Christ—“Our blessed Religion, the Divine Author, whose [Christ’s] example, daily bread [the Lord’s Prayer], cup of blessing [the Eucharist]”
Worship—“gratitude and rejoicing”
Education—“not ignorance and superstition”
Sanctification—“Holy keeping,” “brotherly affection,” “love for one another”
Moral Light—“blessing or curse,” “justice,” “mercy,” “demean with love,” “humility,” “peace”
Prayer—“earnest prayer,” “final blessing,” “implore the divine benediction”
Civil and Religious Liberty—“rights of mankind,” “happy nation”
Heaven—“Heaven’s favor,” “Heaven crowns”
Judgment—“the aggravated vengeance of Heaven”
The few and simple principles of Washington’s religion when summed up are a statement of mere Christianity. Notice too, that while it has been argued that George Washington was unwilling to partake of Christian communion, he even quoted here the biblical phrase that speaks of communion —“the cup of blessing.” This was the most public letter in Washington’s career to this point, and it was replete with Christian theological references and allusions to scripture. Washington’s explicitly Christian and public theological affirmations undercut the entire structure of Deistic thought. How is it possible then to conceive of Washington as a Deist?
NATIONAL WORSHIP: DAYS OF PRAYER, FASTING, AND THANKSGIVING
Throughout his times of leadership, in the military and in the presidency, George Washington participated in proclaiming days of prayer and fasting and thanksgiving. In 1774, the British Parliament, in cahoots with the King, passed the Port Act, which closed the harbor of that most rebellious American city, Boston—-home of the Boston Tea Party in December 1773. This was the city Washington was destined to liberate three years later.
Meanwhile, what the British did not count on was that the other colonists would come to the aid of the Bostonians. In fact, they actively tried to discourage other colonies from helping by publishing lies abroad in those colonies. Historian George Bancroft points out, “It was published at the corners of the streets that Pennsylvania would refuse to suspend commerce; that the society of Friends [the Quakers] would arrest every step toward war; that New York would never name deputies to a congress; that the power of Great Britain could not fail to crush resistance.”
On June 1, 1774, at midnight, the Port Act went into effect, as scheduled. British ships converged into Boston Harbor to begin an indefinite blockade. George Bancroft describes the somber response from two other American colonies: “At Philadelphia, the bells of the churches were muffled and tolled, the ships in port hoisted their colors at half mast . . . In Virginia, the population thronged the churches; Washington attended the service and strictly kept the fast.” As we noted earlier, George Washington’s diary entry for June 1, 1774, reads, “Went to church and fasted all day.” Even as a lay leader, George Washington was participating in a day of fasting and prayer. Later, he would make proclamations for prayer and fasting.
On March 6, 1776, for example, from his headquarters at Cambridge, General Washington issued the command for a Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation:
Thursday, the 7th instant, being set apart by the honorable Legislature of this Province as a day of fasting, prayer and humiliation, “to implore the Lord and Giver of all victory to pardon our manifold sins and wickedness, and that it would please Him to bless the Continental army with His divine favor and protection,” all officers and soldiers are strictly enjoined to pay all due reverence and attention on that day to the sacred duties at the Lord of hosts for His mercies already received, and for those blessings which our holiness and uprightness of life can alone encourage us to hope through His mercy obtain.12
In recent decades, the First Amendment to the Constitution has been construed to mean that there must be a strict separation of church and state and that there should be no religious expression allowed in the public arena. The first sentence of the amendment simply says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The very men who gave the First Amendment did not intend to impose a radical separation of church and state that is advocated by so many today. In fact, the day after Congress adopted the words of the First Amendment, they sent a message to President Washington, asking him to declare a day of thanksgiving to God to show America’s appreciation to God for the opportunity to create America’s new national government in peace and tranquility. So on October 3, 1789, President Washington made a Proclamation of a National Day of Thanksgiving. He declared:
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and
Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness;”
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the twenty-sixth day of November next, to be devoted by the People of these United States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be;
That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks, for His kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation; for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of His Providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which He hath been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us; and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3rd of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.13
One cannot read those words without realizing how the founders and father of our nation did not intend for God to be separated from our official acts. Rather, the founders just did not want a national denomination, as they had experienced in England. They did not want to have an established church, since an established church took away religious liberty. So, the federal government was carefully designed to assure that there would not be an official state church that could force people to worship against their will, or could coerce people to support it with their tax dollars.
