Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

[Rev Wayne]

On re-reading the article cited above, it became clear that more of what preceded the summation should have been included for greater clarity. In its immediate context, then, the same paragraph (Originally quoted material distinguished by bold print):

If we take a survey of mankind, we find men, in their efforts to improve their condition and thereby to secure their terrestrial happiness, uniting together and forming separate stations and communities. These separate and distinct states will have different climates and consequently different requirements, different manners and customs, different ideas and doctrines of morality, and finally different religions. Each individual member or citizen of these separate states, has naturally at least, the immediate interest of his own particular state or nation, by which his own interest can be secured; and hence arises that political egotism, from which springs unjust views and opinions concerning other states, partisan conceptions of the world's history, leading to the love of war, the ambition and covetousness of the conqueror, and estranging and separating state from state, nation from nation, man from man. This is one of the inevitable evils of all civil communities, but without which no civil community can exist. If we go further, we see that even within each separate state or community this dividing, separating power, is continued to infinity, erecting barriers between the different classes, the high and the low, the rich and the poor, classes which must necessarily exist in all communities. Thus we see that the blessings and advantages of civil union cannot be obtained without the accompanying disadvantages to which we have alluded, and that no form of civil society or government can be exempt from these necessary evils. But because these divisions, these necessary evils, do exist and must, from their very nature continue to exist, is that any reason why we should deem them good and desirable? And would not any means, which might tend to render these evils as harmless as possible in their efforts, without diminishing the advantages to be derived from the union of men in elates or communities; would not such means be consequently good and desirable? If therefore, we can imagine a society, composed of men of every country, state and nation, men who are above their national prejudices—who know precisely where patriotism ceases to be a virtue—who yield not to the prejudices of their own religion—who are not blinded by their civil rank or station, nor disgusted by their civil insignificance—who, bound together by the closest ties, and strengthened by their union, can make it a part of their vocation to draw together again as closely as possible those separations, those divisions, which have rendered men so strange, so cold, so distrustful of one another—such a society would indeed be a beneficial, a noble, a God-like one. And such a society does exist; and this is the aim, the object, the mission of Freemasonry. Masonry is but another name for that Brotherly love which should unite all men under God's heavens, who are all children of the same Almighty parent, wheresoever dispersed; and this love will teach men, first of all, to desire the welfare of mankind—of all mankind—and to promote that welfare by thought, word, and deed. By and through this lore alone can the citizen acquire true patriotism, the religious man true religion. Masonry can and will educate man to the higher morality of a citizen of the world, which indeed includes the lower morality of a citizen of a state, but in its perfected and ennobled from, purified from the prejudices, the disadvantages to which we have alluded. It can and will educate the religions man to that higher religion—to that "religion in which all men agree," which indeed embraces the lower religion of creeds and sects, but divested of all intolerant, uncharitable views and prejudices.
Such is the mission of Masonry, "the grand and universal science, which includes all others"—teaching the relative and social duties of man, on the broad and extensive basis of general philanthropy; and he who does not find his heart warmed with love toward all mankind should never strive to be made a Freemason, for he cannot exercise Brotherly love.—Anon. (Italic emphasis in original)

[From "What is Freemasonry?" Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, November 1862, p. 77-78]
"What is Freemasonry?"

I would think that the higher ideals expressed here would INDEED be "religion in which all men may agree," as its main thrust is a desire for world peace, and of brotherly love shown to ALL and not just to those of our own liking, or members of our own religion. Jesus expressed these same higher ideals at just about every turn--but there is one expression of it which almost exactly matches this emphasis on love for all:

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48)

Our love is to be "perfect," that is, "complete," nothing lacking, no one excepted. "Perfect love," Paul wrote, "casts out fear." Fear, as the above author alludes to, is the chief cause of wars and divisions in our world. Find that perfection of love, live that love, model that love before all the world for all to see by shining our light in the dark places where that love is not found, and the world will truly be a different place.

Masonry has been criticized for its stand by which it insists on belief in God as a basis for a system of morality. Such criticism presupposes that morality is something less than Godly, rather than understanding that morality must have its source in God or it ceases to be morality and becomes instead a human substitute for it. Either way, it comes to the same ultimate end, that the chief moral good is love, and the chief moral perfection is a perfection in love.

Jesus said the sun shines and the rain falls on all, regardless of whatever station they may have in life, and on that basis He encourages that chief moral perfection of love--for ALL mankind, just as He says.

Yet the critics of Masonry find one excuse or another for not doing as Jesus said, and they criticize Masons for daring to express this love for all mankind as we are commanded.

So which one should we listen to?

 

[O.F.F.]

