2 of 3

However, the Novaks' argument suffers when they make much of little, or fail to give proper weight to evidence that does not support their thesis. As an example of the first flaw, they write of the two paintings with Christian subjects that Washington purchased for the main dining room at Mount Vernon, speculating that these portraits of the Virgin Mary and St. John must have meant something to Washington, given his attention to symbolism; yet if religious portraits are an indication of their owner's Christian spirituality, than Thomas Jefferson must have been a crypto-Catholic, given the numerous religious paintings on display in the main salon at Monticello. Likewise the Novaks mention that Washington was the recipient of numerous sermons but give the somewhat mistaken impression that he "often enough" responded to the author regarding the content of a sermon; in fact, it was relatively rare for Washington to do anything other than acknowledge the receipt of the gift and offer gracious yet perfunctory thanks to the minister. They place great emphasis on Washington's role as a member of the Fairfax parish vestry; yet it would have been impossibly scandalous for a prominent member of the parish not to serve in such a capacity, such was the nature of the established church in colonial Virginia. Moreover, the Novaks pass over other evidence that should trouble the most ardent proponents of "Washington a Christian." They do not mention the testimony of the pastor of Christ Church in Philadelphia that while Martha Washington was a regular communicant, the president never once received the Lord's Supper during all the years he spent in residence there. Nor do the Novaks pay any attention to Jefferson's exultant recollection of how the "Old Fox" had fooled some ministers who wished to pin him down on doctrinal points. Given Jefferson's own inclinations, one has to take his evidence with more than a few grains of salt. But these opposing opinions of Washington's contemporaries are just the point. Washington was enigmatic because by being an enigma he preserved himself above all factions, both political and religious, and remained the very personification of American union and continental purpose.

Did the Anglicanism that was a part of the intellectual culture of Virginia influence Washington? Certainly. Did he have religious ideas? Yes, absolutely, so many that in any Western country outside the United States Washington would be regarded as very religious. Did he believe that religion, and in particular Christianity, was a necessity for the life of the American republic? Again yes, with certain qualifications. But as for the yearnings of his own heart, that "he kept always to himself / away from the picklocks of biographers." If the Novaks ultimately fail in their task, it is because Washington himself did not want them or any other observer to succeed.

Al Zambone is doctoral candidate at Oxford University. His thesis is entitled, "Anglican Enlightenment: Intellectual Culture in Virginia, 1690-1750."

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Washington's God is available from Amazon.com and other book retailers.

The book was recently featured on C-SPAN's Book TV.

Michael Novak defended his book in National Review Online against a New York Sun review. NRO also had a Q&A with the Novaks.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

April (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50