tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post3825357772294980196..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: The Religious Paradox of George WashingtonBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37972889917538873832008-07-18T20:25:00.000-06:002008-07-18T20:25:00.000-06:00Though I haven't seen it, a friend describes such ...Though I haven't seen it, a friend describes such a painting of which he has a print, but in black and white. He wants a color copy. I am convinced it exists, but cannot locate it. Anyone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76182790565175233432008-07-18T19:30:00.000-06:002008-07-18T19:30:00.000-06:00bb2nite:I know of no painting that shows Washingto...bb2nite:<BR/><BR/>I know of no painting that shows Washington taking communion. In fact, I have never even heard of it.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88622571439927987172008-07-18T19:08:00.000-06:002008-07-18T19:08:00.000-06:00Isn't there a painting of Washington actually taki...Isn't there a painting of Washington actually taking communion? Where can it be found? Anyone know? Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59701930152097430382008-07-02T13:09:00.000-06:002008-07-02T13:09:00.000-06:00If I'm not mistaken, the post that was deleted, ab...If I'm not mistaken, the post that was deleted, above, was mine.<BR/>.<BR/>The only thing I can imagine that caused shuman to delete it was that I made a statement that Hart had said I was <I>lame brained</I>.<BR/>.<BR/>Other than that, the post tied the controversy over the founding of Kings College to the idea of Colonial attitudes regarding communicants in the Anglican Church. And, I asked if that might have something to do with Washington's rare visits at Anglican communion services. <BR/>.<BR/>But, the reader will never know because my speech was abridged.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6126365343433273282008-06-26T09:22:00.000-06:002008-06-26T09:22:00.000-06:00It appears that I may have breached some barriers ...<B>It appears</B> that I may have breached some barriers of desired behavior at this sight.<BR/>.<BR/>In any event, I have searched out sources regarding the questions I have raised.<BR/>.<BR/>I will admit that my choice of words might not express what I meant to put over. For this, I apologize to any person who may have taken any exception to what I wrote.<BR/>.<BR/>I agree with Brad Hart that G.W. could not be considered a "true Deist" according to what was considered "true Deism" during the eighteenth century. But, focusing on that point confuses the issue raised in his paper.<BR/>.<BR/>G.W. was~~most certainly~~heavily influenced by eighteenth century Deism no matter his religiosity. All of the Founders were so influenced by that. As such, they can be considered to have been <I>deistic</I> in their thinking.<BR/>.<BR/>If this were a completely private blog where only the washed were able to attend, I would honor lindsey shuman's suggestion I no longer visit here; but, seeing as I might represent others who also question what is written and~~further~~that I like to learn, I will continue to come here as long as it pleases me.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45738500281170874912008-06-26T06:39:00.000-06:002008-06-26T06:39:00.000-06:00.What kind of scholasticism requires learners to a....<BR/>What kind of scholasticism requires learners to adhere to some particular school so much so that questions are thrown out based on the fact that a spokes person for that school is allowed to insult the learner for questioning the established authority?<BR/>.<BR/>The question regarding G.W.'s religiosity is not settled even thought you have judged it to be.<BR/>.<BR/>BTW, where have I been rude to Brad Hart?<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-346495505730197592008-06-25T21:35:00.000-06:002008-06-25T21:35:00.000-06:00Pinky: Your rude comments are not welcome on this ...Pinky: <BR/><BR/>Your rude comments are not welcome on this blog. Either get your act together or quit visiting the site. Your claims are ridiculous, your reasoning lacking, and your knowledge absent. Brad clearly has a good argument that you do not understand in the least, so quit! I'm just glad that he has chosen to ignore your lame arguments!Lindsey Shumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536959819608584779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51964614835786156572008-06-25T16:16:00.000-06:002008-06-25T16:16:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81983442158793879322008-06-24T19:15:00.000-06:002008-06-24T19:15:00.000-06:00To be clear, this statement of mine, "It doesn't t...To be clear, this statement of mine, <I>"It doesn't take a lot of reading to learn that Deism was not organized during G.W.'s time, so Deist beliefs varied"</I>, means to convey the fact that Deism had no organized groups or "denominations". The general concept was fairly well known; but, there were no "fundamentals" to which a Deist had to subscribe.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15744798378238720852008-06-24T15:58:00.000-06:002008-06-24T15:58:00.000-06:00The ideas of TRUE and PURE as you use the word, tr...The ideas of <I>TRUE</I> and <I>PURE</I> as you use the word, true, are almost identical according to how I understand what you have written.<BR/>.<BR/>Am I wrong? How?<BR/>.<BR/>You claim that <I>"[my] lame definition of deism ... is totally off."</I><BR/>.<BR/>We went down this road before. Your claim is that Deists in the eighteenth century held that God never interfered in the day to day life of humans. I am sure that was true of many Deists. It doesn't take a lot of reading to learn that Deism was not organized during G.W.'s time, so Deist beliefs varied. Some Deists believed some things about God and others believed something else. <BR/>.