MOA,

Who do you think you're fooling? You deceive only yourself. What you just posted is a bunch of hypocritical hogwash. If Freemasonry is so beneficial to, and should be for, all mankind, then why not open its doors to welcome everyone? Why have any secrets at all? Why not allow the general public to attend any and all lodge meetings, or simply hold your meetings in the public square?

What you highlighted is most hypocritical based on the following Masonic source, which explains the origins of its discriminatory practices against the handicap, women, and people of color (African descent):

The “Doctrine of the Perfect Youth” is perennially a matter for discussion in Grand Lodges. The origin of the requirement that a man be perfect in all his limbs and parts goes back to the days before written history of the Craft. Mackey states that the first written law on the subject is found in the fifth article of the Old York or Gothic Constitutions adopted at York in A.D. 926:

“A Candidate must be without blemish and have full and proper use of his limbs; for a maimed man can do the Craft no good.” This requirement has been repeated, and again repeated at various times in many different forms; in the “Ancient Charges at Making” (1686) and in the “Constitutions of 1722-23” which put into print the customs and enactments of the Mother Grand Lodge in 1717.

The same Masonic authority makes the 18th Landmark read:

“Certain qualifications of a candidate for initiation are derived from a Landmark of the Order. These qualifications are; that he shall be a man - shall be unmutilated - free born and of mature age. That is to say, a woman, a cripple or a slave, or one born in slavery, is disqualified for initiation into the rites of Masonry.” Just how strictly this law should be interpreted is a moot question, and different Jurisdictions rule in different ways upon it. In no Jurisdiction, for instance, is a man considered to be ineligible because he wears glasses, or has a gold tooth! In most Jurisdictions he must be “perfect” with two arms, two legs, to hands and two feet. In some Jurisdictions, if he can conform to the requirements of the degrees, he may lack one or more fingers not vital to the tokens; in other he may not.

The foundation of the doctrine was an operative requirement; obviously a maimed man could not do as “good work, true work, square work” as the able-bodied man. The requirement has been carried over in Speculative Masonry. Its greatest importance today is less in the need for physical strength and mobility than in undoubted fact that if we materially alter this Ancient Landmark, these old “usages and customs,” then we can alter others; admit women, elect by a majority vote, dispense with the Tiler and hold our meetings in the public square! Physical qualifications have a further importance of a practical nature; other things being equal, the maimed man and the cripple are more apt to become charges upon the lodge than the strong and whole.

. . .It is hardly necessary to say that the petition of a woman cannot be entertained under any circumstances whatsoever, nor need the reasons for it to be discussed here. . .

Our political requirements are most explicit upon the question of being free born. Many have erroneously thought that such qualification was “read into” the body of Masonry to keep out men of the colored race. Unquestionably “free born” means not only not born a slave, but not born of parents who have been slaves, or whose forebears were slaves. Thus “free born” does bar men of African descent in this country from becoming a Mason. But the provision was an integral part of Masonic law long before Africans were imported into this country - see the statute from the Old York Constitution already quoted. The custom even goes further into antiquity. In the ancient Mysteries of Greece and Rome, from which Masonry derives something of its form, similar law prevailed. No man born a slave, or made a slave, even if freed (manumitted) could be initiated.


SHORT TALK BULLETIN - The Candidate Vol.VIII May, 1930 No.5

Take your hypocritical fraternity somewhere else. It's not welcomed here. It cannot compare to the brotherhood and sisterhood we have in Christ.

As saints and believers in Jesus, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). We are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that we may declare the praises of Him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9).

Our fraternal Order of Christian brotherhood united under the blood of the risen Savior Jesus Christ cannot be compared to the man-made, discriminatory, self-glorifying, works-based religious fraternity from whence we came.

Dr. Randall C. Pendland, an Ex-Mason for Jesus and a proud member of the Order of Former Freemasons

BTW Wayne, do you consider yourself to be a bond servant of Christ?

 

[G19]

I'm disappointed in you O.F.F.

G19

 

[Rev Wayne]

You don't appear to be reading anything here, even after taking a break.

As I've already pointed out, you might as well call everybody hypocrites. Sunday morning worship is still called "the most segregated hour of the week." The church has as much problem or more with racism as anybody else. Don't take my word for it:

Does Christianity Promote Racism?

Therefore, considering the thread focus, if you wish to paint the lodge with a racist label, then to be consistent you must do so to the church as well. And since they both have a problem, the lodge cannot therefore be said to be incompatible with the church on this basis.
Comprende?

