Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

[O.F.F.]

It sounds a lot more like Golden Dawn, which a lot of people mistakenly take for a concordant body of Freemasonry. I can assure you it is not. (emphasis added)

Oh yeah, the Golden Dawn was founded by a group of English Masons. While it is not a concordant body of Freemasonry, it has a connection to it; whether you want to accept it or not.

The Golden Dawn and its Connection to Freemasonry

 

[chaoschristian]

Oh yeah, the Golden Dawn was founded by a group of English Masons. While it is not a concordant body of Freemasonry, it has a connection to it; whether you want to accept it or not.

The Golden Dawn and its Connection to Freemasonry

And we're all only six degrees removed from Kevin Bacon.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Oh yeah, the Golden Dawn was founded by a group of English Masons. While it is not a concordant body of Freemasonry, it has a connection to it; whether you want to accept it or not.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with your "connection." Are you trying to insist that because "a group of Masons" founded Golden Dawn, that makes it a Masonic organization, and there's nothing I can do or say about it? If not, then what?

 

[Rev Wayne]

The Golden Dawn and its Connection to Freemasonry

How do you expect any credibility from posting a link to a lodge of "Ancient Accepted and Esoteric Freemasons" to try to make a case for a Golden Dawn connection to regular Freemasonry?

And I say again, you have not made it clear at all what you are claiming by suggesting a "connection." I for one would be interested in exactly how YOU view this and exactly what YOU are claiming. Saying "connection" and posting a link that could not possibly make your case, tell us nothing--except that perhaps you took one look at the square and compass logo and assumed you were linking a lodge of Freemasonry when you went googling for this.

I mean, after all, if you had taken any time at all to browse through the website a bit, you would have easily found the same thing I did, that they do not even call themselves regular. They even have side-by-side comparisons of "regular Masonry" contrasting it with "esoteric Masonry."

The Golden Dawn had no masonic pretensions but the fact that the founders of the OTO made such claims opened it to accusations of being clandestine or irregular Freemasonry.

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/esoterica/index.html

According to this site, Golden Dawn is even less a Freemasonic body than OTO--and OTO is certainly not Freemasonry anyway.

 

[O.F.F.]

Saying "connection" and posting a link that could not possibly make your case, tell us nothing. . .They even have side-by-side comparisons of "regular Masonry" contrasting it with "esoteric Masonry."

Esoteric Masonry may not be "regular" Masonry, but it is not necessarily considered "clandestine." It merely teaches the deeper spiritual meaning of the symbolism YOU THINK is Christian. Even the Masonic website to which YOU are listed as one of its moderators, has a dedicated section devoted to Esoteric Masonry.

It's interesting that you come here and say that it has NO connection to Freemasonry, but you are a moderator of a section devoted to it on a Masonic website. And, you accuse me of being disingenuous. So if my case is not made from the Esoteric Masonic website, it is most certainly made with the one you help to moderate. Not only is Freemasonry connected to it, but obviously YOU ARE TOO!

 

[Rev Wayne]

So if my case is not made from the Esoteric Masonic website, it is most certainly made with the one you help to moderate.

Well, so far, you still have not elaborated for us just exactly what "case" you think you have made. You still only say "connection," and you still have not elaborated upon that, as requested, so that I may get a better idea how to respond.

As for the "site I help moderate," have you even checked to see how much "moderating" I've done there lately? I haven't even posted anything there since July 3. And the "esoteric" area is not even close to being the kind of esoteric represented by OGD or OTO. Half or more of the subject matter posted in that area hardly qualifies as "esoteric." Heck, a great deal of it need not even be described as "Masonic." I mean, "fear," "discipline," "tolerance," "progress vs. civilization," "The Lord's Prayer," "heart and brain," "the mustard seed?" Who are you kidding?
Or perhaps you didn't notice also how much "activity" goes on in that area. Six threads started since July? Not exactly a beehive of activity there. And I notice, too, most of the posting is done by one person, which is probably typical of about how many have any greater than normal interest in the subject. "Corto Maltese," it will be noted, is the author of 58 threads in that section; the threads started by all other posters combined is a grand total of 24. And only three threads in the entire section have generated enough interest to go beyond one page. And none of the three went beyond 2 pages.

