Has anyone read this book? Any thoughts?
I did wonder if it remains highly relevant given that America's foundations are crumbling.
I did wonder if it remains highly relevant given that America's foundations are crumbling.
George Washington's Sacred Fire by Peter Lillback
- Thread starter Stephen L Smith
- Start date
- Status
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
I've perused through it. Some areas seem mkre convincing than others.
He does refute some silly arguments, usually made by those who haven't a clue about theology, that are still in use to claim Washington wasn't a Christian though.
He does refute some silly arguments, usually made by those who haven't a clue about theology, that are still in use to claim Washington wasn't a Christian though.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I have my doubts about Washington on that point. I think it's unfortunately telling that when he was at his home in Mt Vernon he usually chose to not go to church at all, and according to his rather meticulous diary of his daily activities, he would sometimes go as little as 14 times a year.
You can look through evidence on this page and while each individual thing could potentially be explained away, the whole is rather sad.
Religious views of George Washington - Wikipedia
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
His argument is that Washington was a low-church latitudinarian. I can grant him that point. Washington was still a Mason.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
It is a massive work. I haven't read it, but I either read or heard some interviews with the author about it, or maybe listened to a lecture where he lays out his argument.
As I recall it, he rebuts the charge that Washington never took the Lord's Supper by arguing that many people in that era abstained, thinking they weren't worthy, etc. He addresses the masonic charge (i.e. that you can't be a real Christian and a mason) by arguing that the masons back then weren't as bad as they became in the 19th Century.
As I recall it, he rebuts the charge that Washington never took the Lord's Supper by arguing that many people in that era abstained, thinking they weren't worthy, etc. He addresses the masonic charge (i.e. that you can't be a real Christian and a mason) by arguing that the masons back then weren't as bad as they became in the 19th Century.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Also about the Lord's Supper: Anglicans in America back then were like Southern Presbyterians--they took the Supper only a few times each year. It wasn't like Washington was standing up Jesus every Lord's Day. To be sure, he was wrong but it wasn't every week.
I was specifically wondering if this a quality biography on George Washington or not necessarily the best one? Also does it give helpful insights into George Washington's role in the Constitution, especially from a Christian point of view? I ask because with the Constitution under attack today by left wing interest groups, it is good to reflect on why the Constitution had some very important checks and balances in it. Was George Washington involved in making good checks and balances?
I was aware that Dr Lillback is an esteemed Reformed scholar. I was wondering if some of his Biblical reflections come out in this biography?
I was aware that Dr Lillback is an esteemed Reformed scholar. I was wondering if some of his Biblical reflections come out in this biography?
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I read a book called "Founding Sins" by Joseph Moore about five years ago and it convinced me that the founding fathers specifically intended for the nation to be a tolerant nation, and very specifically not a Christian nation. There were those at the time who advocated it being a clearly Christian nation but that was explicitly rejected in favor of compromise.
@Reformed Covenanter can comment more to this but I'm pretty convinced at this point.
I don't understand how Lillback can argue convincingly that despite
* Washington making church attendance a low priority,
* being a mason (regardless if they were less deistic then than now),
* usually leaving the service before communion, as noted specifically by four pastors of churches he attended
* Attending Quaker, Catholic, Anglican, and Presbyterian services
---that despite all this, he was a great, faithful Christian. It just doesn't add up. I hope he was a Christian but we have to make a lot of excuses for him to believe it.
@Reformed Covenanter can comment more to this but I'm pretty convinced at this point.
I don't understand how Lillback can argue convincingly that despite
* Washington making church attendance a low priority,
* being a mason (regardless if they were less deistic then than now),
* usually leaving the service before communion, as noted specifically by four pastors of churches he attended
* Attending Quaker, Catholic, Anglican, and Presbyterian services
---that despite all this, he was a great, faithful Christian. It just doesn't add up. I hope he was a Christian but we have to make a lot of excuses for him to believe it.
I've not read the book in the OP, but have a life-long interest in history. I recently read a biography on Benjamin Rush and he like our first President seemed to drift among churches and denominations (in Philly for Dr. Rush).
I suspect a good number of our founding fathers were Christian in the way many of our grandparents were in the 1950s. You supported church and civic organizations because that's the way of a good family man who keeps his place in society. That worked for the betterment of American culture until the 1960s came along and kids asked why then went to Woodstock. They were answered in large part not by the church but by parachurch organizations.
Another thought on our founders: the neutrality of the US government toward religion might have been founded less on enlightment principles and more as a way to solve a problem. What sect do you propose as a national church with Friends influencing Philly, washed-out Puritans dominating New England, Georgia flirting with the Methodists, and top officials partying in Paris? It's far easier to say no to a national affiliation with a faith.
I suspect a good number of our founding fathers were Christian in the way many of our grandparents were in the 1950s. You supported church and civic organizations because that's the way of a good family man who keeps his place in society. That worked for the betterment of American culture until the 1960s came along and kids asked why then went to Woodstock. They were answered in large part not by the church but by parachurch organizations.
Another thought on our founders: the neutrality of the US government toward religion might have been founded less on enlightment principles and more as a way to solve a problem. What sect do you propose as a national church with Friends influencing Philly, washed-out Puritans dominating New England, Georgia flirting with the Methodists, and top officials partying in Paris? It's far easier to say no to a national affiliation with a faith.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
I am not sure I would classify it as a biography.
Great? Maybe not. Certainly wasn't a PBer whatever he was.
There are certainly a lot of conflating statements here. I am not arguing one way or another but, certainly after the First Great Awakening there was a lot of Latitudinarianism and not a lot of churches. Its a shame but, that's the context.
Last edited:
What would you classify it as?
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
A polemical work. It has lots of tidbits but, its not a narrative.
- Status