And so far, the lodge is faring better than the church, apparently. 40 of the 51 Grand Lodges in the U.S. have adopted resolutions declaring Prince Hall to be regular. That's nearly 80%. And like I already said, there were several African-American participants who showed up for the Lodge's charity golf tournament I recently participated in. Whether that means they were Prince Hall, or that some lodges here have African-American members, I don't really know, I do know for a FACT they were there, I saw them with my own eyes, despite your protests.

And I was not kidding about black racism, it's as rampant as any other kind. The African-American family in the church I served went through some very trying circumstances because of their membership in the white church. They were in a sense disowned by the black churches in the area, treated with scorn, and shunned socially. The African-American pastor I mentioned who had me and other white pastors preaching in his pulpit, was treated far worse. The pulpit committee chairman started nitpicking and finding fault with him over several non-issues, mainly because he could not bring up issues dealing directly with the REAL issue of integrating his pulpit, because in the eyes of the conference such a move would be politically incorrect. He was eventually moved, and when he moved, it was to a district which had an African-American District Superintendent, and he got no end of grief from both ends, because the D.S. knew what the problem was at his church, and in reality sided with them, and would give him no decent appointment. The friction and the stress from all the struggles he had to endure created so much strain on his marriage that his wife eventually filed for divorce.

You may speak of hypocrisy and try to downplay this all you wish, but in doing so, you show disdain for your own people who endure such hardships when you make light of their troubles. I really thought you of all people would know better.

Take your hypocritical fraternity somewhere else. It's not welcomed here.

Will you call the segregated church hypocritical also? In fact since the lodge has adopted recognition of Prince Hall at the 80% level, will you go on record challenging the churches to get on board and do the same? Will you also tell the black churches that dumped on my friends to "take their hypocritical organization somewhere else?"

Where exactly is your consistency here? You give the appearance of ignoring all the facts and simply playing the race card to throw mud at the lodge.

I too am disappointed in you. You have had a much better history in the past in regard to facts, as shown by your willingness to abandon a lot of the nonsense accusations that many others have been prone to endorse. But on this one you have not just fallen off the deep end, you have willingly plunged.

 

[Rev Wayne]

As saints and believers in Jesus, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

And yet we still maintain, Sunday after Sunday, the "most segregated hour of the week?"

Sounds like you are speaking here of the ideal, rather than the reality.

But then, come to think of it, so was the author of the piece I quoted, concerning the lodge, and he clearly stated so.

 

[Rick Otto]

If we take a survey of mankind, we find men, in their efforts to improve their condition and thereby to secure their terrestrial happiness, uniting together and forming separate stations and communities. These separate and distinct states will have different climates and consequently different requirements, different manners and customs, different ideas and doctrines of morality, and finally different religions.

I find it a little bit hard to swallow that 2nd sentence above, Wayne.
If only because morality is transcendental, not incidental, to climate or terrestial happiness.
I associate morality with motivations, not actions. Climate, custom, and convenience are not for me, adequate reasons for defining morality, or ideals.

 

[AndrewCS]

Quote:
As saints and believers in Jesus, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

And yet we still maintain, Sunday after Sunday, the "most segregated hour of the week?"

Sounds like you are speaking here of the ideal, rather than the reality.

But then, come to think of it, so was the author of the piece I quoted, concerning the lodge, and he clearly stated so.

I think the term is scriptures Rev,

Segregation is what man has made it.

Religion is what man has made it.

Who is the Church of Christ? It is the people, not the buildings or doctrine taught by man. That is why small gathering are often referred to as “home church”. Where two or more are gathered in His name.

I believe this is the key – "in His name", worshiping God the Father, Jesus the Son & the Helper – The Holy Spirit.

God bless

 

[Rev Wayne]

(double posted)

 

[Rev Wayne]

I think you've misread it, I didn't get that at all. And anyway, the whole current line of posting is more sidetrack than anything. The point raised was, that there definitely does appear to be a certain number of tenets that are found in all religions that do qualify as "that religion in which all men agree." The very fact that this one quote has received such an inordinate amount of attention clearly shows that the ones who are criticizing it are in agreement with the ideal expressed. But instead of addressing the question of whether brotherly love of all mankind is indeed at the heart of "that religion in which all agree," everyone instead seems to be derailing it with questions of whether or not Masonry has achieved it.

That's like saying to a Christian, "Sure, the Christian ideal is love of God supremely, and love of neighbor as oneself, but have you managed to do that at all points, in a way that matches the ideal?"

And of course, none of us can point to a single person and say, "yes, they do," except for Jesus.

Which only goes to emphasize once again, it is the ideal that Masonry points to as the standard, not mine or your or anyone else's feeble attempts to get it right.

