Monday, April 30, 2012

Early Americans Recognized Dependence Upon God

According to the Father of the United States of America, the American people at the time of the nation's inception overwhelmingly acknowledged the "Invisible Hand" of God and their dependence upon it. In his First Inaugural Address, delivered 223 years ago today (April 30), the first President of the United States (under the newly ratified U.S. Constitution) spoke these words:

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence."

Washington, one of history's greatest leaders, chose his words carefully to unite people of various faiths and denominations. I don't believe this was an attempt to push moral or religious relativism, however. Very few of the Founders would've embraced postmodern relativistic nonsense that says one religion is "true for you," while another is "true for me." (Either God is real or God is not. Either Jesus really rose from the dead or he did not. Either Mohammed was a prophet who spoke for Allah - or he was not. While people have many opinions about religion, opinions don't determine ultimate reality). Washington's speech doesn't advocate relativism. Rather, it expands the tent to include many faiths. This was, I believe, the hope of many Founders who saw the violence that unchecked sectarianism could bring in other nations, such as in post-Reformation Europe. Obviously, truth claims would continue in the churches, synagogues, and mosques (and there is nothing wrong with this....truth claims should be tested and evaluated in the marketplace - including the religious marketplace - like all else) and no faith or denomination would be asked to compromise their beliefs or convictions. But Washington's monotheistic call for national homage to God was such that most Americans (be they Muslims, Jews, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, etc.) could embrace with a clear conscience. 

While there may be debate over which Founders were orthodox Christians (and which were not) or whether the Founders intended some kind of official "Christian nationalism" (as claimed by some activists), the evidence is overwhelming that George Washington's sentiments, as expressed in his First Inaugural (and later his famous Thanksgiving Proclamation and Farewell Address), reflected the overwhelming consensus of the American people at the time as well as the principles and ideals which were enshrined into our nation's heritage. 




13 comments:

Phil Johnson said...

.
The American People have always been a religious people. And, their would be political leaders have recognized that for the most part. Some have taken advantage of the gullibility of the people to promote themselves as admirable Christians--men like Santorum who may be just a wonderful person.
.
The spin you put on what Washington acgtually wrote, Brian, seems a little biased to me.

}... the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.", does not say, "The Invisible Hand of God" to me or to many others.
.
I'm sure you know that.
.
.

Tom Van Dyke said...

}... the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.", does not say, "The Invisible Hand of God" to me or to many others.
.
I'm sure you know that.


What else could it possibly mean? The sentence before, Washington refers to "to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe" and "the Great Author of every public and private good."

I don't understand your response here, Phil. If ever there was something all there in black and white...
_________________

BTW, Brian, I believe this speech used to be required reading in the schools, but has fallen by the wayside in our more secular age. If I recall correctly, during the recent Texas Schoolbook Massacre, the speech was put back into the curriculum.

There are some folks aware of Washington's Farewell Address, where he says, "“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” But few these days, I think that the first thing Washington does as president is to theank The Almighty.

"...it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect..."

I'm not sure there's a more explicit expression of God-talk in all of the American canon. So naturally, it's been buried. ;-/

Phil Johnson said...

.
Tom writes, "I don't understand your response here, Phil. If ever there was something [it is] all there in black and white...".
.
It's easy to understand, Tom. Nothing confusing about it at all.
.
The idea of the "Bully Pulpit" comes from the religiosity of the American electorate during the Founding Era. There's nothing wrong with admitting the infusion of religion during that time. The dominating media of the day WAS the pulpit plain and simple. For a political leader to maintain his position it would have been necessary for him to use the proper codes in all his communiques with any public person or groups.
.
Easy to understand, Tom. Nothing difficult about it at all.
.
Why make something out of nothing?
.

JMS said...

Gentlemen: I urge you to read the chapters on George Washington in Forrest Church's "So Help Me God" and David Holmes' "The Faiths of the Founding Fathers." Both categorized Washington as a Deist. Church says he was a "warm Deist" (p. 47) while Holmes concludes he was a "Deistic Episcopalian." (p. 68)In addition, Washington symbolized the Freemason pillars of charity, harmony, order and moderation.

