Talk:Religious views of George Washington/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copied from main article

I spun this out from the main George Washington article. Maurreen 22:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a better working title would be George Washington on religion and morality. This would be more inclusive & prevent overfocus on religion - especially the kind of focus that attributes what he says about religion & morality as being entirely about religion --JimWae 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your last statement which asserts that many of us focus on what Washington "says about religion & morality as being entirely about religion" is simply going to get us all into a huge dispute. Many people, such as myself, believe that one's religion defines their morality and that morality without religion is impossible. The "few" (according to JimWae) historical writers that agree with this argument, point to many quotes from the Founding Fathers that make the two ideas (religion and morality) inseparable, such as Washington's idea that "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Trying to separate religion from morality is at the heart of the disagreement between the major political movements existing today. I think we should approach these two ideas just as Washington explained that we cannot "expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." This article is about him, is it not? Now if this article was about some of today's politicians and world leaders, perhaps we would have to take the position you are advocating, that is, separating morality from religion. But this is an article on Washington, not someone else. (Gaytan 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

Funeral Services

I have a problem with the following line:

• His funeral services [12] were those of the Freemasons, an organization most branches of which require only that members believe in a Supreme Being, regardless of other religious membership[13].

This gives the impression that Washington did not have a religious (in Washington's case Church of England) funeral. This is not the case. He had a standard C of E funeral. The Masonic part was at his burial service. Masonic burials are simply the normal burial service that any person would have under his own religion (ie a Jewish Mason would have a Jewish burial, a Muslem Mason would have a Muslem burial, and a Christian Mason would have a Christian burial). What makes it "Masonic" is a brief presentation of his apron by his Masonic lodge brothers (not dissimilar to a flag presentation if the funeral were being conducted by the military). In Washington's case, the funeral itself was held under the auspices of the Church of England, and conducted by a preist (who also presided at the burial, by the way). Blueboar 22:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources to cite for that information, Blueboar, by all means, add it to the article. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... At the moment I am going by what I saw on a TV program commemorating the 200th anniversary of Washington's death, which contained a recreation of his burial service (not a reliable source, I'll admit, which is why I mentioned it on this talk page and did not add it to the article). However, I am sure I can dig up something more reliable with a bit of research. I'll add it when I do. Blueboar 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually... It turns out I don't need to dig one up... If you read what is already cited it clearly states:

• "Upon arriving at the humble red brick tomb sunk in a hillside below the mansion house, the Reverend Thomas Davis, rector of Christ Church, Alexandria, read the Episcopal Order of Burial."

This was then followed by the Masonic commemoration, as I outlined above, and then the public viewing. So I will edit the line to better reflect what happened. Blueboar 00:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And if you want to read a version of a typical Masonic commemoration... this is close to what was performed for Washington. To see the recreation of what actually happened you unfortunately have to purchase a copy from C-Span ... see here. No two Masonic jurisdictions use the exact same ritual (and it can even vary from lodge to lodge), and the Masonic burial service is no exception. But they all follow the same basic format... a prayer, an explanation of the symbolism behind, and presentation of, an apron and a sprig of accacia, and then a closing prayer. Nothing very controvercial about it. Blueboar 00:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Washington as a Deist

It seems that the people who knew Washington best believed he was a Deist. Here is a moderate sized article that recounts some of those statements

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

Not quite... the statements that he was a Deist date from the 1830's (a generation after Washington). The contemporary statements simply say that he was not all that active as an Episcopalian. What is happening here is that there are two schools of revisionist history claiming Washington... Conservative Christians want him to be a "God Fearing Christian", Liberal agnostics what him to be a Deist. This debate has more to do with today's politics than historical fact. The truth lies in between these extremes. Washington was not an Evangelical Christian, nor was he a Deist.

One must remember that the entire concept of religion in the United States changed dramatically in the 1820s with the onset of the Second Great Awakening. The evangelical movement of the early 1800s changed the whole concept of what it meant to be a Christian. To properly understand Washington's religious beliefs you must place Washington in his time, and not apply labels that really only are accurate at a later date. By the standards of the time, Washington was typical of the Virginia Planter elite... a not overtly religious Episcopalian.

It is accurate to say that outward displays of religion did not play a key roll in Washington's life, and it is correct to say that he was defintiely not Evangelical by either modern or contemporary definitions, but it is also a stretch to say that he was a Deist. Blueboar 18:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. The two extremes today are clearly evident. Those attempting to paint Washington as a deist are typically liberal agnostic, humanist, or athiest. Those who attempt to paint Washington as a devout Christian are typically conservative Christian evangelicals. My entire reason for editing on the religion of Washington was to show that he was neither of these, but was a sincerely prayerful man and expected his troops and Americans in general to call the blessings from heaven upon them. Although he was prayerful, he was not very religious in a sense, as can be noted through his church attendance, his lack of public expression with regard to Jesus, and his failure to regularly take part in communion. Washington, as many of his contemporaries, seemed to have a strong distrust for organized religion (probably due to Christianity's injustices during the Dark Ages), but acknowledged the benefit of a belief in God and the morality that would come from such a faith would have on a people. So to reiterate, I am not trying to show that any of the predominant American Founding Fathers were Christian, but rather that they were not deists. Most of them were actually somewhere in between. (Gaytan 17:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Gaytan, I disagree with your statement that "Although he was prayerful, he was not very religious in a sense, as can be noted through his church attendance, his lack of public expression with regard to Jesus, and his failure to regularly take part in communion." There is a difference between being religious and being overtly (publicly) religious. Religiousness is not defined by church attendance, public expression of the name of Christ, and taking part in communion. By all accounts, Washington was a religious man... he simply was not overtly religious. In short, he was a typical Episcopalian of his time. Blueboar 17:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think you and I have much in agreement on this subject. I think our disagreement is based primarily on semantics. Check my edit history on this article and you will see that I personally acknowledge Washington to have been a deeply spiritual man and that he spoke of it in public as well (I am the editor who had a great deal of trouble getting quotes from his speeches into the article; there are many Wikipedians who really do not appreciate those quotes). When I say he was not very "religious", I do not mean to say that he was not sincere or spiritual, but rather that he was not very appreciative of the religious dogmas of his day and was not much interested in doctrinal debate. Why? I have my own opinions of this which we can discuss elsewhere if you'd like. But I do see Washington as a sincere, honest, moral, God-fearing, and spiritual man. Yet he was not a devout Christian and definitely not a traditional deist. (Gaytan 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Gaytan, I agree that we are in sync generally... I suppose my quibble is that you use words which have different meanings depending on who you talk to... like "religious"... and like "Christian' in your last sentence. You see, I think Washington was indeed a devout Christian - as that word was defined by his generation. The word took on a new meaning after the great awakening of the 1820s, when it started to be used by the evangelical movement for those who had been born again... this is a usage that bothers me, since today it is used by the Conservative Christians in a way that implies that those who are members of the more traditional denominations, and those who do not proclaim that "Jesus is their close personal friend" with every waking breath, are somehow not Christians and not devout. I am equally bothered by those on the other side, that assume that because one does not "shout out for Christ" one must be a Deist. My real problem (as stated above) is using modern religious terminology and thinking to discuss a man who was the product of a very different time. Even the definition of what it meant to be a devout Christian was different in Washington's day. That has to be accounted for. Blueboar 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

JimWae: I have corrected your misinterpretation of Tindal on his view of prayer. Yes, he did view particular kinds of prayers as a duty of mankind, but not all of them. He spoke harshly against prayers that sought to alter Deity's divine plan by stating "There are few so gross to imagine, we can direct infinite wisdom in the dispensation of providence, or persuade him to alter those laws he contrived before the foundation of the world for putting things in a regular course." No interpretation is needed; he clearly denounces prayers which seek particular blessings from God. That is, like all deists of his day, prayer should be done only to thank God for his role in our lives, not to suggest ways for him to to improve our lives. Prayers of gratitude are those prayers which he specifically states are "a duty, as it raises in us a due contemplation of the divine attributes, and an acknowledgment of his great and constant goodness, and serves to keep up a constant sense of our dependence on him; and as it disposes us to imitate those perfections we adore in him, in being kind and beneficent to one another." While Washington's statements are replete with expressions of gratitude toward God (prayers that Tindal explained were "a duty"), he also suggested that Americans "implore His protection and favor", to allow the national government to be wise and just; to "protect and guide" all nations; to promote "true religion and virtue, and the increase of science"; and to "grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best" (from Washington's Thankgiving Proclamation). All of this, according to Tindal, is "gross to imagine" since Washington asking all Americans to "direct infinite wisdom." And, although you may not find it in your personal library, my personal library is full of biograhers and authors who believe Washington was not a deist. So, I have changed the article to express this fact by saying "some" biographers believe Washington was a deist, and "some" don't. (Gaytan 19:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Let's move discussion about deist prayer to your talk page under "Founding Fathers and deism". Gaytan 20:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters what I think, but Washington probably WAS somewhere in the middle. Simply not taking communion and not talking about religion does not make one a Deist. I consider myself extraordinarily religious in the Christian persuasion, yet do not take communion when offered, don't go to church that often, nor speak of my faith to others. Not that I'm embarrased or anything, it's just it's MY religion. If I were to become someone important, and then died, many people would probably look back and figure that I was not religious, and they would be very wrong. Of course, I could easily be forging Washington to my OWN beliefs. People tend to do that.Masternachos (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Funeral stuff

