The Way I Heard It with Mike Rowe - 238: He Has Nodded on Our Undertakings

Episode Date: February 15, 2022

President and Professor of Historical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Dr. Peter Lillback dissects Episode 124: At the Crossroads and literally schools Mike and Chuck.

Hey guys, it's the way I heard it. This is episode number 238. And before I tell you what it's called, I have a spoiler alert. That's the correct term, right, Chuck? A spoiler alert. That is exactly what this is that you're about to do. Right, because I just had one of the better conversations of my professional career with a brilliant historian. I can't wait to share it with you. but it occurs to me that it will be a much more enlightening conversation if you first listen to an earlier episode in the library of the way I heard it called At the Crossroads. It's episode number 124. It's not mandatory, but if you haven't listened to episode 124, I'm going to be discussing that with my guest at some length, and I think it might enrich the listening experience.

thus concludes the spoiler alert. Everything that happens next is going to spoil the surprise, if you have not yet experienced episode number 124 at the crossroads. Which brings us back to episode number 238, which we're calling he has nodded on our undertakings. Chuck explained. He has nodded on our undertakings. That is correct, Mike.

If you look at the dollar bill, the back of the dollar bill, you'll see the pyramid with a giant eyeball at the top, and then at the top of it, it says, anewitt, oh gosh, I don't know, coptis. Anewit coptis. Anewet coptis. It's Latin, and it's just a small sampling of a lot of Latin that found its way onto our money over the years. And this turn of phrase was translated for us by my guest today,

who is none other than Dr. Peter A. Lillbach. Dr. Lillbach is a historian. He's also the president and professor of historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and he is the author of a remarkable book called Sacred Fire, which is really one of the most exhaustive biographies I've ever seen on the life and times of the father of our country, the indispensable man, the one and only George Washington, who, of course, is the subject of at the crossroads, which hopefully you have already listened to. That's the spoiler right there.

George Washington is it. I believe technically it's called George Washington's Sacred Fire, technically. Well, you would know because this all came as a result of the fact that you know a guy who knew a guy, who's the brother of a guy who worked with Dr. Lulbeck on this 1,300-page tone. And I'm so glad you brought him to my attention. You tell me, have you been more? riveted by a conversation on this podcast so far? No, I have not. I mean, I've been riveted by a lot of the great conversations, but this particular one was just amazing. I just sat there with my chin on my

chair the whole time because everything he said was just gripping and interesting. I found fascinating. He knows history really up and down in every which way to Tuesday, and it was really good. It's distracting, not him, but the sight of your children. chin on the chair. Yeah, it's a little off-putting, no doubt. Yeah, you were catching flies for a lot of this. You are going to love Dr. Lilback. He literally eats and breathes this stuff. He quotes vast stretches of George Washington's letters and our Constitution and the Declaration and the Bible. All of it comes together in a really, really interesting way. And I'm so glad he's here to shed a little light on the story. that I wrote about what I imagined to be a significant meeting between an innkeeper and George Washington.

It'll all be explained as we sally forth with all due speed and get into. He has nodded on our undertakings. One other quick note, you're going to want to check out more from Dr. Lilback, and I'm looking, Chuck. Is it Providenceforum.org? Providenceforum.org, yes. Just make a note because I don't think I mention it at the end and you're going to want to go there to learn more. He really is all that and a bag of chips. He has nodded on our undertakings.

Here we go. Right after this commercial. My guest today, Tom, Albanyse, is an American giant. And I'll tell you why. Tom understands on a fundamental level that the business of mining is a non-negotiable prerequisite of our civilization and our economic independence, just like the business of making things. American Giant knows this, which is why they committed themselves 16 years ago to make all their excellent clothing right here in this country. It wasn't easy, but they did it. they sourced locally grown cotton.

And they built factories in towns across the nation where they could hire hardworking locals who cared about making a quality product. And then they went about the business of gently reminding people that when you buy a piece of clothing from American giant, you're not just buying a high quality sweatshirt or t-shirt or another pair of jeans. You're investing in a local supply chain. You're supporting communities from the Carolinas to California. And you're getting a piece of clothing that won't just survive the wash. You're getting a garment that'll get better with age. Check out their high-quality staples, hoodies, teas, denim, built to be worn year after year at American-giant.com slash Mike.

It's quality you can feel and a true American success story that you can be proud to support. Use code Mike. Get 20% off your order at American-Dash-Giant. dot com slash mike american giant american made american giant american made mike i'm dealing with my mike it's an honor to be with you it's an honor to have you here believe me doctor thank you for making the time your voice has such great potential we ought to bring you to westminster seminary to prepare for ministry you would make a great pulpeteer if only i had something relevant to say doctor imagine how far we could go.

I know it. Well, praise the Lord. You always have something good to say every time I've heard you, so... Well, thank you. We're going to have to have a frank conversation about your standards then. Let's first discuss the size of your microphone, doctor. My goodness. Hold on a second. Where did you get that thing?

Sorry, Mike. I don't think you're coming through your microphone. No, I'm not up yet. I'm hovering over the thing that says Mike. Mike Plus. Pete, and you thought you were going to be the one who was going to... He mentioned how big my mic is, but I have it right where you want it to be, I think. So I'm hiding behind it.

Hang on. Mike Plus. Mike camera speaker. Now it's going to work. Yeah, we're good. Okay. Every week, Pete, every week we do this. Hey, listen, Chuck, this is called one of the dirty jobs that people have to do.

And if you're willing to do, and if you're willing to do, it, you can make the world a better place, so thank you. But you see, Doctor, on Dirty Jobs, there's always an object lesson. There's always something to learn so as the future won't see the same mistakes, repeat it again and again. But here on this podcast, I think in the words of Santa Ana, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And so every week we go through this horrible kabuki of trying to figure out the technology. and Chuck and I, we look at each other like cows looking at a new gate, full of wonder and befuddlement. So welcome to this.

That's great. Well, it has the purpose of endearment, so I appreciate you both more. I do want to say, seriously, thank you for making the time to come on here. I don't know if Chuck told you, but this represents actually the very first time that I've been able to do with this podcast, exactly what I always. wanted to do, which is tell a story the way I heard it, take a certain amount of liberty in telling it, a certain amount of creative license, and then invite an actual expert, someone who truly knows what they're talking about, to gently critique my take to tell me if I got anything right and what I got wrong and add a little more illumination to the story at hand.

Wonderful. That's great. Thank you for calling me an expert. I don't know if that's the right accolade or not, but I am an author who's written on the topic, so how about that? Well, you know what? Let's start with that, because it's a great point. These days, it seems, expert has become, I don't quite know if it's a compliment anymore. So many of our experts have seemed to say things that need to be walked back, sometimes the same month, sometimes the same week, sometimes the same day. So I take it back. You're not an expert. but you are an historian. And if the book is any indication, a historian who takes the past very seriously. Well, thank you very much. An expert is sometimes a very relative term, but a historian is someone who

at least is attempting to use recognizable sources to test claims about what happened in the past. So in your particular case, you use a number of quotations from Washington that can be verified. And so that's part of an authentic historical review. Then there are other parts where we do take liberty and say, well, this is what I think. Well, there's no way to know that it happened that way. So a historian could say, maybe, maybe not, but the fact that you had Washington say these things, that's absolutely true. We can verify them. We can find their sources. Thank you. I looked at it like a builder who wants to get the bricks and the lumber and basically the raw materials. necessary to create a home, gets all those things assembled. And then because I didn't have a blueprint,

I just imagined, you know, I knew Washington went to Spurrier's tavern on more than one occasion. I knew he had a relationship with John. I knew they spoke. I have no idea what they actually said, but in my mind, I thought it would be an interesting scenario to put the two of them together in that tavern. And knowing what little I do know about Washington, a man of the people, a man who never elevated himself, it seemed, above his countrymen, a man who would be more comfortable sitting down with a pint by a fire and just conversing with one of his future constituents. And so it was through those imaginings that I said to myself,

well, could this conversation realistically have unfolded? And that's really why I invited you on. I would love to hear your thoughts, of course, on Washington, but also on his work ethic and his devotion to this country and his devotion to his God, all of it. Well, let's begin by saying, you taught me about John Spurrier's Tavern. I was unaware about that until I listened to your program, and I checked it out, and there really is a historical marker.

