Freemasonry and
Christianity
by
Bro. Gordon Haynes
Introduction:

Brethren,  I  would  like to take a small portion  of  your  time
tonight  to talk about the relationship between Christianity  and
Freemasonry,  and  particularly to the question  whether  or  not
Christianity and Freemasonry are mutually exclusive.

In  doing  this,  I recognize that I am talking to  a  number  of
different  groups. First, there is the group that will view  with
amazement the prospect of a Presbyterian clergyman getting up  in
front  of  a captive audience and restricting himself to anything
less  than 45 minutes.  This group certainly includes my wife  at
home,  and  probably includes those brethren here who  attend  my
church.   A  second group will be those of other  faiths  (or  no
particular faith at all), who will hopefully view this talk  with
mild  interest, but who will wonder what all the fuss  is  about.
To  them, I apologize for restricting myself to Christianity, but
it  is the faith group to which I belong, and it is the one of  w
hich I am most knowledgeable.

I  think  that we should also recognize the effect on Freemasonry
if the Christian Church becomes openly hostile.

To  focus  on  that  effect,  I  would  ask  (with  the  Master's
permission) if you would all please stand up.  Now, I  would  ask
all  those  who attend, or are involved with, a Christian  church
would  sit  down.  To those who are left standing,  just  imagine
what  this lodge would be like if all those who are sitting  were
no  longer  here.   THAT  is the effect of any  friction  between
Christianity and Freemasonry.

But I digress.  There are two more groups that I will be speaking
to  this evening.  The first is maybe the larger of the two,  and
includes  most of those that just sat down.  This  group  may  be
aware  of  some anti-Masonic feeling in the church, but have  not
been  greatly touched by it themselves. The final group,  though,
is the one that I truly want to speak to.  It may be small ... it
may  not!  It is the group of masons that includes those who have
felt  pressure from their church, or members of their church,  to
leave  Freemasonry.   It includes those who  perhaps  are  asking
questions to themselves, wondering if any of those attacks on the
lodge is right.

How bad can the problems be?

In  1986  (I believe), the Methodist Church in England said  that
one  could not be a Mason and a Christian.  The Church of England
debated  a similar resolution the following year.  The Church  of
Scotland  had a similar debate, and sent the question  off  to  a
committee (who, I understand, have yet to report).  In 1987,  the
Presbyterian  Record, which is the national church  magazine  for
The  Presbyterian Church in Canada, had a series of letters  over
several  months that questioned whether one could be a Mason  and
an  Elder in the church at the same time.  I gather that the same
debate has been held in other church magazines in Canada and  the
United States.

In 1987, I was asked to speak on the relationship of Christianity
and  Freemasonry at the Grand Masonic Day in Vancouver.  After  I
had  talked  for a few minutes, I opened the time for  questions.
The  results confounded me.  Masons got up to tell me that  their
minister  had told them to stop being a Mason, or stop coming  to
that church.  Others who we re elders, or deacons, or wardens  in
their  churches talked about how they had to hide their  ties  to
Masonry around the church.  One young Mason even told me how  his
minister had commanded him to leave the Craft, or risk damnation.

Over the next year, letters continued to come to me telling me of
the problems being faced by Masons, including one from the Master
of  the Lodge of the young Mason I had talked to, telling me that
the young man had left Masonry.

So  having  hopefully convinced you that there is  a  problem  of
Christian   Masons  being  confronted  with  a  fair  amount   of
anti-Masonic  feeling out there, let me look at why this  feeling
exists.  I would like to suggest that much of that feeling  comes
from  the world-view of the Christian Church, and whether  it  is
"inclusive"  or  "exclusive".  To that are three basic  areas  of
irritation.

"Inclusive" vs. "Exclusive"

To  begin, let me quote from a summary of a report given  to  the
General  Synod  of  the Church of England  (as  reported  in  the
Masonic Bulletin of the Grand Lodge of British  Columbia):

The  report concludes that part of the Royal Arch ritual must  be
considered  blasphemous.  [N.B.:  A   MISINTERPRETATION  of   the
ritual].   It  criticizes Freemasonry in general as  syncretistic
[i.e.  attempting  to  unify or reconcile  different  religions];
Gnostic [having its own spiritual knowledge]; Palagian [providing
salvation through works]; Deist [promoting natural religion, or a
religion without divine authority] and indifferent to the  claims
of  Christianity.  It  insists that  Masonic  ceremonies  involve
worship,  and  complains  that  Christian  references  have  been
removed from familiar prayers.

