“It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.
Maybe in the same way we used to want the “big kid” on our team when choosing up sides at the park, there is a division of opinion among religious people and some non-religious ones as to the real nature of George Washington’s religion. Was he an evangelical believer in the sense we use the term these days, was he simply a “believer”, without further parsing of denomination, or was he perhaps a deist, believing vaguely in God, but without specific devotion to Christianity at all.
You can get many opinions from historians and religious people, but you must come away from his Farewell Address with the impression that Washington placed a high value on the place of religion in public life and government in particular. It is said by many students of our first president that he was not in the habit of divulging his personal feelings about specific Christian convictions; it is claimed that he did not refer to the Deity in any way beyond the name of the Bible’s God. But of that much he seems sure, to the point of thinking it impossible to maintain “national morality” and government without a religion founded upon the God of the Bible.
His language may give room for many denominations to claim a place on the stage of public affairs. Indeed, the Muslim may feel that “Allah” and the “Koran” could be substituted for the Christian appellatives without doing violence to Washington’s premise about the necessity of general religion in government. And many commentators on Washington’s religion would seem to suggest that he believed that, not the subjective faith of the believer, but the moral and ethical foundation of religion, biblical or otherwise, is the indispensable component of proper government.
With this conviction of the Father of our country we could add the similar views of many other founders and leaders since their time. And, given that these men are the authors of our national documents, the Constitution and others, which are appealed to by modern architects and reformers of society, it seems incomprehensible that there is so much momentum in the movement to expunge or totally neutralize all references to religion in our nation’s official life. While not yet attempting the removal of religious freedom altogether, so many voices are raised to object to the perceived intrusion of religious convictions and statements into the realm of government.
As a Christian, I cannot apologize for the belief that the country would be far better off if every man, woman and child could come under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, submitting to His authority and knowing His grace and forgiveness of sin. But, though that ideal may not happen, could we at least keep the primacy of religion’s role in government that our nation’s founders so well defended? If the foundation of religion in our public life is abandoned in the name of secular neutrality, is it not just another small step to the public’s belief that religion is quite expendable in our personal lives as well?
You might think that the evident decline in general public morality that we have witnessed over the last 40 years (and please recall it is the same period as prayer has been banished from the schools) would attest to the importance of keeping Washington’s advice. Maybe more must happen in the wrong direction before we will, as a nation, conclude that “morality cannot prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Maybe in the same way we used to want the “big kid” on our team when choosing up sides at the park, there is a division of opinion among religious people and some non-religious ones as to the real nature of George Washington’s religion. Was he an evangelical believer in the sense we use the term these days, was he simply a “believer”, without further parsing of denomination, or was he perhaps a deist, believing vaguely in God, but without specific devotion to Christianity at all.
You can get many opinions from historians and religious people, but you must come away from his Farewell Address with the impression that Washington placed a high value on the place of religion in public life and government in particular. It is said by many students of our first president that he was not in the habit of divulging his personal feelings about specific Christian convictions; it is claimed that he did not refer to the Deity in any way beyond the name of the Bible’s God. But of that much he seems sure, to the point of thinking it impossible to maintain “national morality” and government without a religion founded upon the God of the Bible.
His language may give room for many denominations to claim a place on the stage of public affairs. Indeed, the Muslim may feel that “Allah” and the “Koran” could be substituted for the Christian appellatives without doing violence to Washington’s premise about the necessity of general religion in government. And many commentators on Washington’s religion would seem to suggest that he believed that, not the subjective faith of the believer, but the moral and ethical foundation of religion, biblical or otherwise, is the indispensable component of proper government.
With this conviction of the Father of our country we could add the similar views of many other founders and leaders since their time. And, given that these men are the authors of our national documents, the Constitution and others, which are appealed to by modern architects and reformers of society, it seems incomprehensible that there is so much momentum in the movement to expunge or totally neutralize all references to religion in our nation’s official life. While not yet attempting the removal of religious freedom altogether, so many voices are raised to object to the perceived intrusion of religious convictions and statements into the realm of government.
As a Christian, I cannot apologize for the belief that the country would be far better off if every man, woman and child could come under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, submitting to His authority and knowing His grace and forgiveness of sin. But, though that ideal may not happen, could we at least keep the primacy of religion’s role in government that our nation’s founders so well defended? If the foundation of religion in our public life is abandoned in the name of secular neutrality, is it not just another small step to the public’s belief that religion is quite expendable in our personal lives as well?
You might think that the evident decline in general public morality that we have witnessed over the last 40 years (and please recall it is the same period as prayer has been banished from the schools) would attest to the importance of keeping Washington’s advice. Maybe more must happen in the wrong direction before we will, as a nation, conclude that “morality cannot prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
No comments:
Post a Comment