You can find it by a Google search, so that's authentic. I think in your broadcast, you first indicated his record show he stopped there 25 times. That is significant. So this was part of his well-honed trail as he would go up to New York or Philadelphia and head back to Mount Vernon. So if you go to someplace 25 times, the likelihood is you got to know the proprietor, especially when you start going as the famous general or the president of the country. You got attention. So they certainly would have spoken.

Now the question that we could begin to ask is the construction of the quotes that he would have used in that context. You use quotes that come right out of very important letters that Washington wrote. So they're his words. But for example, some of the words came out of a intimate letter he had with a lady named Sally Fairfax. I don't know that he would have quoted that in this kind of a context. In fact, that's one of the questions people have was, was that too close of a relationship with a married woman or not? That's part of the debate of history. But there's also one that I found that was interesting that comes out of the dialogue with one of the great military leaders, which Washington had to do.

And that one was with Major General Robert Howe, August 17, 7079, where he says, few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. That's a military negotiation. But it has the sound of an apothegium, a quote that he might have used in another context. I can give you that one. I could say, yeah, he could have put that in a big letter, but it rolls off your tongue, and I could see him saying that. Chuck, I'm two for two. So the tavern was real.

John Spurrier is real. These are actual quotes, truly attributed to Washington. Go on, doctor. I'm feeling more and more prescient by the moment. Okay. Now, the structure of what you created is, would he have talked in the way you've described it, that this was not my dream. I was forced to do this because it came from my father. That's pure

conjecture. That's good storytelling, but we don't know that that was John Spurk. For all we know, he might have said, this is my big break. I've got a chance to take family business and go for the moon, you know? We don't know. So the context in which you wove it together, I give you a lot of artistic creativity, but there's no historical veracity that we can be sure of at that context. But could Washington have described these things? Yes. The reason we know he could give wise counsel is that there are various people in his life he would give counsel to. They include people that were part of his farming business, employees. It included his adopted son, George Washington, Park Custis, Washington. Imagine that. He had Washington in his name twice,

his adopted grandson. Yeah, no pressure. So there were all sorts of ways in which Washington's wisdom could have come to bear. And I think they are principles that could in fact have been said, but we don't know that he would have said them there, but over 25 visits, there might have been a chance for some of them to come out. It's hypothetically enjoyable and even possible. So to say it in a slightly more flattering way, nothing is inconsistent with the man who you came to know in your years of exhaustive research. Yeah. I would say you got some things very right.

Number one, where he said he did not often smile or laugh. That's true. He was a very reserved person, and that was something that was true. And you say there's a moment where he gave a little smile. So the fact that you knew a little bit of his reticence, that came through. I think the character of Washington of wanting to be at his farm, that's absolutely true. that's absolutely true. He wanted to be a farmer more than anything. That's how he ended up getting the title of the new Cincinnatus when the war was over and he's the general that has a victory and what's he going to do?

He wants to go to his farm. They said, no, no, no, those spoils go to the victor and Washington's going home. It can't possibly be. And they said it is. And they found someone way back in the Roman Empire named General Cincinnati that won a great victory and said, I'm going home to. be a farmer. So when Washington uses the word, I'd rather be in my farm than emperor the world, that is something that he gave at the end of his presidency to a newspaper criticism of him. It's dated about 1797. I don't know that he would have said that to a young tavern keeper, but it does capture his spirit, which is, you know what, I'll be glad when they're done with me, because all I've ever wanted to be was be a really great farmer. That was his aspiration. That was his aspiration.

And wasn't it also true, Doctor, that it just seems like there was a time when most of our political elected officials, they understood it was a call to serve and they did their time, so to speak, and then they went back to their smithy or their farm or their school or whatever it was that defined them as a human above and beyond their political nature? That is correct. that Washington really wanted to end after the first term, and they begged him not to leave because things were so fragile, and he stayed on. And at the second term, he said, I'm leaving. And there were those that said, you can't go. And he said, enough's enough. I'm going home. Well, he got three years finally at the end of his life at his farm before he died. And so he wanted to be there more than anything else because it truly was his love. So that farming spirit, but you also bring out the fact that he set aside his own desires for the good of others. And that's what authentic

leadership looked like in early America. It was not only about building your power base. It was about giving something to the people you loved and cared for, your neighbor, your countrymen, that you made the world a better place. And you're glad you gave your part. And then you let it go and you went back to do your work. So the idea of a career politician was not in Washington's mind. But because of his unique giftings, as he's been described by some, he was America's indispensable man. We would never let him go home because we needed him too much. But he finally put his foot down after two terms and said, I've done enough. I'm going home. Do you believe had his ambition permitted it, he could have been king if he wanted to? There's no question that at Newburgh, New York,

after the war had essentially been won. The peace treaty had not been signed, but the British had laid down their arms in terms of no more fighting. Congress had not paid the soldiers for many months. The Americans had the victory, they had the guns, and history is filled with the army conqueror taking over.

And there was circulating a discussion about this by one or two people, and even you go back into the letters. Alexander Hamilton writes, if we're not careful, we could imagine there will be insurrection in the American Army. But he says, I know Washington, he will have no part of it. And there's that famous moment at time

where Washington brings the officers of the Army together in Newburgh, New York, and said, this is a moment, well, the honor of the American Army will not be sullied by our taking something that is not ours. we are going to leave for the people the right to determine their future leaders. And at that moment, with a different personality, with different principles,

you could construct the fact he could have said, I'm taking over. But Washington was committed to the peaceful transition of power, and that was something the world had never quite seen before. When you win, you lead. Washington said, when you win, you recognize the people's right to determine their government. and he was willing to serve, but very reluctantly, even then, but he could not resist the call to people. So it's a very important contribution.

The frightening thing to me is that when we think about somebody wanting to be a king or taking power, right? I mean, it's the word taking that immediately sets up the whole transaction as something craven. But he could have accepted the crown. for lack of a better word, with all of the best intentions. It just occurs to me that so many of the mistakes that you see people make both historically and in the headlines today, I'm not sure the intentions matter.

Taking power or accepting power, it seems like he looked at both of those things as equally dangerous and wrong. Well, there's several things we can say historically. Napoleon went to war because he thought he would make the world a better place. place. Many people in power think, if I use the power right, I'll make the world better. And that's the danger, seductive character of power. And so I think it's well said that Washington is one of the greatest men in Western civilization for two things he did not do. He did not quit at Valley Forge when everything was lost. And he did not become king when he had an opportunity to seize that power base.

Instead, he gave the people the freedom to do what's right. He said one of the most important things in his army was character. It was the ability to do the right thing. The higher the level of authority said the more important character becomes. You think of Benedict Arnold, the story, a leading officer whose character nearly cost West Point and even Washington himself. So we see Washington very committed to doing what was right because moral. order is what ultimately brings about health of a country. In fact, as farewell address, we'll put it this way. Religion and morality are indispensable supports for our political prosperity.

