because he knew that God could not be proved or disproved intellectually, within natural evidence. By positing a God, and permitting God to go off to some other universe, virtually forgetting anything about the earth, Jefferson could avoid wrangling over whether there was a God or not. Even so, he read daily from the words of Jesus as he clipped them into a testament for himself. Reading history and biography of Washington, I had nearly accepted the concept that Washington was rather neutral about a personal God. Reviewing Ron Chernow’s, Washington: A Life, the reviewer, Andrew Roberts in The Wall Street Journal stated from his reading in 2010, that: . . . he [Washington] never affirmed the divinity of Jesus Christ but actively supported his local Anglican Churches; . . . Other writers were even less likely than Chernow to relate Washington to a Christian belief or entity requiring personal commitment to Christ. What was the case? What about documentation to the contrary? Washington was a vestryman in his church, which required a statement of faith that would honor a Christian’s identity. He paid pew fees for seating next to the Communion table. He had correspondence with about forty ministers, nearly all of whom, in available writings, attested to his faith. He not only went to hear sermons, from ministers we would now call evangelical, but he had bound sermons, at his own expense, in his library. He was known to read them aloud to his family, and often read the Bible, both silently and aloud. He encouraged Christian missions to the Indians to the west. He carried through in the support of the Anglican Church, principally in Virginia, but that Church was guided by firm statements of faith in Christ to which Washington had to give assent to be a member and participate in its ministry. Anglican emphasis in Washington’s day was firm about Christ’s meaning. He did refer specifically to Christ in personal faith.
Washington’s views were strongly supported from The Book of Common Prayer. (Current writers often interpret a movement in history from its modern context. In the time of Washington, the Anglican Church was quite firm about members believing in the deity of Jesus Christ and his personal relationship with believers, as part of membership in the Church.) Washington sometimes worshipped with other groups, including the Presbyterians who were known at the time for their strong strict biblical, evangelistic and missionary effort. This record and much more is told by Peter A. Lillback in his book, George Washington’s Sacred Fire. It includes 200 pages of documentation much of which supports the Christian faith of Washington. It is likely that careful historians will be true to scholarship correcting distortions and dilutions that emerged in passing decades. The errors one finds in recorded history are sometimes honest ones, in that the researcher doesn’t have the full story at the time of recording. But some errors are made because of the predilections of the writer/author. This human tendency has sometimes fallen on Christian communicators. We wonder if writers, like the general public, make up their minds in convenient directions, and assume that contrary evidence to their beliefs is insignificant, or insufficient, perhaps made up. The reader needs care to know. We study so to be approved to truth. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020