<BR/>Do you claim that people took some sort of an oath in order to be seen as a Deist?<BR/>.<BR/>I am not arguing one way or the other about G.W. as I never knew him and can't speak on his behalf. <BR/>.<BR/>I do believe, however, that any early American leaders would have had to present themselves to the public in the common vernacular. Biblical concepts and stories were common to most people.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49214504231339990042008-06-24T15:09:00.000-06:002008-06-24T15:09:00.000-06:00OK, so I took your use of the word, true, to mean ...OK, so I took your use of the word, true, to mean pure. Sorry about that; but, the words seem to mean the same thing as I read what you say here:<BR/>.<BR/> "<I>To pinpoint Washington on the religious spectrum, we must first eliminate deism as having any serious influence on Washington. To be considered a<B> true </B>deist, one must reject the belief that a supreme being intervenes in the affairs of men. Simply put, Washington does not meet this definition. In a number of his letters, Washington regularly pointed to the hand of providence as being regularly involved in the affairs of men.</I><BR/>.<BR/>So, in my post above, you can cut the word, pure, out and put the word, true, in its place. It ends up with the same conclusion.<BR/>.<BR/>I was careful to state that my comments might "seem like a tangent". If you don't understand my point about the vernacular, I will be happy to explain myself.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88918683867747452132008-06-24T11:30:00.000-06:002008-06-24T11:30:00.000-06:00Pinky:What are you talking about? Sorry, but you ...Pinky:<BR/><BR/>What are you talking about? Sorry, but you either didn't read the posting or you speak another language. Your comment isn't even worth a response because you are so far out in left field. <BR/><BR/>Quit ASSUMING that I must be talking about PURITY because I AM NOT! <BR/><BR/>BTW, I love how you think my argument "falls apart" but then you offer no evidence other than your lame definition of deism, which, by the way, is totally off.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81836070320741845362008-06-24T11:24:00.000-06:002008-06-24T11:24:00.000-06:00Brad, I would be more comfortable going the other ...Brad, I would be more comfortable going the other way. Instead of calling GW a "Christian-leaning unitarian," I can accept that he was a "unitarian-leaning Christian." :-)<BR/><BR/>I know that may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I think George Washington's deliberate and public association with the Anglican (later Episcopalian) church shows him to be a professing Christian. In that very real sense, George Washington professed to be a Christian. He stood with the Christian camp. <BR/><BR/>HOWEVER...he rarely took Communion, did not speak of Jesus very often (not even in his personal correspondence), and was most comfortable talking about God in providential, general terms. So, I'm not as far from you and Jon Rowe as you might think.<BR/><BR/>So, I would classify him as a Christian with unitarian tendencies. He was clearly not comfortable advancing orthodox trinitarian doctrine in his speeches and writings, but he didn't deny it either - unless his refusal to take Communion is counted as such, but I think that's too great an assumption.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81702808537587979232008-06-24T11:19:00.000-06:002008-06-24T11:19:00.000-06:00Pink, Brad is saying that Washington was not a Dei...Pink, Brad is saying that Washington was not a Deist, but rather a "Christian-leaning unitarian." Those were his exact words.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6662334447786368802008-06-24T10:03:00.000-06:002008-06-24T10:03:00.000-06:00I printed the post out and read it. All eight page...I printed the post out and read it. All eight pages.<BR/>.<BR/>It is based on your original statement where you discount the possibility of G.W. being a Deist based on YOUR definition of "Pure Deism". So, I took it that you were talking about "purity" here.<BR/>.<BR/>Therefor, in your response, it seems that you must be connoting that there is an idea of what it means to be a "pure" Christian.<BR/>.<BR/>If purity is the important point in Deism, then, I guess you ARE saying that G.W. is a "Pure Christian". <BR/>.<BR/>Other than that, your argument falls apart.n Which means you might want to work on it a little bit?<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90678092844354735232008-06-24T09:01:00.000-06:002008-06-24T09:01:00.000-06:00What the...That's not my argument at all. I have ...What the...<BR/><BR/>That's not my argument at all. I have no idea where you came up with that. Where do I argue for Washington being a "pure Christian?" In fact, I argue exactly the opposite. Read the post againBrad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9663022314971449182008-06-24T07:44:00.000-06:002008-06-24T07:44:00.000-06:00Brad Hart bases his entire argument on this single...Brad Hart bases his entire argument on this single statement, "<I>To be considered a true deist, one must reject the belief that a supreme being intervenes in the affairs of men,</I>" from which he proceeds to prove that George Washington must have been a "pure Christian".<BR/>.<BR/>Of course, in such a short and <I>focused</I> paper, it's almost impossible to do the questions involved full justice.<BR/><BR/>This may <B>seem</B> like a tangent:<BR/><BR/>Unless I am sadly mistaken, the idea that G.W. was "first in the hearts of his countrymen" is relative to the issue. He was the original <I>Great Communicator</I> of America's presidents, which means he was able to identify with the people who thought so highly of him.