|
A RESPONSE TO CRITICS
OF FREEMASONRY
Prepared By:
The Masonic Information Center
From Northern
Ireland to Iran, from the Middle east to
the United States, religious extremism
is a growing force throughout the world.
Jarred by the rapid pace of social and
cultural change, especially the apparent
disintegration of moral values and the
break-up of the family, some people
within this movement have sought refuge
from the complexity of modern life by
embracing absolute views and
rejecting tolerance of other beliefs.
Simple, easy,
seemingly stable answers bring comfort
in a rapidly changing world. For
example, some churches have responded to
the personal anguish of their members by
circling the wagons, that is, by
strictly defining theological concepts
and insisting their members "purify"
their fellowship by renouncing any other beliefs.
The next step,
already taken by various churches, is to
yield degrees of control within their
ranks to vocal factions espousing
extremist views. These splinter groups focus the congregation's
generalized anxieties on specific
targets, The proffered cure-all is to
destroy the supposed enemy. Freemasonry
has become one of these targets
precisely because it encourages members
to form their own opinion on many
important topics, including religion.
Thus some
churches have expressed concerns, even
condemnations, of Freemasonry.
Generally, these actions are based on
misunderstandings. A case in point is
the June 1993 report to the Southern
Baptist Convention by the Convention's
Home Mission Board. This report defined
eight alleged conflicts between the
tenets and teachings of the Masonic
Fraternity and Southern Baptist
theology.
Let' s briefly
look at those areas, as representative
of the thinking of some well-meaning but
misinformed church members today, and
see if the concerns are real or simply a
matter of misinformation or
misunderstanding.
Most of the
issues really deal with language in one
way or another. Almost every
organization has a special vocabulary of
words which are understood by the group.
It's hardly appropriate for someone
outside a group, and without the special
knowledge of the group, to object to the
terms unless he or she fully understands
them and why they are used.
If someone wants
to read the Journal of American Medical
Association for example, that is his
right-but he doesn't have a right to
complain the articles use medical terms.
A person reading a cookbook had better
know terms like fold, cream the butter,
or soft ball have special meanings-or
he'll make a mess instead of a cake. The
same is true of a non-Mason reading
Masonic materials. As to the critique of
Freemasonry by the Southern Baptist
Convention (which, incidentally, had
several positive things to say about
Freemasonry), here is a brief
explanatory discussion of each point.
1. Because they
do not see specific words in their
historic context, some critics complain
of the prevalent use in Masonry of
offensive titles and terms such as
Worshipful Master for the leader of a
Lodge. The leader of a Masonic Lodge is
called the Master of the Lodge for the
same reason the head of a Boy Scout
troop is called a Scoutmaster, an
orchestra's leader is termed the Concert
Master, or a highly-skilled electrician
is called a Master Electrician. The term
arose in the guilds of the Middle Ages
when the most skillful workman was
called the Master. Much Masonic
vocabulary dates from that period.
Worshipful in Worshipful Master has
nothing to do with worship in any
religious sense. Masonically, Worshipful
is a term of honor and, in this sense,
it is a term still used in England and
Canada today to refer to such officials
as mayors of cities. Worshipful John Doe
means exactly the same thing as the
Honorable John Doe. In the same vein,
the Mayor of" London is addressed as the
Worshipful Lord Mayor. Certainly there
is nothing irreligious here in the use
of Worshipful or Lord. Such terms are a
matter of history and tradition, not
religion.
2. Some critics
of Freemasonry object to what they term
archaic and offensive rituals or
so-called bloody oaths in Masonry. There
is nothing offensive in them. They are
ancient, not archaic, since many of them
are so old their origins are lost in
history. But there is nothing bad in
that. The Declaration of Independence is
about the same age as the Master Mason
Degree, but few complain it is
"archaic."
The alleged bloody
oaths refer to the penalties associated
with the Masonic
obligations. They
originated in the medieval legal system
of England and were
actual punishments
inflicted by the state on persons
convicted of opposing
political or
religious tyranny. Masonry's obligations
do not contain any
promise ever to
inflict any of the penalties or to
participate in the
execution of them.
In Masonry, they are entirely symbolic
and refer
exclusively to the
shame a good man should feel at the
thought he had broken
a promise,
3. Certain
critics claim the recommended readings
for the Degrees of Masonry are "pagan"
in origin- "Pagan", as they are using
the term, simply means "pre-Christian."
The major purpose of Masonry is the
study of man's intellectual and moral
history for the purpose of developing
ourselves morally and intellectually.
Such a study has to start with the
concepts of man and God as held by early
cultures and evidenced in their
mythologies. The Greeks and Romans, as
well as earlier peoples, had much of
importance to say on many topics,
including religion. The idea that a
physician must act in the best interests
of his patient comes from the pagan
Hippocrates, and the concept that the
government cannot break into your house
and take what it wants on a whim comes
from the pagan Aristotle. None of us
would want to live in a world without
these ideas.
In almost every
field- law, government, music,
philosophy, mathematics, etc.
