A Christian and a Democrat: A Religious Biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt

by John F. Woolverton

When asked at a press conference about the roots of his political philosophy, President Franklin Roosevelt responded, “I am a Christian and a Democrat.” This volume—part of the popular and widely acclaimed Library of Religious Biography series—tells the story of how the first informed the second, showing how FDR’s upbringing in the Episcopal Church and education at the Groton School under legendary headmaster and minister Endicott Peabody formed him into a leader whose politics were fundamentally shaped by the social gospel.

A work begun by religious historian John Woolverton (1926-2014) and recently completed by James Bratt, A Christian and a Democrat is an engaging analysis of the surprisingly significant religious life of one of the most important presidents in US history. Reading Woolverton’s account of FDR’s response to the toxic demagoguery of his day will reassure readers today that a constructive way forward is possible for Christians, for Americans, for the world.

Genres: Biography, History, Politics, American History, Presidents, Nonfiction, Christian

280 pages, Hardcover

First published July 16, 2019

Reviews

[Ben House · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Christian and a Democrat: A Religious Biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt by John F. Woolerton and James D. Bratt is published by Wm. B. Eerdmans.
Merely mentioning the names of Franklin D. Roosevelt in many of the circles where I am involved raises immediate irritation, ire, and objections. Although he has been gone for nearly 70 years, even people who were not alive during his time are roused to disgust when he is mentioned. For some, the opposition is due to his New Deal Programs. Others are suspicious of his handling of World War II from our entry into the war to conduct of the war and on to FDR’s actions regarding the conclusion of the war. Then there are others who have great concerns over the idea that he was a near dictator, that he was in office to long, that he was conniving, and that he was reckless in his disregard of the Constitution. Finally, there are plenty of concerns about Roosevelt the man in his private life, especially regarding his unfaithfulness to his wife Eleanor.
Every facet of FDR’s life and Presidency is up for discussion, subject to examination, and open for strong passions. In my own case, I find that very few Democrats seem to be interested in FDR in any sense. For them, Democrat Party history reaches all the way back to maybe Bill Clinton. Perhaps, I simply don’t know or hear from enough Democrats. But for conservatives–ranging from Reaganites (like me) to more Libertarian types to Christians with political interests–FDR is much more a topic of interest and opposition.
Here is my own autobiography: I developed an interest in Presidential politics in my young age and quickly adopted FDR as my favorite President. I was raised in a Southern Democrat home where politics was rarely a topic of conversation. For most of their years, my parents voted straight Democrat. (My Dad strongly disliked Hubert Humphrey, but he still voted for him.) I began straying from the old ways when I gravitated toward Richard Nixon in 1972. It was when I entered college that my whole perspective changed. Calvinism took a huge chunk out of my previously held and unexamined political thoughts. One of Johnny Carson’s guests on the Tonight Show helped seal my political fate. That guest was William F. Buckley, Jr. A few days after watching that part of the Tonight Show, I checked out Buckley’s God and Man at Yale.
Much of my understanding and teaching was critical of FDR on several fronts. Yet I never got past a certain admiration for his considerable political skills and for his personal triumph over polio. As an orator, he was first rate. As a radio speaker, he was the man of the hour. As a skillful executive, he was among the best. None of his gifts diminished his flaws and failings.
An important truth for a history student (or scholar) is that we are not being called upon to vote for, approve, condemn, or justify historical figures. We are called upon to first understand them. From a vast factual base, we can try to interpret what they did and why. Admittedly, we will often have an agreement with their actions or a sympathy for them or a personal liking for them. Writing hagiolatry (the worship of saints) or writing hit jobs are not the work of serious historians.
When I first saw the book A Christian and a Democrat, I knew this was a book I wanted to read. It is a part of a fine series Eerdsmans publishes called The Library of Religious Biography. I have several of the volumes of that series and previously reviewed Damning Words: The Life and Times of H. L. Mencken by D. G. Hart. The biographies range from the expected religious leaders, like Cotton Mather and Billy Sunday, to unexpected and often political figures, like Thomas Jefferson and William E. Gladstone.
FDR was raised in the Episcopal Church where he remained an active member all his life. The Book of Common Prayer was always at his bedside, and his copy was well worn. He was schooled at Groton and was heavily influenced by Endicott Peabody who drilled his charges in academic and spiritual exercises. FDR sang hymns, even played the piano at services, labored to help the needy and the young, served on the board of his local church, and always included worship services before his taking oaths of office.
One of my favorite pictures is of FDR and Churchill onboard a ship at the Atlantic Conference in mid-1941. They are in a worship service together and are singing “O God, Our Help in Ages Past” and “Onward Christian Soldiers.” Whatever else one might think of these two men and their staffs and military joined in worship, this much is true: Never would there have been a picture of Hitler and Mussolini worshiping together.