Apparently you weren't aware of its relative unimportance in relation to the rest of the forum. But then, it's easy to see from your chosen subject matter of the moment, there's quite a lot you are unaware of--like what is and what is not Freemasonry.

And sure, you will find a section on that and many other Masonic fora dealing with esoterica. But on a forum where many things get discussed, you haven't made a case for that meaning anything other than, there are Masons on that forum who will occasionally discuss esoterica.

I notice on this forum, in the "Christian Forums" area, in a subsection titled "Edification," there is a thread by the title of "Nazi Spirit." By your logic, that can only mean that this forum is promoting "Nazi Spirit" in its Christian Forums section, as part of what it considers "edification."

Do you see where your scrambled logic can lead you?

The site to which I linked has proven to be one of the most informative and informationally valuable websites you can find on Masonry. A further statement from them:

Fringe Masonry encompasses those regular freemasons whose interest in mysticism and the occult led them to such organizations as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (HOGD) and the Ordo Templi Orientis. Neither of these organizations was ever recognized by any regular masonic body. The Golden Dawn had no masonic pretensions but the fact that the founders of the OTO made such claims opened it to accusations of being clandestine or irregular Freemasonry. Since 1919 (Equinox Vol. III, No. 1) they ceased to claim being or having any authority regarding Freemasonry. Currently most masonic Grand Lodge jurisdictions are unaware of, or indifferent to, the existence or history of the OTO.

If neither of these organizations was EVER recognized by any regular body of Freemasonry, then your "case" falls flat on its face. To have a "connection" with Masonry, it must first be "connected." Clearly it is not.

Your claim is, that Masons started it, and therefore it is connected.

By your logic, since Christians started the modern Freemasonic Lodge in England in 1717, Freemasonry is therefore "connected" to Christianity. If you wish to continue to uphold the position as you have stated it so far, then let me suggest we close the Masonic threads on this forum and all go home, because by your premise concerning the Golden Dawn, we can follow that same premise and establish unquestionable compatibility between the Christian Church and the Lodge, making this discussion pointless.

 

[Rev Wayne]

As for the site to which you posted a link, can you tell me exactly what jurisdiction they received their charter from? That is, after all, one of the first requirements before they can become a true Freemasonic Lodge with any true "connection" with the body of Freemasonry that has been the focus of the discussion here. We've had ill-informed people come around the thread on several occasions and try to suggest exactly what you're attempting now, with no success. Why you would make the attempt at this point is anybody's guess, I would have thought you were better informed than that.

Since apparently you are not, perhaps this masonicinfo statement will help:

The group described on this page - the "Ancient, Accepted & Esoteric Freemasons" has as much to do with Esotericism and/or Freemasonry as a dog has to do with mangos!

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And if all of this didn't give you a clue, then the fact that your check to become a member is to be made out to Universal Gnostic Church at a post office box in a mountain town in North Carolina might.... Oh, and did we mention that while you're sending Betty Reeves (the name on a bunch of their websites) your check, you might also want to pay for your membership in the so-called "Magickal Order of the Golden Dawn - where you can become an adept in a year or less" or maybe you want to be part of the "Modern Order of Essenes" or perhaps buy your license as a "Spiritual Health Coach". If that's not enough, you could simultaneously join the "Order of Mary" or the "Gnostic Yoga Fellowship", all from the same place. [/FONT]

Esoteric Masonry? NOT!

As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

And for some reason you claim to have had this great discernment that led you out of Masonry---and yet, not only can you not spot the obvious, but you actually come here and post links to this stuff??