I'll circle back to that in a second, but quick sidebar. Have you ever considered how Benedict Arnold would be remembered today had he had the good sense to die after Saratoga and be remembered for the fearless hero that he so clearly was at that moment in time. Yes. There's no question that he was a relied upon military leader who had suffered a great deal, had led effectively, and he would be remembered as one of America's heroes. There probably would have been cities called Arnold that would have been named in his honor. They would have named their sons Benedict in his honor. But character got involved because two things happened. One, he got into gambling and got so deeply in debt he couldn't pay his debts.

Number two, he married a Tory sympathizer, and that made his home life awfully difficult. So marriage is an issue of wisdom, and gambling is an issue of morality. And when wisdom, it becomes folly, and morality becomes that which is wrong, then a leader's character will be compromised and danger can ensue. and Benedict Ardald is your classic example. What about luck, doctor? Does luck play any role in history? Or maybe luck's the wrong word.

Maybe it's circumstance or serendipity or it just seems like we're surrounded by sliding doors. But for the slightest little calculation or miscalculation, the most seemingly inconsequential of choices. And suddenly we're a republic instead of a theocracy. If you want to use Washington's words, it's one that you used in your show earlier, and it's the word destiny. Washington believed there was a destiny, but he had a theological undergirding for it. And his favorite theological word is the word providence. In my book, I count it 275 times. He uses it in every situation of life, from his tobacco crop to the death of his daughter, to victory in the

war, to a loss of a battle, to personal heartache. It's everywhere. And what providence is is what we find at the end of our Declaration of Independence, where it says with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we pledge to one another, our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor. This was the American doctrine. We summarize it in our motto, in God we trust. And Washington will say there were surprising interventions in this story. of the revolution that are so startling that people will not believe these really happened. And there were time after time where something unexpected happened. To the world, we could call it luck.

You could call in chance terms serendipity. But why not use Washington's word? He said Providence. In fact, when you look at the great seal on the back of the American dollar that I over the pyramid, our founding fathers used that as the symbol they said of divine providence. Why? Because of, quote, the many signal interdispositions of divine providence on behalf of the American cause. They knew they should not have won the war. They knew they should not have beaten the most powerful army in the world. And they did. And why? It's what Washington said

immediately after the siege of Yorktown, we need a day to thank divine providence for the great victory that we've received. So is there luck? Yes, but is there something more? If you talk in Washington's terms, there is someone who's behind the scene accomplishing something that's far greater than what we can see who uses the humble people like us to accomplish his purpose. Is it weird to love people, but despise human resources? If so, well, color me weird. It's not to say I don't respect the millions of people who work in HR departments and companies all over the country. I do. It's just that I don't envy him. That's why MicroWorks doesn't have an HR department for better or worse.

And it's also why I use ZipRecruiter whenever we need to expand. ZipRecruiter has proven themselves a million times over by helping countless employers get through the hiring process faster and more effectively than ever before. And now they have a new feature that instantly shows you the most interested, the most passionate, and the most qualified candidates first. This is a huge time saver. Hours and hours of save time. And it helps people like me find the people who can function in a non-traditional work environment like MicroWorks. In other words, ZipRecruiter works for me, and they'll probably work for you too. Post a job for free at ZipRecruiter.com.com. com slash row.

And watch what happens. Odds are you'll find a human resource that just happens to be a great fit for your company in 24 hours or less. ZipRecruiter.com slash row. ZipRecruiter.com slash row. The smartest way to hire. You wrote your book, which by the way, it's not to blow smoke, but it's truly a master work.

It's a tome. It first came to my attention. Years ago, I was listening to Dr. D. James Kennedy, actually. Wonderful. He was either interviewing you or talking about you. Didn't he initially order a big tranche of your books? And wasn't that the thing that ultimately made you go, okay, I'll write the thing? Well, there's two foci in the story of this book.

Number one, this was a lifetime hobby, and I won't go into why I started it, but I worked on it for about 20 years. and Dr. Kennedy had heard about the work, and he said, if you can get your book done this year, I'm going to buy 19,000 copies for my global ministry and share it worldwide. Now, if you need an encouragement to write a book, you can't beat that. It wasn't even written, and he had ordered 19,000 copies. Self-published, got it done in the year.

It was almost out of print, and lo and behold, a wonderful gentleman by the name of Glenn Beck found the book about four years later, and while he was still on Fox News, So this ad, this national audience, he picked up the book and said, everybody in America needs to read this book. And then it became, believe it or not, number one bestseller on the Amazon book list for a week. Now, it only lasted a week, but it was up there for a little while.

Look, that's all it takes. Now you've got bragging rights. Earlier, Chuck sent me a synopsis of your book. And to my horror, I realized the synopsis of your book was longer than the book I actually wrote a couple of years ago. And so between the size of your book and the size of that microphone that you're using, I must say, this has been a very humbling half hour so far. Well, I'll tell you what, I don't do any bragging on the basis of the size of microphones, but I will go page for page for you on the size of a book. It's incredible. The thing in my story that I want you to comment on,

I think tangentially anyway, informs your book. And that is, the words that Washington uttered when he was sworn in, which he essentially, as I understand it, freelanced, right? The oath of office did not include the words, so help me God, but he added them. And so everything in my story is really just kind of a slow ramp up to answer the question, why in the world would he do that? In my twisted version, it's because an innkeeper who appreciated the good advice he got from the indispensable man swore an oath to keep to his trust and honor his dad's wishes. Now, I know that didn't happen that way, but you of all people must have a theory on why it did happen and why every president since has put a left hand on the Bible and raised

his right hand and said those exact words. Well, when I listen to your rendition of the crossroads, You say, maybe he was more religious than we knew. You said, maybe it's because of the enormity of the task, or maybe because he liked the words. I think all three of those have an element of truth, but they're not the decisive reason. First of all, he is far more religious than most people give him credit for. You need to read my book. He is more committed to church attendance than people who are serious about church today. He had to drive nine miles in cold weather in a horse and buggy.

and he went week after week to support his church. He was a religious man. He knew the Bible from cover to cover. Further, he knew the enormity of the task. There's a wonderful scene by a congressman watching Washington at his inauguration. It was a federal hall in New York City, and he watched Washington's hands tremble as he had his inaugural address. And he said, the man who never trembled before an enemy rifle or cannon,

trembled before his nation as he spoke his message. What an amazing. He was overwhelmed with the task that was given. He knew the enormity of it, and it could show. The body language was showing it. Further, he did like the words. And the reason we know he liked the words is that these were words that were regularly said in Virginia

whenever you entered in public service. We forget that the old dominion was a direct, descendant of England, which had a state church, the Anglican Church. And when you entered into the office of the country, you are entering into the service of the country and its church and its leadership. And so when George Washington took his oath as a surveyor, do you know what he said at the end of his oath? So help me God. So his public career began with those words. He liked those words. because they resembled the history of the country he came from. His country was Virginia.

It was a country before it was a state. It was a colonial country. And he recognized the history. When you take on a task, whether you become a military officer, would you become a surveyor, an elected official, you know that you're not only sufficient for the task because it's so great. You're doing it on behalf of someone that you're going to give account to. So help me.