<BR/><BR/>Among other things, whatever schooling most Americans had in those days, the Bible was central most to their reading experiences. Other books were not so freely available. So, the common vernacular must have had a somewhat biblical twist to it. Most people could understand a point made using some biblical reference, I am sure of that.<BR/><BR/>When it comes to Deism, there is no more reason to believe there were "pure Deists" than there is reason to believe there were "pure Christians".<BR/><BR/>So, to say that because George Washington was not a "pure Deist" he must have been a "pure Christian" is a jump that I am not about to buy.<BR/>.<BR/>Sorry, Brad, I think your argument fails. Maybe you can overcome my objection?<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13528575177513700442008-06-23T20:48:00.000-06:002008-06-23T20:48:00.000-06:00Also,I think this is an error:When you said "Dr. ...Also,<BR/><BR/>I think this is an error:<BR/><BR/>When you said "Dr. James Abercrombie publicly questioned Washington's Christianity when he wrote:<BR/><BR/>'I do not believe that any degree of recollection would bring to my mind....'"<BR/><BR/>I'm pretty sure this was Bishop White, not James Abercrombie.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14016504729124306652008-06-23T20:27:00.000-06:002008-06-23T20:27:00.000-06:00I can't take the claims of GW communing too seriou...I can't take the claims of GW communing too seriously. They are based on 2nd and 3rd hand accounts and refer only to some individual instances where people could have "remembered" after the fact something that didn't happen (Eliza Hamilton's recollection -- correct me if I am wrong -- was in her 90s!).<BR/><BR/>Nelly Custis, James Abercrombie and Bishop Meade all witnessed his systematic behavior over and over again. And they all testify he didn't commune.<BR/><BR/>I also agree with Brian that this shows Washington wasn't the best "Anglican" or "Episcopalian," not necessarily not a "Christian." But my understanding of the case for GW's orthodoxy is connected to his being a devoted as opposed to a nominal Anglican.<BR/><BR/>GW almost never talked in orthodox Trinitarian terms. The entire case for his Trinitarianism is tied to his Anglicanism or Episcopalianism.<BR/><BR/>Great post by the way!Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72593153160782125572008-06-23T19:53:00.000-06:002008-06-23T19:53:00.000-06:00Thanks for the comments, Lindsey and Brian. I app...Thanks for the comments, Lindsey and Brian. I appreciate you taking the time to read this. <BR/><BR/>Brian, one of the reasons I chose to not site Lillback's references to Washington taking communion is because their authenticity has been in question for some time. Perhaps I should have at least mentioned briefly the fact that they exist, but I chose not to. One of the sources that Lillback uses to show Washington taking communion comes from the Reverend Nathaniel Snowden, who was severely chastised for his lack of credibility in his accounts of Washington praying at Valley Forge. With that said, I am glad you brought it up, because these sources should be discussed. <BR/><BR/>On your second point, you state:<BR/><EM>The most that can be said of Washington's declining Communion is that he wasn't a good Anglican or Episcopalian. To be a Christian, one needs to profess Jesus Christ as his or her divine and risen Lord (Romans 10:9-10).</EM><BR/><BR/>While I agree with your reasoning, I think that the main purpose behind bringing attention to the communion issue is because, for an Anglican, this was a big deal. My reference to the 39 Articles of faith of the Church of England I think illustrates this. However, I think that your point should be considered because Washington may have had the same mindset. Nobody can say for sure. <BR/><BR/>In the end, I think that if people want to call Washington a Christian they need to define EXACTLY what they mean by "Christian." I think we can all agree that the evidence shows Washington to be a half-hearted Anglican at best and certainly NOT an orthodox Anglican Christian. <BR/><BR/>The reason I go with Christian-leaning unitarian is because I believe Washington PREFERED Christianity, but did not EXCLUSIVELY endorse its orthodox principles. In other words, Washington adopted a number of Christian ideas, but also rejected some as well, hence his being partly unitarian. <BR/><BR/>Again, thanks for the comments!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22500953567709325722008-06-23T19:33:00.000-06:002008-06-23T19:33:00.000-06:00Excellent article, Brad. I think "Christian-leanin...Excellent article, Brad. I think "Christian-leaning unitarian" is possibly accurate. I would say that it is the most plausible of the non-Christian definitions made for Washington. <BR/><BR/>However, two things I must point out...<BR/><BR/>1) In his book, Peter Lillback provides evidence that Washington did, on occasion, take Communion in his adult life. This runs counter to the assumptions and assertions made by several historians, but the evidence Lillback cites is compelling (including an account by Alexander Hamilton's wife). <BR/><BR/>2) The most that can be said of Washington's declining Communion is that he wasn't a good Anglican or Episcopalian. To be a Christian, one needs to profess Jesus Christ as his or her divine and risen Lord (Romans 10:9-10).Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55119757648735004342008-06-23T19:30:00.000-06:002008-06-23T19:30:00.000-06:00Brad,In my opinion this is the most complete posti...Brad,<BR/><BR/>In my opinion this is the most complete posting on Washington's religion that I have seen. Though I still tend to believe that Washington was more unitarian and less Christian, I cannot argue with your reasoning or your evidence. <BR/><BR/>Well done!Lindsey Shumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536959819608584779noreply@blogger.com