1 of 3
Michael and Jana Novak have written a book that will probably displease nearly everyone. Some evangelicals will be outraged because the Novaks do not claim that George Washington was a committed and devout Christian. Other evangelicals will be uncomfortable that they are even discussing the question at all because it's just such a fundamentalist thing to do. And of course committed agnostics will be outraged that Washington is being turned into some kind of Christian by the Catholic Novaks, when he was obviously a Deist who was no Christian, or very great supporter of organized religion.
|
|
The real question, of course, is what Washington actually thought. But is this knowable? Stephen Vincent Benet wrote of Robert E. Lee "the heart he kept always to himself," yet Lee was loquacious compared to Washington; reading his letters to his daughters gives immense insight into Lee's emotional qualities. No such letters exist from Washington. As the Novaks observe, it is possible that Washington communicated his emotional life to Martha, his wife, but she burned these letters after his death. Still, the Novaks contend that there is sufficient evidence to be certain that Washington was "Not a Deist, but Judeo-Christian" as one of their chapter titles declares, albeit "a very private Christian."
The Novaks' central argument, following several chapters recapitulating Washington's life, is based upon Washington's incessant appeals to and observations of the ways of Providence. This is something ignored or dismissed by many biographers, which is foolish; Washington used "Providence" so often that it can be characterized as one of his three ruling ideas of how the world works or should work (the other two, I believe, are "West" and "Union"). His idea of Providence was that it was the intervention of an all-powerful and all-merciful God in the events of mankind. This Providence was often seen as working the near-miraculous, such as in the Continental Army's escape through night and fog from Brooklyn past the British fleet. Washington's "Providence," the Novaks convincingly demonstrate, is not impersonal fate; moreover, Washington does not view Providence as always being on his side. While he often describes Providence as benevolent and God as merciful, his favorite description of Providence is "inscrutable." Providence is not the leader of America's team; It does what It does, and is not always understood by a humanity that is being done unto. In the face of Providence, Washington is both thankful and resigned. Indeed, Washington's very last words as he died, "'Tis well," reflect the most important belief of his life.
For Washington, Providence had a personality. Thus it is difficult, as the Novaks further argue, to describe Washington as a Deist in the classic 18th-century sense. Many if not all Deists would accept the concept of Providence in general terms, as the overarching care of the Creator-God for the world that He had established. However they would be quick to deride any idea that this God would intervene in the world using anything that seemed even vaguely miraculous; in theological terms, they denied the need for special providence. Washington, however, often appeals precisely to special Providence. Moreover, as in his letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Savannah, Washington identifies that special Providence as being none other than Jehovah, "who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors" and whose "agency has lately been conspicuous, in establishing these United States as an independent nation."
RSS Feed
