Washington’s God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country

5 Responses to “Washington’s God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country”

1. D. Mikulan says:

   June 9, 2010 at 8:56 pm

   A rather weak and limited instruction about the faith of “the Father of America.” A childish read, this book severely lacks both in depth reasoning and supporting detail – leaving me reasonably unconvienced of the leader’s theories. Immaturely written. The leader’s research of Washington dosen’t seem to have exceeded their initial elementary school teachings. A cute attempt though.
   Reader’s Rating: 2 / 5
2. M.Secilia says:

   June 9, 2010 at 10:06 pm

   The main problem with this book, is that the entire thing is based off of the leader’s “hope” that Washington was a devout Christian… Though the truth of the matter is, Washington was undoubtedly a diest. The Novak’s try to disprove this primarily with assumptions (which seem to be based on nothing at all I might add) rather than past evidence, basically building the whole book a sack of hot air.

   Something that was particularly annoying to me was that within the book’s center, there is a section of illustrations — the first being John McRae’s legendary painting “The Prayer at Valley Forge,” which depicts Washington alone, kneeling in prayer. I saw this as nothing more than an attempt to misguide readers into falling for the fake belief that Washington was a devout Christian, believing the illustration to be of an actual account. Again but, it has been confirmed by both friends, as well as family tree members, that Washington never prayed — and even during Church prayers, Washington refused to kneel.

   This book is an attempt to take in the truths of history. If you choose to read this book, I urge you to be aware of the leader’s manipulative tendencies.
   Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
3. BS Protector says:

   June 10, 2010 at 12:17 am

   Novak & daughter make repeated assumptions that are in no way indicated by the past record, and at most, his and his fellow Christian Revisionist Historian’s wishful thinking are the only basis for this tome. To conclude that a man that does not even USE the word Jesus, in one SINGLE instance in ANY of his known documents, or writings, is a Christian, is disingenuous, and has a political, rather than religious overtone. Save your money, would be my advice, and skip this as the pure propaganda that it most certainly is.
   Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
4. David G. Vinzant says:

   June 10, 2010 at 3:02 am

   “Books and Culture,” a publication of the conservative evangelical magazine “Christianity Today” gives a decidedly mixed review.

   An excerpt:

   “But, the Novaks’ argument suffers when they make much of small, 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 bought 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, agreed 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, agreed the copious religious paintings on spectacle in the main salon at Monticello.

   “Likewise the Novaks mention that Washington was the recipient of copious sermons but give the to some extent flawed impression that he “regularly enough” responded to the leader regarding the content of a sermon; in fact, it was relatively rare for Washington to do anything additional than acknowledge the receipt of the gift and offer gracious yet perfunctory thanks to the minister. They place fantastic emphasis on Washington’s role as a member of the Fairfax parish vestry; yet it would have been intolerably scandalous for a prominent member of the parish not to serve in such a capacity, such was the scenery of the customary church in colonial Virginia.

   “Moreover, the Novaks pass over additional evidence that should distress 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 “Ancient Fox” had fooled some ministers who wished to pin him down on doctrinal points. Agreed 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 thoughts? Yes, absolutely, so many that in any Western country outside the United States Washington would be regarded as very religious. Did he judge 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 permanently 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 additional observer to make it.”

   The full review can be read at the christianitytoday website.
   
   Reader’s Rating: 3 / 5
5. Glendalyn L. Richard says:

   June 10, 2010 at 3:28 am

   George Washington being the “Father of our country” has new meaning for me.
   Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5