God. Regarding syntax, Peter, normally when we hear it said on stage in films and whatnot, it's an exclamation. I'm going to do this, so help me God. In other words, I swear I'm going to do this. But is it that or is it I'm going to try and save our country? So help me God. Remember, Washington will use this same idea. if you will, in his farewell address. We often overlook it, but he talks about, can we have a Republican form of government without a religious and moral people? He said, where will the power of the oaths be if there is no sense of obligation before God? He said, our courts of law depend upon our taking a vow before God. And so the language so help me God carries with it, I need help to live up to the

high standard that God expects of me. It also is, if God helps me, I'm going to do this. It's my will, but it's my prayer. It's a pregnant dual meaning where you're saying, I'm going to do this. It's my intent. But it is a humble commitment because I know I can't do it to please God unless God himself helps me to do it. So that was part of the humility of leadership that came from his own heritage. So it was natural for him when he took the highest oath he would ever take in his life as an American. His mindset, I did it as a surveyor. I did it as a Virginia leader. I did as a church warden. Now, of course, I'll say this as a president. So help me God. Reagan did something similar in his speech, tear down this wall. They had taken that turn of phrase out of his speech.

His advisors did not want him to say that, so it wasn't in the prompter. He said it anyway, because he's Reagan. And there's Washington, taking the oath of office for the first time, and just taking it upon himself. So on the one hand, he's an incredibly humble man. On the other, he's pretty confident about what that oath ought to say. So he just says it. What an interesting combination.

What added to the dramatic character is that the Bible that was brought there where the oath was taken was something that he also took and he kissed. That was part of the oath taking in early English oath taking. You would not only swear on the Bible, you would kiss the scriptures and you'd say, so help me God. People don't like the fact that he said those words, but the Bible was there and the records all say he took the Bible and he kissed it. He was saying, may my mouth and the words that I say be consistent with the high obligation that God gives to me in his word. This is so important and so relevant, I think, because everybody wants Washington for themselves, right? The deists, the atheists, the agnostics, the Christians, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, right?

the Sagittarius is the Pisces, we can agree that what we had there at that moment in time was truly an indispensable man. But there's not much else we can agree on. And I was taken by the fact that so many people in modern times really have described Washington as a deist, as opposed to somebody who put much stock in anything supernatural. And it struck me that in your 1,300 pages or so, part of what you attempted to do was gently correct that. Well, thank you for that. It's important that we understand what a deist is. A deist is the idea that there is a first cause for the universe, but a God who has abandoned the world. He got it started, but he's the absent landlord. He is the clockmaker who wound it up and lets it run out,

but he has no engagement. A theist, T-H-E-I-S-T, is someone who believes that God is active in history. So that brings us to the idea of Providence. If you take the classic deist of Thomas Paine, the great patriot when he writes his book, Common Sense, the great anti-Christian deist thinker at the French Revolution era after the Constitution, he is the deist advocate in the age of reason. and he will basically be an exemplar of what a deist does. They reject providence. They reject prayer. They reject the value of ministers.

They deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They believe that the Bible is a fairy tale history without any divine revelation. When you take those five principles and you add to it another tenet, they deny miracles. God doesn't do anything like that. You go through Washington, and you'll find he's on the opposite. Some 270 times he'll appeal to Providence. Prayers, I found over 100 prayers in Washington's letters and writings, some short, some longer.

He wrote to 50 ministers, and he collected sermons. He entertained 50 ministers at Mount Vernon. He speaks of Jesus as the divine author of our blessed religion. and he calls the Bible, the blessed religion revealed and the word of God will remain an eternal monument to show us how human beings can corrupt through their depravity, the best of institutions, which is his prognosticating of what could happen to the Constitution. So to use the phrase from Johnny Cochran, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. The deist glove doesn't fit on washing its massive hand. Not one finger does it fit. So to call Washington, a deist is a historical fallacy. And here's the great apologetic. The next time someone says to you, we all know George Washington was a deist. I've heard it from Pulitzer Prize winners. It's in the

university. It's in the newspapers. It's in the magazines. Say, that's all great. Give me one phrase from Washington where he claims to be a deist. Well, I spent 30 years looking for it. It doesn't exist. But I found countless examples where he identifies himself as a Christian. Now, for For our Anglican friends, we could go a little bit better and say a low church Anglican, which back in those days was a book of common prayer reading person that prayed daily with the book and had a Bible that they read. They were Christians. And that's who our founding father was.

What are some other myths and misconceptions about Washington? You know, like the cherry tree, did he really cut it down? Things like that. Well, the story of the cherry tree comes to us from his very first Bible. biographer by the name of Parson Weems. He was an Anglican minister right from Washington's part of Virginia. So he knew the family. And being a good people person and also a good businessman, he said, wow, I bet people want to hear some stories about Washington as a kid. And of course, about his life. So he did what we call an oral history. He went around and said,

what good George Washington stories do you have? And he collected them. That's where we get the story of the cherry tree. Can we prove that that story happened? No, but there is an interesting archive of some porcelain that was made in England that has a cherry tree and hatchet with an image of Mount Vernon on it, and it's only a few years after Washington being president. So the story had crossed over to England in Washington's lifetime and was already being discussed. So was it true? It could have been. We don't know. So that's, for example, we can just call that legend. It may be history, but you can't prove it.

You know, I just had a horrible thought, guys. What if 100 years from now, somewhere on some podcast, some other expert is sitting down with some smart aleck who says, can anybody explain where we got the idea that John Spurrier told George Washington to say so, help me God? That's right. Anybody know where that started? And the expert will go, well, there was a person named Weems.

And then many years later, there was a filthy son of a gun named Mike, row who just made up stories. So there you go. That's a question we can't prove at the end of the day. Other stories about where, let's say his character, I cannot tell a lie. Washington as an adult will write consistently. Words should be truthful. Truth is the best policy. His motto was deeds, not words. He said, do it and people know what you mean. So he was wanting to be a man of integrity. There's no doubt about it. There are certainly other legends that you could give me examples of. Did he wear wooden false teeth? The answer is no. But he did have false teeth. But you can go through

his letters and you can see with his dentist, he's describing, I need a tooth that will let me do this a little more effectively, shaped like this. He draws a picture. And then it's made of animal bone. See, he was a wealthy man. He wouldn't use wooden false teeth. They wouldn't last through one bag of good peanuts. By the time you're done, you've got to throw them out. So that's a myth for sure. Interesting. So then your book was basically inspired by a desire to set one misconception forever straight, that this was a man of God. As the dean of a theological, historical school, that all lines up pretty well. I'm curious, what can the average citizen who may not share your faith take from that? And why does it matter? And what did Washington's belief in providence

and in theism in general? How did that impact the nature of our republic? Probably one of the most salient points we could appeal to is the great debate that has arisen in the current racist debates that surround us. So we look at Washington and say, well, you know, he should be removed. He was a slave owner and he was not anything to brag about. We want to have a better type of leadership model than what he was. How do we handle that? Here was a man of faith and he did have slaves. One of the things we don't understand is that his moral commitment shaped his entire life. And he said, if something is wrong, I need to address it and make it right. I think you quote very nicely that little spark of divinity, that celestial fire in the heart called Conscious.

By the way, that comes from the rules of behavior that he studies as a child that shaped his life, and that's the last one. I think it's Rule 110, and the idea of conscience. Washington at some point had an epiphany. He realized he was a cavalier slave owner. He would buy and sell slaves like other Virginians. He's the fourth generation slave owner in his family. You breathed it in and out.