THE CONSTITUTION: HUMAN DEPRAVITY REQUIRES LIMITED POWER
Washington had learned, by brutal experience of the difficulties the Continental Congress had in getting the necessary work done to care for the army. Toward the end of the war, as we observed in the last chapter, he began to call for plans to strengthen the powers of government for the good of the whole nation. Ultimately, his concerns were shared by many, and the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in 1787. Washington’s religion manifested itself in various ways during that critical summer in Independence Hall.
Washington’s years of experience with people in the business context taught him the importance of contracts, in light of human nature, and what he termed “the rascallity of Mankind.” Writing to Lund Washington, he said,
If this should be the case, it will be only adding to the many proofs we dayly see of the folly of leaving bargains unbound by solemn covenants. I see so many instances of the rascallity of Mankind, that I am almost out of conceit of my own species; and am convinced that the only way to make men honest, is to prevent their being otherwise, by tying them firmly to the accomplishmt. of their contracts.14
The nation, too, needed a solemn covenant to assure its success. Washington’s interest in a constitutional document is seen in the sheer frequency with which he speaks of the idea of the Constitution. The word appears over four hundred times in his writings. Even at the start of the War in 1776, he understood the importance of preparing a sound Constitution for excellent governance. Writing to his brother to encourage him in the Virginian effort to compose a new Constitution, Washington said.
Dear Brother: Since my arrival at this place, where I came at the request of Congress, to settle some matters relative to the ensuing Campaign I have received your Letter ....
To form a new Government, requires infinite care, and unbounded attention; for if the foundation is badly laid[,] the superstructure must be bad, too. Much time therefore, cannot be bestowed in weighing and digesting matters well. We have, no doubt, some good parts in our present constitution; many bad ones we know we have, wherefore no time can be misspent that is imployed in seperating the Wheat from the Tares. My fear is, that you will all get tired and homesick, the consequence of which will be, that you will patch up some kind of Constitution as defective as the present; this should be avoided, every Man should consider, that he is lending his aid to frame a Constitution which is to render Million’s happy, or Miserable, and that a matter of such moment cannot be the Work of a day.15
When the U.S. Constitution was under consideration by the nation, Washington himself became a keen political scientist in his own right. In fact, he claimed to have read every available publication that appeared in the debate!
The mind is so formed in different persons as to contemplate the same object in different points of view. Hence originates the difference on questions of the greatest import, both human and divine. In all Institutions of the former kind, great allowances are doubtless to be made for the fallibility and imperfection of their authors. Although the agency I had informing this system, and the high opinion I entertained of my Colleagues for their ability and integrity may have tended to warp my judgment in its favour; yet I will not pretend to say that it appears absolutely perfect to me, or that there may not be many faults which have escaped my discernment. I will only say, that, during and since the Session of the Convention, I have attentively heard and read every oral and printed information of both sides of the question that could readily be procured. This long and laborious investigation, in which I endeavoured as far as the frailty of nature would permit to act with candour has resulted in a fixed belief that this Constitution, is really in its formation a government of the people; that is to say, a government in which all power is derived from, and at stated periods reverts to them, and that, in its operation, it is purely, a government of Laws made and executed by the fair substitutes of the people alone.16
From his unique vantage point of having presided at the Constitutional Convention, and from his expertise in pursuing the entirety of the debate, Washington addressed the question of the merits of the proposed Constitution. Simply put, he recognized that it was not perfect. The people who would be governed by it would not be perfect either, given human nature.
Washington’s Inaugural Address was a Presidential sermon. Following his inauguration, his next stop was a worship service.