Roosevelt’s faith was pronounced and public. Perhaps more than any other President, he spoke of faith in his addresses and quoted Scripture. He even led the nation in prayer via a radio address on the occasion of the Normandy invasion. His was not merely a public and for political gain faith, but was a part of the essential man himself.
Theologically, what was he? FDR’s faith was shaped by the traditional cadences, prayers, and services of the Episcopal Church. His instruction was infused with lots of Social Gospel content. In some ways, the Social Gospel that he absorbed was of the better sort. By that, I mean that he had a strong commitment to acts of service in the community, among the poor, and help to people in need. He read quite a bit through the years, but was not a serious reader of theology or of Christian doctrine. He was active in church as a participant and a lay leader, but said little that could contribute to a statement of faith. From the book, one picks up little or nothing about his take on theological issues of his day or upon the details of his beliefs.
I suspect that he heard many sermons that were tinged by liberal theology, Social Gospel teachings, then-modern deviations from orthodoxy, and Neo-Orthodoxy. I never got the sense from the book that FDR absorbed or embraced those teachings. While relatively well read and well educated, he was not a deep thinker. Did he believe the fundamentals of the faith? Did he accept the historic teachings of the faith? He seemed to be a faithful follower of his church’s teachings and traditions without any comments on them.
The historian cannot probe the heart. Even the man in the pew or pulpit has to be careful when doing that. I have trouble probing my own heart, much less that of anyone else. Of course, we can evaluate what a person professes and how he lives. That assumes that we can know and hear and see enough of the person’s life and words.
Roosevelt was, at least for one period of his life, unfaithful in his marriage to Eleanor. Theirs was not a model marriage, although politically they were extremely helpful to one another. Dr. Woolverton says that FDR was remorseful over his adultery which occurred early in the marriage. He never mentions or alludes to other cases of unfaithfulness. One can add FDR’s other sins to the list, if he wishes. FDR was notorious for lying, but again one has to look carefully to see when he was outright falsifying the truth or when he was concealing things or being canny for political purposes. I am not trying to give him or any other politician a free pass to distort truth, but am referring to cases where FDR was compelled to mislead or not answer completely when asked about matters that were sensitive due to the war.
A later chapter in the book deals with FDR’s fascination with Soren Kierkegaard. An Episcopal minister was invited to dine with the Roosevelts. At that time, Kierkegaard was not widely read or known, but the evils of World War II had awakened an interest in him by more people, including this minister, named Howard Johnson. Johnson explained Kierkegaard’s views of sin and evil to FDR who found it all fascinating. It appears that FDR basically accepted a Cliff-notes-like understanding of the Danish philosopher, but that he found it all helpful in understanding the evil of the Nazis.
To sum up, what difference does it make? This is far from a summary question, for the relationship of an individual with God is the most important question of all. And the relationship between a national leader and God is vital. How FDR responded to both domestic crises (the Great Depression) and international crises (World War II) were shaped by his faith commitments. What a man believes and how he acts or governs are connected. None of this means that believers are better leaders or that faith leads to perfect policy positions.
All in all, this book is a fascinating study of a complex and religious man. This book needs to be supplemented by other more broad biographies of Roosevelt, but it does have a useful focus on a part of his life that will not likely get adequate coverage in the standard biography.