I have cut the discussion and the reference to the mock funeral held in Norfolk Copied from: Norfolk In By-Gone Days - President Washington's Funeral, By the Rev. W.H.T. Squires, D.D., Norfolk (VA) Ledger-Dispatch, 1944 This really has nothing to do with Washington or his beliefs. The "mock funeral" was organized by the city of Norfolk, and Washington was not involved in any way (they did not even have a body in the casket). At best, one might say that the article indicates that the people of Norfolk saw him as an Episcopalian, since that was the order of service they used. However, this would be a stretch... it is more likely that the choice of service reflected the fact that the Episcopal Church was the established Church of Virgina at the time. Washington's actual funeral and burial service was held at Mt. Vernon... this service was a standard Episcopal funeral and burial. I have also cut the statement about the Presbyterian Minister officiating at the Masonic commemoration ... that too has nothing to do with Washington's beliefs. Blueboar 14:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• the source http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/exhibit/mourning/funeral.html does indeed call it a Masonic rite, not a commemoration --JimWae 15:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... So it does (actually it uses the plural: "rites"). In which case, all I can say is that the word is incorrectly used in the source. My problem with "rite" is that, to many people, the word has a specific theological connotation that doesn't aply to Masonry. As I discussed above, a Masonic funeral is not a "rite" any more than a Military funeral is a "rite". It is a ceremony that occurs within the context of the standard religious service. (If the word "commemoration" is not acceptable, perhaps "ceremony" or some other word would be?) Blueboar 15:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions

The section on Washington's Religious Background says:

• George Washington was baptized as an infant into the Church of England...
• and as a young man he served as a member of the vestry (lay council) for his local parish.

While the section on His Christianity says

• there is no record of his ever becoming a communicant in any Christian church

This strikes me as a contradiction... if he was elected to the vestry (which you can not do without being a Confirmed member of the Church, as far as I know) he must have been a communicant in the Episcopal Church at some point. Blueboar 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • You are quite wrong - the vestry then was not like now - He was never confirmed - hardly anyone was at that time in the colonies -- please revert your edit --JimWae 02:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to back that statement up? Blueboar 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • there's The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents and even more inSix Historic Americans - and also more about vestrymen . There is no evidence he ever took communion & abundant evidence that he did not ... --JimWae 05:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

“ Was Washington A Communicant?

Washington was not a communicant. This fact can be easily demonstrated. A century ago it was the custom of all classes, irrespective of their religious beliefs, to attend church. Washington, adhering to the custom, attended. But when the administration of the sacrament took place, instead of remaining and partaking of the Lord's Supper as a communicant would have done, he invariably arose and retired from the church. The closing years of his life, save the last two, were passed in Philadelphia, he being then President of the United States. In addition to his eight years' incumbency of the presidency, he was, during the eight years of the Revolutionary war, and also during the six years that elapsed between the Revolution and the establishment of the Federal government, not only a frequent visitor in Philadelphia, but during a considerable portion of the time a resident of that city. While there he attended the Episcopal churches of which the Rev. William White and the Rev. James Abercromble were rectors. In regard to his being a communicant, no evidence can be so pertinent or so decisive as that of his pastors.

Bishop White, the father of the Protestant Episcopal church of America, is one of the most eminent names in church history. During a large portion of the period covering nearly a quarter of a century, Washington, with his wife, attended the churches in which Bishop White officiated. In a letter dated Fredericksburg, Aug. 13, 1835, Colonel Mercer sent Bishop White the following inquiry relative to this question:

"I have a desire, my dear Sir, to know whether Gen. Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all. ... No authority can be so authentic and complete as yours on this point."

To this inquiry Bishop White replied as follows:

"Philadelphia, Aug. 15, 1835.

"Dear Sir: In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.

... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you. I am respectfully.

"Your humble servant,

"WILLIAM WHITE." (Memoir of Bishop White, pp. 196, 197).

In a standard Christian authority, Sprague's "Annals of the American Pulpit," written and compiled by Rev. Wm. B. Sprague, D.D., is a sketch of the life of Rev. James Abercromble, D.D. In this biographical sketch is to be found some very important evidence from the pen of Washington's other pastor, pertaining to the subject under consideration. I quote the following:

"One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it: 'With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants -- she invariably being one -- I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who in the course of conversation at table said that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal? arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning'" (Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. v, p. 394).

Here we have a confirmation of the statement previously made that Washington absented himself from church on sacramental Sundays; undeniable proof that during the later years of his life he was not a communicant; and, above all, the assurance of Washington himself that "he had never been a communicant."

The Rev. E.D. Neill, in the Episcopal Recorder, the organ of the church of which it is claimed Washington was a communicant, says:

"As I read, a few days ago, of the death of the Rev. Richard M. Abercrombie, rector of St. Matthew's Protestant Episcopal church in Jersey City, memories of my boyhood arose. He was born not far from my father's house in Philadelphia and was the son of the Rev. James Abercrombie, a fine scholar and preacher, who had in early life corresponded with the great lexicographer, Dr. Samuel Johnson, and in later years was the assistant minister of Christ's and St. Peter's churches, in Philadelphia, where my maternal ancestors had worshiped for more than one generation. One day, after the father had reached four score years, the lately deceased son took me into the study of the aged man, and showed me a letter which President George Washington had written to his father, thanking him for the loan of one of his manuscript sermons. Washington and his wife were regular attendants upon his ministry while residing in Philadelphia. The President was not a communicant, notwithstanding all the pretty stories to the contrary, and after the close of the sermon on sacramental Sundays, had fallen into the habit of retiring from the church while his wife remained and communed."

Referring to Dr. Abercrombie's reproof of Washington, Mr. Neill says:

"Upon one occasion Dr. Abercromble alluded to the unhappy tendency of the example of those dignified by age and position turning their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The discourse arrested the attention of Washington, and after that he never came to church with his wife on Communion Sunday."

The Rev. Dr. Wilson, in his famous sermon on the Religion of the Presidents, also alludes to this subject. He says:

"When the Congress sat in Philadelphia, President Washington attended the Episcopal church. The rector, Dr. Abercrombie, told me that on the days when the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was to be administered, Washington's custom was to rise just before the ceremony commenced, and walk out of church. This became a subject of remark in the congregation, as setting a bad example. At length the Doctor undertook to speak of it, with a direct allusion to the President. Washington was heard afterwards to remark that this was the first time a clergyman had thus preached to him, and he should henceforth neither trouble the Doctor nor his congregation on such occasions; and ever after that, upon communion days, he 'absented himself altogether from the church.'

The Rev. Bird Wilson, D.D., author of the "Memoir of Bishop White," says:

"Though the General attended the churches in which Dr. White officiated, whenever he was in Philadelphia during the Revolutionary war, and afterwards while President of the United States, he never was a communicant in them" (Memoir of Bishop White, p. 188).

The Rev. Beverly Tucker, D.D., of the Episcopal church, has attempted to prove that Washington was a churchman. But while professing to believe that he was a communicant before the Revolution he is compelled to admit that there is a doubt about his communing after the Revolution. He says:

"The doubt has been raised partly on the strength of a letter written by Bishop White in 1832. He says that Washington attended St. Peter's church one winter, during the session of the Continental Congress, and that during his Presidency he had a pew in Christ church, 'which was habitually occupied by himself, by Mrs. Washington, who was regularly a communicant, and by his secretaries. This language is taken to mean, and probably correctly, that Washington did not commune."

Dr. Tucker is evidently not acquainted with Bishop White's letter to Col. Mercer in 1835. There is no question as to the meaning of that letter. Continuing, Dr. Tucker says:

"The doubt rests again on the recollection of Mrs. Fielding Lewis, Nelly Custis, Gen. Washington's step- granddaughter, written in 1833, who states that after the Mount Vernon family removed from Pohick church to Christ church, Alexandria, the General was accustomed, on Communion Sundays, to leave the church with her, sending the carriage back for Mrs. Washington."

Washington's biographer, the Rev. Jared Sparks, who seems to have entertained the popular notion that Washington was in early life a communicant, admits that at a latter period he ceased to commune. He says:

"The circumstance of his withdrawing himself from the communion service at a certain period of his life has been remarked as singular. This may be admitted and regretted, both on account of his example and the value of his opinions as to the importance and practical tendency of this rite" (Life of Washington, Vol. ii, p. 361).