Since the direction in which you have chosen to sidetrack matters has not fared any better than previous attempts, maybe you can get around at some point to responding to something you seem to be avoiding:

The very spirit of all of our lectures proves conclusively that when they were formulated they were designed to teach pure trinitarian Christianity, and while the Jewish scriptures did forecast the intermediary of a Christos, as all the ancient heathen mysteries did also, yet Jesus Christ as shown and demonstrated in the writings of the New Testament, was not understood by the Jewish writers of the Old Testament, nor by but very few of that faith since. The first three degrees taken in connection with the Holy Royal Arch, as they have always been with our Brethren of England, certainly show pure Christianity, as taught throughout the writings of the New Testament scriptures. (Mackey, History of Freemasonry, p. 1769)

Mackey is responsible for CURRENT ritual content in more than a few jurisdictions in Masonry. Your attempt to blow this off with a huffy retort that it is "not ritual" is duly noted, and is just as duly declined as an invalid response. You, after all, have quoted from Mackey's Symbolism of Masonry on your website, where it can easily be seen that you did so in a manner that reveals you considered it "authoritative."

Since Mackey's statement here is a direct confirmation, from one whose opinions carry some weight in Masonry, of something I have stated from day one in our debates--namely, that Masonry is established on biblical foundations;
Since you quote Mackey's work yourself in authoritative manner on your website, in building your accusations;

I'm just curious how you deal with this? Other than ignore it and change the subject, I mean?

 

[G19]

As for the "site I help moderate," have you even checked to see how much "moderating" I've done there lately? I haven't even posted anything there since July 3.

Yeah I know... I sent you a PM over there and you haven't responded.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I sent you a PM over there and you haven't responded.

Maybe it's just me, but the last few times I was there, I was trying to figure out what happened to my personal inbox, because I saw it nowhere.

 

[G19]

Maybe it's just me, but the last few times I was there, I was trying to figure out what happened to my personal inbox, because I saw it nowhere.

My bad... I sent you an email from that site. There wasnt a PM function there for some reason, and you are correct, no personal inboxes. All these forums get confusing. That, and I must need a life.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I just came across an excellent read, a John Bunyan piece about the Temple:

John Bunyan. Solomon’s Temple Spiritualized: Or, Gospel-Light Fetched out of the Temple at Jerusalem, to Let us More Easily Into the Glory of New-Testament Truths. Edinburgh: A. Brown and A. Megget, 1786.

Bunyan goes into great detail on the various items of the Temple, because, as he says,

“there was not one of them but had its signification, and so something profitable for us to know.” (p. iii.)

I would point out that this is a very similar view in comparison with Freemasonry’s symbolic interpretation, by which everything encompassed by the whole is considered to be symbolic, and is thus considered to be misinterpreted when not so interpreted. Of course, from the simple statement above, the full extent of what Bunyan is saying is not readily apparent. He adds,

“I may say, that God did in a manner tie up the church of the Jews to types, figures, and similitudes, and I mean to be butted and bounded by them in all external parts of worship; yea, not only the Levitical law and temple, but, as it seems to me, the whole land of Canaan, the place of their lot to dwell in, was to them a ceremonial, or a figure. Their land was a type of heaven; their passage over Jordan into it, a similitude of our going to heaven by death. The fruit of their land was said to be uncircumcised, as being at their first entrance thither unclean; in which their land was also a figure of another thing, even as heaven was a type of sin and grace.
Again, the very land itself was said to keep Sabbath, and so to rest a holy rest, even when she lay desolate, and not possessed of those to whom she was given for them to dwell in.
Yea, many of the features of the then church of God were set forth, as in figures and shadows, so by places and things in that land. . . .

I might also here shew you, that even the gifts and graces of the true church were set forth by the spices, nuts, grapes, and pomegranates that the land of Canaan brought forth. Yea, that hell itself was set forth by the valley of the sons of Hinnom, and Tophet, places in this country. Indeed the whole in a manner was typical, and a figurative thing.
But I have, in the ensuing discourse, confined myself to the temple, that immediate place of God’s worship; of whose utensils in particular, as I have said, I have spoken; though to each with what brevity I could, for that none of them are without a spiritual, and so profitable, signification to us.” (P. iii-v.)