Washington's First Inaugural address was drafted by James Madison. So naturally, given the two men's religious inclinations, Deistic language abounds. But as Church points out, while "Washington's first inaugural may lack explicit Christian references, with the exception of Lincoln's second, no subsequent inaugural address strikes a more religious tone." (p. 41)

Madison and Washington set a "non-doctrinal" tone that omitted all scriptural and theological admonitions, "while maintaining a sharp moral focus." (p. 40) This is because the two major themes were order (via republican government)and "the sacred fire of liberty," which both required "private morality."

But as Washington himself (without Madison) told the Presbytery of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, who were unhappy about the lack of explicit references to God and Jesus Christ in the Constitution, "the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. TO this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion from the Magna Carta of our country." (p. 37)

And last - what about Washington's second inaugural address in 1793? "There was no inaugural parade. No worship service following the ceremony. His inaugural address lasted precisely a minute."

Tom Van Dyke said...

That the Invisible Hand isn't God's is unimaginable, Phil.

Yes, JMS, I agree. Few on this blog try to turn GWash into Jerry Falwell. There are a few references like "divine Author of our religion," but precious few.

Phil Johnson said...

.
Knowing your background regarding religion, I am quite sure you think that that "God" is the one that the Jewish and Christian Bible's present.
.
I think you have to give a political giant like George Washington far greater credit than that. Not to do so is impertinence on your part.
.

.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Are you saying the God of the Bible isn't God?

Contradicted by Washington's own writings: Letter to the Jews of Savannah, 1790.

May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivered 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, and to make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah.

I think you're being unnecessarily contrary here.

Phil Johnson said...

.
You are the one saying that, Tom.
.
When I consider all that science has exposed for our observation--the multiverse--I cannot imagine a god that can be taken from some book no matter how highly regarded as having some supernatural origins it may be thought of. It's time we move beyond the picayune aspects of our mortal experience.
.

Phil Johnson said...

.
That is a tough one, Tom. It takes a great deal of courage to break such strong cultural norms as those that define our reality here in Western Civilization
.
Hang in there.
.

Brian Tubbs said...

Phil,

Washington's own writings make clear that he had the Judeo-Christian God in view when he made references to the Almighty. There's little debate on that point.

That said, I agree with JMS that he intentionally used language which would appeal to people outside the Judeo-Christian framework as well as within it.

JMS,

I largely agree with what you've said, though the two writers you cite are hardly the only sources of authority on Washington's faith. I absolutely and completely reject the notion that he was a Deist. The evidence against Washington as a Deist is overwhelming. I can more readily appreciate "Deistic Episcopalian."

Phil Johnson said...

.
I'm only writing with the perspective in mind of the politics involved in being president of a people.
.
Of course, Brian, George Washington conveyed the idea of the "Judeao Christian God" as his words were meant for consumption of a people immersed in Christianity. What else could anyone expect?
.
But, the preponderance of information remains that our Founding President was Deist and believed in a Supreme Being not found in a book.
.
I don't mean to assault anyone's feelings--just being straight forward.
.

Brian Tubbs said...

My feelings aren't assaulted :-), but the notion that Washington was a "Deist" has pretty well been refuted by not only his contemporaries but also recent scholarship. Like I said, I can (somewhat) buy "Deistic Episcopalian." (I can at least SEE the evidence for that). But straight out Deist is not something that squares with Washington's own writings.

Anticipating that you will say I'm reading my own theology into Washington, let me assure you that's not the case. If it were, then I'd be embracing the Gano baptism legend as well as the controversial "prayer journal" that some say Washington wrote. I recognize George Washington was no Baptist, nor can I claim him as an evangelical (in the sense that terms is used today). But to say he was a Deist goes way too far to the other extreme.

On a separate note, your statement that the "multiverse" shows we no longer need God is a strange one. First, science hasn't conclusively established the multiverse. Second, even if scientists did, that hardly changes things. As an effect, the multiverse requires a cause, just as the universe does. We're still back to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. Atheists and agnostics gain nothing from the idea of a multiverse.

Phil Johnson said...

.
What I meant to convey, Brian, is that all successful politicians must be adept at speaking to the electorate as though they represent popular beliefs without putting their foot in their own mouth. I'm sure George Washington was no exception. That's the way politicians have been since the earliest days of civilization.
.