Origen Bacherer, in his debate with Robert Dale Owen in 1831, made an effort to prove that Washington was a Christian communicant. He appealed for help to the Rev. Wm. Jackson, rector of the Episcopal church of Alexandria, the church which Washington had attended. Mr. Jackson was only too willing to aid him. He instituted an exhaustive investigation for the purpose of discovering if possible some evidence of Washington having been a communicant. Letters of inquiry were addressed to his relatives and friends. But his efforts were unsuccessful. While he professed to believe that Washington was a Christian, he was compelled to say:

"I find no one who ever communed with him" (Bacheler-Owen Debate, Vol. ii, p. 262).

This, as might be supposed, did not satisfy Mr. Bacherer, and he entreated the rector to make another attempt. The second attempt was as fruitless as the first.' He writes:

"I am sorry after so long a delay in replying to your last, that it is not in my power to communicate something decisive in reference to General Washington's church membership" (Ibid., ii, p. 370.)

In the same letter Mr. Jackson says:

"Nor can I find any old person who ever communed with him."

The "People's Library of Information" contains the following:

"The question has been raised as to whether any one of our Presidents was a communicant in a Christian church. There is a tradition that Washington asked permission of a Presbyterian mister in New Jersey to unite in communion. But it is only a tradition. Washington was a vestryman in the Episcopal church. But that office required no more piety than it would to be mate of a ship. There is no account of his communing in Boston, or in New York, or Philadelphia, or elsewhere, during the Revolutionary struggle."

The tradition of Washington's wishing to unite with a Presbyterian minister in communion, like many other so-called traditions of the same character, has been industriously circulated. And yet it is scarcely possible to conceive of a more improbable story. Refusing to commune with the members of the church in which he was raised, and the church he was in the habit of attending, and going to the priest of another church -- a stranger -- and asking to commune with him! Had Washington been some intemperate vagabond, the story might have been believed. But Washington was not an inebriate, and was never so pressed for a drink as to beg a sup of sacramental wine from a Calvinistic clergyman.

Gen. A.W. Greely, U.S.A., in an article on "Washington's Domestic and Religious Life" which was published in the Ladies' Home Journal for April, 1896, says:

"But even if he was ever confirmed in its [the Episcopal] faith there is no reliable evidence that he ever took communion with it or with any other church."

Some years ago, I met at Paris, Texas, an old gentlemen, Mr. F.W. Miner, who was born and who lived for a considerable time near Mt. Vernon. He told me that when a boy he was once in company with a party of old men, neighbors in early life of Washington, who were discussing the question of his religious belief. He says that it was admitted by all of them that he was not a church member, and by the most of them that he was not a Christian.

Mr. George Wilson of Lexington, Mo., whose ancestors owned the Custis estate, and founded Alexandria, where Washington attended church, writes as follows: "My great-grandmother was Mary Alexander, daughter of 'John the younger,' who founded Alexandria. The Alexander pew in Christ church was next to Washington's, and an old lady, a kinswoman of mine, born near Alexandria and named Alexander, told me that the tradition in the Alexander family was that Washington NEVER took communion."

In regard to Washington being a vestryman, Mr. Wilson says: "At that time the vestry was the county court, and in order to have a hand in managing the affairs of the county, in which his large property lay, regulating the levy of taxes, etc., Washington had to be a vestryman."

The St. Louis Globe contained the following in regard to the church membership of Washington:

"It is a singular fact that much as has been written about Washington, particularly with regard to his superior personal virtue, there is nothing to show that he was ever a member of the church. He attended divine service, and lived an honorable and exemplary life, but as to his being a communicant, the record is surprisingly doubtful."

In an article conceding that Washington was not a communicant, the Western Christian Advocate says:

"This is evident and convincing from the Life of Bishop White, bishop of the Episcopal church in America from 1787 to 1836. Of this evidence it has been well said: 'There does not appear to be any such undoubtable evidence existing. The more scrutinously the church membership of Washington is examined, the more doubtful it appears. Bishop White seems to have had more intimate relations with Washington than any clergyman of his time. His testimony outweighs any amount of influential argumentation on the question.'

The following is a recapitulation of the salient points in the preceding testimony, given in the words of the witnesses. It is in itself an overwhelming refutation of the claim that Washington was a communicant:

"Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister." -- Bishop White.

"On sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the Congregation." -- Rev. Dr. Abercromble.

"After that, [Dr. Abercrombie's reproof,] upon communion days, he absented himself altogether from the church." -- Rev. Dr. Wilson.

"The General was accustomed, on communion Sundays, to leave the church with her [Nelly Custis], sending the carriage back for Mrs. Washington. " -- Rev. Dr. Beverly Tucker.

"He never was a communicant in them [Dr. White's churches]." -- Rev. Dr. Bird Wilson.

"I find no one who ever communed with him." -- Rev. William Jackson.

"The President was not a communicant." -- Rev. E.D. Neill.

"This [his ceasing to commune] may be admitted and regretted." -- Rev. Jared Sparks.

"There is no reliable evidence that he ever took communion." -- Gen. A.W. Greely.

"There is nothing to show that he was ever a member of the church." -- St. Louis Globe.

"I have never been a communicant." -- Washington, quoted by Dr. Abercrombie.

The claim that Washington was a Christian communicant must be abandoned; the claim that he was a believer in Christianity, I shall endeavor to showy is equally untenable.

”

• • Bishop James Madison was second cousin of President Madison, and perhaps the only Trinitarian cleric trusted by Jefferson—from their years together at William and Mary. However, when Madison became the first Episcopal bishop of Virginia in 1790 and Episcopalians could participate in the rite of confirmation for the first time - there is no record of Washington (or any other future president from VA) being confirmed. Until confirmed, one was not supposed to take communion. However, communion was regularly offered & people took it anyway. Abercrombie's reproof indicates he expected GW to take communion --JimWae 06:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From http://research.history.org/Historical_Research/Research_Themes/ThemeReligion/Madison.cfm#n1 On 19 September 1790 in Lambeth Chapel, Canterbury, England, Madison was consecrated bishop by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of London and Rochester. He was the third of the three bishops through whom the episcopate of the Church of England was brough to the United States. The other two were Bishop White of Pennsylvania and Bishop Provoost of New York --JimWae 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Also see Samuel Seabury & Succession of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States --JimWae 06:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that does count as "a" citation :>) Thank you. I will happily revert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

RFC re Washington being a communicant in a Christian Church

I am still not totaly happy with the intro to the "His Christianity" section... it currently reads:

• Washington sometimes accompanied his wife to Christian church services; however, there is no record of his ever being a communicant (ie taking communion) in any Christian church, and he would regularly leave services before communion—with the other non-communicants (as was the custom of the time). When Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, mentioned in a weekly sermon that those in elevated stations set an unhappy example by leaving at communion, Washington ceased attending at all on communion Sundays.

As shown by JimWae's comments in the preceeding discussion, there IS ample evidence that Washington did not take communion. At least there is no record of him doing so, and substantial record of his not doing so. However, the way this section reads, I am concerned about the implication that because of this he was a Deist or even not a Christian... It leaves out the fact that the Anglican Chuch of the day was split between "High Church (in which Eucharistic services were common and encouraged) and "Low Church", (which leaned more towards Morning Prayer and though Communion was a bit "papist"). Washington's reluctance towards communion could well be taken as an indication that he leaned to the "Low Church" view.

That said... I do not feel that I am conversant enough with Anglican theological history to definitively make such comments in the article. (I would need to do a lot more research and find proper citations etc. before I did that). So I am starting a RFC to hopefully get people who are conversant to comment.

Here is the question as I see it... Does the fact that there is no record of Washington being a communicant tell us anything about his religious beliefs and, if so, what? Blueboar 15:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the section is unnecessarily misleading to those who are not well-versed in colonial Anglicanism. My first thoughts are: (1) don't draw any conclusions from the info, that is not our job as an encyclopedia, and (2) this strikes me as an argument made from a lack of evidence - remove it. What is the substantial evidence for (a) his not communing when communion was offered, and (b) his not attending when communion was offered after Abercrombie's comments, and why is it not cited.

Other thoughts. Communion was probably only offered quarterly - to say Washington missed one service every three months is not something from which I would want to draw a conclusion. IF washington was low-church (which is likely, given his background and the area in which he was raised), then the sermon was far more essential than communion. And the lack of a clergyman at the deathbed means nothing (again, this is an argument from a lack of evidence, rather than the presentation of evidence). If Washington was Low-church, presence of clergy at the death-bed can well seem "papist," and be avoided because "we are not roman and don't need last rites." I hope this helps. Pastordavid 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking through past discussions, there is ample evidence that Washington was not a communicant. However, to draw a conlcusion to that fact and say that he was something else is erroneous. Further, not communing then did not mean the same thing that it does today. FYI, I am not trying to argue that Washington was a committed Christian (in fact, personally, I think he was probably a Deist). Pastordavid 17:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Came here via RfC. Just stick with the source. It says that he left before communion.