It was what life was. There came a point with the first. Fairfax resolves as a revolution ideas heating up where they begin to realize, we're becoming the slaves of the British and we don't like it. And so they took their first step to say, you know, there's something wrong about slavery. So they cut off the importation of slaves. They didn't end slavery, but they recognized that one that was good for the debate against Britain, but there was a moral issue. The issue comes to a head when Washington meets Lafayette, that young Marquis from France, who said, I've actually bought an island where I'm sending freed slaves in France to start fresh.

I think slavery is wrong. He met a French nobleman who gave a principal to him that he had to wrestle with as a Virginian. After the war is over, in the diaries of the Methodist bishops, they are visiting Washington, and they say, we are working to end slavery, and we want your help. And Washington is recorded as saying, Your right, slavery must end. It is a moral principle. So what happens? Washington at the end of his life does something that no other slave-owning president did.

He, in his own will, by his own action, frees every one of his own slaves, and he provides for them in their new life upon his death. Washington ended slavery in his own. family life on his own initiative. And so I've said to people, if other southerners and slave-owning northerners had followed Washington's example, there would not have been a civil war over slavery because they had ended it freely. So why do I say that? It was Washington's moral commitment through a lifetime of an inculturated moral evil that he overcame in his own lifetime.

to end. And that's what faith and moral values do. They help us to say, I can be better than this. I need to make it right. He did not want to die with slaves on his hands, and he took action to end it. And so my suggestion is, instead of attacking Washington, because, well, he had a different religious view or he had a different view of slavery, we ought to say, look at the progress he made, the freedom he gave even to his slaves. And let's learn from it. I hope in my life. life, I can be someone who is making progress to overcome moral evils that I'm blind to. You mentioned something there. You glazed over it rather quickly, the Fairfax resolve. Can you unpack that a little bit? Tell us what exactly that was. I just recently learned about it,

and I found it fascinating. Well, I can't tell you the full details, but I can summarize it this way. Lord Fairfax was a large landowner, nobleman from England. He owned a big part of Virginia. his son was a very close personal friend of Washington. So Fairfax was not only friends, but it became the name of a territory. And so the Fairfax resolves was the territory of Virginia, where they determined as the structure of the struggle with the mother country of England, the parliament, and the crown heated up, that they would take certain non-importation steps,

that they would stop doing business with England until they resolved. the issue. It was breaking off their commerce, which was an important livelihood for the British and a great personal sacrifice for the Americans. But they were basically saying, we're going to fight this battle with economic means. And one of the Fairfax resolves then of one of the non-importation, non-trading issues, we're going to stop ending in slavery. So it's the first movement in the right direction. It was a small step. It was in a different context. But it's the beginning of saying, why would we not import slaves? Because maybe there's a better way to do this.

But it had a reason of giving a message to the Parliament and the Crown. And this is Virginia before the Declaration of Independence, correct? That is correct. That's right. That's amazing. It's always interesting how these things evolve, the chronology of it, and it's fits and starts. And it's like a frog in the boiling water in some ways. But the paradox that strikes me when I listen to you talk, about this is that Washington was a man of faith and a man of providence and a man of destiny,

which means he read the book and he knows how it ends. And so the certainty that comes from knowing that allows you to live a life of certainty. But at the same time, he has to be nuanced and humble enough to say, oh, well, I was dead wrong on that one, wasn't I? Talk a little bit, if you can, and maybe extrapolate on how this is tormenting us today. How can we have the certainty of our convictions and still somehow balance the inescapable truth that it's entirely possible we might be completely mistaken about something morally fundamental? Well, the first principle that we should glean from Washington is that he believed that the conscience was one of the most important gifts that any human being had. That's why rules of civility and behavior

says keep alive, that spark of divinity called conscience. Knowing to do the right thing from the inside is an absolutely critical part. And consciences differ. Some people think something's wrong, so other people don't. And how do you live with that? Well, one of the solutions that Washington came to hold was the idea of the freedom of the conscience, that we need to be able to be able to to give people the ability to disagree over issues that we believe are right for ourselves or wrong for ourselves and try to operate in a civil society. He was taken by what had happened in Philadelphia under William Penn's leadership, which is where civil liberty and freedom of conscience really took root. And of course, they saw that when they would visit the big city of Philadelphia,

when they came here and saw the operations of Pennsylvania that had many religious groups that freely operated, and then go back to Virginia and see there was only the Anglican Church that would persecute others. So the growth of knowledge of the conscience was an absolutely critical thing. And Washington will write as president, I would not have signed my name to that great document that gives us our federal government if I thought it would ever be used to persecute anyone for conscience sake. His favorite Bible verse, by the way, is Micah Chalpherson. 4 in verse 4. He says, every man will sit under his vine and fig tree, and there will be none to make them afraid. He wants everybody to be able to be like his Mount Vernon. You go sit down at your

farm and you're safe. He says, I want America to be an asylum for the persecuted people of the world where they can come here and sit under their vine tree and no one will make them afraid. And he writes specifically to the Jewish synagogue. He says, you who are the stock of Abraham, I want you to know that here in America, you're going to finally find your vine and fig tree, and here no one will make you afraid. And so his vision is that conscience has protection in his country. It's not requiring him to change his conscience, but requiring him to respect the diversity of opinion, and then we operate together with a common civil society.

And, of course, that's ultimately framed in the First Amendment. which Washington's presidency got to see signed by the first Congress. So I think conscience was such a critical part in the formation of America and recognizing that we need to learn how to live together at our deepest point of disagreement. We have the right to say, I think you're wrong. They can say, I think you're wrong, but I think you have a right to be here

because this is our common land. That was Washington's model. There's never been a better way, in my opinion. and that was Washington's vision. So if you had to choose between conscience and character, what's all the way up the food chain? Well, obviously, conscience and character did not operate in a vacuum. They shape each other. Character means that you have an indelible principle of right and wrong, a moral compass that you will not deviate from. The word karokhter in the Greek language, now I mean a biblical teacher.

Actually, it means a tool and dye. When a tool comes down on a piece of metal and it puts the image of George Washington on a quarter, it will not disappear. In the Greek language, that's Caractair. That's character. The image of Washington is going to stay there forever until it wears away.

It doesn't disappear. We need to have that. But the other side of the coin of character is conscience. When you have a character that's that, strong. You need to have the ability to say, I know you want me to do this, but I can't. This is who I am. So you're asking me to cut the coin right in half to take the front, the heads from the tails, the backside, and you don't have a coin anymore. So I have to say, if you want character, you have to have conscience. If you want to have conscience, you have to have character. So what's at the top of

the food chain? Both. You can't have one without the other. It's a chicken and egg situation. Yeah. I was testing him. I was testing him and as it turns out. He's very, very wise, this guy. He's good.

He saw it coming, Mike. The federal government is not going to close America's skills gap. They have an important role to play for sure. But if we're serious about reinvigorating the skilled trades on a national level, we need more organizations like Skills USA making a real difference on a little. local level. These guys have been around since 1965, and today they are relevant like never before with hundreds of chapters in schools all over the country and hundreds of thousands of students participating and competing every year. Nobody is doing more to train the next generation of skilled

workers than Skills USA. And I'm encouraging you to at least consider being a part of this movement. Skills USA advisors and volunteers aren't just teaching trades. They're launching careers and strengthening the backbone of our country by mentoring the next generation of industry leaders. In high school, you could be among the people who are making this movement explode. Join the skilled trades movement. Support career and technical education programs through Skills USA. There's no better way to do it. You can volunteer at a local chapter.

