Washington’s skill as a leader was universally recognized by his contemporaries. His oft-quoted eulogy immortalized him as “first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” Washington’s presidency faced great events that challenged the very core of the new Republic. He was conscious that his every act created a precedent for good or ill for all that would follow him.3 Our purpose here is not to develop the issues and accomplishments of Washington’s leadership and administration. Yet we think the following events are important to keep in mind for an understanding of Washington’s impact and effectiveness as the formative leader of America.
WAS WASHINGTON A “GODLY” LEADER?
The purpose of this chapter is to assess how Washington’s religion surfaced while he served in public office. Simply put, can we call Washington a “godly” leader? His contemporaries thought so. Consider one of the earliest publications on the life of Washington, by the Reverend Dr. Jedidiah Morse, a clergyman-scholar and correspondent of Washington. At the end of his thirty-three-page long summary of General Washington’s life, based upon the anonymously written and approved life of Washington, by David Humphreys, we find the following poem, which probably came from the pen of Humphreys as well.
GENERAL WASHINGTON
GREAT without pomp, without ambition brave—
Proud, not to conquer fellow men, but save—
Friend to the weak—a foe to none but those,
Who plan their greatness on their brethren’s woes—
Aw’d by no titles—undefil’d by lust—
Free without faction, obstinately just—
Too wise to learn, form Machiavel’s school,
That truth and perfidy by turns should rule.
Warm’d by Religion’s sacred, genuine ray,
Which points to future bliss, th’ unerring way;
Yet ne’er controul’d by Superstition’s laws,
The worst of tyrants in the noblest cause.4
Washington would later speak in his Inaugural Address of the “sacred fire of liberty”:
Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.5
Was Washington’s “sacred fire” properly anticipated by Morse’s and Humphrey’s couplet?:
Warm’d by Religion’s sacred, genuine ray,
Which points to future bliss, th’ unerring way.
Recent authors will hear none of this and have declared an emphatic no. Willard Randall writes, “Washington was not a deeply religious man.”6 Douglas Southall Freeman says, “He had believed that a God directed his path, but he had not been particularly ardent in his faith.”7 James Thomas Flexner states that “Washington ...avoided, as was his deist custom, the word ‘God.’”8 Judging from these writers, Washington could hardly be called a “godly leader.” But our conclusion must be drawn from the actual words of Washington and the religious leaders who encountered him. When this is done, we believe that the evidence leads us in a different direction than that of recent historians Randall, Freeman, and Flexner, and what appear to be their unsubstantiated generalizations. By contrast, in addition to being one of Washington’s closest military aides in the war, David Humphreys was living with the Washington family at Mount Vernon as he wrote his summation of Washington’s daily life, which also had Washington’s personal approval.9
To begin, let us turn our attention to Washington’s remarkable “Circular” that he personally signed and sent to each of the thirteen state governors, who together had just won America’s independence.
A LETTER TO THIRTEEN GOVERNORS: WASHINGTON’S CONFESSION OF FAITH
As the war was coming to an end, there were several issues that troubled Washington. We just saw in our last chapter that there was the deep concern for just compensation for the soldiers after their long sacrifice to win independence. But Washington also had another deep concern. This was the seeming inefficiency and sometimes divisive character of the government established by the Articles of Confederation.
Each state governed itself with such autonomy that, at times, the whole nation suffered. Out of this realization, Washington became one of the earliest proponents for a new kind of government with a more powerful, centralized Congress. His vision ultimately helped to produce the Constitutional Convention. This is the backdrop for his “Circular to the States.” The circular essentially laid out what Washington saw as necessary for an independent America, namely, a union of states under one federal head, a sacred regard for public justice, a proper “peace establishment,” and a disposition and temperament among the citizenry that would allow the individual to subjugate their own personal interest in the interest of the larger community. But what is fascinating for our purposes is not just that these concerns of Washington appear in his farewell circular letter to the thirteen governors, but that the entire letter is couched in a theological message. For us, Washington’s farewell letter to the governors is his official confession of faith, or what we might call Washington’s public theology.