Writing to Lafayette on February 7, 1788, he expressed his view that the states’ agreement on the Constitution was near miraculous. But he also admitted that there were defects in the Constitution. But, his constitutional “creed” had “two great points”: the Constitution gave no more power than necessary to have a good government, and, there were constitutional checks and balances on the government’s use of power through popular rule, and by the separation of powers among three branches that kept an eye on one another for the good of the nation.17 Beyond this, the Constitution also provided for its own amendment, when citizens would find this necessary.18
Washington’s religion manifested itself precisely at this point in the constitutional debate. The ideas he expressed by terms such as “limited power,” “the separation of powers,” “the rule of the people,” “checks and balances,” and the “need for amendment,” all existed for one simple reason—people abuse power. The idea of the abuse of power and political depravity were openly admitted at the Constitutional Convention,19 and also seriously pondered by Washington.20 Political depravity is a theological concept that flows from the doctrine of human sinfulness—a basic postulate of Christian teaching. In fact, Washington asserted that human depravity could ultimately destroy the Constitution, even with the checks and balances it possessed. In his proposed Address to Congress in April 1789, he described how the Constitution, with all of its wisdom, could ultimately come to naught by the depravity of the people and those who govern them, since the Constitution in the hands of a corrupt people was a mere “wall of words” or a “mound of parchment.”21
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE “COMPLETION OF OUR HAPPINESS”
But if religion was present theologically in the Constitution, why was it not present explicitly or openly? This question was directly asked of Washington by the Presbyterian ministers and elders from the First Presbytery of the Eastward that included clergy from Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The New Englanders had a Christian commitment that was expressed through their established religion of the Congregational Church and the closely related Presbyterian tradition.22 They had wished for a direct reference to the Christian faith in the Constitution, but their disappointment was entirely removed by the public and private Christian and pious leadership of Washington! They wrote:
Whatever any may have supposed wanting in the original plan, we are happy to find so wisely providing in it amendments; and it is with peculiar satisfaction we behold how easily the entire confidence of the People, in the Man who sits at the helm of Government, has eradicated every remaining objection to its form.
Among these we never considered the want of a religious test, that grand engine of persecution in every tyrant’s hand: but we should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some Explicit acknowledgement of the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent inserted some where in the Magna Charta of our country.
We are happy to find, however, that this defect has been amply remedied, in the face of all the world, by the piety and devotion, in which your first public act of office was performed—by the religious observance of the Sabbath, and of the public worship of God, of which you have set so eminent an example—and by the warm strains of Christian and devout affections, which run through your late proclamation, for a general thanksgiving.
The catholic spirit breathed in all your public acts supports us in the pleasing assurance that no religious establishments—no exclusive privileges tending to elevate one denomination of Christians to the depression of the rest shall ever be ratified by the signature of the President during your administration
On the contrary we bless God that your whole deportment bids all denominations confidently to expect to find in you the watchful guardian of their equal liberties—the steady patron of genuine Christianity—and the bright Exemplar of those peculiar virtues, in which its distinguishing doctrines have their proper effect.
Under the nurturing hand of a Ruler of such virtues, and one so deservedly revered by all ranks, we joyfully indulge the hope that virtue and religion will revive and flourish—that infidelity and the vices ever attendant in its train, will be banished [from] every polite circle; and that rational piety will soon become fashionable there; and from thence be diffused among all other ranks in the community.23
These Presbyterians had not the least suspicion of any presidential Deism.
Did a deistic President Washington desire to correct their mistaken identification of him as the “bright Exemplar” and “steady patron of genuine Christianity”? Here truly was an occasion for a man of candor, honesty, character, honor, and truth to practice his maxim of “honesty is the best policy.” Washington’s candid reply did not sidestep the issue of the absence of a direct reference to Christianity in the Constitution. Nor did he miss the fact that his clerical correspondents had identified him as a great defender of Christianity, whose piety and actions had successfully assuaged their fears about the omission of such a reference to Christianity and the negative impact it might have had on the ongoing role of Christian faith under the Constitution. Washington’s answer was actually theologically astute, as it is a direct allusion to a foundational Presbyterian doctrine—the perspicuity, clarity, or plainness of the Gospel in the scriptures.24 The president wrote,
I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that 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-Charta of our country. To the guidance of the ministers of the gospel[,] this important object is, perhaps, more properly committed. It will be your care to instruct the ignorant, and to reclaim the devious, and, in the progress of morality and science, to which our government will give every furtherance, we may confidently expect the advancement of true religion, and the completion of our happiness.25
In sum, Washington believed the Gospel was plain and did not need the Constitution to direct it, and this is why there is no explicit regulation concerning religion in the “Magna-Charta” of America. “Ministers of the gospel,” such as the Presbyterian clergy, whom he was addressing, were more appropriately given this evangelistic task. Yet Washington pledged his best efforts to further morality and science, which he was confident would result in the advancement not just of religion in general, but of “true religion.”26 In context, this had direct reference to the Presbyterian clergy’s phrase, the “Explicit acknowledgement of the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent.” [emphasis ours] And as to the clergy’s identification of Washington with the Christian faith, we find that he embraced this as well, for the expected advancement of true religion would not only result in the “completion” of the clergy’s “happiness,” a universally understood synonym for salvation in the era,27 but in the completion of “our” happiness, inclusive of Washington himself.28 The historical circumstances, the contextual frame of reference for Washington’s letter, and his grammar make only one conclusion possible—Washington wanted the clergy to know that they were correct in identifying him as a Christian.
