George Washington's Sacred Fire [Hardcover]

Dr. Peter Lillback and co-author Jerry Newcombe, have hit a smashing home run with this extraordinarily powerful book on George Washington.

After spending over a decade of research going through all the original documents of George Washington, Lillback has exposed the myths about this true man of Christian faith, and proven without a doubt that Washington was a follower of Christ Jesus and not merely a Deist.

This must have book is broken up into seven sections that cover the controversy over George Washington, the historical background of Washington, Washington's life, and Washington as a churchman, and even the debate over Washington and communion.

My favorite part of the book was the ten appendices at the end that cover the rules of civility and decent behavior that Washington abided by, as well as representative biblical quotations and allusions that Washington used all of the time. The other appendices cover sermons, and other prayers by others that were impacting to Washington.

This book also has beautiful photographs within its pages and a few hundred pages of endnotes so that you can go directly to the source and see for yourself the truth about Washington.

In this day of revisionist history, where the liberals are trying to convince the world that faith was not a part of the founding of this country, Dr. Lillback's work is a two fisted punch in the nose to prove otherwise.

This is a much needed book in the public schools, universities, pulpit and church libraries and every patriot in America. Buy it today, you won't be disappointed.

"we have presented the evidence that proves that George Washington was, without doubt, a Christian."

Earlier in the book, Lillback is more circumspect:

"The only honest standard that can be employed in historical research is the same that is used in a legal process, namely, `beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

The authors' certitude has a better basis than other authors who make alternate claims, such as Ellis' claim to know Washington's deathbed mindset. Now and then Lillback pushes some evidence the way he wants it to go (that Washington recommended a Christian to the post of chaplain isn't quite proof of Washington's Christianity, though Lillback argues it to be) he makes a very good argument for Washington's Anglican orthodoxy, a far better argument than those who argue for his Deism.

For me, I enjoyed absorbing the wealth of information Lillback brings - I enjoyed the footnotes (though in my copy the type is annoyingly small) and the appendices.

A lot of information is irrelevant to the major theme of Washington's spiritual life. Lillback makes an effective case without much Weems input, yet he includes an entire chapter on Weems and Washington. Lillback also includes much on the 110 Rules of Civility, where God is mentioned exactly once, and though many rules have biblical origin, they're purely behavioral instructions, not theological, and Washington's interest in them is compatible with deism or Christianity.

But they're great to read anyway.

In addition, Lillback includes a passage on how Washington's sickness in Barbados saved the USA by giving Washington a resistance to smallpox - yet Lillback gives no evidence that Washington believed that this was divine intervention designed to create a United States, so it's apparently more relevant to Lillback's religious faith than to Washington's. The authors also slip at least once, including the questionable "so help me God" inaugural story without question. And there's this acontextual cut and paste hodge-podge of Washington quotes patched together by the authors that they call "Washingtonian Creed." Skip that and move on to the hard information.

Which there's plenty of. The basic arguments of the book are sound. There are only a handful of quotations that pin Washington as a Christian, but they're not as easily dismissed as some would like. Washington would have had to have been a systematic liar to recite creeds in church, state oaths of the godparent, etc. Also, he'd have to have been deeply cynical to command divine services for his men, promote spreading Christianity to the Indians, and advise personal friends to behave in a Christian fashion while believing it was just something to keep the rabble in line. Lillback also points out a handful of much more convincing witnesses for Washington's prayer than Parson Weems' Quaker. Additionally, the testimony of Nelly Custis and of Martha Washington is very difficult for anyone to explain away.

The only serious omission I found was the letter Ashbel Green wrote to Washington on behalf of a group of Philadelphia ministers. In that incident, Green hoped Washington's would reply would state his Christianity more explicitly. It didn't. Martha Washington and Nelly Custis were in a better position to discern his faith, but here are people who knew and spoke with Washington - why did they believe that Washington was not a Christian? This confusion is one of the primary reasons for the existence of George Washington's Sacred Fire and that the authors don't fully address the issue is a weakness.

George Washington's Sacred Fire is a terrific pile of information on George Washington and his spirituality. I enjoyed the pure volume of information. And Lillback has made an excellent case for Washington's Christianity - if not absolutely, his argument is beyond any reasonable doubts that I'm aware of.

There are many who have asserted (academically), and many who have accepted the premise (popularly) that George Washington, along with the rest of the Founders, were Deists. Although this is true, and easily verifiable, for some of them (e.g., Thomas Jefferson), such a sweeping historical statement refuses to hold water. And that is where Lillback's volume comes into the discussion.

At first blush it is an impressive book: 725 pages of text, 228 pages of appendices, and 198 pages of footnotes (the print of which strains the naked eye). The weight of this volume has no doubt already sent many curious readers heading the other direction. But this is part of the problem one will encounter when publishing within one's own organization. Lillback is the the president of Providence Forum, and thus probably did not receive an honest and challenging editorial process for his own work (Providence Forum Press should be concerned with other volumes being produced, which would have helped this book become more solid and would have helped clear the air of editorial bias and charges of self-publishing).

Indeed, the writing style of this book is often redundant and repetitive. Often the primary source material is presented two or three times as though it were unique. Those who would wish to challenge the book's credibility could easily point to this as an attempt to make the source material appear more abundant than it actually is. Further, such writing style is frustrating to the reader who quickly begins to gloss over and lose portions of the argument. Certainly, a more strenuous editorial process would have caught and challenged this disappointing aspect of the book.

In terms of content, the book does well at providing a good amount of source material which allows Washington to speak for himself when he can. The difficulty here is that Washington doesn't always speak for himself, and it becomes the role of historical scholarship to fill in the gaps with speculation - hopefully informed and responsible speculation. Lillback is no exception to this, although he perhaps could have demonstrated more scholarly humility in this fact. For as much as he charges other Washington scholars (most notably Boller and Flexner) for their theorization, he does not always accomplish a greater method.

My point in challenging Lillback is this: The argument he presents should have (and could have) been presented better, seeking a more sound case for the faith of George Washington. There are many points at which I think Lillback gets it right, and a few places where his assertions wear thin and are not supported by the evidence in front of us. Although I am a biblical scholar, I do know how to evaluate an argument, consider evidence and understand the historical method. Hence, I believe that my comments are justified here - there is a better case to be made.

Lillback succeeds in making the case for George Washington to be separated from the Deists. Simply, this can be done by setting him next to Hume and Jefferson and watching the worldviews quickly part ways. Many look to the context of the Age of Reason and dismiss the impact which it held on the entire world, even the church. I learned a long time ago that every age has its impact on the faith of those who live through it, and the Founders are more apt to look like Deists from our perspective than from their own. We are examining Christianity in conversation with the Age of Reason, a world that we do not experience.

The words and deeds that survive George Washington (along with the testimonies of those who knew him well) give us a strong probability that he was a Christian in his belief, though a few disappointing unanswered questions linger. Perhaps the strongest conclusion which Lillback makes is the founding of the United States as a whole, with a figure like George Washington leading the way: A nation with these values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, defined in the manner which the Founders have demonstrated in their own work could not have come about by people who believed that God was not present in the daily affairs of the world.

George Washington's words captured this often throughout his life as he demonstrated a strong faith in Divine Providence for the forging of this new nation. Overall, I recommend this book - even with its shortcomings and disappointments - to those who would be interested in understanding Washington's faith from the inside, as we see his own words exhibit a deeply rooted and embedded faith.

[grasshoppersdreaming -dot- blogspot -dot- com]

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 99 reviews  4.2 out of 5 stars