Washington’s “Circular to the States” is as close to a statement of religious faith that he ever produced. Given that it was sent to every state, it was clearly intended by him to be his understanding of an American statement of religious faith. There are some thirty references to spiritual realities: heaven’s favor; final blessing; gratitude and rejoicing; lot assigned by Providence; moral point of light; a vast Tract of Continent ... all the various soils and climates of the World...peculiarly designated by Providence; heaven crowned all its other blessings; above all the pure and benign light of revelation; not ignorance and superstition; the rights of man; the cup of blessing; stand or fall; confirmation or lapse; a blessing or curse (used twice); aggravated vengeance of heaven; begging daily bread; to implore the divine benediction; earnest prayer; God would have you; holy protection; incline hearts; brotherly affection; love for one another; graciously be pleased; to do justice; love mercy; demean with charity; humility and pacific temper of mind; the Divine Author of our blessed religion; humble imitation of whose example; a happy nation.10
The circular, or what we might call, “Washington’s Confession of Faith,” gives a fair summary of Washington’s religion. He had said, “in politics, as in religion my tenets are few and simple.”11 These few and simple religious principles clearly included:
God—“God would have you”
Creation— “a vast Tract of Continent...all the various soils and climates of the World...peculiarly designated by Providence”
Providence—“lot assigned by Providence, designated by Providence”
Deity of Christ—“Divine Author”
Revelation—“pure and benign light of revelation”
Fall—“stand or fall, confirmation or lapse”
Sin—“blessing or curse”
God’s Grace—“favor, Heaven crowned all its blessings, incline hearts, graciously be pleased”
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.
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.
Here then we can see why Washington insisted that religion and morality were “indispensable pillars” of America’s political happiness. We will consider the implications of this statement from his Farewell Address in the final section of this chapter.
A PRESIDENTIAL SERMON: WASHINGTON’S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS
The man who refused to be king at the end of the war was unanimously chosen as president at the start of the new constitutional government—the only man to occupy that office who could make that claim. At his inauguration to the presidency, even as at his retirement from the military, he gave evidence for his Christian faith.
In his first Inaugural Address, Washington frequently referred to the Almighty. His very first act as president was to pray. Washington prayed that God would secure the liberties of the new nation:29 He went on to say that no one should be more grateful to God than the people of the United States of America in light of what he had done for them throughout the war.30
Although the new nation had just gone through the tumultuous time after the Revolution of creating a new civil government, this process, fraught with sectional rivalries and tensions, was accomplished in a peacefully unique way that called for “pious gratitude,” since this implied even more divine blessings to come.31 The implication Washington drew from all of this was that America could not expect the continuing “smiles of Heaven” if “the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained” were disregarded.32
We must remember that when Washington attended the Anglican churches of his day, he—along with the congregation—recited the Ten Commandments from the reredos behind the altar. In Washington’s historical context, “the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained” could only refer to the Ten Commandments, given that this was the belief of almost every American in Washington’s day who read or heard his Inaugural Address.
Along with his solemn Inaugural Address that graced America’s first auspicious pageant of civil religion, Washington’s inauguration contributed three other religious precedents. Two have continued, and the third has not. The first is the swearing in of the president with the use of the Bible. This Bible has been sacredly kept by the Masons of New York City. The page where Washington placed his hand for the oath of office was marked by the turning down of the corner of the page. Interestingly, the marked page is Genesis 49, the chapter where Jacob, the father of the sons of Israel, bestows his blessing upon them. By this time Washington had long been called “the father of his country.” The parallel of the text and the inauguration was not accidental.
The second religious precedent from Washington’s inauguration that continues is the addition of the words “So help me God” to his presidential oath of office, which was spoken as Washington had his hand upon the scriptures opened to Genesis 49. These words were not and are not in the Constitution, but every subsequent president in America’s history has said them following Washington’s lead. Washington’s freely taken oath in the name of God has another important significance beyond mere precedent. It eviscerates James Thomas Flexner’s claim concerning Washington’s Inaugural Address. He states that “Washington ...avoided, as was his deist custom, the word ‘God.’” 33 Strange, indeed, that a man who was following Deist custom would scrupulously avoid the name of God in his speech, but then intentionally add it to his oath of office, where it was not even required! Washington’s inaugural sermon does not avoid the name of God, but instead employed the honorific titles of deity that were so often used by the clergy of his era. Washington’s inaugural vocabulary for deity cannot legitimately be construed to be that of a Deist. Every inauguration after Washington has reminded America that Washington did not avoid the word “God.”