He goes on to build the case, from David’s instructions to Solomon, that God had laid out in very specific detail the design of the temple, its dimensions, all the items that were to go into it, exactly how they were to be laid out, ornamented, etc. His point in building the argument is the same as the conclusion he reaches above, that each one has a specific spiritual “signification” for us, and that conducting the construction of the Temple in any other manner than the way in which it had been laid out for David by God, and for Solomon by David, would possibly result in a diminution of the intended symbolic significance. This particular part of his argument is crucial to a point he makes about our own understanding of God and worship, that it is the same although taught and communicated very differently:

“Since those very ordinances were figures of things and methods of worship, now we may, yea, we ought to search out the spiritual meaning of them, because they serve to confirm and illustrate matters to our own understandings. Yea, they shew us the more exactly how the New and Old Testament, as to the spiritualness of the worship, was as one and the same; only the Old was clouded with shadows; but ours is with more open face.” (p. vii-viii.)

So the understanding of everything in Old Testament worship as symbolic, even to the point of seeing the very land as symbolic as well, accords very well with the Freemasonic understanding of its own system the same way, such as the Lodge itself being emblematic of the universe. The next similarity I noticed has less to do with Freemasonry than it does with a well-known statement from a Freemason whose work has often come under fire:

“I dare not presume to say, that I know I have hit right in every thing, but this I can say, I have endeavoured so to do. True, I have not for these things fished in other men’s waters; my Bible and Concordance are my only library in my writings. Wherefore, courteous Reader, if thou finest any thing, either in word or matter, that thou shalt judge doth vary from God’s truth, let it be counted no man’s else but mine: Pray God also to pardon my fault, do thou also lovingly pass it by, and receive what thou finest will do thee good.” (p. viii.)

“Pass by what you will of this, receive what you will of it” . . . . Am I off the mark, or does this sound very similar to Pike’s prefatory notice? The main difference, of course, is in Pike’s ready admission to frequent borrowing from others, compared with Bunyan’s insistence that the content is all his and no one else to be blamed for anything therein.

Bunyan begins by noting that the temple was built on Mount Moriah, noting the significant events in Israel’s history that had transpired there: the place where Abraham offered up Isaac, and the place where David met the angel and interceded for the people after he had transgressed in numbering them. He does not, however, mention, as does Masonry, that Christ was said to have been crucified near there. But he describes things about the character of Solomon that were a prefiguring of Christ, and concludes:

“As therefore Mount Moriah was a type of Christ as the foundation, so Solomon was a type of him as the builder of his church. The Mount was signal, for that thereon the Lord God, before Abraham and David, did display his mercy. And as Solomon built this temple, so Christ doth build his house. ‘Yea, he shall build the everlasting temple, and he shall bear the glory.’ Heb. iii.3, 4. Zech. vi. 12,13.” (p. 10)

Of course, it is easy to see in this some faint glimmering of things common to Masonry, in the overall images of building and foundation, with the interchange of the images of temple and house. But the description of Bunyan takes an interesting and familiar turn in Chapter IV, “Of What the Temple Was Built”:

The materials with which the temple was built, were such as were in their own nature common to that which was left behind; things that naturally were not fit, without art, to be laid on so holy a house. And this shews, that those of whom Christ Jesus designs to build his church are by nature no better than others. But as the trees and stones of which the temple was built were first hewed and squared before they were fit to be laid in that house; so sinners, of which the church is to be built, must first be fitted by the word and doctrine, and then fitly laid in their place in the church.
For though, as to nature, there is no difference betwixt those made use of the build God’s house with, yet by grace they differ from others; even as those threes and stones that are hewed and squared for building by art, are made to differ from those which abide in the wood or pit.” (p. 11)

Wow! Can you say “rough ashlar” and “common gavel?” If you are truly familiar with what is said of each, the comparison with what Bunyan says here is unmistakable. I would note further, the phrasing Bunyan uses, that the materials are “made use of.” This is not a common phrase any longer, as it apparently was in Bunyan’s time. We tend to use the verb form rather than the noun as in former usage, thus we “use” things rather than “make use of” them. By comparison, I would submit that it was common phraseology at the time the lectures of the working tools were composed, which provides us with comparisons beyond the simple metaphoric parallels.