If you want to bring in the high and low anglican stuff, don't do any OR. "Washington's reluctance towards communion could well be taken as an indication that he leaned to the "Low Church" view." Don't draw conclusions, just cite sources which comment on Washington's supposed high or lowness.

I don't want to discourage your historical curiosity... i just want to discourage you from expressing it here! :) Sethie 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I raised the issue in an RFC... to see what, if any, conclusions can be made from this information?Blueboar 14:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would say the only conclusion that is really allowed on wikipedia would be "he stopped attending communion!" To say anything further would be clear OR. When I read "to see what conclusions can be made" I assume you are looking to say something outside of what the sources say, which just isn't allowed in wikipedia. Sethie 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Note for those responding to the RFC: I think I need to rephrase my question... I did not mean the question to be about adding conclusions to the article (I agree that doing so without supporting citations would be OR) ... I meant it to be a more general question of what conclusions, if any, might be drawn. Blueboar 18:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly am not seeing the difference. Any conclusion that is drawn, which is not taken from a WP:RS source is OR.Sethie 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that you can discuss OR on talk pages... but you can't add OR to articles. Also, by raising the issue, someone with more knowledge of the subject matter and relevent reliable sources relating to the issue may come along in response the RFC. Blueboar 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, now I understand what you are trying to accomplish.

I am going to remove the RfC, since there is no "disputes over article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." RfC are part of the dispute resolution process, not a way to try and draw in people who have more knowledge to bolster a particular point of view. Sethie 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree that I am trying to bolster a particular POV... to me the point is to get comments from those who are more knowlagable about the subject ... if there is an agenda, it is to attract those who are familiar with Anglican theology/Dogma of the era to find out IF there is a dispute. If RFC is not the location to do this, do you know where such a request should be made? Blueboar 19:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am reluctant to get drawn into speculation about high/low church re Washington. What I will say, along those lines, is that while president, he was criticized (by Jefferson & others) for often having much formal ceremony as part of office - an indication of being more inclined to high church than low. What all this means about his religious views, I have some thoughts, but want to develop them further before committing them to writing. Certainly many people just assume he took communion (& some even think it must be contradictory to say he did not). Had he been confirmed & taken communion, that would certainly be evidence of his being Xn. His life-long refusal (I think we could call it that) to take communion does indicate some kind of reservation on his part about becoming a full member of the churches at which he had paid for his family's pew. I believe the Quakers were the only Xn sect at that time to NEVER celebrate communion - but I do not think there is any evidence he was Quaker. --JimWae 19:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that you are correct about what his refusal means (which is why I asked for comments)... as Pasterdavid points out above, practices and attitudes towards communion were quite different in those days than they are today. While I agree that his taking communion would indicate that someone was a "full" member of a church, I don't think it is accurate to say that the converse is true... that not taking communion indicates that someone was not a "full" member. (on a related note, I don't think we can say that Washington NEVER took communion... only that there is no record of him doing so). As for the High vs Low Church issue, I will have to leave it to those with more knowledge to verify or correct me... but it is my understanding that most parishes in the Southern Colonies were "Low Church". Blueboar 20:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt anyone could establish GW was "low church" - they cannot even establish he was Xn. Certainly communion was offered frequently enough, and GW left often enough, for it to become an issue even during his lifetime. What is an open question is "how often were communion Sundays?" Once a month? Perhaps there is some way to answer that. There is however abundant evidence indicating he never took communion - including GW's own words (though related 3rd hand - according to Abercrombie according to a senator, neither of whom would be inclined to exaggerate under the circumstances)--JimWae 20:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think I read "at "high churches" the minister administers the host - at low church, the congregation partakes as a kind of meal - GW did neither. --JimWae 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar has asked for comment on this matter, and I'm pleased to offer whatever help I can from my background as an Anglican priest and theologian.

One cannot, indeed, assume that a failure to communicate implies Deist sympathies. In Anglicanism of the eighteenth century this could mean one of two things - either the individual had never been confirmed, or that his churchmanship indicated infrequent communion or no communion. Prior to the Catholic Revival of the mid- to late-nineteenth century, it was not at all odd for Anglicans to infrequently receive or not receive at all. Hence, the exhortation prior to confession "draw near with faith, and take this holy sacrament to your comfort," was not originally intended to apply to the absolution, but to the reception of Eucharist. It acted as a signal to those who wished to absent themselves from Communion to leave, while those remaining would move forward to the quire for this concluding part of the service. Until the twentieth century, monthly or quarterly communion was the norm, and some churches were loathe to adminster it except at Christmas and Easter. In the absence of a definitive rationale offered by Washington, or implied in his writings, I don't think anyone can conclude anything for certain about the reasons for his reticence in this regard, although I know next to nothing about the man. I hope this helps. Fishhead64 20:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK... we have had the opinion of two editors (Pastordavid and Fishhead64) who are familiar with Anglican dogma etc. Both have opined that Washington's lack of communion might indicate that he was in the norm of Anglican practice. However, I do concede that his lack of communion might mean something else instead. This tells me that I am on the right track as far as raising concern about this section. I think that without supporting evidence we can not definitively say why he did not take communion (might is not good enough.) Unfortunately there is supporting evidence for both options. He was baptized and raised as an Anglican (C of E) and frequently attended Anglican services (although without communion), and was buried using Anglican rites. It is tempting to say he was definitively Anglican... if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, etc. However, we can not discount the fact that so many people saw him as being a Deist. Here he seems to be walking and clucking like a chicken (to extend the metaphor). So, the next question is what do we do about it. That will take more thinking. And probably a bit of patience and compromise on everyone's part. I will start off with a suggestion... do we have enough evidence to say he was "an Anglican with Deistic leanings" or something like that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 22:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

No, you do not have enough evidence to say that! That would OR, pure and simple. Sethie 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is not wise to try and draw any conclusion on this. Something along the lines of, "there is evidence that points to X, and there is evidence that points to Y, but there is no scholarly consensus on the issue." That allows statements to both effects (Deism and Anglicanism) to be made, without drawing a conclusion or belaboring the inconclusive evidence. WP is concerned with the facts, not what they mean: (1) GW was a member, but not a regular communicant of the C of E, (2) scholars have concluded that some of GW's writings seem to be Deistic, and (3) GW was a member of a Masonic order. WP should not conclude either that GW was a Deist or that he was a committed Christian from this. There is no consensus among historical scholars, political scholars, or religious scholars on this issue. Pastordavid 22:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Masonic affiliation says little about religious affiliation or even spiritual belief. Masons are a dime a dozen in the Anglican Communion, especially in the past - just last week, I saw a photograph of a service held at Christ Church Cathedral (Vancouver) in the 1930s showing a nave packed with Masons for a thanksgiving service, with a floral wreath at the foot of the chancel in the form of the Masonic symbol - the G, the square, and the compass. Fishhead64 00:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Having had a night to reflect... I think my main issue with the section in question is that it gives the reader information without context. I feel that with proper context the reader will be better able to draw his or her own conclusions. To give that context, some explanation of what was common Anglican practice in the 1700s is called for. Obviously anything I add will be cited to reliable sources... which means I have to go off and do some reading. In the meantime... I will share what one source has to say about the history of the Anglican church (bold text added for emphysis):

• "In the latter 17th and early 18th centuries, Anglicanism was characterized by its emphases on reason, simple devotional religion and moral living."

Make of it what you will. Blueboar 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

An Appology

So, I'd like to appologize for HOW I removed the RfC. I was clear this was not a RfC material, yet I did not pause to think what blueboar was asking for, which is review, feedback and to draw more attention to this page.

I wish I had gone a little slower, then I could have removed the rfc and added in a suggestion to go here. WP: Peer Review. WP:PR

peace! Sethie 23:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Masonic Funeral - redux

Jim, I have to quibble with your edit to the funeral section... Once again, I have to clarify what happens at a Masonic funeral ... The source says:

• Upon arriving at the humble red brick tomb sunk in a hillside below the mansion house, the Reverend Thomas Davis, rector of Christ Church, Alexandria, read the Episcopal Order of Burial. Next, the Reverend James Muir, minister of the Alexandria Presbyterian Church, and Dr. Elisha Dick, both members of Washington's Lodge, conducted the traditional Masonic funeral rites. After this, the shroud was briefly withdrawn to allow a final viewing before Washington's body was placed in the family tomb.

You are taking this to mean that two seperate ceremonies were conducted ... that is inaccurate. A burial service is not over until the body is laid in the ground or placed in the tomb. The Masonic ceremony is something that happens within the context of the religious service. I know the source says "first... next... then... ", but it is breaking the service up into component parts... you could do the same with a military funeral by saying:

• Upon arriving at the grave, the Reverand John Doe, rector of St. Egglefroth's Episcopal Church, read the Episcopal order of Burial. Next the US Military, led by Captain Joe Blow, commander of the local Army unit, conducted the traditional Military Honors of folding the flag, firing guns and playing taps. Then the body was lowered into the grave.