A third Washingtonian religious precedent did not continue. This occurred immediately after being sworn in on the Holy Bible—the new president bent down and kissed the sacred book.34
But the religious elements of Washington’s inauguration were still not complete. Next, he led the congressmen and everyone else across the street from Federal Hall to St. Paul’s Chapel for a two hour service of Christian worship to commit the new nation to God.35 According to Mrs. Alexander Hamilton, she knelt with President Washington as they received the Eucharist together.36
WASHINGTON’S PUBLIC WITNESS TO THE RELIGIOUS BODIES OF AMERICA
At various times during Washington’s presidency, he had remarkable opportunities to declare his faith, as he was honored by various religious groups. These religious denominations often wrote an address to express their joy in Washington’s actions, presence, words, or election to office. With remarkable consistency, Washington acknowledged these letters. In doing so, he also revealed in various ways his personal religious views. There are approximately thirty some addresses that Washington received from religious bodies and that he answered during his presidential years. They reflect the full spectrum of America’s religious communities in his era, from both ecumenical clergy groups37 and individual denominations, such as Roman Catholic,38 Episcopal,39 Lutheran,40 German Reformed,41 Dutch Reformed,42 Presbyterian,43 Congregational,44 Moravian,45 Methodist,46 Baptist,47 Quaker,48 Masonic,49 Universalist,50 Jewish,51 and Swedenborgian.52 In all of his letters, Washington was always polite and clear.
Interestingly, there is no record of any deistic group or atheist group that wrote to Washington. We cannot fully summarize these letters here. But a careful reading of them will demonstrate that they consistently refer to God or divine Providence. They often quote or appeal to scripture, and consistently reflect a Christian faith and understanding on the part of Washington. They also consistently call for civil obedience and the maintenance of religious liberty. They often conclude with the need to pray for the nation or one another, with a wish of blessing for this life and the life hereafter. These letters are some of the best commentaries on Washington’s personal religion as well as his vision for the friendly and cooperative relationship between the distinct spheres of church and state. Most significantly, for our purposes, not one of them provides a hint of a deistic unbelief on the part of Washington.
The characteristic spirit of this correspondence is that both Washington and his religious correspondents agreed that both sides represented godly and religious people. To demonstrate this, let’s consider a few of the more salient examples. The Lutherans wrote on April 27, 1789, to the new president: “Pleasingly do we anticipate the blessings of a wise and efficient government—equal freedom—perfect safety—a sweet contentment spreading through the whole land—irreproachable manners with pure religion, and that righteousness which exalteth a Nation.”
In a most non-deistic manner, Washington responded, “I flatter myself opportunities will not be wanting for me to shew my disposition to encourage the domestic and public virtues of industry, economy, patriotism, philanthropy, and that righteousness which exalteth a nation. . . and amidst all the vicissitudes that may await me in this mutable state of existence, I shall earnestly desire the continuation of an interest in your intercessions at the Throne of Grace.”53
The Methodist bishops had written to the president, “...we enjoy a holy expectation that you always will prove a faithful and impartial Patron of genuine, vital religion—the grand end of our creation and present probationary existence. And we promise you our fervent prayers to the Throne of Grace that GOD almighty may endue you with all the graces and gifts of his holy spirit, that may enable you to fill up your important station to his glory, the good of his Church, the happiness and prosperity of the United States, and the welfare of mankind.”