In Chapter VI, Bunyan mentions another Scripture passage familiar to Masons:

“The timber and stones with which the temple was built, were squared and hewed in the wood or pit; and so there made every way fit for that work, even before they were brought to the place where the house should be set up: ‘So that there was neither hammer nor ax, nor any tool of iron was heard oin the house while it was building.’ I Kings vi. 7.
And this shews, as was said before, that the materials of which the house was built, were (before the hand of the workman touched them) as unfit to be laid in the building, as were those that were left behind; consequently that themselves, none otherwise, but by the art of others, were made fit to be laid in this building.
To this our New-Testament temple answers; for those of the sons of Adam who are counted worthy to be laid in this building, are not by nature, but by grace, made meet for it; not by their own wisdom, but by the word of God. Hence he saith, ‘I have hewed them by the prophets.’” (p. 14)

Though the Scripture certainly parallels the Masonic accounts of the story, and thus both seem to signal the verse as an important one, I am not aware of any such meaning attributed to it in Masonry as Bunyan here assigns it. Yet I still find it significant that in both accounts, the detail is singled out as something important to the story.

Bunyan also notes, though I will not go into the great detail he does in describing them, the jewels in the temple, comparing them to the “gifts and graces of the apostles”; and the way in which the temple was situated, facing east, attributing it to the expectation of Christ’s return from the east as He said it would be. He also goes into some detail of the inner and outer courts, comparing that with the inward and outward person. Then he goes into more detail concerning the brazen altar, for which I find the main point of comparison to be that it stood in the center of the court, a position after which Masonry models its own placement of its altar.

He elaborates to some extent upon the porch of the Temple, the two pillars Jachin and Boaz, the chapiters upon the pillars, the lily-work upon the pillars, the chains upon the pillars, etc. Then he comes to the steps of the temple. He admits he can see nothing signified in them other than the concept of making our way “up” to God and to Heaven. He notes various mention of steps in Scripture, “Steps of God,” “Steps ordered by God,” “Steps ordered in His word,” “Steps of the faith,” “Steps of the Spirit,” “Steps of truth.” He notes the gate that enters into the temple, comparing that to Jesus’ admonition to “enter at the “strait and narrow gate.” He notes also the pinnacles of the temple, briefly mentioning the incident in which Satan sets Jesus upon one of the pinnacles.

Then he comes to the porters of the temples, noting they were of the Levite tribe, and citing from 2 Chronicles 23:5 that there were 4,000 of them.

“The work of the porters, or rather the reason of their watching, was to look that none, not duly qualified, entered into the house of the Lord. ‘He set,’ saith the text, ‘porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in,’ 2 Chron. xxiii.19.
The excellency of the porters lay in these three things; their watchfulness, diligence, and valour, to make resistance to those that as unfit would attempt to enter those courts, and the house of God, I Chron. xxvi. 6. Mark xiii.34. . . .

The heart of a Christian is also sometimes called the porter, for that when the true Shepherd comes to it, to him this porter openeth also, John x.3.
This last has the body for his watch-house; the eyes and ears for his portholes; the tongue therewith to cry, ‘Who comes there?’ as also to call for aid, when any thing unclean shall attempt with force and violence to enter in to defile the house.” (p. 44-45)

This compares in description to the Tyler of the Lodge. As the comparison is easy to see, I will not bore you with further detail upon what should be self-explanatory, other than to note that Bunyan elaborates much further beyond this concerning their duties, that “the opening and shutting of the gates of the house of the Lord was a part of their calling and office.”