In  response  to this report, the United Grand Lodge  of  England
said:

Many  such charges have been made against Freemasonry before  and
can  be answered simply.  Freemasonry has no theology.  It offers
no sacraments and it cannot provide a way to salvation.  It began
in the hands of devout Christians and was adapted by them, not to
deny  Christianity,  but  to  make Freemasonry  as  a  system  of
morality  acceptable  to  men  of   other  religions  "who   must
otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance." Freemasonry  is
not  a  religion  and does not attempt to combine  religions.  It
would  cheerfully  admit to being indifferent to  the  claims  of
Christianity --in the sense of being impartial.  Its prayers  are
but a small part of the ceremonies and are in no sense formal  or
liturgical worship. (Masonic Bulletin, October 1987, page 14)

Although  they seem to be addressing the same topic,  in  reality
the  two bodies were not even in the same ballpark.  To read  the
two  statements  together makes me wonder if  they  were  talking
about  the  same  thing, and indeed they  were  not.   They  were
talking  past each other, with each body having their  own  world
view blinding them to the position of the other.

To try to explain this problem, I need you to follow me through a
bit  of  a Gordon Haynes' abridged history of the world, back  to
the  middle and late 1700's.  Europe had seen a lot of  religious
war.  The church was facing a lot of change in a short period  of
time.  Many of the brightest of the thinkers of the time had been
affected by the Enlighten ment. These conditions caused so-called
"free-thinkers"  to  seek to apply reason to everything  --  even
their spiritual life.  The response, in broad terms, was "Deism".

The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology says of Deism:

"Etymologically this word (from the Latin "deus") is parallel  to
"theism"  (from  the  Greek "theos"), and would  seem  simply  to
indicated belief in the existence of a god or gods. ...  Although
in   the  seventeenth  century  the  words  were  sometimes  used
interchangeably  as the contrary to "atheist", in  practice  they
have come to have separate connotations .  "Deism" is now used to
refer  to  belief  in  the existence of a supreme  being  who  is
regarded  as the ultimate source of reality and ground  of  value
but as not intervening in natural and historical processes by way
of   particular  providences,  revelations  and  salvific   acts.
[Theism,  meantime,  is a belief in the existence  of  a  supreme
being  who  is  regarded as the ultimate source  of  reality  and
ground  of value and intimately and ultimately involved in  God's
creation and with his people, by way of miraculous events and his
incarnation] ... The deists may be said to be those at this  time
[the  late 17th, and 18th Centuries] who apply the principles  of
the  Enlightenment,  and  especially  the  canon  of  reason   to
religious belief in a critical way in order to establish what  it
is  and  what it is not reasonable to believe about  God.   As  a
consequence  they  tend  to stress the  importance  of  following
reason,  the  sufficiency of natural religion and  the  need  for
toleration.   Negatively they are likely to express doubts  about
belief  in mysteries such as the Incarnation and the Trinity,  in
the   reality   of   immortality,  revelations   and   miraculous
interventions,  and  in the authority of the  Bible  and  of  the
priesthood."  (The Westminster Dictionary of Christian  Theology,
page 149)

Deist  thinkers  were  everywhere, from the Universities  to  the
pulpits  of the church.  And so, as Freemasonry sought leadership
on  putting  together its ritual and mythology, it  turned  to  a
leadership  both  within  the  church,  and  without,  that   was
predominantly  Deist.  The qualities brought by  this  leadership
were a search for common ground among people who differed in what
they   believed  (a  consequence  of  many  years  of   sectarian
violence),  a  belief in rational thought (a consequence  of  the
Enlightenment) and a strong attachment to ethical development. At
the same time, the search for a mythology turned to the mysticism
of  pre-Enlightenment  time.  The result  was  a  combination  of
rituals  influenced  by the symbols of medieval  and  renaissance
occultism, and content of a deistic and ethical character.