[Robert D. Cornwall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sometimes books come out at just the right moment. That may be true of this biography of Franklin Roosevelt. At a time when the President of the United States displays an utter disregard for the teachings of the Christian faith, even as he garners support from the same community, what might we learn from the life of another President who embodied a very different sense of himself and his faith? To find out, one must read "A Christian and a Democrat."

Having read the biography of FDR's wife Eleanor in Eerdman's Religious Biography series, I was, of course, curious about this biography. What might it say about a man who was by all measures ambitious and at times ruthless as a politician? We know from history (and from the biography of Eleanor) that he was a man with many flaws. Yet, according to this biography, when FDR was asked about his political ideology, he declared that he was a "Christian and a Democrat." The question then is, what does this mean?

Before getting to that question, which is the subject of the book, I should take note of the author. The primary author was the late John Woolverton, a longtime professor of church history at Virginia Theological Seminary and editor of "Anglican and Episcopal History." It is the latter responsibility that links me to him, as he was the editor when I was submitting articles for publication (and fortunately articles he accepted). For that reason, I wanted to read the book. The book lay unpublished at his death, which is where James Bratt comes in. Bratt is professor emeritus of history at Calvin University, and he took up the project of editing Woolverton's manuscript at the suggestion of David Holmes, a professor at the College of William and Mary (whom I also know). Bratt reduced the text by one quarter and brought things to completion. I am impressed with the work he did to bring the book to publication. Then there is the author of the foreword. You might recognize it as the name of the former head of the FBI. It has been known that Comey was a devotee of Reinhold Niebuhr. It is Woolverton who introduced Niebuhr to Comey as a visiting faculty member at the College of William and Mary. That makes the book all the more intriguing.

Roosevelt came from a wealthy and politically connected family, with Theodore Roosevelt being a relative. He was raised with a sense of social responsibility that drew upon his upbringing in the Episcopal Church. Perhaps most influential on his development as a Christian and a Democrat came from the influence of his parents and years spent at Groton School, a boarding school in Massachusetts, where he came under the influence of Endicott Peabody, the headmaster and an Episcopal priest who had a strong Social Gospel bent. Peabody would be a strong influence until well into FDR's presidency. Woolverton speaks of Peabody as FDR's spiritual father, and in many ways, his father, as his own father was much older. The form of Christianity Peabody passed on to FDR was a muscular social Christianity that drew from figures such as Charles Kingsley and Phillips Brooks. Thus the form of Christianity passed on to FDR was a liberal form that welcomed scientific discoveries and sought to address social problems confronting the nation and world. Woolverton notes that part of the ethos of this social gospel Christianity was a positive, happy vision of the future. It envisioned ongoing progress. This is important because at the end of the book Woolverton shares the stories of conversations between FDR and a young Episcopal priest from St. John's Episcopal Church across from the White House, conversations that introduced FDR to Kierkegaard, which helped him better understand his adversary. We learn too of the influence of Eleanor and another woman who would play an important role in his life -- Francis Perkins, who was a leader in the labor movement and a future Secretary of Labor. We learn about the influence of his time at Groton and at Harvard, all of which prepared him for what was to come. All of this forms Part 1 of the Book -- titled Formation.

Part 2 of the book is titled "Faith." It's here that we discern the true nature of both FDR's faith and his politics. The first three chapters in this section are titled "Hope," "Charity," and "Faith." These terms are taken from his favorite text -- 1 Corinthians 13. Chapter 4 (the first chapter in the section) deals with FDR's contracting of polio and the realities of the Great Depression. It is the same sense of hope that enabled him to overcome the effects of polio that enabled him to deal with compassion and vision the effects of the Great Depression. He drew upon his faith to face the realities of life with polio, and the two together gave him a sense of compassion for others who faced difficulties (the Great Depression).

