Product Description

In Washington's God Michael Novak -- one of America's leading neoconservative pundits -- and his daughter, Jana, uncover George Washington's religious life. Finally the record is set straight on the most thoroughly misunderstood aspect of Washington's life. The Novaks focus on Washington's strong trust in divine Providence and see this belief as providing the unifying narrative to his monumental life.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #69642 in eBooks
• Published on: 2008-08-05
• Released on: 2008-08-05
• Format: Kindle Book
• Number of items: 1

From Publishers Weekly
Most modern historians have made three basic assumptions about the religious views of our nation's first president: he was a deist; he was only a marginal Christian who kept up appearances but had no depth of conviction; and he believed only in an impersonal force or destiny that he called "Providence." Michael Novak, the well-known conservative thinker and author of The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, teams up with his daughter Jana to attempt to debunk all three of these notions about Washington's religious views. Written at the specific request of Mount Vernon and with the assistance of their archives, this book is carefully researched. It is most persuasive when the Novaks show that despite his natural reserve, a depth of religious feeling ran through Washington's public and private speeches and correspondence, disproving the portrait of a tepid, perfunctory Anglicanism. However, they don't succeed as well in disproving Washington's deist sensibility; the Novaks adopt the modern assumption that being a Christian and being a deist were mutually exclusive—a conclusion that few in the late 18th century would have shared. At times, the Novaks' starry-eyed admiration of the man pushes this book over the bounds of biography into hagiography. (Mar. 6)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist
Though historians have frequently identified George Washington as a deist rather than a Christian, the Novaks vigorously dispute this characterization. Through careful scrutiny of Washington's religious pronouncements, they establish that the master of Mount Vernon worshipped the God of scripture, not the absentee clockmaker of deism. Like other Christians of his time, Washington recognized the Deity as a living--albeit often inscrutable--influence in his personal life and in the fortunes of his country. Readers even revisit specific events (such as the improbable retreat from New York under cover of a life-saving fog) in which Washington detected the hand of the Almighty. To be sure, the Novaks acknowledge that Washington generally kept his Christian convictions private, but the language and conduct of this Anglican vestryman reflect marks of real devotion, not the mere shell of social conformity. Perhaps more important, we recognize the substance of religious faith informing a military career during which Washington insisted that soldiers attend the sermons of their Christian chaplains and a political career during which he repeatedly summoned the nation to prayers of reverent thanksgiving. Much-needed light on an enigmatic icon. Bryce Christensen
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

About the Author
Michael Novak, a former U.S. ambassador, is the author of The Universal Hunger for Liberty, the best-selling The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, and many other books. He holds the George Frederick Jewett Chair in Religion, Philosophy and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. He lives in Washington, D.C., with his family.

Jana Novak is a writer and poet and the co-author of Tell Me Why: A Father Answers His Daughter's Questions About God.

Customer Reviews

Worth the time and effort
While this book is not the most electrifying or entertaining book I have ever read (even on Washington), it did answer most of my questions regarding George Washington's faith, and how it effected his outlook and actions and helped shaped the life of one of the most important figures in American history. The writing is thorough and well documented, the style is informative without being overly academic, and while I still found Washington a bit distant and even at times (as he himself wrote about God/Providence so often) "inscrutable", I feel that the authors did as well as is possible delving into the personal beliefs of one of the most private and taciturn of `public' men that ever lived.

Washington: a typical Churchman of his day
First off, let me say that I know the author and count the Novaks as friends of our family. Having said that, I am an actual Anglican, born to the old Episcopal church, baptized, confirmed, and married by the traditional Book of Common Prayer. I mention this because contemporary Episcopalianism has veered far off course from the Anglicanism of Washington's day, while I have made a serious study of just that: the Anglicanism of the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries.

I also state that I am a layman, albeit one with a very keen interest in my Christian heritate. Michael is somewhat hampered in his investigation by his own Roman Catholicism, which of necessity means he comes to Washington not as a coreligionist, and dependent on others for their perspective on the Church of England.

Chrisitanity of the 18th C is not the Christianity of today. Methodism and Evangelicalism as we know them were unheard of and would have been regarded as madness any earlier than they appeared. Until then, Protestants in particular took Christ's admonition to pray in one's closet -- privately -- very seriously. Congregational worship, according to the 1662 edition of hte Book of Common Prayer, left little room for improvisation or personal input. It was formal, elegant, ancient even then, and it was almost unthinkable to fiddle with its carefully considered proscriptions. It necessesarily formed the religous mind of those who worshiped by it in church. In the BCP, the Christian God is often called by "Almighty God", "Father in heaven" and similar Old Testament names. Jesus Christ's name is used, but in specific places in specific prayers, usually only at Holy Communion.

This is to say, the Anglican of old would be aghast to presume too much familiarity with Lord Jesus! Recall this is an age of excruciatingly specific ettiquitte and protocol. Being "buddies" with the Christ would have caused Washington a burst blood vessel in his head!

Also, public prayer was expected to be lead by a minister of God's word, not a layman. In the privacy of one's home, the husband and father was expected to act as chief priest and lead family prayer -- but this too was considered extraordinarily private and not something to be broadcast from a soapbox. It would certianly not be written about in letters.

As to the matter of the Lord's Supper, this too is not what modern Christians anachronistically make it to be. Anglicans were of mixed mind -- and still are today -- as to the meaning of the consecrated bread and wine of Holy Communion. Was it the Real Presence in transubstantiated form? Spiritually? Merely a symbol? Was Christ present bodily, spiritually, or only in memoriam? These were serious questions and not completely answered in 1776. They are not answered in 2006.

Whichever belief Washington may have had about the Supper of the Lord, one thing all Anglicans believed is that it was "Romish" to Communicate too frequently. The rubrics of the Prayerbook tell the faithful Anglican he must Communicate only on Easter Day! It was not uncommon in the Episcopal church as recently as the 1950s to take Communion only on very holy days, even as many observed Good Friday fasts.

Further, Anglicanism is particular in prohibiting any "notorious evildoer", anyone not in love and charity with his neighbors, or anyone conscious of grave sin from the Table of the Lord. This injunction is made before each Communion and it is not uncommon for communicants even today to refrain from the Eucharist if htey feel unworthy, lest they experience the eternal damnation of their soul as warned by Saint Paul.

It is entirely possible Washington, given his extraordinary sense of honor and keen sinfulness, may simply have believed himself unworthy of communicating while he was engaged in warfare.

In any case, most Anglican would have approached the Lord's Table on Easter and perhaps special days of Thanksgiving and not very much more often.

Dr. Novak is, sadly, unacquainted with this historical practice, and so he did not properly address it in his book.

Bottom line, Washington's public behavior was perhaps the epitome of a holy Anglican. Reserved, careful not to presume too much familiarity with the Lord Christ himself, fearful of unworthy Communication, too humble and reserved to dare brag of the Almighty's favour and goodness towards him.

No, Washington was no Deist and those who say so are ignoramouses. Washington was a Vestryman who understood his place with the Lord God Almighty and dared not presume on his Providence.

Please read the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which may be found online at http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/. Read it and you will understand Washington and his God. You might even join him in reverent worship.

Mixed Review? Look Again
In quoting the thoughtful review by Al Zambone in Christianity Today, David Vinzant leaves out the favorable parts. Read a sample for yourself:

"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.'"

The small dissent in Zambone's review that Vinzant does quote, on the portraits of the Virgin Mary and St. John in Mount Vernon and Washington's unusually active work as a vestryman, occur on but three pages in WASHINGTON'S GOD (pp. 168-170). In fact, the review slightly misstates the points the Novaks made on those pages. Check it out yourself.