Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - GW and Deism

In response to GW and Deism posted by pink101:

I've read tons on this subject, Pink. I'm familiar with all the arguments that Mr. La Freniere puts forward.

Until and unless you're willing to read Mr. Lillback's exhaustive spiritual biography of George Washington, I don't think you or anyone can assert GW as being a Deist with any credibility. I normally wouldn't say that about a book, but Lillback's George Washington's Sacred Fire is an exceptional work of scholarship. It's as heavily footnoted as I've seen in any historical text. You have to see it and read it to understand and appreciate it.

As a few examples, Lillback proves that Washington DID take Communion (contrary to numerous assertions that he didn't).

What's more, Lillback documents how George Washington (for his own personal pleasure) made it a habit to collect sermons (which, in that day, were quite often written and published). Lillback looked carefully at Washington's letters back and forth with clergymen - and the endorsements that Washington gave to many of the sermons. It's clear that GW preferred sermons that were - shall we say - orthodox and even quasi-evangelical in content.

Having said all that, I want to agree with you and Migisi that Washington would NOT be comfortable wearing his faith on his sleeve like many politicians do today. I don't see GW parading his faith in public like some in the so-called "Christian Right" do - and I say that as one who doesn't really have a problem personally with politicians doing that. I make that concession, though, to prove to both of you that I'm not refashioning GW to be someone he was not.

GW would never have formed or joined an organization like the Christian Coalition. And he wouldn't talk as openly about his faith as George W. Bush or even Barack Obama are inclined to do. Again, I don't have a problem with Bush or Obama talking about their faith openly, but I imagine GW would.

Of course, I also think GW would have a problem with the erasing of religion from the public square that secularists (like the two of you) seem to want. I think he would've drawn the line (had he the power to do so) long before now on that.

Bottom line...I see him as a moderate in the church and state issues. And I see him (in his private life) as a devout, sincere Episcopalian (in the classic 18th century sense).

» pink101 - GW and Deism

In response to GW and Deism posted by BrianTubbs:

.
So, how do you account for the fact that he was a Master Mason? A Worshipful Master in fact.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Fraternity

In response to GW and Deism posted by pink101:

I know several Christians who are Masons.

Be that as it may...Washington joined the Masons shortly after the Masons came to the United States. The organization itself was fairly young, when he joined. And his own writings explain his reasons for joining and his attitude toward the organization. He was loyal to the Masons and proud of his affiliation, but saw them more as a fraternity and service organization.

Don't emphasize his Masonic ties and downplay his Episcopalian faith, Pink. As an Anglican and later Episcopalian, George Washington repeatedly affirmed his belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

Now, you can argue - as Migisi implied (based on what others have argued) - that Washington went through the motions simply to achieve standing in colonial and Anglican Virginia. But this incentive was not there after the Revolutionary War, and it would've indicated GW was...well...a hypocrite and a liar.

» pink101 - Fraternity

In response to Fraternity posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Heh heh heh
.
I suppose if I were to explain what it's like to be a Baptist preacher in some east central Ohio town, you might have a chuckle or two at my lack of knowledge when it comes to being real.
.
Masonic lodges during the revolutionary period in the American Colonies were far more than fraternal organizations. They were--truly--underground operations in which members swore an oath of secrecy on the threat of terrible consequences. It was necessary in order to move about where, sometimes, it wasn't known if your best friend would be loyal to the Brits or not. A case in point of no little Masonic importance was Aaron Burr. Masonic ritual includes lectures regarding this period of American History. Those lectures are handed down--word for word--generation after generation. Sometimes the rituals are performed in full costumery and regalia and can be excitingly colorful.
.
To be Episcopalian in the American Colonies was closely associated with being a Mason. I don't have all the facts at my finger tips; but, maybe you get my point anyway.
.
By the way, the LaFrenier paper itemizes a certain situation in which Washington supposedly left church before Communion was given. Do you know the auhtor's source for making such a statement about G.W.? Or does it just seem to be off the top of his head to you?
.
Can you address that point?
.
Is it mere legend like the Cherry Tree incident?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Washington and Communion

In response to Fraternity posted by pink101:

We're way off topic here, but oh well, what else is new?

As to Washington, it's agreed that he frequently (most of the time, in fact) skipped Communion from the Revolutionary War period onward - including during his presidency. I'm not disputing that. What Lillback points out is that it's an incorrect exaggeration to say that he "NEVER" took Communion after the Revolution - which is what several biographers have asserted.

But on Washington's skipping of Communion, there are several possible explanations - only ONE of which involves a questioning of his faith. The most likely explanation for GW's skipping Communion during the Revolution is that he was uncomfortable taking Communion from the official Church of England. During the Revolutionary period, the Anglicans in the U.S. separated and became Episcopalians, of course, and it appears he did - occasionally - take Communion after that.

Another possibility (also a very compelling one) is that GW became LESS committed to strict Anglican/Episcopalian denominational lines after the split with England. From the Revolutionary period onward, Washington entertained friendships with and attended services under clergy from other denominations. (There's even a rumor - unsubstantiated, of course - that he became a Baptist during the war).

Last, Washington may have avoided Communion because of sin in his life. Paul talks about examining oneself to see if you are worthy to partake of the Lord's Table. Perhaps GW felt guilty over some sin (infatuation with Sally Fairfax? slavery? who knows?). There IS some indication that GW, during the Revolutionary period, really began to wrestle with slavery.

I don't know why GW's custom of taking Communion became much less frequent during the Revolutionary period (and continued to be infrequent thereafter). But to jump from that historical fact to concluding he was a "Deist" is too far of a leap. The evidence doesn't support that.

» pink101 - Washington and Communion

In response to Washington and Communion posted by BrianTubbs:
.
So, what about the source material?
.
Where is it?
.
If you don't have the source, it looks like it's all conjecture and wishful thinking.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Washington and Communion

In response to Washington and Communion posted by pink101:

In Lillback's book George Washington's Sacred Fire, pp. 959-1156 are ALL end notes - and in very fine print. If you want source material to prove that George Washington was a Christian, then get a copy of the book.

» Brian Tubbs - Let me bring this back...

I'm going to start another thread on GW, the Founders, Deism, Christianity -- and try to bring this back to God and evil.

» pink101 - Spirituality & Morality

.
http://revolutioninjesusland.com/

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - The Predicament

.
The minute the people of a nation allow their ideologies to direct their choices in their international relationships, trouble is out of its box.
.
When wars are fought on the basis of "my God versus your god", there is no end to the conflict. It will ignore borders and nations will be driven by the ideology most representative of the majority and against any ideology with which they cannot find a common basis. So, such a war will no longer be confined to nation against nation; but, it will be opposed to enemies based on ideological differences without regard to their geographical location-inside or outside the nations involved. According to fanatics within any branch of any religious belief, as long as anyone is left that prays to a different god than theirs, their presence must be erased from the face of the earth-their god demands it.
.
Now you can see the predicament in which religionism has put our country.
/

-- posted by pink101