My major secular interest in college and university was in the oral/written use of language, its past and present – and what it might mean for the future of mankind. I have never regretted my choice. My minor along the way was history, and I have never regretted that choice. Both were important in my theological studies. I have been disappointed in what appears to be the loss of interest on the part of many scholars in both fields. Gradually, during my lifetime, the omissions in instruction have, as I view it, been costly to the development of the American Experience, and the recognition of spiritual principles, especially for evangelism and spiritual nurture aided by language interests. In recent months to this writing, it has been reported that historians have suddenly become interested in religion’s force in history. Perhaps I may live long enough to say that related matters have been addressed and more objective conclusions have been published to the mainstream of society than has been the case for decades. The following is illustrative of the large meaning that begs proper accent and response.
I recently read another book about Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States. He is ranked as either the first or second most admired president in history. He and George Washington are made something of rivals for first position. Whether first or second is not important – their ranking is high indeed. I read this last book shortly after reading still another book on Washington. The two men have a strong similarity in the point of the emphasis here. Both were not only believers in God, but seeking believers. Both felt that invoking the name of God for life, in all its vagaries, was not only appropriate, but necessary. Both used a long list of names that refer to deity, as the names fitting devout culture. Several names made it clear that they were working within the context of the Christian, biblical tradition. They also functioned in the understanding that they were representing all the people so found skill to defend the rights and freedom of all their constituents as a part of their own belief in God who permitted, in his patient omniscience, the ranges of mankind. Both felt trepidation about the church and persons – not about God.
The communications, verbal and written, of the two men provide clear evidence of the change in the American psyche about what little may be said publically that favors God in daily life. The God credited with giving mankind freedom must now be muted in his words and recognition. The reason given for this muting is that the doubter, the atheist, the secularist must not be offended. So to protect the rights, the freedom, of the secularist, the person of faith is expected to fall silent in public about the presence of God in human experience. Source is abandoned. Individualism prevails. God is made nice, but not necessary.
In the meantime, historians, political pundits, ordinary citizens, believe that Lincoln and Washington were presidents/leaders who gave birth to the country or preserved it as born in unity and freedom. How did they do it? To read Washington’s writings, public statements, private letters, one is struck about how often a reference to God appears. For Washington in his habits there must be a Bible, a background that admits deity to all life, a family with whom spiritual experience is shared, and by which Washington died. To read Lincoln, who regularly referred to the Almighty, using Scripture in his contexts, to the number of clergy with whom he maintained regular exchanges, as did Washington, is to know that spiritual matters were vital. In Lincoln we have the contexts of warfare, grief, humility, sadness, conflict, marriage, doubt, leadership, lack of malice, prayer and other references that elucidate faith. If a president were to use spiritual concepts today, as Washington and Lincoln did in their day, we would have a flood of negative criticism, and little declaration of common grace from persons of faith. But then, those men were great, although not always politically correct. Education fails Americans to the degree it fails in education for citizenship. In common grace that education includes what some might call limited Christian education, and would be included in any other context that opens truth to the seeker. Teachers do well to give some thought to why persons gain or lose in forming idealism. If a modern president were to follow the train of our two acknowledged greatest presidents there would be a national uproar that religion had penetrated the doors of government and violated the acclaimed freedom of the people. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020