

FREEMASONRY AND CHRISTIANITY ... BY BRO. G.D. HAYNES

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
I have had the privilege of reading the paper by Bro. G.D.
Haynes which I found in the reading room.  Without any
motivation to become involved in false flattery or
exaggeration, I suggest that if one can "download" a paper
of this quality from  M.B.L., the Bulletin Board has
justified its existence.  Bro. Haynes as a Presbyterian
Minister brings focus and clarity to the present conflict
between certain segments of the Christian Church and
Freemasonry which Freemasonry's leaders have failed to
elucidate.  No useful clarification comes from reading the
writings of those opposed to Freemasonry since in almost
every case they are trapped within their own particular
philosophical outlook and therefore are unable to critique
Freemasonry in a manner which in the thoughtful Freemason's
eyes would have validity.  Bro. Haynes, in his concise
article, brings the doctrinal difficulties between certain
factions of the Christian Church and Freemasonry to the
surface.

If there is a criticism of the article, [and this is not
really a criticism since I recognize that Bro. Haynes was
giving a lecture in Lodge and therefore under the usual time
constraints] it is that the conciseness of the article makes
it difficult for the reader who is unfamiliar with such
concepts as "Faith through salvation alone" versus "Faith
through good works" to gain a true appreciation of the
cogency of Bro. Haynes comments.

The other point which could possible be made is that Bro.
Haynes conclusion does not assist Freemasonry in coming to
grips with the constant criticism by certain segments of
Christianity who are mounting ever more vocal criticism of
the Craft.  He, as I understand him, suggests that the
conclusion as to whether or not Freemasonry is incompatible
with Christianity is a personal decision.  In the final
analysis, I am of the opinion that he is quite correct.
After all, the Christian Faith is a highly personalized
faith and the diversity of Churches attests to that fact.

Having made the foregoing points, I would like to emphasize
that the complexity of the subject could not possibly be
dealt with in a paper given to the Lodge.  The time
constraints make this impossible.  It is hoped that Reverend
Haynes will find the time to extrapolate on the whole issue
in a more extensive paper.  The subject deserves a entire
book and if the paper serves as a preludes to his thoughts
we can anticipate a book which is more lucid and more
articulate than anything the Grand Lodge of England said
during their recent controversy with the Church.


The Importance of the Issue.
As indicated by Reverend Haynes, the issue is one of great
importance to the Craft because we have so many members who
are practicing Christians.  Additionally, the issue is
important for two other reasons, namely:

[a]  this highly vocal group of Christians who are anti-
masonic in their outlook are creating an image in the minds
of the public about Freemasonry which is very detrimental to
the Craft.  No doubt it is having a detrimental effect on
our ability to attract members of the very kind and quality
which we need to attract.

[b]  this highly vocal group of Christians who are anti-
masonic in their outlook are having [in my opinion] a
detrimental effect within our lodges.  In an effort to
combat their criticisms [particularly their criticism of our
symbolism] we are making ad hoc and sometimes ill-conceived
changes to a ritual which has heretofore remained largely
unchanged for centuries.  It is highly questionable as to
whether these changes are beneficial or merely detract from
the ritual in ways which in years to come will be seen as
detrimental rather than beneficial.

These effects have resulted, in my opinion, from the failure
of the Craft to have a clear understanding of the doctrinal
disputes which exist between Freemasonry and Christianity.
Until the leaders of the Craft sit down and understand
doctrines such as "Faith through salvation alone" and the
dilemma of "exclusiveness vs. inclusiveness" and the
difference between "Deists" and "Theists", we will continue
to blunder along to our detriment.  Answers such as "Masonry
has no theology" are, [as Bro. Haynes points out] no answer
at all to the Christian objections.  They miss the mark.

Coming to Grips

Is seems to me that the first thing that Freemasonry has to
do is gain an articulate understanding of some of the
landmarks {here I use this in the non-technical sense} that
over the years the Craft has developed.  Only when we have
gained a clear understanding of these doctrines can we hope
to deal adequately with the criticisms of that certain
segment of Christians who oppose Freemasonry.  I do not
propose to make an exhaustive list of those doctrines, but
the following may be illustrative of the problem.

THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSALITY
     All thoughtful masons are familiar with the concept
that Freemasonry is universal in nature.  "Our lodges
stretch from East to West, from North to South, from the
centre of the earth and even as high as the heavens."  From
this we have developed the vague and uncertain concept that
Freemasonry is a universal science and from there we have
extrapolated it to the incorrect view that Freemasonry is
broad enough to encompass all theological doctrines.   The
latter part of this proposition, I suggest, will not bear up
under scrutiny.