Freemasonry  was  not  alone in its acceptance  of  some  of  the
beliefs of Deism.  Over the years, the Church itself made use  of
some  of  the  gifts  of  deism, while  not  accepting  its  full
implication.  After all, Deism:
...  established  an  ideal of liberty and  toleration  that  all
right-thinking men might endorse.  It promoted an improvement  in
public morals, and as a corollary of its rejection of revelation,
it  emphasized  the value of scholarship as an  aid  to  a  purer
religion.   The monumental Biblical studies of the  19th  Century
followed  as a direct consequence.

The deist's attempts to reconcile religion  with science, as well
as with many other intellectual currents, set a precedent for all
subsequent   reconstructions   in  religion.   (The   Westminster
Dictionary of Church History, page 262)

In  the  same way, the church also accepted Freemasonry with  its
emphasis  on  ethical conduct.  It often cooperated closely  with
it, and many church leaders were also influential Masons.

This  is  what  I  referred to earlier as the "Inclusive"   world
view.   The  church, influenced by Liberal theology, appalled  by
the  social  condition,  and seeing  itself  led  by  "The  Great
Commission" of Christ, started many organizations that sought  to
improve  "mankind"  by education and reason. These  organizations
were  open to all, and intended to do the church's work away from
the church.  The YMCA, the SPCA, the Bible Societies, and the Red
Cross  are  but  a  few of these organizations.   They  were  not
intended  to  be the church, but they were  supported  as  fellow
travelers.

I  believe that this was the view of the mainline church for many
years regarding freemasonry.  I remember preaching in a church in
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario a few years ago that  had  the  same
type  of tassel in each corner of the sanctuary as we have  here.
I  also  remember  being told that being  a  Mason  was  a  great
advantage  for becoming the Minster of a particular  Presbyterian
Church  in  Niagara   Falls.   The tie  between  the  church  and
Freemasonry  was  secure as the Church took the words  of  Christ
seriously, "Whoever is not against me is for me."

In  recent  years, however, the church has felt under  attack  in
ways  that  it  has not felt since the time of the Enlightenment.
Certain  elements  of the church have found the  answer  to  this
attack to be a return to a non-questioning Theism, and a type  of
"circle  the  wagons"  mentality.  Christ's  other  statement  is
remembered:  "Whoever is not for us is against us," and so fences
are  set  up around the church, defining who is a Christian,  and
more  importantly, who is not.  This is an "Exclusive"  attitude,
and  is a direct result of an unease in a changing world.  Things
that,  in  the  past, would have been accepted  as  part  of  the
diversity  of  the  faith  are now seen as  being  "anathema"  or
"cursed".

The  battleground chosen by this "exclusive" position had  to  do
with three issues:

1.  The uniqueness of the Christian Message.

2.   The  question of Salvation, and whether we, as humans,  have
any part in that.

3.  Symbolism.

However, the real underlying current that feeds these tensions is
how  the Church sees itself.  As the church responds to the needs
of  God's world in an inclusive way, it will welcome the  ethical
and  rational  grounding of Freemasonry;  as it  responds  in  an
exclusive  way,  it  will concentrate on what  is  decidedly  not
Christian, and renounce Freemasonry.

The Uniqueness of the Christian Message:

It is in this context of whether the Christian Church seeks to be
tolerant or not of conflicting faiths, that this question of  the
uniqueness  of the Christian messages is raised.   After  all,  I
believe strongly in its uniqueness, but that does not mean that I
do  not  respect  other faiths, or mean that I want  to  have  no
contact  with  other faiths. To one Christian, the  inclusion  of
other faiths is a sign of strength and tolerance in Masonry;   to
another,  it is a threat to the Christian faith.  The  uniqueness
of  Christ is not the question; it is the mindset, or world view,
of the observer.

Salvation

One  of  the  major  complaints against Freemasonry  is  that  it
teaches that Man can earn salvation through good works.  This  is
tied  to the ethical aspect of our craft, and again seems  mostly
to be a cry that Christ is not given a part in our salvation plan
as  outlined by Masons.  Of course, this idea that mankind can do
anything -- even earn its own salvation -- is a central  part  of
New Age theology, which excite Christian critics even more.

