From Rob Boston. Check it out here. A taste:
While in private life, Washington attended church services about once a month. As president, he attended more often, and while he undoubtedly believed in faith as an important component of public virtue, nothing in his personal behavior indicates a high degree of attachment to conservative Christian dogma. He had a habit of leaving services before communion, a practice that angered some pastors.
Nor was Washington one to spend Sundays in quiet prayer and contemplation. Accounts of enslaved people from Mount Vernon plantation speak of frivolity on Sunday, with drinking and card playing being the norm.
Claude Blanchard, a French military officer who dined with Washington, later wrote in his journal that he was surprised there was no formal grace. Blanchard noted, “We remained a very long time at the table. They drank 12 or 15 healths with Madeira wine. In the course of the meal beer was served and grum, rum mixed with water.”
When Washington died in December 1799, he broke with custom of the day and did not call for a minister to be present at his bedside. Historian Joseph Ellis observed, “He died as a Roman Stoic rather than a Christian saint.”
16 comments:
"The Rev. Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, N.Y., was even blunter, asserting that Washington “was not a professing Christian.” The Rev. James Abercrombie, who tended to an Episcopal church in Philadelphia that Washington sometimes attended, was equally clear, once writing to a correspondent, “Sir, Washington was a Deist.”"
Many scholars believe it was Bird Wilson; but we've known for years it was a different "Wilson."
Doesn't Mr. Boston realize that GWash's public piety WEAKENS his secularist case against religion in the public square?
“In all probability,” wrote Cicero, “disappearance of piety toward the gods will entail the disappearance of loyalty and social union among men as well, and of justice itself, the queen of all the virtues.” In the most profound sense, then, impiety toward the gods disrupted society, and when piety disappears, said Cicero, “life soon becomes a welter of disorder and confusion.”
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/piety-of-the-persecutors
There's no record GW described he had a conversion experience to Christ, which there would be evidence of had Christ saved him. He was the typical unconverted rationalist like the others; tares among the wheat. He helped form a powder keg founded on enlightenment rationalism that was doomed at the start and its time is running out.
OFT: That's why Dr. Frazer terms him a "theistic rationalist," not a "Christian."
Maybe theistic rationalist and enlightenment rationalist are synonymous. I have it somewhere that title was used in the 1950's.
Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
There's no record GW described he had a conversion experience to Christ, which there would be evidence of had Christ saved him.
This is a religious argument, not political history--and indeed a religious argument specific to only the evangelical branch of Christianity such as Fraser's.
GWash found the promotion of religion good for America. That is all that matters. The rest is academic curiosity. Indeed there have been very devout men who favored less religion in the public square such as Andrew Jackson.
Personal piety is irrelevant to questions of public policy.
Being converted and born again is a direct command from Christ, and is not a specific branch of Christianity. It is the only Christianity. Without being born again, you have a fake Christianity and fake salvation, like what the ffs had. Do you have to go to law school and pass the bar to be a lawyer? It's a requirement isn't it?
John 3:3-12
Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”
Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.
Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born again.’
The wind* blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Nicodemus answered and said to him, “How can this happen?”
Jesus answered and said to him, “You are the teacher of Israel and you do not understand this?
Most assuredly I say to you, we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony.
If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?
Because the ffs were not true Christians nor did they understand the biblical definition of a true Christian, it follows they were clueless in how to form a Christian nation. It's clear, when forming the national documents the ffs omitted Christ on purpose, thereby forming a secular compact, all the while claiming otherwise. Enlightenment rationalism taught the ffs to disregard a specific foundation and authority for their union (Christ), in order to form a secular country and promote idolatry. The sovereignty of Christ in all affairs was replaced by consent of the governed. Their rationalism deceived them in everything, including the proper Christian understanding of separation of church and state. Instead of prohibiting a particular establishment of Christianity, they omitted Christ altogether. In fact, writing Christ into the founding documents need not have established a church at all. It was just to establish their authority and foundation, then proclaim Him to the world. It's highly doubtful modern Democrats would have removed all references of Christ in the DOI, Constitution, AOC, Bill of Rights and Northwest Ordinance.
Moreover, the ffs did not understand the fundamentals of Christianity required by God that encompasses Christian faith and salvific conversion.
The very few who understood salvation were nonetheless deceived by enlightenment rationalism.
Enlightenment rationalism taught the ffs to disregard a specific foundation and authority for their union (Christ)
Actually it was Protestantism that taught the ffs to disregard a specific foundation and authority for their union (The Church). Once Luther made Christianity a theological free-for-all, no single definition of "Christianity" could ever be definitive.
"For every church is orthodox to itself; to others, erroneous or heretical. For whatsoever any church believes, it believes to be true and the contrary unto those things it pronounce; to be error. So that the controversy between these churches about the truth of their doctrines and the purity of their worship is on both sides equal; nor is there any judge, either at Constantinople or elsewhere upon earth, by whose sentence it can be determined. The decision of that question belongs only to the Supreme judge of all men, to whom also alone belongs the punishment of the erroneous."--Locke
"Actually it was Protestantism that taught the ffs to disregard a specific foundation and authority for their union (The Church). Once Luther made Christianity a theological free-for-all, no single definition of 'Christianity' could ever be definitive."