Washington’s response could not have been that of a Deist, unless it was the kind of Deist that delighted in deceiving others by playing the role of a religious charlatan. Only a godly man could have sincerely written Washington’s words to the Bishops: “After mentioning that I trust the people of every denomination, who demean themselves as good citizens, [you?]will have occasion to be convinced that I shall always strive to prove a faithful and impartial Patron of genuine, vital religion; I must assure you in particular that I take in the kindest part the promise you make of presenting your prayers at the Throne of Grace for me, and that I likewise implore the divine benedictions on yourselves and your religious community.”54
His opening line to the German Reformed Congregations on June 1789 was a simple and clear affirmation of Washington’s perspective of his own personal piety, “I am happy in concurring with you in the sentiments of gratitude and piety towards Almighty-God, which are expressed with such fervency of devotion in your address; and in believing, that I shall always find in you, and the German Reformed Congregations in the United States a conduct correspondent to such worthy and pious expressions.”55 This does not sound like someone who “was not a deeply religious man,” or someone who “had not been particularly ardent in his faith,” or one who “avoided, as was his Deist custom, the word ‘God.’”56
PRESBYTERIAN PRAISE FOR PRESIDENTIAL PIETY
But Washington’s seeming personal godliness not only touched the Lutherans and the Methodists, but the Presbyterians also saw in the President a deeply pious life of Christian faithfulness. The moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly, Reverend John Rodgers, who had corresponded with Washington during the War about giving Bibles to the American troops,57 was a key signatory of a letter emanating from a committee of the General Assembly. The Presbyterians wrote,
We adore Almighty GOD the author of every perfect gift who hath endued you with such a rare and happy assemblage of Talents as hath rendered you equally necessary to your country in war and in peace . . . .the influence of your personal character moderates the divisions of political parties. . . .your present elevated station by the voice of a great and free people, and with an unanimity of suffrage that has few if any examples in history...their confidence in your virtues; . . . we derive a presage even more flattering from the piety of your character. . . .a steady, uniform, avowed friend of the Christian religion, who has commenced his administration in rational and exalted sentiments of Piety, and who in his private conduct adorns the doctrines of the Gospel of Christ, and on the most public and solemn occasions devoutly acknowledges the government of divine Providence. The examples of distinguished Characters will ever possess a powerful and extensive influence on the public mind, and when we see in such a conspicuous station the amiable example of piety to God, of benevolence to men, and of a pure and virtuous patriotism, we naturally hope that it will diffuse its influence and that eventually the most happy consequences will result from it.58
Was the Presbyterian committee utterly mistaken about the godliness they had observed in Washington? Their letter bristled with affirmations of Washington’s piety—“personal character,” “virtues,” “piety of your character,” “avowed friend of the Christian religion,” “rational and exalted sense of piety,” “his private conduct adorns the doctrines of the Gospel of Christ,” “devoutly acknowledges the government of divine Providence,” “amiable example of piety to God,” “a pure and virtuous patriotism.”
Washington’s response to this litany of Presbyterian praise for his spiritual devotion revealed the temperament of a sincere Christian, not the temporizing of a mere politician. First and last, his concern for humility shone through: “...it will be my endeavor to avoid being elated by the too favorable opinion which your kindness for me may have induced you to express...I desire you to accept my acknowledgements for your...prayers to Almighty God for his blessing on our common country and the humble instrument, which he has been pleased to make use of in the administration of its government.”59 But Washington also understood the essence of the Presbyterian letter. They were declaring their belief that Washington himself was a Christian. What was Washington’s response to this? Was it an evasion that would allow for his actual Deism to stand without causing offense to his religious well-wishers?
Instead, his answer was one that reflected a deep sense of faith and dependence upon God: “I reiterate the possession of my dependence upon Heaven as the source of all public and private blessings.” His answer also reflected the importance of the kind of piety the Presbyterians had just extolled in him: “I will observe that the general prevalence of piety, philanthropy, honesty, industry and economy seems, in the ordinary course of human affairs are particularly necessary for advancing and confirming the happiness of our country.”
Finally, his answer emphasized that authentic Christianity was a matter to be prized, pursued, and proven. While Washington’s classic vocabulary might cloud our understanding, we can sense the passion for the Christian faith that motivated his words. His central thought was this, since all Americans enjoyed full religious liberty, it was only reasonable that something would be expected from them in return for this great blessing.60 What was this? Washington said, “...that they will be emulous of evincing the sincerity of their profession by the innocence of their lives, and the beneficence of their actions.”