-it is necessary
to review the work of early writers and
thinkers. Masonry is no exception. But
to study the work of ancient cultures is
not the same thing as to do what they
did or believe what they believed. And
no Mason is ever told what he should
believe in matters of faith. That is not
the task of a fraternity, nor a public
library, nor the government. That is the
duty of a person 's revealed religion
and is appropriately expressed through
his or her church.
4. Ironically,
some people complain about the Bible
used in Lodge being referred to as the
"furniture" of the Lodge. No disrespect
is intended. Indeed, just the opposite
is true. Masons use the word "furniture"
in its original meaning of essential
equipment. Since no Lodge can meet
without an open Volume of the Sacred
Law, (which in North America is almost
always the Bible) the Bible is essential
and given a special place of honor as
the "furniture" for every regular Lodge.
5. The Masonic
use of the term "light" is often
misunderstood by non-Masons. This
confusion may lead some to think Masons
are speaking of salvation rather than
knowledge or truth. Nowhere in Masonic
ritual is "light" implied to mean
anything other than knowledge. Light was
a symbol of knowledge long before it was
a symbol of salvation. The lamp of
learning appears on almost every
graduation card and college diploma.
Masonry uses Light as a symbol of the
search for truth and knowledge. it is
very unlikely that any Mason would think
that Light represents salvation.
6. Masonry does
not imply salvation may be attained by
one's good works. Masonry does not
teach any path to salvation. That is the
duty of a Church, not a Fraternity. The
closest Masonry comes to this issue is
to point to the open Bible, and tell the
Mason to search there for the path to
eternal life. Masonry does believe in
the importance of good works, but as a
matter of gratitude to God for His many
great gifts and as a matter of
individual moral and social
responsibility. The path to salvation is
found in each Mason's house of worship,
not in his Lodge.
7. Various
critics accuse Masonic writers of
teaching the "heresy of universalism."
Universalism is the doctrine that all
men and women are ultimately saved.
Masonry does not teach universalism or
any other doctrine of salvation. Again,
that' s the province of the church, not
a fraternity. You have to look rather
hard to find Masonic writers who "teach
universalism." Even if you could find
one, it's important to remember that any
Masonic author writes for himself alone,
not as an official of the fraternity.
Masonry simply does not have a position,
official or otherwise on salvation.
Since men of all faiths are welcome in
the fraternity, Masons are careful not
to offend the faith of any. Possibly
this in itself may seem to be
universalism to some critics. Masons
call it common courtesy.
8. Some critics,
less eager to put their own houses in
order than to find fault with others,
contend most Lodges refuse to admit
African Americans as members. Masonry
today is not a whites only organization
as the hundreds of thousands of Black,
Native American, Hispanic and Oriental
Masons can testify . Petitions for
membership do not ask the race of the
petitioner, and it would be considered
completely wrong to do so. At the same
time it must be said that Freemasonry,
like American society and churches in
general, has not lived up entirely to
its high ideal of brotherhood in dealing
with African Americans and other
minorities. This is a situation which
most Freemasons, like most Americans,
are trying to overcome.
There is a schism
in Freemasonry dating back over 200
years to when "Prince Hall" Masons, who
are African-Americans, declared them
selves independent. This schism is
similar to the division of the United
Methodist Church from the A.M.E.,
C.M.E., and United Methodist Church from
the A.M.E., S.M.E., and A.M.E. Zion
churches or the National Baptists from
the American and Southern Baptists. In
each of these three examples, the
organizations are working to repair the
damages of centuries of segregation. for
each, complete reunification remains an
elusive goal hindered by social
resistance on both sides, but not by
organizational ideals. In the case of
Freemasonry, mutual recognition between
"black" and "white" Grand Lodges has
proceeded at a steady pace for nearly
ten years, while African-American
members are increasingly common in
formerly "white" Lodges.
For instance, at
the international celebration of the
275th anniversary of the Grand Lodge of
England in i992 (the most recent Masonic
gathering of about the same size as the
Southern Baptist Convention), there were
far more Blacks present than there were
at the Southern Baptist Convention in
Houston in 1993. Freemasonry's movement
regarding racial matters affirms
Masonry's genuine revolution with the
rest of American society and churches
toward genuine brotherhood among all
races.
In summary,
looking over the concerns raised in the
report, none are the tenants and
teachings as the report claims. Four of
the concerns are merely
misunderstandings of Masonic vocabulary
by non-Masons. The complaint that some
of the writers whose work Masonry
studies are pre Christian could be
raised against any study of man,
government, or philosophy. Almost all
areas of study start with the ancient
(pagan) Greeks. All members of the
Fraternity know that Masonry does not
invade the area of the Church to teach
any doctrine of salvation, neither
universalism, salvation by works, nor
any other. And the objection that
Masonry is some sort of whites only club
is refuted by the myriad of non whites
wearing the Square and Compasses.
Freemasonry is simply a Fraternity---an
organization of men, banded together to
further develop themselves ethically and
morally, and to benefit the community at
large!
The Masonic
Information Center 8120 Fenton St.
Silver Spring, MD
20910-4785
Phone: (301)
588--2010
Fax: (301) 608-3457 |