 

[Rev Wayne]

Next he comes to the doors of the temple, which let out of the porch into the holy place. He describes at some length the difference between these doors and the gate at the outer entrance into the temple, noting that the outside gate is measured while these are not. He gives details of his interpretation why this is so, none of which I found relevant to this comparison. But what I did find significant was his mention of its opening:

“This gate being also to open by degrees, is of signification to us, for it will be opening first by one fold, then by another, and yet will never be set wide open, until the day of judgment. For then, and not till then, will the whole of the matter be open. ‘For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face; now we know in part, but then shall we know even as we are known,” 1 Cor. xiii.2.” (p. 48)

The discussion of the door continues at this point directly into the next chapter:

“The leaves of this gate or door, as I told you before, were folding, and so, as was hinted, has something of signification in them. For by this means, a man, especially a young disciple, may easily be mistaken; thinking that the whole passage, when yet but a part, was open, whereas three parts might be kept undiscovered to him. For these doors, as I said before, were never yet set wide open, I mean in the antitype; never man yet saw all the riches and fullness which is in Christ. So that I say, a new comer, if he judgeth by present sight, especially if he saw but little, might easily be mistaken; wherefore such, for the most part, are most horribly afraid that they shall never get in thereat.
How sayst thou, young comer, is not this the case with thy soul? so it seems to thee, that thou art too big, being so great, so tun-bellied a sinner. But, O thou sinner, fear not, the doors are folding-doors, and may be opened wider, and wider again after that; wherefore, when thou comest to this gate and imaginest there is not space enough for thee to enter, “knock, and it shall be wider opened unto thee,” and thou shalt be received, Luke xi 9. John ix.37. So then, whoever thou art, that art come to the door, of which the temple-door was a type, trust not to they first conceptions of things, but believe there is grace abundant: thou knowest not yet what Christ can do, the doors are folding doors. He can do ‘exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think,’ Ephes. iii.20.”

Now, of course, there is room for conjecture here, as this is not (as far as I know) a direct describing of the temple in accord with what is described also in Masonry, but I find it significant that Bunyan here notes the same circumstance as is found in Masonry in coming to the door, of “knock, and it shall be opened unto you”--and the admonition not to fear, because the gate may be “opened wider, and wider again after that,” while denoting three separate openings, may be accidental, but sure raises one’s eyebrows in comparing this with the three degrees of Masonry. And with the accompanying description of one’s conceptions being changed after becoming more aware as the doors are opened wider, it is almost inevitable for the Mason reading this, to compare it to receiving “light, more light, and further light.” Add to that the detail Bunyan suggests, that “a young disciple may easily be mistaken,” and this becomes a Masonically interesting parallel with what Masonry says about candidates, until they become “adept,” thinking they understand Masonry’s symbols when in actuality they may not. Add to that the mention by Bunyan of “three parts,” and this becomes a truly fascinating piece for comparisons.

But there is more on the subject of light, as Bunyan describes the windows:

By the light which shines in at the window we also see to make and keep the house clean, and also to do what business is necessary there to be done. “In thy light we see light;” light to do our duty, and the both to God and man.

The “duty to both God and man” is Masonically common, as is the receiving of “light” by which we know and perform that duty. “In thy light we see light” is a familiar phrase to me personally, the quote is from Psalms and is the slogan of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was written on the wall above the door at Erskine Seminary where I was a student. I find it extremely applicable in Masonry as well as my Christian faith.