Now,  an important part of Reformed theology is that we are saved
by  faith, not by works.  But Calvin, whom nobody could claim was
a "New Age kind of guy," said that we were "Justified" by Christ,
and  that  then we were engaged in "Sanctification" for  all  the
rest of our lives.  This was our working out of our salvation  in
the  world,  and meant seeking to be "righteous" -- or,  in  more
modern  terms, ethical or moral.  As a Christian and a  Mason,  I
have  never had any doubts on where my Salvation comes  from  (It
comes  from Christ), but I have seen the emphasis on the  ethical
in  Masonry  as an aid in my Sanctification.  And so,  again  the
question becomes one of whether you see the ethical progressi  on
in  Masonry as man's "self-Justification" or as a part  of  God's
plan  of  Sanctification.  And this, brethren, again starts  with
your world view.

Symbolism:

Critics of Freemasonry often point to the many symbolic parts  of
our Craft as an indication that it is really another faith on its
own.   It points to our having Temples and Alters, of the  symbol
for  God  in the center of our lodge rooms, of the use of prayers
and  ritual,  of the use of the Sun and Moon in our  decorations.
Before  we  reply to these criticisms, we must be  aware  of  the
power of these things we use.

One definition of Signs and Symbols is as follows:

Signs are  physical objects, events, or human actions which point
beyond  themselves  in  such a way as  to  express  some  further
reality, occurrence, or human conception.  They may be linguistic
or  non-verbal;   they  may include natural  phenomena  or  human
artifacts,  activities,  gestures, or  bodily  postures.   Verbal
signs may include speech or writing.... Symbols are often said to
function at a deeper level than signs ... some claim that symbols
draw not simply on interpretive conventions, as signs do, but  on
pre-conscious processes and experiences.  At the very least,  the
symbol  is  more  closely  and deeply  associated  with  what  it
symbolizes, often resting on historical or collective experiences
which pre-date conscious
recollection.

There  is  too little time tonight to go through all the problems
with  signs  and  symbols.   I think that  we,  as  Masons,  must
recognize  that  many  of  the  terms  that  we  use  have  great
significance  to the Christian Church, and much  of  their  power
goes  beyond the mere words or actions that are present.  It  may
be  that we have been at times a bit too cavalier in the  way  we
have  used  symbol  and  allegory, but I  have  never  found  the
symbolism  to be any more misused than at a meeting  of  Gideons.
However, to some our use of symbolism is such that they see us as
a totally separate faith,
divorced from its Christian roots.

Conclusion:

Where  does this leave each Christian who is a mason?   Well,  in
reality  it  means that the final decision has to be  a  personal
one.   The young mason I mentioned at the beginning wrote a paper
to explain why he left.  I disagreed with his reasons, but I note
that  I wrote at the top of the paper when I received it, "It  is
an  act of personal perception  -- it cannot be changed by facts.
I  must  respect his personal choice." In truth, I must  conclude
with the same words I used in that paper I gave 6 years ago:

Any  examination of this relationship should raise  questions  in
the  mind  of  the man who is both a Christian and a  Mason.   It
should require that he examine the ritual of the Lodge to see  if
any  part is indeed in conflict with his faith.  It should  raise
questions  about how we use words, and whether we  can  sometimes
offend  a  believer because of the way we use a particular  term.
And  it  should  raise  questions in  both  Freemasonry  and  the
Christian  Church about how different faiths can  relate  to  one
another ... I believe that there is no complete answer about  the
relationship   between   Christianity   and   Freemasonry.    The
relationship  is  dynamic.  Each time I  enter  the  Lodge  as  a
Christian,  I  re-examine that relationship, and  the   questions
that  come  with it, and I re-evaluate if anything   I  do  there
interferes  with  my  faith.  I suppose if I  ever  came  to  the
conclusion  that  there  was no healthy relationship  between  my
faith and the Lodge, I would have to leave.  But I am still here,
because  I believe the inclusive tolerance that was brought  into
Freemasonry in the beginning, and continues today, is right,  and
the  relationship of Christianity with Freemasonry is strong  and
vital.

Six  years  ago,  I said, " ... if I ever came to the  conclusion
that  there was no healthy relationship between my faith and  the
Lord,  I would have to leave. But I am still here ..."  Six  more
years  have passed.  Six more years of living as both a Christian
and  a  mason.  Six more years, and I am still here. There  is  a
tension  between  being a Christ ian and being  a  Mason,  but  I
believe that it is a creative tension that strengthens both.