In otherwords it is all part of the same service. This is why I phrased the passage in question as: "His funeral and burial services at Mt. Vernon were those of the Episcopal Church, except that they incorporated a Masonic ceremony performed by members of his Masonic lodge." It is like saying "his funeral was a typical one except that it had a Military ceremony". Please revert that part back. Blueboar 20:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • What does the "Episocopal Order of Burial" involve? If the entire ceremony were in a church, then that denomination would overarch all ceremonies within it. If Jewish prayers & Buddhist prayers are read at a gravesite, how do you decide which kind of service it is? --JimWae 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not being an Episcopal Priest, I am not sure what exactly consitutes the "Order of Burial"... but it is the stuff the Church says you do at the gravesite. Sometimes this is done immediately after the funeral (essentially as part of the funeral), sometimes it is done as a seperate service. Our source seems a bit confused as to whether they are talking about a funeral or a burial... it first says "His Masonic lodge was permitted to prepare arrangements for the funeral procession" but it does not describe an actual funeral. It skips right on to the internment or burial. As for Jewish or Buddhist prayers at the internment ... I know that in todays world it is not uncommon to have people read poems and prayer's they wrote, and I suppose that if someone wanted to read a prayer from another religion it would be OK (I would want to clear it with the priest first just to be sure). I am not sure if this was allowable in Washington's day however. That said, I don't think they did read any Jewish or Buddhist prayers at Washington's internment. Blueboar 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

being a Lutheran pastor, having studied liturgy at an Anglican seminary, let me say that the Masonic part of the graveside service is considered to take place after the service itself (i.e., it is not a part of the Christian buriual). Technically speaking, so does the military graveside service, and the ceremonies of any other fraternal or other organization of which the deceased is a part. This arose as a comprise in the history of liturgy. There are two competing convictions: (1) the church's assertion that only Christ and the church get the "final word" (so to speak), and (2) the deceased's commitment to other organizations. Thus, the service is concluded, and then (from the church's perspective) people are free to do as they please (which often includes a memorial from some organization other than the church). Pastordavid 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... how does this apply when the Masonic ceremony is done during the middle of the funeral (which I see often)? Is the funeral techically put on pause or something and then restarted when the Masons are done? Blueboar 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that would depend on the liturgical theology of the person who designed/clebrated/hosted the service. I can only say that as a norm (not to say it never happens) that is not the Anglican procedure for handling fraternal rites at a funeral. Pastordavid 22:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to deal with this issue is to omit reference to the Masons all together... they are not a religion or a religious denomination. The important point is that his burial was that of the Episcopal Church.

• Omit the Episcopalians too then. It really says virtuall nothing about GW's religious beliefs anyway. Article does need to mentioni Masons - as they have some religious requirements --JimWae 22:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary... The Episcopalians are part of a religion (Christian) and a religious denomination (Anglican/C of E). That he was baptized and raised as an Anglican, attended Anglican services throughout his life, and was buried using the Anglican service tells us a lot about GWs religious beliefs. To me it tells us that he was at least outwardly an Anglican. The Masonic connection is different. Freemasonry, however, is not a religion. It is a Fraternal Society. Their only religious requirement is that you believe in God. This tells us nothing about the religious beliefs of its members. A Christian believes in God, A Jew believes in God, a Muslem believes in God. And yes, a Deist believes in God. All of these people can become Masons. The fact that they are Masons does not tell us which religion they are, nor what religious beliefs they hold beyond "There is a God". The fact that Washington was a Mason tells us absolutely nothing about his religious beliefs... with one exception: we know he was not an Atheist. The fact that he wanted to be buried as he was raised: by an Anglican priest, tells us a great deal about his basic beliefs... even if he had deistic leanings, he still thought of himself as an Anglican. Blueboar 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• While neither deism nor masonry are religions, Masonry has a prayer ritual & the ritual performed by the Masons[1] is certainly a religious service - even often including common Bible prayers. To say the services "were Episcopal" would be to misstate the full extent of the religious services that took place at his funeral (Btw, "outdoors" indicates that the funeral itself was not in a church. An outside burial, of course, is not unusual - but we do not know how unusual a funeral not in a church was - in this case there was some concern about spreading the disease, so his body was kept cold.) We know for a fact that the funeral was much larger than GW wanted - but we do not know for sure whether he wanted either the Episcopals or the Masons to read prayers. He likely had little to choose from in the matter - there were only a few organizations that officiated at funerals then. I am quite content (here & in the "list" article) to say the Episcopal Order of Burial was read, followed by a Masonic ritual - and omit the outdoors part.--JimWae 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You very much misunderstand the nature of a Masonic funeral ceremony ... as far as the Freemasons are concerned, it is definitely NOT a seperate religious service. Saying a prayer does not make something a religious service. If that were the case, then every meeing of Congress is a religious service, since Congress opens with a prayer. Blueboar 21:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be confusing the part with the whole. As others have stated, the Masonic prayers are NOT part of the Episcopal service - they are a service unto themselves --JimWae 21:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am giving you how Masons look at it. And I am not sure how Pasterdavid's comment jibes with the fact that the Masonic stuff is often done in the middle of the religious service (as was pointed out by Fishhead64). Perhaps it depends on the religious denomination in question. According to his user page pastordavid is a Lutheran... perhaps they have a different view than the Anglicans (Fishhead's denomination). In any case, it is irrelevant. Even if it IS a seperate ceremony under some religious dogmas, the fact that it contains prayers doesn't make it a "religious service". Again, think of a meeting of Congress. Blueboar 21:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, with respect to the inclusion of a Masonic element within the burial service, what is the information being conveyed to the reader? Essentially what's the point of the inclusion and what are you anticipating that the reader might infer from this? TIA ALR 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For me, merely that "GW was Episcopalian" & "GW had an Episcopalian burial" is an incomplete account of his religious connections --JimWae 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What does EXCLUSION of this religious ceremony say?--JimWae 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the two different points you make could become an interesting sideline discussion, but the point of my previous question remains. What information does the inclusion of the statement actually convey?ALR 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not expect the reader to draw any conclusion from a single statement - but some might draw a conclusion from the bald statment that "his funeral services were those of the Episcopalian Church". GW's religious connections were somewhat ambiguous throughout his life - they were not in any way clarified by his funeral --JimWae 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So if you don't believe that it explicitly communicates information then what value does it add?ALR 07:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of fighting this... so I won't (at least for now). Include it if you feel you need to. My only point in this is that I feel inclusion leaves the reader with a false impression. It implies that there is a significance to a masonic ceremony being done and there isn't one. IF Masonry had a religious dogma, or influenced a man in his religious beliefs, then I could see including it. But Masonry doesn't. In fact, it specifically bans all discussion of religion to avoid discord amoung it's members who do have strong beliefs. Its a red herring. So be it. Blueboar 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Outdoor funeral/burial

I have to ask, since I have been reverted a few times on this, why is the fact that Washington's funeral/burial service was held outdoors even remotely relevent to what his religious beliefs were? Almost ALL burial services, no matter what the religion is, are held outdoors (that's where most graves are). Blueboar 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• But many funerals are in a church, not so? --JimWae 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant. Even today, when most funerals are held in a Church, there is nothing that says they have to be. And in the 1790's it was even less common to do a Church funeral - unless the family lived in the town, and the body was going to be burried in the Churchyard. Even then, it was optional... The 1790 Book of Common Prayer (the litergy of the time) states that the funeral/burial can be done in the Church, in the Churchyard, or by the grave. At that time, if you lived in the country (or on a Plantation as Washington did), it was common to do it by the grave (or at the home, with everyone then processing to the grave which was on the property).

In Washington's case, we have to remember that it was the middle of Winter. It is unlikely that they would have carted his body all the way into Alexandria (where the nearest Church was) for a funeral, only to cart it back again for the burial. We also have to remember that there were a LOT of people present... Masons, Military Honor Guards, politicians, family, fellow planters, etc. Far too many to fit into any Church of the day.

In short... the fact that his funeral service was held outside is irrelevant. However, including that information in the article does imply that it has some sort of meaning... when no meaning should be implied. Again... information without context. Blueboar

• And as I said above, I am content to omit it. I replied only because you were putting so much stress on the burial being outside - like I would not have known most were --JimWae 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• As I said above also, wanting to keep the body cold would have been another reason not to have it in a church --JimWae 20:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• the only reason I ever brought "outdoors' up was to make it clear that the site of the funeral was not inside a church - Were the services inside an Episcopal Church, one *might* be justified in saying "the funeral services were of the Episcopal Church" and leaving it at that. But since they all were outside, and since OTHER religious services took place outside, it is especially a mischaracterization of the services to identify only the Episcopalian ones --JimWae 21:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on... ALL of the sources tell us that he had an Episcopal funeral and burial... Does any source tell us that any OTHER religious service took place at Washington's funeral? No. Blueboar 21:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Masonic funeral service a religious service?