You can start a chapter in your own town. Or you can just go to their website and see the impact for yourself. And see, too, how easy it is to get involved. Thousands of kids are being introduced to the trades in a way that's absolutely positively moving the needle. The goal is a million members by 2030. I think it's doable. I'm doing what I can to help them. Learn more at skillsusa.org slash mic.

That's skills, USA.org slash Mike. I'm talking skills, U.S. skills, U.S. skills. USA. May I circle back to the third C-word, if you will, conscience, character, and of course, courage. You alluded to what happened at Valley Forge. Anybody who made it through high school knows the basics of the story.

My dad drilled it into my head. He was a history teacher, eighth and ninth grade. Wow. You know, public school for most of his life. So like a lot of people, I know what the plaques say. and I've narrated enough shows for the History Channel and Discovery to think maybe I know. But when I really try and imagine the cold of that winter and the desperation and the fact that he didn't have the support of Congress at that point, I mean, sort of, but not really, right?

I mean, everything was so tenuous that I think it's difficult for most people to imagine much less empathize. but boy, his indispensability really seemed to be honed there. Well, when I have the chance to bring a group of people to Valley Forge, and we stand by the Isaac Pottshouse, which is Washington's headquarters. By the way, Mike, I invite you to come and bring some friends. We'll do a tour to Valley Forge together sometime. Love to. Okay. Philadelphia, we'll plan it.

But when I'm there, I say, when you look at this little stone house, It's still there after all these years. So stop and think. Congress had fled. The British had won at the Battle of Brandywine. The first 911 in American history was that Brandywine. Congress has fleeing for their lives. There's no government.

They're running for their lives. Washington is the only representation of any working government left for America. It's in this little house. And not only that, he's the head of an army. But there's no provision coming in, because Congress can't provide for him. They're out in the wilderness. They had to carve out huts where they would live

where there was nothing but just forest land. And they had to make their living out of that. So it's the Pentagon, if you will, it's the White House, it's Congress, it's the CIA, all in that little house, and that's all that's left. All in one little house, stone house. And you tremble when you think about it, that's what our country, that's all that's left.

And there was a man there to whom everything had been entrusted. And he gets a letter from his local pastor in Philadelphia, an Anglican minister by the name of Jacob Doucher, a moral leader representing his faith. And he says, General Washington, all is lost. If we sue for peace now, some people won't have to hang. We can work out an honorable conclusion. it's time to call it up. Now stop and think, if you were George Washington

in this little stone house, your army is starving. They're trying to cut firewood every day out of the forest just to survive, hoping they can find some food to eat by foraging in the woods in the community. And Congress is not paying you. And you're even hearing rumors

that they might want to get you kicked out because you're such a lousy general. I don't know, but I think it would have been pretty easy to just about, quit when that pastor's letter came in. But you know what he said? This is the most foolish letter I've ever received. Our cause is just and God stands on the side of justice. If ever character, leadership, and courage turned the arc of history. It's at Valley Forge. Washington said, we will not quit, and the rest is history. We're here today because that moral character of leadership

and courage when all was lost did not bend. That's character. So the rest isn't just history. It's also present. That moment, you just so perfectly articulated, there's a straight, bright line from there to today's headlines. And I find it fascinating. And I wonder how you think of your role as a historian, not just as a historian who's a dean at a theological and historical school, but as somebody who wrote a book based primarily on letters, you went right to the source in order to write the book that you wrote.

What do we need to do today to better? put the events of the past into a meaningful context and have a different conversation about what statues to topple and what edifices to remove. What can we learn to give us the grace to try and better deal with Teddy Roosevelt's past than by removing his statue from the National Museum of History and putting it in storage? Well, you know, if there's a lot of wisdom we can learn in other contexts. And I had a striking moment when I was celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. I was in the little town of Wittembourg, Germany, where Martin Luther was a minister. And when you go there, by the church where Luther was, there still is an icon of the Jewish

people being represented as swine. Now, you let that sink in. This is Germany. This is going back to that anti-Jewish spirit of the medieval era. This is post-Nazi Germany. After the Nuremberg trials, you'd have to think the one thing we need to do is get rid of all of that. Why is it still there? Because our Jewish and German friends

said history is a great teacher. We need to see what our people did in the past both in their nobility and their failure. And that statue is there not as an insult, but as an opportunity to grieve and an opportunity to say, we are better than that today. Thank God. And I think that's one of the ways we must teach history.

What we're doing now is we are pretending as though we are infallible at this moment and our present criticisms alone are right and we can judge everything. I guarantee you, the future will look at this folly and say, I can't believe they were that stupid. What we need to do is to have the humility to say, our greatest heroes had feet of clay. But even though they had feet of clay and they were weak, they were heroes.

And both are true. Because that's true of all of us. That is the message of history. Our greatest people have great failures. And those that sometimes fail greatly can have great redemptive actions. and make a difference for good. And that's the kind of teaching of history, which is not hagiographical,

where you just make everybody a saint and they're perfect, or utterly villainous, everybody's so wicked they can't possibly see straight. It's really having the authenticity to say, I can't see all the truth. They didn't get it all right. They're going to know more than I do in the future, so I'm going to preserve enough for them to speak about me in the past

so that we can keep on learning. and it comes back to character and conscience again. If you have character, you can look at failure. If you have conscience, you can humbly say, I was wrong or our heritage was not right. We need to correct it. There's a great line from William Penn, and I think it applies to history.

When he wrote his frame of government in Philadelphia, he said, take a government, be it ever so bad. If the people be good, they will correct it. Take a government. If it is ever so good, if the people be bad, they will corrupt it. And that's the truth of history. Take a history, be it ever so good. If the people are bad, they'll corrupt it. Take a history ever so wicked and bad if people are good, they will make it a benefit and a blessing. And so I'm hoping that through the dialogue such as you're helping us to do here, that we will benefit by engaging the good and the bad.

That's why we talked about Washington's slavery, but it's also why we talked about Washington's courage. We need to look at that and see the imperfections and completeness and then say, how do we grow and become better? Because history is the greatest teacher. This is a real people living in our world facing circumstances different than ours, but are timeless because courage, character, conscience, faithfulness, struggle, life and death are true of every generation and will be so as long as there's this world. Speaking of time, I want to be respectful of yours, but I do have another question or two. Are you okay? Yeah, I'm on a roll for you. You got me going now. Good, because I want to bring it back to me, as I so often do.

Specifically to my dad, who I mentioned, who was a history teacher, he's 89 today. Back in 1976, he had a modest role in a production of 1776. I'm sure you're familiar with it. He played the secretary. Thompson. Really? Wow. Yeah. In the play, he would read dispatches from Washington to the Congress. It wasn't by any stretch the largest role in that play,

but when I look back on it now and see my dad as this character, Thompson, reading these beautifully written dispatches. There's a line later in the play where Tompsey, Thompson says, you know, there are times when I feel as though he's talking just to me. Yeah, right. I remember that way. And so this is my dad playing this character. So I just wonder if you could talk a little bit about who Thompson was, because, as I recall, he's a bit more than a secretary to a bunch of nobleman. Oh, that's a great question. So Charles Thompson has the unique distinction of being the only

clerk of the continental Congress. He's the only one who did the work. So he was there from day one until they rolled over to the new constitutional government. So he had the bird's eye view of everything that happened from the inside. He was not a member of Congress. He was, in fact, a servant of Congress keeping the records. His contribution is extraordinary. First of all, he was from outside of Philadelphia, so he was a local. He was a landowner, so actually there's a high school that's named for his farm, Harriton High School here in Philadelphia bears the name of his farm. He was a Presbyterian elder, so as a Presbyterian minister, I take a little pride in that. And he was a classic scholar. He's the only person to ever translate the Septuagint into English.