We need some help here to understand Washington’s intent. A modern equivalent of Washington’s staid and archaic eighteenth century rhetoric is: “they [i. e., religious Americans] will be ambitious to surpass others in demonstrating convincingly their heartfelt declaration of faith by the sinlessness of their lives and the kindness of their actions.” Why must one’s faith be demonstrated by such works? Washington’s answer stated: “For no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.” In other words, a true Christian was one who possessed moral restraint that blessed the society through good citizenship and brought credibility to his own religious community as well. Washington was, in essence, applying the biblical teachings of James 2 to the spiritual and civil context: “Faith without works is dead.”
If this was not a conversation between a group of Christians and a Christian president, then consider the incongruity that occurred here. A committee of pre-eminent theologians and elders representing their entire denomination were utterly deceived about Washington’s faith. And Washington, unwilling to disabuse them of their mistaken notion, played along. Instead of honorably explaining their misunderstanding of his views, he furthered the mistake of the misguided Christian clergymen by deceptively expressing a faith he did not possess. Then to add insult to injury, he went on to expound as a false Christian a fundamental question of the Christian religion, namely, who is a true Christian. In so doing he, in essence, alluded to the teaching of the classic biblical text of James 2, which he, as a Deist, did not believe.
This analysis is not intended to be a reductio ad absurdum. The fact is, the options are fairly straightforward. Either Washington was a Christian, or he was a deceptive Deist. If he were the latter, his claim to be a man of honesty and character—the very thing the Presbyterians had celebrated in their letter to Washington—was just as much a sham as his counterfeit Christianity and his pretense of piety.
NON-PARTISANSHIP, PROMOTING THE GENERAL GOOD
When we considered Washington’s personality several chapters ago, we discovered that he saw himself as a non-partisan leader.61 He was not one given to partisan politics and petty conflicts, and thus, if he found parties, he tried to reconcile them. Thus, he wrote on July 6, 1796, to Thomas Jefferson, openly expressing some of the pain partisan politics inflicts on those who govern by principle:
...and moreover, that I was no believer in the infallibility of the politics, or measures of any man living. In short, that I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them. To this I may add, and very truly, that, until with in the last year or two ago, I had no conception that Parties would, or even could go, the length I have been witness to; nor did I believe until lately, that it was within the bonds of probability; hardly with in those of possibility, that, while I was using my utmost exertions to establish a national character of our own, independent, as far as our obligations, and justice would permit, of every nation of the earth; and wished, by steering a steady course, to preserve this Country from the horrors of a desolating war, that I should be accused of being the enemy of one Nation, and subject to the influence of another; and to prove it, that every act of my administration would be tortured, and the grossest, and most insidious mis-representations of them be made (by giving one side only of a subject, and that too in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero; a notorious defaulter; or even to a common pick-pocket). But enough of this; I have already gone farther in the expression of my feelings, than I intended.62
Similarly, George Washington eschewed any form of prejudice. He once stated, “I am uninfluenced by prejudice, having no hopes or fears but for the general good.”63 On the contrary, Washington once declared that his concern first and foremost was the general good:
I have no object separated from the general welfare to promote. I have no predilections, no prejudices to gratify, no friends, whose interests or views I wish to advance at the expence of propriety.64
One of his final written lines on politics was about his desire to keep America neutral in international politics. Writing to Lafayette, on December 25, 1798, Christmas Day only a year before he died, Washington says,
On the Politics of Europe I shall express no Opinion, nor make any inquiry who is Right or who is Wrong. I wish well to all nations and to all men. My politics are plain and simple. I think every nation has a Right to establish that form of Government under which It conceives It shall live most happy; provided it infracts no Right or is not dangerous to others. And that no Governments ought to interfere with the internal concerns of Another, except for the security of what is due to themselves.65
CONCLUSION: WASHINGTON’S PRINCIPLES OF LEADERSHIP
Nevertheless, a political candidate creates competition and rivalry simply by trying to lead. So, in spite of Washington’s desire to be non-political, he was often in the midst of political intrigue. This happened when he tried to step down after his first term, but was urged to run again.66 Only months before Washington died, political intrigue surfaced again at the end of John Adam’s first term, when there were those who attempted to persuade him to leave retirement and pursue a third term, fearing that Adams would not be reelected.67
How did Washington seek to lead in the midst of a competitive and divisive political context? The answer is found in his concept of seeking the good of “the great whole.” A full study of Washington’s principles of leadership would be beneficial to all who seek to learn to lead better. But here, we simply present a few insightful comments from the great leader of early America. These principles are simply given in the chronological order they occur in Washington’s writings.