     Freemasonry is universal in the sense used during the
Enlightenment in that it is intended to be tolerant of all
faiths.  This, however, is not to say that men of all
different theologies should be accepted into Freemasonry.
If a man's theology precludes him from tolerating the
religion of another man, he is by definition unsuitable
building material.  We cannot have it both ways.  If we are
to be true to our ethical principles, we must tolerate the
intoleration of others.  However, that does not mean that we
should ballot in their favour.  To do so, serves neither the
Petitioner or the Craft.  To place a man in the position of
taking the Degrees of Freemasonry whose Christianity is
"Exclusive" of other faiths puts him into a moral dilemma.
We are challenging his faith and in the final analysis
putting him in a position whereby he must choose between his
Church and the Craft.  This we should not be doing and yet I
doubt whether our Investigation Committee's ever explore
this vital dimension in sufficient depth to be able to
report to the lodge.  What, I ask, will be his moral dilemma
when he is taught in the retrospect "to look beyond the
narrow limits of any particular institution, whether civil
or religious" if he chooses to think about those words in
any depth.

THE USE OF SYMBOLISM
Secondly, we are taught that Freemasonry is a "system of
morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."
Thus by definition we have established some boundaries to
the philosophical outlook of the Craft.   [If there were no
such definition of the boundaries of the Craft, we as a
group in sociological terms would not be a "group".]  By
definition then we have chosen to use the tool of symbolism
to convey our philosophical notions and to seek answers to
those matters which lie beyond the realm of reason.  The
point here is that we should recognize that there are
certain Christians and certain denominations of Christianity
who are so literal in their interpretation of the Bible that
our particular position would constitute an anathema to
their beliefs.   Again, we serve neither ourselves or the
applicant be glossing over this dichotomy in our views.
What, I ask, will be his state of confusion when he is
confronted with the many many segments of the ritual which
in a literal sense are historically inaccurate or serve no
useful purpose if merely taken literally.  Again, we must
recognize that Freemasonry is not universal in the sense
that it can incorporate every possible philosophical
outlook.  It has a definitive set of beliefs and modus
operandi which separate it from some of the other ways of
looking at life.

THE UNDERSTANDING OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES
     Thirdly, we should gain a clear understanding of this
very pervasive dilemma which Freemasonry has when it is
confronted by the doctrine of "Salvation through Faith
alone".  I would defer to Reverend Haynes for an articulate
explanation of this central tenet of Christianity.  But for
the purposes of the reader, my awkward layman's explanation
may shed some light.  The Mediaeval Church had roused the
rath of the Reformers through its practice of allowing
people to literally buy their forgiveness for their sins by
paying monies as penance for their sins.  In the eyes of
Luther and other reformers this was at best hypocrisy and at
worst commercial fraud.  Luther's essential point was that
salvation could not be bought.  If you move this a step
further and remove the element of paying money from the
equation, it meant that salvation could not be achieved by
doing "good works" if they were not performed and based on a
genuine love of God but rather were merely performed on the
basis that by doing "good works" you would earn salvation
irrespective of what sins lay in your heart.   As the
theology evolved during the reformation, it was concluded
that the sole path to salvation was through faith.  In
otherwords, without a genuine acceptance of Christ there was
no salvation irrespective of all the external good works you
may perform in this life.  This doctrine brought the
criticism that would mean  that a person may have faith and
would be saved event though he did no good works towards his
fellow man.  This the critics said was absurd.  That is, as
long as you believed, you were saved irrespective as to what
kind of scoundrel you were to your fellow man.  The answer
of the reformers was that if you were truly "born again" or
had found Christ, good works would follow axiomatically as
evidence of your faith.  The lack of good works would
indicate that you did not have a genuine or true faith in
Christ but good works was not the causation for salvation.
[Here endeth my lesson in theology]

