In the popular culture of late twentieth and early twenty-first century America, two schools of thought about George Washington are doing battle. As evidenced by sermons and books by conservative religious leaders and numerous websites launched by people with an axe to grind, at least in regard to his religious beliefs, the Washington one finds on the internet appears to be a candidate for diagnosis as a multiple personality. He is either a rabid evangelical Christian or else is described as a Deist, a term which seems to be equivalent in the modern parlance of these polemicists to agnostic—someone who feels that there is no way to know if there is or is not a God, so they refuse to take a stand either way, and, if there is a God, he/she/it is unknowable. Perhaps Washington’s seeming personality disorder can be traced to the fact that, depending on which site one reads, he was either raised by pietistic parents or was the son of a man who spurned the Christian faith.
These differing views of Washington in the contemporary United States reflect the historical scholarship of the last two centuries. For over one hundred years following Washington’s death, his biographers tended to view their subject as a deeply religious man. Popular writers reflected that same opinion, but often elaborated on the religious theme; stories came into the popular imagination of Washington the perfect man, who broke up fights between children at school as a boy, was always in church each Sunday, had religious visions, and certainly never lied.
All that changed about seventy years ago. At that point, historians began trying to strip away the myths that had grown up around Washington, in order to make him more human and understandable to a twentieth century audience. While this was a laudable goal—and one that contemporary historians and museums are still striving to do in the face of some particularly imbedded beliefs, such as the wooden teeth legend—they began to cast doubt on the view of Washington as a devout Christian. The most influential of those works was historian Paul Boller’s Washington and Religion, which essentially described Washington as a person who, though raised in the Anglican Church, was at best only nominally Christian, who found that religion useful for keeping the lower classes in order, but did not seriously believe the tenets of the faith. Religion, moreover, was a subject in which he had very little interest. Boller’s position has been the standard interpretation of this facet of Washington’s life since its publication more than forty years ago. Most recently, scholarly examinations of the subject have suggested that Washington’s spiritual life was more greatly influenced by Stoic philosophy than Judeo-Christian theology.
There is evidence that the historical tide may again be turning. While not directly dealing with Washington, Edward L. Bond and John K. Nelson have written convincing explorations of the Anglican Church in Virginia, which take seriously the depth of faith of the American colonists and challenge the notion that the state church was solely a means by which the upper classes controlled the rest of society. Other scholars—Daniel L. Dreisbach, James H. Hutson, and Garrett Ward Sheldon, to name just a few—have reexamined the place of religion in the lives of Washington’s contemporaries and show their readers a group of men and women with a strong belief in God and an intense interest in matters of religion. Quite recently, still others have turned their attention to Washington himself. Vincent Phillip Munoz produced a fine article on Washington’s ideas on church and state, while Michael and Jana Novak have just (2006) published a book-length investigation into the identity of the God mentioned in Washington’s writings, as well as what the country’s most famous founding father meant when he wrote, so very often, about “Providence.”
Peter Lillback, with Jerry Newcombe, has written George Washington’s Sacred Fire as a means of redressing some of the past wrongs in interpreting the place of God and religion in Washington’s life. Striving for balance, the man to whom Dr. Lillback introduces his readers is decidedly Christian, but hardly an evangelical in the modern sense. He was an active churchman, whose relationship with the Anglican Church underwent change throughout his life, but never altered his relationship with God. Unlike many of the popular writers who have tried to resurrect belief in a very devout Washington, Dr. Lillback has taken great care to document his sources. His fifteen years of research are clearly evident, with very complete notes and appendices, so that readers wishing to explore further can follow the trail to additional sources. The author also brings an understanding of the eighteenth century church in America, which is invaluable in putting Washington into the context of his time and place.
So, if the historical tide is beginning to turn—a slow process at best—then scholars are in the first stages of reappraising Washington’s faith. As part of that reassessment, I would like to invite you to read George Washington’s Sacred Fire. It is now your turn to weigh the evidence and decide how you would answer the question of whether George Washington, America’s founding father, was a Christian or not.
Mary V. Thompson
Research Specialist
George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate