Religion From Politics

Wasn't Benjamin Franklin a Deist?

 

I don't know. If Washington was not a regular at church I don't see how that makes him a deist or agnostic. I am sure we both know people who don't, for whatever reason, attend church on a regular basis. That does not make them a deist or agnostic. While it "may" indicate a unsaved condition, it may not be that at all. Salvation is not conditional upon church attendance. Washington often spoke of Providence acting on America's behalf (etc) therefore I don't think he was a deist or agnostic. He clearly believed in God, and I would go so far as to say he believed in the Christian God.

"May the same Wonder-working Deity, who long since delievered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors, and planted them in the Promised Land; whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous, in establishing these United States as an independent nation, still continue to water them with the dews of heaven, participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah" -George Washington, Letter to Hebrew Congregation of Savannah.

Now, was Washington a born again Christian? We can't answer that question. However I think, based on several things he wrote, we can say he was not a deist or a agnostic.

 

==I think so. Jumping tracks a bit here to Thomas Jefferson, who I will study in some detail this fall, I like to refer to him as an early member of the liberal Jesus Seminar.

 

From a lawsuit that included the bogus Prayer Journal

Exhibit G (page 32): George Washington's Prayer Journal
This Exhibit shows extracts from a supposed journal that George Washington kept - starting on a Sunday morning and ending on a Thursday morning. As it turns out this is another bogus document - and the school district should be coming down hard on Williams for using this as a study reference.

Alert reader Steve brought to my attention a remarkable analysis by Franklin Steiner, titled "The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents". One of the revealing things that Steiner talks about here is the so-called "Prayer Journal" (bold text is my emphasis).

Washington must have been "powerful in prayer" if we are to believe two other stories told of his attempts to reach the "throne of grace." Some 30 years ago it was proclaimed that in his youth he composed a prayer book for his own use, containing a prayer for five days, beginning with Sunday and ending with Thursday. The manuscript of this prayer book was said to have been found among the contents of an old trunk. It was printed and facsimiles published. Clergymen read it from the altar, one of them saying it contained so much "spirituality" that he had to stop, as he could not control his emotions while reading it.
Yet, while this prayer book was vociferously proclaimed to have been written by Washington, there was not an iota of evidence that he ever had anything to do with it, or that it even ever belonged to him. A little investigation soon pricked the bubble. Worthington C. Ford, who had handled more of Washington's manuscripts than any other man except Washington himself, declared that the penmanship was not that of washington. Rupert Hughes (Washington, vol. 1, p. 658) gives facsimile specimens of the handwriting in the prayer book side by side with known specimens of Washington's penmanship at the time the prayer book was supposed to have been written. A glance proves that they are not by the same hand.
Then in the prayer book manuscript all of the words are spelled correctly, while Washington was a notoriously poor speller. But the greatest blow it received was when the Smithsonian Institute refused to accept it as a genuine Washington relic. That Washington did not compose it was proved by Dr. W.A. Croffutt, a newspaper correspondent of the Capital, who traced the source of some of the prayers to an old prayer brook [book] in the Congressional Library printed, in the reign of James the First. Even the Rev. W. Herbert Burk, rector of the Episcopal Church of Valley Forge, although a firm believer in Washington's religiosity, thus speaks of these prayers: "At present, the question is an open one, and its settlement will depend on the discovery of the originals, or upon the demonstration that they are the work of Washington."

​

As reader Steve said in his email:
"This fact alone shows a serious disregard for actual historical research by the teacher"
Amen.

 

I find it amazing, ASLANSPAL, that you come on a Christian messageboard and link to an article posted on infidels.org. Could you not find that information in a book, or on a website, that was written by a Washington scholar? Or at least information that was not posted on a website thats main objective is to promote naturalism (which it defines as, "the nonexistence of all supernatural beings including the theistic God")? The site claims that, "The Secular Web is the definitive resource for online atheists, humanists, agnostics and freethinkers".

While I think you should find a better source to quote on a Christian messageboard I agree with your conclusions about Washington's prayer journal. However I would quickly add that we don't need that journal since Washington said many things in letters (etc) about his belief in the actions of Providence on America's behalf.

As for David Barton it is my view that he paints an overly rosey picture of American history. Often, in order to support his positions, he over looks serious moral/religious flaws in some of the founders. Barton takes the evidence too far. Infidels.com does not take allow all the evidence to speak for itself. So I have problems with both extremes. You quoting infidels.com is just as extreme as someone quoting David Barton. We need serious study into these issues that takes into account all of the evidence.

 

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

How about this article? I am not that familiar with the site, so don't take it as gospel.......

Regards,
BiR

 

The site contains some information that I find sort of misleading. For example...

"Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian."

==While the above statement is true; what it fails to mention is that such was a common thing for Anglicans of his time. This would have been even more true for a man, like Washington, who sought to unite the colonies and wished to avoid religious divisions. In other words there is a complex context that would explain why Washington would not act like a modern evangelical (which he was not).

"In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism."

==First Washington did mention Jesus in some of his letter(s). For example in a speech to the Delaware Chiefs (5/12/1779) George Washington said, "You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are".

Secondly, Washington was a Anglican not an evangelical. Therefore he would not have been as open about his personal faith as an evangelical would have been. However Washington had a faith in God that proved he was certainly not a deist. For example, in a letter to Brigadier General Thomas Nelson Washington stated, "The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations" (8/20/1778). So Washington was certainly not a Deist.

As far as Freemasonary is concerned it is a fact that many clergymen (etc) were members of lodges. So this does not point to a deistic worldview.


"To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

==Since even modern evangelicals hold to this I don't see how they believe this points to a deistic belief worldview.

"After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."

==Of course Washington's stepgranddaughter disagreed with that. Eleanore Parke Custis said about Washington, "I should have thought it the greatest hersy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those, who act or pray, that they may be seen of men". The deist accusation is also refuted by many of Washington's personal words (letters, speeches, etc).

None of this comes from "Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington".

"Virtually all the evidence that attempts to connect a foundation of Christianity upon the government rests mainly on quotes and opinions from a few of the colonial statesmen who had professed a belief in Christianity. Sometimes the quotes come from their youth before their introduction to Enlightenment ideas or simply from personal beliefs."

==All of the statements from Washington I have collected are during or after his years of service.

"Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st Amendment stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion and at the same time insures the free expression of any belief."

==The first part of that statement is untrue. All one has to do is read Washington's thanksgiving proclamation of 1789, or the thanksgiving proclamation of 1781 made by the Continental Congress. What about the prayer in September of 1774 at the first meeting of the Continental Congress? Adams himself said of the event, "I never saw a greater Effect upon an Audience. It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that Morning". Or what about Washington's farewell address? In other words they understood the importance of Christianity in American public life. While I would not say that all of them were Christians they certainly were not, what I will call, ACLU types.