Principle # 1: Smaller Groups When Well Led Will Reflect The Unity Of The “Great Whole.”
In short, each Brigade should be an epitome of the great whole, and move by similar Springs upon a smaller scale.68
Principle # 2: Governance Requires The Best Men So That “The Great Whole” Is Not Mismanaged.
... that each State would ... compel their ablest Men to attend Congress; that they would instruct them to go into a thorough investigation of the causes that have produced so many disagreeable effects in the Army and Country; in a word that public abuses should be corrected, and an entire reformation worked;...These, if the great whole is mismanaged must sink in the general wreck and will carry with it the remorse of thinking that we are lost by our own folly and negligence.69
Principle # 3: You Can’t Please Everyone, So Seek The Good Of “The Great Whole.”
To please every body is impossible; were I to undertake it I should probably please no body. If I know myself I have no partialities. I have from the beginning, and I will to the end pursue to the best of my judgment and abilities one steady line of conduct for the good of the great whole. This will, under all circumstances administer consolation to myself however short I may fall of the expectations of others. ...The hour therefore is certainly come when party differences and disputes should subside; when every Man (especially those in Office) should with one hand and one heart pull the same way and with their whole strength. Providence has done, and I am perswaded is disposed to do, a great deal for us.70
Principle # 4: Jealous Parties Must Be Urged To Exercise The Wisdom Of Being Part Of “The Great Whole.”
My first wish now is, that the States may be wise; that they may improve the advantages which they have obtained; that they may consider themselves individually, as parts of the great whole; and not by unreasonable jealousies, and ill-founded prejudices, destroy the goodly fabrick we have been Eight years labouring to erect. But without more liberallity of Sentiment and action, I expect but little.71
Principle # 5: Withering Criticism Can Be Weathered By A Consistent Policy Of Never Seeking Merely Local Or Partial Considerations, But By Always Seeking “The Great Whole’s” Substantial And Permanent Interests.
Gentlemen: In every act of my administration, I have sought the happiness of my fellow-citizens. My system for the attainment of this object has uniformly been to overlook all personal, local and partial considerations: to contemplate the United States, as one great whole: to confide, that sudden impressions, when erroneous, would yield to candid reflection: and to consult only the substantial and permanent interests of our country.72
Principle #6: Pursue the true interests of the Country rather than popularity.
I know the delicate nature of the duties incident to the part which I am called to perform; and I feel my incompetence, without the singular assistance of Providence to discharge them in a satisfactory manner. But having undertaken the task, from a sense of duty, no fear of encountering difficulties and no dread of losing popularity, shall ever deter me from pursuing what I conceive to be the true interests of my Country.73
As we have reviewed Washington’s impact as a leader and his leadership principles, we are in a better place to understand the interconnection between the First Inaugural Address on April 30, 1789 and his first Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1789. In the first, he appealed to the “sacred fire of liberty” that had been entrusted to the American people in their “experiment” in representative government. In the second, he told the new nation how to fan the “sacred fire of liberty” so that it might burn even more brightly. His proposed method was by acknowledging the Providence of Almighty God and humbly imploring his blessing on the nation. Such words would have been most appropriate coming from the lips of a chaplain or a preacher from his pulpit. Yet it is striking just how naturally they came from George Washington as he assumed his pulpit of the presidency as American’s first godly leader. Washington had indeed “turned preacher after all.”74