Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - GW and Deism

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).