[Here http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/Misc/funeral-svc.html] is some detail on a typical Masonic funeral service. It includes prayers, exhortations to God, segments from the Bible. In Washington's case, one of the readers was a Presbyterian minister. The Episcopalians do not consider it part of their religious service. Although Masonry does not qualify as a religion, how can this ceremony not be considered a religious service? And how can it be so important to remove mention of it from the article? --JimWae 22:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1. That service is from Massachusetts, different from Virginia or any other US State.
   1. How do you know it's typical?
2. You, I, or anyone & everyone else can make exhortations to God, are we having a religious service?
3. Newsflash... There are Ministers, Preachers, Clergymen, Llamas, etc whom are freemasons.
4. Because, like you said.... Freemasonry is not a religion
5. How can it be so important for it to remain?

I believe it was Blueboar who originally provided that link. The description of the funeral clearly says a Masonic "rite" followed the Episcopal service. I will not respond to your other comments - as they seem dismissive - especially the "newsflash" - but relevant here is Christianity and Freemasonry#Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion --JimWae 02:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To close off... yes I did provide the link. The discription of his funeral was not written by a Mason, so terminology may be (and is) incorrect... some people call the Eucharist service that Anglican's do a "Mass"... but that is not what Anglican's call it. Some people call Deism a religion, and think it has defined religious dogmas. But that is not how Deists look at it (at least not according to the Deism article you have contributed to).

Again, my only problem with this article is that the way it is worded, it clearly tries to imply things that the facts don't support. Blueboar 02:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deism is not a religion, it is more a personal perspective on religion &/or ones relationship with their God. But talk to me on my pages about that, not here. As to the Masonic Funeral Service, it would be adjusted according to the Brother's personal beliefs, & the place held (temple, church, synagog, etc etc). Finally, addresing Freemasonry as a religion, almost exclusively the only people who feel it is a religion are those that feel it competes with their religion. The arguements of all opinions are well-documented, & the public consensus is that it is not a religion. Quotes can be made all day long, for the next several hundred years too, but it doesn't change facts.

PS the "Silence" substitute is much better, but please don't ignore the -Fact- tag, as if you do, someone(s) will sooner or later remove the uncited content...

Respectfully, Grye 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I put the fact tag there --JimWae 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • whether freemasonry is a religion or not, it conducts religious services. When one inquires about ones religious practices, saying what churches one attended is rather incomplete. Here is a link that discusses Masonic funeral services in VA http://www.masonicworld.com/education/files/may05/masonic_ritual_in_virginia.htm One participant is called a chaplain in VA too.--JimWae 03:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You assume that the Lodge Chaplain is an ordained minister (which they usually aren't). Now, in a different context, all of the branches of the armed forces have ordained chaplains. Does that make them religious in nature? Furthermore, there seem to be a few other issues flying around in here as well, and I would suggest they be handled one at a time with signed comments so one knows who is saying what. MSJapan 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• In the case of Washington, there's little need for assumption. One of the celebrants was a Presbyterian minister. And yes, the services the military chaplains perform are kinda religious in nature --JimWae 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Upon arriving at the humble red brick tomb sunk in a hillside below the mansion house, the Reverend Thomas Davis, rector of Christ Church, Alexandria, read the Episcopal Order of Burial. Next, the Reverend James Muir, minister of the Alexandria Presbyterian Church, and Dr. Elisha Dick, both members of Washington's Lodge, conducted the traditional Masonic funeral rites. After this, the shroud was briefly withdrawn to allow a final viewing before Washington's body was placed in the family tomb. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/exhibit/mourning/funeral.html

Time for a break

Let me say that (1) I am not an admin, and (2) I have no vested interest in the article (I have made no edits to it). I added this page to my watchlist as a result of the RfC. This seems to have only escalated in intensity since then, becoming an edit war between BlueBoar and JimWae, both of who look to be pretty close to violating the 3RR. May I suggest that it is time to edit something else for a little while - preferably not another article where this conflict would come back into play - and let this article just sit for a while. Please consider this, as you both seem earnest and well-intentioned, and these edits seem to have come to an immovable loggerhead for the moment. Pastordavid 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... I will back off for now. I have to do some reading up on Anglicanism in the 1790s in any case. Blueboar 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

General points about the structure of the article.

In reviewing the article I think there is some scope for improvement, mainly around structure and the content flow. At the moment I'm left with a feeling of so what by the end, I get the impression that the article is rather aimless and kind of wanders around without actually coming to a conclusion. I also think that it veers into original content in the way that it presents information to the reader. I rather get the feeling that the whole deism issue is all a bit nudges, winks and whispers, trying to make an issue of something which perhaps isn't an issue.

Can I suggest the following structure might help bring some shape to the information: Introduction, explicit support of tolerance, formal affiliation (baptism, later attendance, the communion issue), writings and speeches, historians opinion. I think that would give some shape to the article and avoid it reading like a collection of bullet points.

ALR 08:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I created a new intro paragraph, which I hope will go some ways to fixing the problem you identified. J.R. Hercules 04:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that Blueboar has already dealt with what I saw as an issue with your new paragraph, is there any reliable source which attributes Washingtons' Masonic membership as evidence of Deism?

Despite that, my issue is with the structure of the whole article, not just the intro paragraph. Most of the Christian affiliations and Deism section is pretty ropey, reads like a series of unconnected bullets and contains some unsubstantiated opinion.

With that in mind I think the whole thing needs a critical review.

ALR 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think there needs to be source which attributes Washington's Freemasonry with his alleged deism, as that's not an argument I even made. While Freemasonry could be used as further indication of Washington's deism further down in the article, the intro paragraph I created doesn't claim that the two are connected. Washington's Freemason status has always been noted by biographers whenever discussion of Washington's religious beliefs comes up; Freemasonry is not a religion, but it's always been considered a pagan heresy by the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches. J.R. Hercules 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The argument is made even more strongly, and bordering on offensively, in the amendment you've just made. The topic is GW's religious beliefs, you're using his membership of the craft as a justification for saying he was Deist. That's Original Research in my book. And I'd suggest you do some real research into the views of various religions with regard to Freemasonry before you start throwing those statements around.

If you can't find a source which explicitly says that GW's membership of the craft was an unequivocal indicator of Deism then it's not a legit statement to make.

ALR 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a bizarre (lack of) comprehension problem, here: I specifically said that I did not add the mention of Washington's Freemason membership in the first paragraph as "proof" that he was a deist. In the introductory paragraph I wrote, it is not written as such; it doesn't even come close to sounding as such. J.R. Hercules 21:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The wording his frequent use of deist terminology, such as "Creator" and "Being", and his membership in the fraternal order of Freemasons are at odds with some posthumous portraits of Washington as something of a devout Christian. implies that, given the alternative being proposed, the two points indicate that he is deist. Now you haven't actually addressed any of the other points I've raised about the structure of the article, only made the opening particularly POV by levering in a tangential point.

ALR 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are definitely going to get a fight over the line: "...his frequent use of deist terminology, such as "Creator" and "Being", and his membership in the fraternal order of Freemasons are at odds with some posthumous portraits of Washington as something of a devout Christian." His membership in the Freemasons is not at all "at odds" with Washington being a devout Christian. There are Millions of devout Christians who are Masons... including priests, ministers, bishops and even Arch-Bishops. Blueboar 21:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there are millions of devout Christians who are also Masons (or so you claim); the only thing that's cogent for this article is that historians and biographers have always weighed Washington's Freemasonry when evaluating his religious thought. For two centuries, Christian revisionist apologists have made a point of NOT mentioning Washington's membership in the Freemasons when trying to make the futile effort at portraying Washington as a devout Christian. J.R. Hercules 00:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1. "While Freemasonry could be used as further indication of Washington's deism further down in the article". No it can't actually, & to do so would be increadibly POV. You are saying that all Freemasons are Deists.
2. "it's always been considered a pagan heresy by the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches". No it hasn't, atually.
3. "and his membership in the fraternal order of Freemasons are at odds with... Apparently, your vision of a devout Christian. In actuality, that is not the case.

Grye 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You are saying that all Freemasons are Deists." No, I never said that. Though I will say that you have a talent for committing logical fallacies, such as that statement.
2. "No it hasn't, atually." (chuckle) Read Wikipedia's own entry and the accompanying links on the subject of "Freemasonry" if you don't believe me.