 

[Rick Otto]

it is exactly what he is saying.

"These separate and distinct states will have different climates and consequently different requirements, different manners and customs, different ideas and doctrines of morality, and finally different religions."

Even at a casual glance we can see the author's link of morality with climate. Even if we consider "climate" in its broadest sense, it is still an external incident, or 'accident' of circumstance, not an aspect of character, which is an internal condition dependant upon innate characteristics, of which ideals & morality refer to.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Even at a casual glance we can see the author's link of morality with climate. Even if we consider "climate" in its broadest sense, it is still an external incident, or 'accident' of circumstance, not an aspect of character, which is an internal condition dependant upon innate characteristics, of which ideals & morality refer to.

Okay, sure.

But you are emphasizing something that was not his chief point of emphasis, nor mine. My original citation of the piece, after all, was:

Masonry is but another name for that Brotherly love which should unite all men under God's heavens, who are all children of the same Almighty parent, wheresoever dispersed; and this love will teach men, first of all, to desire the welfare of mankind—of all mankind—and to promote that welfare by thought, word, and deed. By and through this lore alone can the citizen acquire true patriotism, the religious man true religion. Masonry can and will educate man to the higher morality of a citizen of the world, which indeed includes the lower morality of a citizen of a state, but in its perfected and ennobled from, purified from the prejudices, the disadvantages to which we have alluded. It can and will educate the religions man to that higher religion—to that "religion in which all men agree," which indeed embraces the lower religion of creeds and sects, but divested of all intolerant, uncharitable views and prejudices.
Such is the mission of Masonry, "the grand and universal science, which includes all others"—teaching the relative and social duties of man, on the broad and extensive basis of general philanthropy; and he who does not find his heart warmed with love toward all mankind should never strive to be made a Freemason, for he cannot exercise Brotherly love.—Anon.

As you can see, what you now deliberate upon has nothing to do with the thread nor with the point that was being made. In fact, it would not have been brought in at all had it not been for Mike's attempt to derail the focus by playing the race card.

 

[O.F.F.]

Christians should not concern themselves with a "religion in which ALL men agree." Agree with it or not it is written: "As surely as I live,' says the Lord, every knee will bow before me (Jesus Christ, not Allah, Vishnu, etc.); every tongue will confess HIM to God." -- emphasis added (Romans 14:11).

Elsewhere God says, "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." -- emphasis added (Philippians 2:9-11).

So as a Christian pastor, why don't you give glory to God by EMPHASIZING Christ, rather than your "religion in which ALL men agree."

All of mankind does not accept Jesus Christ, and ALL never will. So how will your "religion in which ALL men agree" glorify HIM? At the end of the ages, what will such a "religion" really mean? Absolutely nothing; because at the end of the ages ONLY His kingdom, His Church and His religion will remain FOREVER!

 

[Rick Otto]

We have reasoned together.

The unfortunate part is the consequences of starting out on a long journey with 1 degree of miscalculation in the plotting of the course. One degree in a thousand mile journey can equal a hundred mile miss of the intended destination.

Bear with me:

"Each individual member or citizen of these separate states, has naturally at least, the immediate interest of his own particular state or nation, by which his own interest can be secured; and hence arises that political egotism, from which springs unjust views and opinions concerning other states,..."

This much presupposes an enmity that is so far unproven to be (at least) universaly, the case, but which interestingly enough, I agree is there, arriviving at cognition thereof by a different set of pre-suppositions. And taken to its logical, if not practical, extreme, the author's presupposition would posit that enmity between even the most immediately proximate self-interested egos, of which two or more are required to create an ostensibly civil community; which would render such communities a philosophical illusion (not that is a bad thing per se, but again, in consequence, presents practical difficulties that could be insurmountable w/out more illusions). Again, I share the perception, but disagree on the source of that enmity.

partisan conceptions of the world's history, leading to the love of war,

Only two egos, not two communities are necessary for that romantic fixation(eg Cain & Abel), pointing to innate character, not external climates as the locus of origin for enmity. You might disagree.

the ambition and covetousness of the conqueror, and estranging and separating state from state, nation from nation, man from man.

Indeed. Man from man, as opposed to men from men, and irregardless of having conquered or having been conquered. The significance of the difference being that the source for a solution offering transcendance of this disunity, this enmity, must lie outside of man. You might agree.

This is one of the inevitable evils of all civil communities, but without which no civil community can exist.

But existing without that evil is in fact the ideal.
So we must forge a realism that doesn't sell out our idealism. Yes?

As you can see, what you now deliberate upon has nothing to do with the thread nor with the point that was being made. In fact, it would not have been brought in at all had it not been for Mike's attempt to derail the focus by playing the race card.