Chapter five focuses on Charity -- that is love as a social ethic and a political goal. In his understanding of things the good work of charities and social service agencies needed to be aided by the government (at all levels). We see this in the development of programs like the CCC and the WPA. In other words, he believed in the value of work, and if the private sector couldn't provide it the government should. For FDR, charity is to be understood as social mindedness. As Woolverton describes his understanding of charity, it was connected to democracy: "Charity, properly understood, involved fellow feeling and the simple rules of human conduct: justice for the poor, sufficiency for all." (p. 128).

As for Faith -- chapter 6 -- Woolverton notes that FDR was at heart a "very simple Christian." That is, he was a deep theological thinker, but he held his beliefs close, and drew from his Christian faith in his governing principles. He drew from the faith passed on to him by his family and by his time at Groton. It was rooted in the Book of Common Prayer and the hymns, he had sung throughout life. As noted in chapter seven, he functioned as "prophet, priest, and President" during the years of World War II. He led a nation that at least until Pearl Harbor was largely isolationist and noninterventionist. How do you prepare for war, without entering into it? During this period he provided leadership that drew upon public prayer, which he found himself leading.

Hope, Charity, Faith. These were terms he embraced, along with Jesus teaching on loving one's neighbor. His was an optimistic faith, rooted in the traditions of the Episcopal Church as understood in light of the Social Gospel. In other words, this was a progressive Christian vision. But was it sufficient?

Part 3 is titled "Interpretation." The penultimate chapter of the book is fascinating (chapter 8). Titled "Who is Kierkegaard?" It riffs on a series of conversations between FDR and a young priest -- Howard Johnson -- who would later serve on the faculty of Virginia Theological Seminary with Woolverton. This chapter draws on Johnson's recollections of those conversations that occurred at the White House in 1944. Johnson had been working with Walter Lowrie, who was translating Kierkegaard, and thus he was intimately acquainted with the Danish philosopher. During conversations with FDR who was trying to make sense of Hitler, Kierkegaard came up, and the President asked who he was, and that led to conversations about Kierkegaard's more dour view of humanity and the reality of radical evil. What is important here is that these conversations are among the few records of deep theological conversation on the part of the President.

In an afterword, Woolverton compares and contrasts Roosevelt with Lincoln and Herbert Hoover. In doing so the author can help us understand Roosevelt's character and motives. I found the section comparing the Episcopalian Roosevelt with the Quaker Hoover. We think of Quakers as pacifists, which they are, but what we see here is the individualism that is present in Quakerism that informed some of Hoover's intransigence on government engagement. He believed strongly in private relief, but not government relief. This chapter is intriguing and worth spending time with.

FDR is considered one of America's greatest Presidents. He was a man of ambition, but also compassion (in part fueled by his religious training, but aided as well by his experience with polio). He was wealthy and yet he believed in equality of all, which fueled his social programs. Like most of us, he was complex. He was devout and yet earthy. He had his flaws. He wasn't a deep thinker, but as Woolvertion notes, he knew how to connect the dots. Hoover (an engineer) got caught in the minutiae and couldn't catch the big picture. That was FDR's forte. He understood the big picture, and thus he was a successful President.

As noted at the beginning, in light of the current situation, this is a biography that needs to be widely read. We can thank John Woolverton for the foresight to write this manuscript, and for David Holmes and James Bratt for realizing that it needed to be published (even if in an edited version). Being a book for our times, we can heed this word from James Comey, who suggests that if Woolverton was still preaching he might say that "things are a mess, but that only increases the urgency to step into the public square." As we do so, as we approach our fellow Americans, "we must approach them with Christian love and true humility as we try to heal our divisions" (p. viii).

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting study on how FDR melded his religion into politics, without being overly bearing or preachy.