Next are the winding stairs, and Bunyan gives yet another interesting read:

“These stairs were winding, so that they turned about that did go up them. So then he that assayed to go into those chambers must turn with the stairs, or he could not go up, no not into the lowest chambers. These stairs therefore were a type of a two-fold repentance: that by which we turn from nature to grace, and by which we turn from the imperfections which attend a state of grace to glory. Hence, true repentance or the right going up these turning stairs, is called repentance to salvation; for true repentance stoppeth not at the reception of grace, for that is but a going up these stairs to the middle chambers, 2 Cor. vii. 10.
Thus, therefore, the soul, at its going up these stairs, turns and turns, till it enters the doors of the highest chambers.
It groans, tho’ in a state of grace, because that is not the state of glory. I count then, that from the first to the middle chambers may be a type of turning from nature to grace. But from the middle to the highest, these stairs may signify a turning still from the imperfections and temptations that attend a state of grace, to that of immortality and glory, 2 Cor. v.1-10.
For, as there are turning stairs from the lowest to the middle chambers, so the stairs from thence still turn, and so will do, till you come to the highest chambers. I do not say, that they that have received grace do repent they have received grace; but I say, they that have received grace are yet sorry that grace is not consummate in glory; and hence they are for going up thither still by these turning stairs; yea, they cannot rest below, as they would, till they ascend to the highest chambers. O wretched man that I am! and in this we groan earnestly, is the language of gracious souls, Rom. vii. 20, 2 Cor. 1, 2, 3.
True, every one doth not do thus that comes into the Temple of God; many rest below stairs, they like not to go turning upward. Nor do I believe, that all that bid fair for ascending to the middle chambers, get up to the highest stories, to his stories in the Heavens. Many in churches, who seem to be turned from nature to grace, have not the grace to go up turning still, but rest in that shew of things, and so die below a share in the highest chambers.
All these things are true in the antitype; and, as I think, prefigured by those turning stairs to the chambers of the temple. But this turning, and turning still, displeases some much; they say, it makes them giddy. But I say, there is no way like this to make a man stand steady, stedfast in the faith, and with boldness in the day of judgment. For he has this seated in his heart, I went up the turning stairs till I came to the highest chambers. A strait pair of stairs are like that ladder by which men ascend to the gallows; they are the turning ones that lead us to the heavenly mansion-house.
Look, therefore, you that come into the Temple of God to worship, that you stay not at the foot of these turning stairs, but go up thence, yea, up them, and up them, and up them, till you come to the view of the Heavens; yea, till you are possessed of the highest chambers. How many times has God, by the Scripture, called upon you to turn, and told you, you must turn or die; and now here he has added to his call a figure, by placing a pair of turning stairs in his Temple, to convict your very senses, that you must turn, if you mean to go up into his holy chambers, and so into his eternal mansion-houses. And look that you turn to purpose, for every turning will not serve. Some turn but not to the Most High and so turn to no purpose.” (p. 60-62)

John Bunyan was no Methodist, but he would have made a good one. I’m not sure I’ve come across, anywhere in my reading, the “two repentances” he speaks of, but it captures the essence of what he sees in the staircase, and the essence also of what I have tried to share concerning objections to the “purity requirement” that gets raised by so many accusers. Yes, there is a walk that is required of us beyond the point of repentance, and it is this farther walk that Bunyan refers to as the “repentance unto salvation,” by which we reach that “higher chamber.” And I don’t know whether anyone else caught it as I did, but it sure took on a different quality when he left off talking about it and launched into preaching mode. As for the explanation, Bunyan’s is a thing of beauty. There is nothing like it, IMO, in either Christian or Masonic thought, anywhere else you look. Mackey probably has the most detailed of any (Symbolism of Freemasonry), but it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Mackey’s is more informationally and factually oriented, Bunyan’s is a living, breathing organism.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Found this interesting picture while helping my daughter with a family tree project for school. I don't recall seeing it before, it is a picture of my aunt and uncle beside the grave of my great-great-grandfather. Notice the familiar emblem above the name?

 

[O.F.F.]

It must have been a pleasant surprise to learn that there are roots of Freemasonry in your family that date back at least four generations. You must be very proud!

 

[George the 3rd]

Mike,
Was that a sincere sentiment? If so, bravo.
George

 

[BroGinder]

I am also a former mason. It is clearly not compatible with Christianity. It would be a direct opposite to Christianity. Just my .02

 

[Rev Wayne]

Was that a sincere sentiment?