Well, what's the Septuagint? I know, I know. It's Greek chapters. like the first chunk of chapters in the Greek Bible? That's right. It's the Hebrew Bible. So basically, the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew. So it's a translation of a translation. Hebrew into Greek and Thompson did it into English.

No one's ever done that before. So he stands alone as a unique historian of ancient literature. He's also the man who proposed that we would have the first official see of the United States. As the secretary, he was part of the paper chase. Documents would come and go, and the question is, which one is official? You never knew. He said, we need to have something that only on the final document, you press it, and that seal

says, this is it. This is the autograph by which we're going to deal with the rest of the country. So the story of the Great Seal of America is a direct result. So when you look at the back of a dollar bill, you'll see some mottos. Epluribus unum. You'll find novice ordo seclorum. You'll find Anuette Coeptus. All three of those are classical phrases Charles Thompson found and brought to bear on the committee. You're kidding me. No, absolutely. So he was a classic scholar. And what's very interesting, so the story of the seals were, you need to do a show on the Great Seal of America. I got a great

everybody's got a dollar bill and no one even knows what they're looking at. That'd be great. We need to do this. So bottom line is when you look at the back of a dollar bill, that seal that has the front and back, the backside of the seal had a vision that was created by a triumvirate of three great founders. It was Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. Man, you can't get any more powerhouse than that. That's A-list. And you know what they proposed. They proposed. They propose. that the Great Seal would be the story of Pharaoh being swallowed by the Red Sea collapsing with Moses with outstretched arm, because they, too, understood the idea of providence.

They were looking to the biblical story to say, The Great Atlantic Ocean has spared us from the British destroying our freedom as we have honored God under his law. Now, that didn't make it. So the final version is the pyramid and the eye, but the great emphasis on Providence is still there, where the word annuit coeptus. So Chuck and Mike, I'm going to ask you, okay, there it is right there. How many of those dollars have you ever had in your hand?

I'm sure quite a few by this time. Three. Literally dozens, doctor. At least three or four through the years, right? Yes, yes. Okay. Do you know what the word annuit coeptis means right above the, in the triangle. I do not.

Okay. I don't mean to embarrass you, but I've been asking people this for a lot of years. I had a group of the Kingdom Advisors touring Philadelphia with me. And you're there in the Larry Burkatt and Ron Blue Ministry of Financial Advising. So they have a Christian background sort of with advising. And I said, you people deal in money, take a look at this dollar bill. Do you know what this says? And all the hands were held down. Nobody knew.

And I said, how can it be? You are money advisors. You have all these resources, and you don't even know what's on the back of a dollar bill. And one man raised his hand, said, that's easy. That's because I only deal with $100 bills. I said, okay, you got me there, but you've had a dollar bill in your hand. How is it possible that the most public document that every American holds again and again from the poorest to the richest, and we don't know what's on it?

Now, the reason I'm saying this, this comes from Charles Thompson. Charles Thompson gave us Anuit Coeptus. And what does it mean? It translates, he has nodded anewit. You can hear nodded on our undertakings. It is the eye of God, the Father of Providence, looking at the formation of a new country. And they're saying, in the biggest letters, in capital letters,

so you won't miss it, he has smiled on our undertaking. And in the Continental Congress record, they put the words, we select these images because of, quote, the many signal interpositions of divine providence on behalf of the American cause. So that's Washington's Doctrine of Providence, the Declaration of Independence Doctrine, and it totally demolishes the notion that America was founded as a deist country.

That seal says God was active in our history. Wow. And it makes my dad's role in 1776, all the more interesting. way to bring it home Mike Thank you You need to say Dad they didn't give you the best part You should have explained what you did

Tell me again the exact translation What's it mean? He has smiled or nodded On our undertakings Chuck write that down I never know what these are going to be called episode to episode But I think that's our title

Okay He has nodded on our undertakings Well I was going to say Washington believed it thoroughly So when you look at his use of Providence, he believes that God was somehow graciously intervening again and again on behalf of the American cause. Quite a remarkable story. So to finish this story, since Charles Thompson is an important figure, let me tell you one another episode, and then I think I've run out of Charles Thompson

and episodes. It was only a matter of time. Yeah, I'm finite in my knowledge, but I know what I know, and I'll tell it to you unless you want me to stop. No, no, bring it. Okay, please. All right. Well, one of the great arguments that comes up is that everybody knows George Washington was a Mason. And there's been a major debate that says, if you are a Mason, you cannot be a Christian. Because the Mason view is that God is not the God of the Bible and it's a corruption. Now, I'm not going to enter into the modern debate. That's not my purpose. I want you to know, I'm not a Mason.

I've never been a Mason. I don't intend to become a Mason. I don't encourage anybody to become one. But as a historian, my job is to say, what do the facts give us? So, first of all, George Washington was a Mason, and he collected sermons. At the Boston Athenium, I went through his sermon collection. He used to read sermons to Martha Washington on Sunday afternoons for their spiritual nurture. And so he had a real insight into the theology of the church,

and there were great sermons preached in the Masonic order. This comes to a point with Charles Thompson, if you follow me. First of all, as I read through what he called his Masonic sermons, they were collected, one of them will say, I'm preaching today as a Bible preacher, a famous preacher of the day, at this Masonic home, and he says, I'm reading from your own bylaws, and your bylaws say this, quote, no stupid deist or atheist may be a member of our Masonic fraternity because we are Christian Masons. End of quote. You can see why I always put that in quotes.

I'm quoting. That's a historical fact. They actually use the word stupid. Yeah. They use the word stupid. That was in their bylaws. Okay. So there was another one that goes like this. Now, you've got to forgive me. I have to preach this one. This is a preacher, and he's been invited to give on St. John's Day a sermon in the Masonic headquarters. And he says, now some of you think you're going to get into heaven because you've worn the robe of Martin Luther.

The robe of Martin Luther is never going to get you into heaven. Some of you think you're going to get into heaven because you've worn the garments of John Calvin. Calvin's clothing will never get you into heaven. And many of you think you're going to get into heaven because you've worn the apron of the masons. That Masonic apron's not going to get you into heaven. If you're going to get into heaven,

it's because you are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, received by faith. Now, see, I have to preach that. That's good preaching stuff right there. Yeah, that'll preach. That's red meat, for sure. That's right, at a Washington's collected sermon

preached in a Masonic home. Now, that's the backdrop for the letter that Charles Thompson will receive. Charles Thompson receives a letter from the local Masonic group. I can't remember where it was, somewhere in the greater Philadelphia area,

and they said, Dear Mr. Thompson, you are a highly respected figure and Christian leader among us. Our Masonic fraternity is losing its Christian witness. We need to have Christians to join us to maintain our views. Would you consider as a Christian leader coming and being part of our fellowship? So I'll stop the story there by saying, Charles Thompson, as far as I know, did not join,

but it shows us that at the time in which Washington was operating, that being a Mason was often identified as being an authentic, public Christian witness. That doesn't make sense today. But even in the Masonic Encyclopedia, you can find an article that's called Christian Masons. And that was part of what was going on at that time. And so Charles Thompson was invited to become a Christian Mason. And it's part of the group that Washington was part of. He actually will say, this is Washington now. I've not been able to attend many Masonic meetings through the years. But in the time, that I've been able to attend in my busy life, I've never yet met, quote,

a nefarious member of the Illuminati, end of quote. Which is what everybody says, you know, this is the, he said, I've never met such a one because someone had asked him about it. The bottom line is, last thing on the Masonic side, is that Mason Weems, the historian that everybody laughs at, Parson Weems, who made up the cherry tree and all of that. What is interesting, he not only corresponded regularly with Washington, And Washington wrote an endorsement for one of his books that he published.

