Late in the 20th century there was a resurgence of interest in the founders of The United States of America. Numerous biographies were published. Each writer made an emphasis of his own. Reading several books on each life (Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts and others), I formed fresh opinions about each, relating to them, their personal lives, religious views, effectiveness, ideas, strengths and weaknesses. The focus here is on one factor mentioned earlier in these Pages: the religious orientation of George Washington. Biographies of the decades infer or assert a deistic position for Washington, which position makes God irrelevant to the world of human affairs. Several allege that Washington did not refer to Christ; that for a period he did not take Communion; that he was a slave owner; that his first biographer was fanciful about Washington’s Christian faith; that he was a Mason; and, that he was not attended by clergy at death. These narratives nearly convinced me that Washington was close to Jefferson’s deism. (Some biographers adjusted for Adams and others. One unduly diminished Lincoln.)
At this juncture, my elder daughter gave me still another recent book on Washington. (I return to the life concepts about George Washington referred to on July 4 of this series.) The book was not as well written nor bound as well as the many others I had read on the founders of the United States. The style was not as well formed; some ideas were too repetitious; documentation was seemed interminable; extensions were sometimes opinionated and redundant. Nevertheless, the book was more convincing than all the others in addressing the issue of Washington’s faith. Washington often did use the name of Christ, and Christian in communications with various titles for deity, titles common for those of Anglican background. He had many clergy friendships, men who affirmed his personal Christian faith. He was free of habits that would compromise his life; his integrity was impeccable; and, his graces biblical. He noted Scripture for life and often used phrases from it. He called on the country for fasting and prayer. He was committed to personal devotions. He introduced the concept of chaplains for the military, urging righteousness for soldiers. He deplored the common crudity. On his own, he added: So Help Me God to the oath he took for office. (The phrase caught on.) The formula remains. He introduced the idea of a national Thanksgiving to God, later picked up by Lincoln. He believed in human depravity so helped form a balanced government by the people, with a president, a congress and a court. He feared that even that government might not check a citizen’s nature for wrongdoing. There was a negative logic in it, as he perceived it – that sinners checked on sinners. The evidence of Washington’s personal faith is extensive.
Slavery, although a sin, was a part of societies from as far back as the record of history speaks to us. Usually it appeared where the stronger persons overpowered the weaker. Slavery was an accepted social disgrace, deplorable but explained in the light of culture. Gradually it died as persons gained the sense of the worth of all persons, an emerging point. Washington freed his people on his death, but Jefferson did not. The circumlocutions of Christian slave holders in avoiding scriptural references to slavery and freedom is unexplainable except by secular and hypocritical culture. Washington did propose a graduating program leading to the end of slavery. It was not accepted. He did not follow through.
Washington, with his wife, Martha, attended to his closing hours in faith, with an open Bible and prayer. The letters of Christian ministers to Washington were full of commendation of his spiritual influence. Family members affirmed his faith. We deserve better than we are receiving from some historians, and not only related to Washington. Even Jesus may be a victim of the urge to humanism. Ernest Renan, in 1863, wrote what is now taken as a classic about Jesus. Disregarding the Apostles and other ancients, he rejected Bethlehem for Nazareth as Jesus’ birthplace. We pause to be assured of truth, even from credited scholars. There is an interesting pattern in the general society of western nations. It is presumed poor taste for a person to say much in the public forum about personal faith, and its meaning to a public candidate, or group. Later, it is common to downplay any spiritual position in the context that the person did not say much about the matter, so it must not have been present or meaningful. If Lincoln were alive today, and were to speak as he did, he would likely be labeled too religious by a multi-cultured society. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020