From what I gather here (from their user pages), currently there are at least two individuals who are self-proclaimed Masons engaged in this discussion, and who obviously have some weird sort of agenda with how this article is written. I have zero use for Masons, devout Christians, revisionists, atheists, or what-have-you; my agenda is simply to get history right, without consideration for anyone's feelings or agendas. J.R. Hercules 00:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on my side of the argument. So let's get talk history... The HISTORICAL fact is that, at Washington's time, the ONLY religious denomination to have any issue with Freemasonry was the Catholic Church. Washington was not a Catholic... so his membership has no relevence to the issue of Washington's religious beliefs. More importantly, Freemasonry was considered perfectly OK by the Church of England and the Episcopal Church of Washington's time (still is as a matter of fact). Washington was (at least publically) an Anglican. So any beliefs he may have had due to his being a Mason were considered well within dogmatic doctrine of his stated religious faith. In otherwords... at the time of Washington, being a Freemason would not have been at odds with being a devout Christian. Unless you want to say that Anglicans are not devout Christians? THAT is the History. Anything else is either your own historical revisionism, or simply your personal POV. Blueboar 01:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And to help you get your facts straight on the matter of Freemasonry and religion, and various religious philosophies ... you might want to check out this site. Blueboar 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Then how is it that Freemasonry could be used as further indication of Washington's deism??
2. & yeah, I know the history pretty well. It hasn't always been so. Go ahead & argue & cite all you want, the fact that you can actually cite a specific edict etc is absolute prof that it has not always been considered a pagan heresy by (X, Y, Z).

& I'm glad I got to make you chuckle w/only a miss-key. The world needs more smiles...;-D Grye 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation request

The line: "There is, however, no record of his ever taking communion in any Christian church, and abundant evidence that he did not..." needs a citation. I am not challenging the statement (as seen above, there is indeed abundant evidence)... but since we say the evidence exists we should cite some examples. Perhaps the two strongest of the many sources could be used. Blueboar 16:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

POV in intro

The new intro has some serious POV issues, especially the phrase "His apparent near-total indifference towards the matter of Christianity..." While you may find something "apparent", I certainly don't. Part of the point about this article is that there is debate about exaclty what Washington's beliefs were. I can accept saying that he rarely, if ever, discussed religion - but he did attend Church services... that is hardly a "near-total indifference". Please... discuss the debate, present the evidence for all views, and leave the POV out. Blueboar 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of editing that I think makes it a little less POV. Blueboar 15:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment here; and on another ground. Many biographers are not versed in any kind of seminary or theological study; and even of those who have a theological background will tend to use more patrinsic, fatherly citations than internal evidence of Biblical texts. Many modern scholars holding PhDs do not hold to any such disciplines to where they are not good authorities on what are Biblical reference and proceed to make erroneous claims that a person of interest was secular, non-sectarian, unitarian, deist, agnostic, etc. Why? Because they read texts written by a person of interest and do not know that a statement that the person made is a Biblical reference. Ironically, some Biblical references become so ingrained in culture that people will repeat them unwittingly that they are based on some obscure Biblical text. And so as it is that scholarship is a discipline of repeating hear-say evidence; that is to say, repeating what a publisher said, the originating author may be himself repeating a phrase or reference unwittingly of Biblical reference. When that happens, then what is given is a double hear-say reference from the Bible where the modern scholar is glossing over a fact of Biblical reference and does not have the faculties to tell whether or not the publisher committed an error or if the person of interest indeed was loosely using a Biblical reference without the revelation of it. And when the learned of Biblical scholarship come along and read what modern scholars have to say about a person of interest, and then we look up the sources such scholars use to read the source documents for ourselves, then it becomes obvious to us that the modern scholar was rather devoid of understanding certain points concerning religion. Once upon a time American colleges required Greek, Latin, Bible, and sometimes Hebrew as pre-requisites for entrance into college because in college, that is what was in the curriculum. Nowadays, such curriculum is almost non-existent in American colleges. For this cause, many modern scholars are out of touch with matters of religion on persons of interest a couple hundred years ago.

RTHJr (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Some background material on Anglican Church at the time of Washington

You may want to check out the article on Latinudinarianism. Fits with Washington's practices - and the Archbishop of Cantebury at the time (Frederick Cornwallis was prominent in the doctrine. Blueboar 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see: Low church. Blueboar 16:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

and Broad church. Blueboar 16:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant?

I do wonder about the relevance of the bit about "He also reportedly sometimes attended Catholic, Presbyterian, and Friends services"... Part of the argument that Washington was a Deist is that simply attending a service does not make one a believer. Almost every President of the US has attended services in faiths and denominations not his own (especially during election season) ... it does not change their beliefs. I think we would need to know what the circumstances of his attending these services were. Was he with a friend, attending what was essentially a political gathering? etc. His attending Anglican services has at least some relevance, (since he was raised Anglican, continuing to attend services shows at least some degree of continued adhearance to that denomination)... I don't see the relevance to his attendance at others. Blueboar 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would fit better in the "toleration" section - but it connects to the content (of the sentence previous to it) better than any sentence yet in that section --JimWae 07:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But what was the context of his visits? Without that, we have no way of knowing why he attended those services or if they have any berring on his beliefs. Blueboar 13:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Was GW latitudinarian & was that why he did not go to communion?

"During this time, his actions display a distinct Latitudinarian, or Low church attitude towards his faith. For example, there is no record of his ever taking communion in any church,"

• This looks to be an attempt to use (non)actions as clear evidence of some attitude that has not been established, an attempt to explain why he did not go to communion - and to be Original Research
• If true, it would indicate that GW did not think that the Church he attended was in accord with what he thought the most appropriate worship should be
• Here is the closest thing to Washington's words on the subject --JimWae 08:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

“ One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it: 'With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants -- she invariably being one -- I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who in the course of conversation at table said that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal? arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning'" (Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. v, p. 394). ”

Well, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject, this is certainly typical of Latitudinarian views towards the sacrements. Blueboar 13:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You are doing original research by attributing a particular attitude to GW & proposing it as an explanation for his not taking communion. --JimWae 15:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No... I am simply stating fact... that his actions are consistant with those of a Latitudinarian Anglican. I can play with the wording if needed, but it is no more original research than attributing his actions to deism. Blueboar 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording away from conjecture about his attitude to a more factual statement about consistancy with latitudinarian practice. The reader can make up his or her mind on the subject. Blueboar 15:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not "letting the reader decide" - you are presenting a theory about him even before the facts are presented. The facts become a mere "for example...". Discussing his possible deism is in no way original research - nor do I see any presentation that deism "explains" his actions.--JimWae 15:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with your last statement... That deism explains his actions may not be overtly presented, but it is heavily implied by the article. As for the first part... I do not "explain" his actions... I simply state that they are consistant with Latitudinarian practices. They are. It is a fact that not taking communion is consistant with latitudinal practice... nothing original about it. Blueboar 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article on Low church: The name was used in the early part of the 18th century as the equivalent of Latitudinarian, i.e., one who was prepared to concede much latitude in matters of discipline and faith, in contradistinction to High Churchman, the term applied to those who took a high view of the exclusive authority of the Established Church, of episcopacy and of the sacramental system. Blueboar 17:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that it is also incorrect to say that there his no record of his ever having taken communion... in the letter by Nelly Custis-Lewis she recounts her grandmother saying he regularly took the sacements it with her. This is only one step from being an eye witness. (And it still falls within the bounds of a consistancy with latitudinarian practice.) Blueboar 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, she recounts recalling hearing her mother (Eleanor Calvert, who married John Custis 1774 February 3 - and so was "around" for perhaps a couple of years before the revolution) say he took communion with her grandmother. Not a direct communication either, "hearing her say...". --JimWae 09:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• "My mother resided two years at Mount Vernon, after her marriage with John Parke Custis"
• strange that she recalls hearing that "GW would ALWAYS receive communion". If that were true, one must wonder what could have produced such a profound change in his religious practices that he would NEVER again go --JimWae 09:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

When we say "Christian"... what do we mean?

I think some of the problems we are having with this article, especially in reguards to the current version of the intro, is confusion over what we mean by the term "Christian"... and especially the term "devout Christian". "Christian" is a very broad term, encompassing a vast array of dogmas, practices, interpretations, and beliefs. There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of denominations and sects that call themselves "Christian"... many of whom would define every other denomination and sect as being heretical and even "non-Christian". Add in the term "devout" and things become even more confusing... who defines what is "devout"? Toss in the historical element (that, even within a given denomination or sect, definitions and practices might well have changed since Washington's day) and things get really chaotic. We might be able to break some of the deadlock and edit warring if we can clarify what we are talking about. Blueboar 14:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one solution is to change the word "devout" to "ardent" ... ardent people tend to talk about their religion, whereas one can be quielty devout without others knowing. Blueboar 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor quibble on red link

I note that there is no article on James Abercrombie. I hate redlinks... Either an article needs to be created, or we should unlink his name. Blueboar 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Latitudinarianism

It is my understanding from reading this and associated articles that "Anglican" churches at the time of GW were mostly latitudinarian - one clear indication of which being that they did not celebrate communion every week. (btw, do they, like some other denominations, still refrain?) The only sect at that time that NEVER celebrated communion seems to have been the Quakers. Now since GW clearly no longer (or quite likely never) attended communion, is he most consistent with Latitudinarianism, Quakerism, or Deism? --JimWae 08:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "consistent with Latitudinarianism" needs more exposition. Eventually (when?) Anglicans came to accept a (how wide?) range of practices within their own members. If so, then it is not really "consistent" with a doctrine but better described as "within the range" of accepted practices - tho' Abercrombie, in reprooving GW for not attending communion, was certainly hoping for a lesser range (while at the same time, apparently sidestepping the rules requiring confirmation for communion). Was it consistent with being an Anglican Xn to never take communion? Is it now? Was it consistent with being an Anglican Xn to decide to never AGAIN take communion?--JimWae 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy... To answer your questions properly, we need to review the history of the Anglican Church and it's various factions. THEN we need to give a history of religion in Colonial and early Frederal America, and discuss the impact of the Second Great Awakening on the Episcopal Church. No small task.

