Saturday, May 29, 2010

The Lillback Roll

I know I'm on a roll with all of these Glenn Beck/Peter Lilback posts today. Let me explain why I'm paying so much attention. I've put in a great deal of time reading Peter Lillback's book "George Washington's Sacred Fire" and analyzing its arguments. I'm probably one a handful of folks who has actually gotten through the entire 1200 pages, footnotes and all. And I've certainly (as far as I know) written more about that book than any other living person (which obviously excludes Lillback himself).

I've thought about trying to publish an actual in print scholarly review of the book somewhere, but figured that my "self publishing" in the form of blogging is sufficient.

But with the recent amazing Glenn Beck/Amazon thing, I'm not going to ignore this new wave of attention the book gets.

For those who don't know, I have concluded that Lillback (easily) demonstrates Washington was not a strict Deist (that is one who believes in an absentee landlord God), but does not prove GW was an "orthodox Trinitarian Christian" as the book purports to prove. And that's because the record shows that GW was not a strict Deist but does not demonstrate him an "orthodox Trinitarian Christian."

Because Washington's own words (in 20,000 pages of them found here) do not prove him an orthodox Christian, Lillback attempts to prove GW's "orthodoxy" through his membership in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church.

But that is one very complicated dynamic that raises more questions than it answers. Washington systematically avoided communion in that church. One possible explanation is GW, like the other the deistic and unitarian minded church members, didn't believe in what that act represents: Christ's Atonement. That's what GW's own minister, James Abercrombie, concluded.

Lillback, rather, argues it was because Washington had problems with the Church's Tory hierarchy. No doubt, GW and the other Anglican Whigs did. But that only proves that Washington et al. were in rebellion not only against Great Britain but the very doctrine of their church.

So why the Hell didn't they just exit the Anglican Church for the Baptists or Presbyterians, good orthodox denominations that didn't teach submission to the King as a theological duty? The only explanation is that they had a social or "club membership" attachment to Anglicanism which is exactly the point scholars who argue George Washington's deism make: He belonged to a church for social reasons while not believing in its religious teachings.

9 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

The only explanation is that they had a social or "club membership" attachment to Anglicanism which is exactly the point scholars who argue George Washington's deism make: He belonged to a church for social reasons while not believing in its religious teachings.


I tend to agree, but it's not the only valid theory. It's an educated guess, but it's still a guess, no different than Lillback's [or Jared Sparks', which I was reading today]. One must unilaterally decide to agree with Gouverneur Morris and discount other contemporaries who held opposite opinions.

Sparks on Washington's religion [1843].

Sparks' opinion is that Washington was Christian and inserts it in the text. Still, he seems quite thorough in presenting eyewitnesses for his case. I don't find them completely persuasive, but I don't see how they can be summarily rejected out of hand either.

T. Greer said...

As said before, write a book review for Amazon.com

King of Ireland said...

I agree with T. Greer. Then link it to the site here. I was listening to Beck tonight. He is creeping me out with how much he is on this religion thing compared to before. It just not feel genuine to me. Gut feeling is something is off.

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

Despite a few of our disagreements I enjoyed your posts today. It was hard to keep up but I was waiting for you to respond to this thing. It is a history teachers dream to see this much interest in the Constitution and founders. But it has to be the full truth.

I am thinking about doing a series of posts on the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers and their deep concern about standing armies and how this jives with the military industrial complex of today's small government people? Something smells rotten in Denmark.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Funny. I found Beck's weekly review on the internet radio and listened to it meself. Too religious for the 21st century, but nothing out of whack with the Founding era. And that's an irony.

And Media Matters slimed both him and Lillback. Typical culture wars BS. No facts, just slime.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005240001

Beck. Barton. Lillback. Blahblahblah. Guilt by association. Beck had Barton on his show and Barton made errors in his early career, so Lillback is BS.

As to the actual facts, which nobody outside the culture wars actually gives a damn about, as I wrote above, it's whether you believe Gov Morris or Nelly Custis, et al., supposed eyewitnesses.

As for Lillback's response to the efforts to discredit his and Jared Sparks' eyewitnesses, yes, he actually has a response. The most unfair thing in this whole affair has been---history or theology---the accusations that he's as shallow and ignorant as his critics.


"But a sure sign of a weak case is when a critic begins with ridicule. The immediate move to the ad hominem is a sure sign of the lack of substance.

...

And to top these weighty arguments, such a book cannot possibly be worth reading since it was commended by a controversial television personality with a four letter last name.