Well, no, I don't see that at all. In fact, if it had nothing to do w/the point being made, it should never have been posted along with the alleged point being made. The fact that it was included renders your objection either self-defeating or disingenuous. Blaming it on Mike is convenient, not convincing.
Adding everything you posted w/the edit function after responding with simply "Okay, sure" is clever, but as you can see, I can do that as well.
Integrity be damned, Freemasony rules!

 

[AndrewCS]

As you can see, what you now deliberate upon has nothing to do with the thread nor with the point that was being made. In fact, it would not have been brought in at all had it not been for Mike's attempt to derail the focus by playing the race card.

I for one disagree,

The original thread is about Freemasons being compatible with Christianity.

Racialism is NOT compatible with Christianity

Chauvinists are NOT compatible with Christianity

 

[Rev Wayne]

The same Masonic authority makes the 18th Landmark read:

Can you name me ONE Grand Lodge which names the "Short Talk Bulletins" as an "authority" in their jurisdiction?

Moreover, I can't believe you're going on with nonsense about "landmarks" again.

25 Grand Lodges have NO landmarks (and most of them have NEVER adopted any).

6 Grand Lodges list some, but give no indication of ever officially adopting any.

5 GL's simply list Mackey's 25, but not all indicate they adopted them officially. In fact, D.C. is one of these, and specifically states that they are listed FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

LOUISIANA lists 24, but the one cited above as 18th in the quoted material, does not appear among these.

CONNECTICUT cites 15.

FLORIDA cites 10.

MICHIGAN cites 3, the 18th as cited above does not appear among them.

MINNESOTA lists 26.

MISSISSIPPI lists 19.

NEVADA lists 39 (which were adopted in 1872!)

TENNESSEE listed 15 in 1983, it is unclear whether that is still the case.

VERMONT rescinded Mackey's 25 in 1953, adopted 7. The only qualification about "free" is that a candidate be a "free MAN," not "free BORN."

VIRGINIA lists 7, and they put in a qualifier that states that none of Mackey's 25 even meet his own requirements for what constitutes a "landmark."

ACTUALLY, only TWO, WEST VIRGINIA and MASSACHUSETTS, have a specific list which includes the "freeborn" requirement.

Info compiled from LANDMARKS OF FREEMASONRY

In other words, any argument about "landmarks" finds no consistent format for discussion among the lodges of the U.S., which makes it kinda hard to sustain a claim of "authority" as you have. ESPECIALLY when you consider that no Grand Lodge I know of has any statement in their code or constitutions about the Short Talk Bulletins being authoritative in their jurisdiction. And even more so when you consider that the general consensus of Masonic opinion today seems to be, that the particular landmark you cite is outdated, and most GL's have moved away from making any official pronouncement on them at all.

 

[G19]

Racialism is NOT compatible with Christianity

You mean christianity doesn't believe in the existence of racial categories? Wow.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Racism is not compatible with Christianity nor Freemasonry.

Both hold up high ideals in regard to our relations with our fellow human beings.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The topic has to do with "compatibility."

Do brotherly love, relief, and truth conflict with the Christian faith?

Do “beauty, wisdom, and truth” conflict with the Christian faith?

Does keeping confidential matters confidential conflict with the Christian faith?

Does “taking care of widows and orphans and keeping oneself unspotted from the world” conflict with the Christian faith? (James 1:27)

Does loving one’s neighbor as oneself conflict with the Christian faith?

Does being diligent and not slothful in one’s occupation conflict with the Christian faith?

Do patience, humility, and every positive virtue conflict with the Christian faith?

A simple yes or no to each will suffice.

 

[G19]

Racism is not compatible with Christianity nor Freemasonry.

Both hold up high ideals in regard to our relations with our fellow human beings.

I agree Wayne. In fact, as you have mentioned elsewhere, freemasonry and the Christian church have generally paralleled one another with regard to race relations. One cannot condemn the fraternity without also condemning the church in the same breath. Thankfully, both are making great strides at change. But sadly, it seems to be not so much because of repentance, but the death of the older generation.

Interestingly enough, not many people understand that freemasonry played a huge role in the eventual ending of Apartheid. Of course, since I don't have enough posts to share a link, you'll have to google "Freemasonry - uniting men even during apartheid".

 

[AndrewCS]

You mean christianity doesn't believe in the existence of racial categories? Wow.

Please do not try to spin what I have said.

There is a distinct DIFFERENCE between recognition of different races and RACIALISM.

Of course, there is a difference between male & female but that does not allow for chauvinism.

Let God WOW you and He will