But Parson Williams, who was known as one of the very evangelical pastors of his day, was the leading figure of the Masonic movement in that part of Virginia. So at that time of history, the Masonic Order was viewed as a Christian. So I'm answering two questions. Charles Thompson and the Masons and the broader question of Washington and the Masonic Order, because that comes up from time to time as well. But you're also doing it while touching on the themes that have informed this whole conversation, which are faith, shot through with hope, a little bit of conspiracy, a lot of confusion,

you know, plenty of character and courage and conscience and so forth. But, you know, when I look today, when I think about the Masons, I stumbled across a book years ago called Morals and Dogma. I think by Alfred Pike, super, super controversial. and I went down the rabbit hole and I found all the conspiracies around it, kind of delicious, the way we all do, you know. But it's this whole business, I think, of separating fact from fiction, truth from hyperbole. What you said before, I think, bears repeating the way we lionize our heroes sometimes

and push aside their faults and the way we vilify our villains. It's not particularly convenient to ruminate on the fact that Hitler liked dogs, but he did. It doesn't make him less of a villain. It just means that it's never quite as black and white as we'd like to think it is. That's right. To me, that's what history is. And that's why Weems gets a certain amount of poetic license. And I hope I get the same on this podcast.

I'm just grateful there are people out there like you who actually know where the bodies are buried. and who can keep us on the straight and arrow. Well, Mike, I wanted to save toward the end my only decisive critique of your work, and I want to have at least one minute to do that. Is this a good time? Finally, we're getting to it. What did he get wrong, Doctor? This is what America's been waiting for, Peter.

So let's go ahead and land that plane. Well, what I wanted you to do is I have been a pastor for a lot of years, so you really work hard to love people and care for them before you let down the sledgehammer. No. And just like that, we're out of time, everybody. Join us next week. Okay. So here's what my challenge to you would be. In that extraordinarily fun meeting at the crossroads presentation, which I've listened to four or five times now, taken notes on so I could get ready to it and enjoyed. It was been a pleasure.

I would say you mentioned that Washington refused a crown that, that even Congress offered to him. It is my humble belief that Congress never would have considered offering a crown to Washington. I do not believe that happened. I don't believe they could have offered him one. I don't believe they wanted to offer him one. And that it was only in the military context where the idea surfaced, where he could have taken that step.

So Washington had his detractors in Congress. Congress. They did honor him for sure when he won the war and came back. But I think that would be the one point where I would say you say it pretty decisively. I don't think there's any record to that. I think it's inconsistent with the story. But that comes by so fast and so quickly and all the other glory is so profound that most of us will miss it and not even worry about it. But since you asked me to go with a magnifying glass, that's the one I would ask you to look at. Yeah. Well, I mean, nobody would have noticed had you not pointed it out, Boucher, so thank you. Thank you for that. That's awesome. Hey, I'll leave you with this.

Okay. Since we're talking about my dad and Thompson and these dispatches from Washington, which he read to the Congress in those dark, dark days, at the end of the play. And again, I don't know how much fact or fiction this is, but the final dispatch that he reads has to do with the terrible dark hour when, Washington is really out there without a net. And the final words that lead up to a huge production number that John Adams sings are, is anybody there? Does anybody care? I don't know if Washington actually wrote those words, but my dad, as Thompson, read them.

And then in the movie, William Daniels, as Adams, sings a song inspired by that dispatch. So I know we're basically out of time now, but if you have some time this week, could you look into that and could we fact-check the accuracy? Yeah. I will look up and see what I can find. My sense is that it captures Washington's heart, for sure. I don't know that he wrote those exact words. I need to double-check that, but I can't answer since I'm supposed to be an expert, you told me, I should be careful to say, yeah, you're an A on that. But it certainly was how he felt. He often felt very much alone. Well, then, if I could ask the same question on our humble podcast, is anybody there? Does

anybody care? You are there, doctor, and you clearly care, and you've spent an hour in 15 minutes with us, and we're all better for it. So grateful. And Chuck, thank you. This is a convoluted thing, but there's a pastor at Chuck's church who has a brother, and that brother co-wrote the book with you, I believe. That is correct. That's Jerry Newcomb. So basically, Jerry was an assistant of Dr. Kennedy, who you mentioned, and he was the one who had come up to Philadelphia to do some advanced planning for Dr. Kennedy to do some filming on one of his American specials. He came to the church where I was pastoring, talked to one of the staff members about their needs. And in the process of that, my associate pastor said, you know, Lil back here really loves Washington.

So Jerry talked to me about it, and I said, yeah, I've been working on this project as a hobby for years. You've got a lot of notes. He'll probably get thrown in the dumpster when I get old. My kids will throw them out. So he went back and told Dr. Kennedy, and he called me back and says, Dr. Kennedy wants you to write this book, and he needs it this year, and he's going to order 19,000 copies. Unbelievable. So that's the story that we go by, and that's the way I understand it.

That's the way you heard it. Yeah, that's the way I tell it. Anyway. If somebody wants to get their hands on this book, is it still in print? Is there a place we can go? I would recommend that you get it as follows. Coral Ridge Media Ministries, which is the successor Media Ministry of Dr. Kennedy. I published this book and a group that I founded and served for 20 years called The Providence Forum. And the Providence Forum ministry housed in Philadelphia, I've given the entire ministry to Coral Ridge Media Ministries. They now operate it.

So you can contact Jerry Newcomb at Coral Ridge Media Ministries and the Providence Forum and say, we'd like to give the best way to get the book out. And they would tell you how. You can still get it on Amazon, but I think the stockpile, unless they choose to reprint it, is going down. So how many more are available? I don't know. There are 100,000 in print.

I think we still have some, but they manage all of that now. I'm a retired founder of that ministry and glad the book is still available. I've seen them for sale on eBay for like $5,600. There's a market out there. Yeah, people are really, really looking for your book. And I've seen it happen before. I'm sure you have too, but books have a way of finding their own way and creating their own inertia.

And you just never know. You wrote this thing, what, 10 years ago? It was published 2006. So it's been around for quite a while already. Who knows? Maybe a second printing. I'll leave you with this, just because it struck me the way Providence has weaved its way through this conversation. The theatrical group that my dad belonged to that put on that production, it's called the Providence Players. How about that? Well, that beautifully named.

Yeah. So I want you to know, I'm a 70-year-old guy, so I'm an old worn-out guy. I'm not looking for business or income, or I'm still running a seminary. But I am a patriot. I am a Christian. I am a historian. And if there's anything we could do together to elevate this story more broadly through your work, I'm your humble and obedient servant.

That's how Washington signed all his letters. And if there's something we can do for the cause, let me know. I'll talk as much and as often as we need to on these things because I realize. do care. And I think knowing the story, well, stories change lives. That's what Jesus said. He told stories, says, parables. We need doctrine. We need structure. But it's the story that gives us the message that empowers us. And you're one of the best storytellers around. So if I can help you in any way, just let me know. Doctor, your generosity is eclipsed only by your intellect. You're welcome here anytime, and we'll take you up on that, as we often do. Thank you, sincerely, for making some time.

This was really fun. It's been a great joy. Thanks for your efforts best wishes