...

What is surely the worst fallacy of Bunch’s critique is that he never gets around to engaging George Washington at all. Instead, this article served up by MediaMatters seems to reference everyone else than Washington himself. The reductionism we have here is that George Washington is gagged and reduced to silence. His own witness is considered unworthy of even being heard.

It is precisely for such scholarly treason that this “3.2 pound…1,208 page” book entitled George Washington’s Sacred Fire was written. As important as Thomas Jefferson and Gouverneur Morris are to American history, George Washington is far more important for understanding George Washington’s personal beliefs than anyone else. Is it significant to note that Gouverneur Morris was publicly embarrassed for his attempt to present an overly familiar knowledge of Washington by Washington himself? Is it relevant that Thomas Jefferson was never an intimate of George Washington, having resigned in protest from Washington’s cabinet to creative a rival political party that opposed Washington’s principles? Should we ask a district attorney to cross examine the double hearsay quote that Bunch hangs his case on, “Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that….”? Such pitiful evidence certainly shouldn’t matter in scholarship. I doubt that it should matter in media either. Well shouldn’t we at least listen to what a noted scholar like Philander D. Chase believed, or, to the wit and insight of such an unprejudiced and objective group such as The Americans United for Separation of church and State have to say?

...

But shouldn’t we just take the time to listen to the Founders themselves? Is this asking too much of the media? Is this asking too much of scholars? What if it takes 1,208 pages and 3.2 pounds to summarize it all? Can that be swept away into irrelevance by a two page critique that never once quotes a relevant text from George Washington himself?"


Fact is, the evidence supports neither 'side" conclusively, and that includes Paul F. Boller's "establishment" view that Washington was a deist, which should be as controversial as Lillback's, but has been stuffed down American throats for over a generation.

I've read Jonathan Rowe's critique of Lillback's method over a period of years and find Rowe's skepticisms valid. But I don't find a knockout blow either, because there isn't one.

Washington's personal beliefs remain unknown, and will always remain so, because he designed it that way, in almost every waking moment.

George Washington was not a man to have an unguarded moment. That's what made him Washington.

King of Ireland said...

My issue with him is not his views so much as a complete turn from 2 years ago. Maybe I am cynical but it does not come off as genuine. But anything that gets people to read about the Founding is good I guess. My fear is that they read the wrong stuff. A Once is a generation or perhaps several generations chance we have here.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I'm currently working on something w/ GW and Lillback that is going to be featured at the Religion & American History blog.

Michael Heath said...

Jon stated: "So why the Hell didn't they just exit the Anglican Church for the Baptists or Presbyterians, good orthodox denominations that didn't teach submission to the King as a theological duty? The only explanation is that they had a social or "club membership" attachment to Anglicanism which is exactly the point scholars who argue George Washington's deism make: He belonged to a church for social reasons while not believing in its religious teachings.



William Sterne Randall's biography of George Washington instead compellingly argues that Washington's primary motivation for maintaining membership in his church was his career aspirations in the political arena. That such aspirations had little chance in Virginia without service to the church.

Tom Van Dyke said...

http://www.amazon.com/Hands-Good-Providence-Religion-Washington/dp/0813927633/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1


This review is from: "In the Hands of a Good Providence": Religion in the Life of George Washington (Hardcover)
For all that we know about George Washington, his faith has remained a mystery. The main reason for this is Washington himself, whose natural reticence is no more apparent than in the matters of his soul.

Sifting through his papers for evidence of his beliefs is a daunting task, but Mary V. Thompson does an admirable and evenhanded job and sheds new light on an old subject. She provides the proper context for Washington's beliefs by exploring the religious environment in which he lived - 18th century Virginian Anglicanism. To those who claim Washington was not a Christian she counters than they provide a narrow definition for Christianity, namely a modern-day evangelical Christian.

She posits that Washington was a Christian who saw his actions as a statement of faith, rather than mere words. He supported the Church, was a regular churchgoer, was familiar with the Bible since childhood, bought dozens of Christian sermons, took the oath as a Godfather eight times, and was a constant donor to charities.

Ms. Thompson is in a unique position to address this issue with her extensive familiarity with Washington's papers as the Research Historian at the Collections Department of the Mount Vernon. She brings to light many of Washington's early writings which demonstrates his familiarity with the Bible and contains references to Christ. Does she claim to know the exact state of Washington's soul? No, she humbly answers... but the preponderance of evidence points to a self-effacing Christianity.