For the Christian then the emphasis in Freemasonry on "good
works" and the continual evolution to perfection by the ever
refinement of ethical and moral conduct can be disturbing.
What I understand Bro. Haynes to be saying in his lecture is
that the ritual can be seen as being in compliance with the
doctrine of Salvation through faith if one sees the ethical
advancement and the charity as evidence of a man's
development of a more and more profound faith in Christ.  I
am of the view that there is ample grounds within the
masonic ritual to support his view on that point.  We see in
the ritual that we deliberately put the candidate in the
north east angle in a position whereby he cannot donate
worldly goods and therefore Freemasonry must be talking of
some type of internal charity.  And we see in the Junior
Warden's lecture that portion which speaks of Jacob's ladder
where he teaches the candidate that the third and the last
rung being "charity, comprehends the whole and the mason who
is in possession of this virtue in its most ample sense may
be justly deemed to have arrived at the summit of
Freemasonry"  And we must not forget that the very first
question a candidate has to answer is "where were you first
made a mason" and the answer is "In the Heart W.M.  My first
two references to the ritual can surely be legitimately
understood by the Christian mason to reflect the Christian
viewpoint that the word charity when researched back to its
Greek meaning is intended to mean "love" as taught within
the orthodox Christian Churches.  And surely a Christian
mason cannot be faulted for interpreting the very first
question a candidate is asked as being intended to exemplify
in capsulized form the development of the whole theological
doctrine of "Salvation by Faith alone."

It then is my suggestion that there is much in the ritual
for the devout Christian to find comfort in ... and in fact
there is a solid foundation for certain types of Christians
to interpret the entire masonic ritual as a dramatization
and re-enforcement of their Christian beliefs.  These points
should have been directed to the various Christian Churches
in England when they were doing their so called
investigations into the compatibility of Freemasonry and
Christianity.  Instead we chose to tell them that we had no
theology.
On the other hand I emphasize my view that it is only
certain types of Christians who can find Freemasonry
compatible and that is Reverend Haynes essential conclusion.
My essential point is that Freemasons should recognize that
there are doctrinal differences within the Christian
community and that some of those Christians are not
compatible with the doctrines of Freemasonry.  Once we have
this clear in our minds we can not only deal with the
dilemma in a more intelligent manner but that we will desist
in attempting to make "recent innovations" to Freemasonry
which produces a loss for Christian and non-Christian mason
alike.

"Recent Innovations"

     My last comment, no doubt, demands further
extrapolation.

     The recent dilemma we found ourselves in when some of
the Churches in England raised questions about Freemasonry
is a case on point.  The Grand Lodge did two things:

[a]  provide totally meaningless responses which did not hit
the mark because someone either did not understand the
doctrinal dispute which was going on in the Churches or
chose not to respond directly to the criticism;
[b]  they began to water down and change the penalties in an
effort to avoid criticism about the "blood curdling oaths
that Freemasons were required to take.
It is to this last "solution" which I now direct my
attention.

     When I joined the Craft as a young man ... the phrase
was "under no less a penalty on the violation of any of them
.......". This was then changed to be "ever bearing in mind
the traditional penalty on the violation of any of them
...... ".  The flurry of ill-informed criticism in England
brought a further dilution so that now we talk of "ever
bearing in mind the symbolic penalty ........... ."

     I recall as vividly some 25 years ago the feeling I had
at that time when I knelt before the alter.  As time passed
that had great significance in my life.  It became the point
in time when you made an unequivocal commitment to
righteousness.  You had crossed the Rubicon.  "There comes a
tide in the affairs of men, which taken leads on to
fortune."  There comes a time in every mans life where he
"must put away those childish things."  It was the bond
which sub-conciously bound masons together in an indivisible
commitment to that which was perceived to be "right" and
against that which was perceived to be "evil".  For the
Christian mason, it exemplified the whole concept of
damnation and brought it to the forefront of this mind in a
manner which no other institution had ever done.  There was
no ifs, buts, or, ands, it was a question as to whether you
could and would make the commitment.  Freemasons, unlike
those who were not in the Craft, were confronted with a
situation in which their "courage was put to the sticking
post" and having proceeded through the ceremony they learned
a very important thing about themselves.  Like a soldier who
suffers doubts about how he will perform in battle and who
later goes through battle with dignity and courage and does
not take flight in fear, the Freemason learned something
about the little spark of courage which exists within us
all, when put to the test.

 That test has now been lost for Christian and non-Christian
mason alike.  Why has it been lost?  The changes were not
made because of internal dissension within the Craft.  I
have yet to hear any extensive criticism among practicing
Freemasons of the obligations.  They all in their own way
had come to understand them as being symbolic.  So, in
essence we changes OUR RITUAL to accommodate the criticism
of a certain brand of Christians who by virtue of their
"exclusive" view of Christianity would not be suitable
candidates for Freemasonry in any event.  Why did this
occur????   I suggest it is because the leaders of the Craft
lacked both the intellectual skill and the in depth
understanding of both Freemasonry and Christianity which is
evidenced in Bro. G.D. Haynes brief article.  Hopefully we
will see a book by this author in the future.