Yes it was this plus Enlightenment rationalism that was the formula. It was a kind of "Protestantism" on steroids as Mark David Hall has termed the individualism of the Quakers.
This is why the FFs tended to love the Quakers in spite of the fact that they wouldn't pick up arms.
That was their preferred form of "Christianity." Get rid of all doctrines, creeds, ministers and ecclesiastical structures.
"Actually it was Protestantism that taught the ffs to disregard a specific foundation and authority for their union (The Church). Once Luther made Christianity a theological free-for-all, no single definition of 'Christianity' could ever be definitive."
I heard a reputable pastor bring this exact objection up a few weeks ago and he brought up nearly the same points I do. The theological free for all is always the excuse to destroy the essentials of the faith and replace them with non essentials of the faith. Once the fundamentals are replaced, it's not Christianity at all. And the ffs never got that far anyway. A Christian nation has nothing to do with a church but everything to do with Christ and His sovereignty.
The theological free for all is always the excuse to destroy the essentials of the faith and replace them with non essentials of the faith.
Who decides which are the essentials and which are not? By Catholic reasoning--and this includes the Eastern Orthodox, which combined with Rome comprise MORE THAN HALF the Christians in the world, Protestants are not The Church at all, since you lack the true apostolic priesthood and thus the true sacraments, especially the Eucharist.
https://chnetwork.org/2015/12/10/unless-you-eat-my-body-and-drink-my-blood-there-is-no-life-in-you-symbolic-or-literal/
The historian of course, has no stake in this, and recognizes Protestantism--even the least orthodox forms such as the Quakers--the theological free-for-all--as Christian for historical purposes.
To wit:
"their very divisions caused by their not taking the Lord’s Supper seriously?
In my study, as was normally my habit, this led me to search elsewhere in Scripture for answers. So, I turned back to the previous chapter in 1 Corinthians, 10:14-22, where Paul was dealing with another cause for division within the church: some were unable to let go of the baggage of their pagan past and were slipping away to pay homage to idols:
14: Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.
15: I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.
16: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
Three things struck me here as important:
First was the phrase, “the cup of blessing which we bless.” The idea of blessing things meant to me as a Presbyterian little more than setting something apart or praising it. I could ask God to bless something, but what did this mean? But here Paul seemed to imply seriously that the cup of wine of the Lord’s Supper becomes a blessing through our actions or Paul’s or maybe the pastors of the Corinthian church — actions that he placed parallel with breaking the bread.
Second, these actions he insists are a “participation” in the Blood and Body of Christ. What is this participation? The word is important: it’s koinonia, also translated communion or fellowship. Over the centuries, Christians have watered down this word to mean merely a sharing or close fellowship with others or with Jesus, but is that all that Paul means here? In John’s First Letter, he wrote:
“that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship [koinonia] with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn 1:3).
Is this koinonia with the Father and Jesus, or with the Blood and Body of Christ, merely a close association? Or could it be something more?
The third thing I noticed in this text was the emphasis on “breaking” the bread. This would become important to me later..."
Re "the essentials" it's axiomatic assumptions. I'm on a debate site with a smart E.O. guy (who dislikes Catholicism more than Protestantism, figure that) and he just asserts Christians are Trinitarians who believe in the Incarnation. See the creeds.
There are other ways to analyze the issue. Like do you believe Jesus a unique Messiah, even if not an Incarnate God, 2nd Person in a Triune Godhead. That would include Arians, Mormons, JWs, among others.
If America were to be founded as an explicitly "Christian Nation" you would expect explicit Trinitarian language in the form of a covenant in both the DOI and the US Constitution.
There is that in neither.
Though plenty of "orthodox Christians" are fine with it because they understand it's always someone's orthodoxy that seeks to gain power and gore someone else's ox.
The Baptists in Virginia were "orthodox" as were the Anglicans who persecuted them.
If America were to be founded as an explicitly "Christian Nation" you would expect explicit Trinitarian language in the form of a covenant in both the DOI and the US Constitution.
There is that in neither.
On whose authority as a historical scholar do you make the Trinity a sine qua non of Christianity and not, say, the Eucharist as well?
As for "Christian Nation," not even David Barton claims the term is anything more than descriptive, not definitional.
At arm's length, I would define "Christian" as I believe all Christians do to this day, being baptized. Even the Founding-era unitarians baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What those terms meant was a matter of theological opinion, however.
The "unitarian" President John Adams proclaimed a thanksgiving
"offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies...through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offenses...and to incline us by His Holy Spirit to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction..."
I would also add a belief that the Bible is literally the Word of God, not just a collection of nice sayings. Inerrancy not required, however, especially since Christians can't even agree how many books are in it.
Post a Comment