That would be a breath of fresh air, but I doubt it was sincere. The "proud" remark looks more like a slam attempt, but it comes across as more of a friendly slap.

But with my family heritage, I'm not really concerned about such remarks. The two in the picture, my dad's brother and sister, are good examples.

Aunt Frances was a missionary to India for over 40 years, even had the privilege while in Calcutta, of working in cooperation with Mother Teresa and the Sisters of Mercy. Even in retirement, the church's Mission Board had her globe-trotting as a missions consultant, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Chile. She was presented a few years ago with the Order of the Palmetto, the state's highest civilian award. But what impressed me the most, when I recently became aware of it, was that she spent a considerable chunk of her retirement income on a trip back to India, out of a longing to see the people to whom she had ministered for so long.

Uncle David was a minister for a number of years in California, after a painful divorce he left the ministry and came back home. He was into computers, worked with IBM back in the old punch-card days. He kept trying to get me interested, but never succeeded until he upgraded and gave me his old 486. He is the one who was responsible for an incredible amount of research into our family history, and started the website where I found the above picture. He died a few years ago, I wish now I could have spent more time picking his brain about both computers and family tree. He showed me a diagram once where he had traced our family heritage back to the first of our ancestors who came here from England. On the chart he had highlighted all down the tree, all of them who had been ministers, and there were a considerable number of them, from practically every generation. One of them was one of the early Methodist circuit riders, with a circuit from northern Georgia all the way to West Virginia. I recently came across an old Methodist publication which had a brief notice about another ancestor who was appointed, along with another minister, from the Virginia Conference to serve in the North Georgia Conference. The obituary notice mentioned that he had served for a total of only ten years, but they were described as very fruitful years. He had become well-known in the conference, and was nicknamed "The Weeping Prophet." Apparently when he tried to preach, he spent far more time crying than he did actually preaching, but with powerful effect on all present.

I wish I could have met my grandfather, who died when I was two. I don't have a single memory of him, but I know he and my grandmother were pretty special people. They raised 11 children, and 7 of them wound up in full-time ministry, three as ministers, two as missionaries, two served at a Bible College that operated entirely on missional income derived from simply praying for God to supply it.

My point is, of course, that if anyone wishes to make comments about "roots" in my family where Masonry is concerned, it only serves to further what we have consistently witnessed to on this thread, of the compatibility of Masonry and Christian faith. It is pretty obvious that if membership in Masonry was truly any significant part of my family's heritage, it certainly did nothing to diminish the distinctive Christian commitment of so many of my ancestors. So if Masonry was a part of that heritage as well, then so be it. And if it sounds like I am "proud," I suppose so. But that pride comes fom the heritage of Christian faith. I really have not known anything about any family connection with Masonry until I discovered the symbol in the picture posted above. Even then, the discovery was accidental. I really have not considered it an undertaking of any interest to delve into the family history to find anything out about any Masonic heritage. The Christian heritage I have known about all my life, as more and more of it has been revealed to me by family members, and knowing that has been sufficient.

 

[O.F.F.]

Happy Birthday Wayne, may it be a blessed one and may God bless you with many more!

P.S. As with my previous post, please take them for the face value as they read. No need to be suspicious or read anything more into them. I don't have to agree with your position on Freemasonry to genuinely wish you a happy birthday, or to courteously acknowledge your discovery during a family-tree project with your daughter.

 

[George the 3rd]

That would be a breath of fresh air, but I doubt it was sincere.

Being the eternal optimist, I will choose to believe it was a compliment until evidence to the contrary proves me wrong.

 

[O.F.F.]

I am also a former mason. It is clearly not compatible with Christianity. It would be a direct opposite to Christianity. Just my .02

Welcome to the thread my brother! Please tell us, what led you out of Masonic Lodge, and why do you feel it is incompatible with Christianity?