I can answer some of your questions, but do not feel qualified to answer them all. First, I don't think we can legitimately say for sure that Washington NEVER celebrated communion after the Revolution ... only that there is no record of him ever doing so. There is a difference. Given the wide range of sources, it is certainly logical to infer that he probably did not take communion. But inference is not the same as solid proof. It is possible that he took communion on a few occasions that are un-recorded. What is, I think fair is to say that, if he did, it was a very rare event.

But that is all by the wayside... taking communion was not a considered a big thing in the Anglican Church in the 1700s. The Church allowed for broad range of practice including frequent communication, infrequent communiction, and even non-communinication. You are correct in calling this "practice" as opposed to dogma. The dogma was that the eucharist was offered, and that the bread and wine were transubstatiated (exactly how and what it implied was one of the disputes betweeen high and low church). Practice varried... and included those who never took communion. So it is perfectly consistant with "being" an Anglican (again, at that time) to not take communion. It simply wasn't required.

Now, we also need to look at the Church as it was in America at the time of Washington. The disputes between High and Low Church (with the Latitudinarian compromise thrown in) became exadurated in the colonies... In the North, where more puritan denominations were dominant, the Anglican Clergy tended to lean towards the High Church view... insisting on vestments, pomp and ceremony (including frequent communion), the authority of Bishops. It was a way of distiguishing itself from the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, and other more puritan protestant denominations. In the South, however, where competition was significantly less, the Church tended towards the Low Church view. Morning Prayer instead of Eucharist services, vestry controle of parish affairs instead of Episcopal authority, etc.

Then we need to factor in the impact of the Englightenment on the Church. It is true that Englightenment philosophy was heavily influenced by Deistic thought. But the ever-flexible Anglican Church was able to absorb this philosophy to a degree tht other denominations were not. Because the Anglican Church had already rejected strict dogmatism, and instead chosen a middle ground in the religious disputes of the 1600s, it was comfortable in allowing for a degree of Deism to enter it's theology in the 1700s. Words and ideas that are now thought of as being Deistic were common in sermons of the time. In other words, one could have strong deist leanings and still be an Anglican. That means that men like Washington could well have had deistic tendencies, and still be within accepted pracice in the Anglican Church.

When we look at the Anglican Church of the 1700's, especially in America, we find that it straddles a multitude of practices and beliefs. However, by 1800 things were beginning to change. In England the "High vs. Low" church compomises were beginning to fray... The Weslian movement was growning, at first within the Church, but soon to split off and form it's own denomination. The Oxford Movement was about to bloom... taking the Church in a more "High Church" direction. In America, the Second Great Awakening brought a wave of evangelical spirituality to all Christian denominations. The very language of Christianity began to change. Practice became more dogmatic, as different denominations began to react to this new spirituality. This is important for this article... the commentary on Washington's religious beliefs and practices (such as that of James Abercrombie) all occur AFTER the impact of the Second Great Awakening. Practices that were the norm and went completely un-noticed in 1790 were suddenly being commented upon with a frown in 1810. A religious revolution had occured.

Having said all of this... and to get back to your original series of questions... You can not say that Washington's practice place him as being an Anglican or as being a Deist... for he could have been both. Your comments about the Quakers being the only denomination to never celebrate communion, is misplaced... for you are talking dogma and not practice. While the dogma of the Anglican Church held the Eucharist as being valid, and included it in it's sacraments, Practice allowed for the individual to decide when and if to take it. It was offered, but it not a requirement for Anglicans to partake (it still isn't, although most modern Anglicans do so at least a few times a year). Even if Washington NEVER took communion after the revolution, he can still be considered a "good" Anglican. Even if Washington had strong Deist beliefs, he can still be considered a "good" Anglican. As I said in several of the discussions above, this article uses modern language that does not really apply to Washington's era. It makes assuptions about religion that are simply not true... things are not always black and white, especially when dealing with the Anglican Church of the 1700s. Essentially it tries to force modern consepts onto a very different age. It is not inconsistant with his time and place for Washington to have been both a deist AND a devout Christian. They were not mutually exclusive in his time and place. Blueboar 17:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Abercrombie's reproof was during GW's presidency in Philadelphia. It is evidence that there was at that time (before the Second Great Awakening) already some frowning (by the parson & among the congregation also) about the example set by those in high places who uniformly left & did not commune. --JimWae 18:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no... his sermon about men in hight places taking communion took place during Washington's presidency, and it does tell us that some Episcopalians felt this was important. But it does not tell us that this was a universal view or even how common that view was. In fact, such a view was somewhat common... amoung the "High Church" wing of the the Anglican/Episcopal Church. A Low Church clergyman would not have worried about who took communion (in fact he probably would only offer it a couple of times a year). In any case, the sermon tells us more about Abercrombies views than it does about Washington's. The one thing it does NOT do is tell us that Washington was a Deist. Notice that while Abercrombie scolded Washington (and other Episcopalians in high office) for not taking communion, he did not bar them admission to the services. This shows that (at least at the time) he considered Washington a practicing Episcopalian ... although by Abercromie's lights, Washington could have been a better one.

But we must also take into account when Abercrombie is telling us about the sermon... he is recounting it in 1833. What was simply the subject of a fairly mild reproof in 1790, had by 1833 taken on different connotations. Now Abercrombie tells us that he thinks Washington was a deist... To put this in context, by thw time Abercrombie is recounting the tale, the Anglican/Episcopal Church had changed... High Church view had won out (the Low Churchmen having broken off to form the Methodists.)

As I keep saying... The Anglican/Episcopal Chruch doesn't lend itself to black and white statements... it was (and is) a muddy and blurry thing that tries to find medium ground on most issues, allowing for a great diversity of views. I am reminded of an old joke told in Anglican seminaries ... Go to an Catholic Priest and ask him what a piece of theological writing means and he will tell you... go to an Anglican Priest with the same question and he will reply, "What do you think it means?" So... Abercrombie has one view, Washington has another... both can be considered "Devoutly Anglican" Blueboar 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this article in line with WP:ATT?

Now that WP:ATT is policy, I have to ask if this article is in line with what that policy says... and especially the section on syntheses. (for a short-cut see: WP:SYNT) Also note the links to statements from Jimbo about history articles that are at the bottom of the policy page.

To be honest, I may have contributed to some of this (I am not sure that my latitudiarian information meets with this policy). However, I don't think my additions are the only issues. Much of this article is unsourced synthesis based on primary documents. I would even go so far as to say that the entire article may fall into this category.

I think we need to re-examine everything in this article to make sure that any conculsions (stated and unstated) are those of others (ie citable to reliable sources) and not our own or those of an editor. Given recent comments at WP:ATT, it is no longer acceptable to state A and B... and let the reader decide if they form conclusion C... to juxtapose A and B we have to show that some reliable source reached a conclusion C or D. in other words... implied conclusion is just as bad as unsourced stated conclusion. since this article heavily implies that Washington was a Deist, we need to find reliable sources that took all of the primary source materials that we cite and reached that conclusion... we can not just "state the facts and let the reader decide" anymore. Blueboar 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to be very careful here... it is one thing to list what Washington did or did not do... it is another to draw conclusions from this. I don't think we can include headings such as "His deism" or "Douts about his Chrisianity" in sections that pull mainly from primary sources... etc. We need to separate the historical primary material from any conclusion, unless that exact primary material is part of a conclusion that a reliable secondary source makes. as an example... while we can talk about Washington not taking commnion, we can not draw the conclusion that this makes him a Deist. What we can say is that according to "Joe Blow, noted historian" this makes him a Deist or that "Joe Blow, noted historian" doubts his Christianity based upon the fact that he did not take communion.

Please read up on WP:SYNT ... using primary sources to draw conclusion is very much against Policy. Large sections of this article fail in this. We need reliable secondary sources if we are going to make some of the claims that are being made. Blueboar 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• We also have to be careful about prematurely removing mention of his purported deism. There are abundant historians who suggest or conclude that he was a deist - the task is not to find one, but to decide which few to select --JimWae 19:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I suppose my big problem is that we don't actually mention any of these historians in the article. We say... Washington did this (cite to primary source)... Washington did that (cite to primary source)... and we say that historians think this makes him a Deist... but we don't cite or talk about any of the historians actually doing so. We don't say "According to Historian X this means he was a Deist". Without such an attribution, we end up with a Synthesis as defined by WP:NOR. Blueboar 22:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)