October, 1927 THE BUILDER

FREEMASONRY AND RELIGION

A CORRESPONDENT has posed a question that is definitely in line
with the series of articles that are being published in THE BUILDER
on the implications of the requirement of a belief in God, but
which has not been covered by the preceding discussion. It is a
very penetrating question and certainly needs consideration. Of
course all Masons would say offhand that the answer was in the
affirmative; it is on the ground that the affirmative answer is
correct that thousands of men have become Masons; but curiously it
seems doubtful if many could give a reasoned account of why they so
believe.

The question is this: Can an intelligent person consistently hold
to the philosophy or religion of Masonry (so far as it can be said
to have either) and at the same time accept literally the doctrines
of Christianity ?

A slight change has been made in the wording of the question, as in
the letter it refers specifically to an accompanying pamphlet which
briefly sets forth the essential articles of faith in the Lutheran
Church, but it manifestly applies to all orthodox Christianity. As
is fairly well known this church, or a part of it at least, is
uncompromisingly hostile to Freemasonry, and will not admit to full
communion any Mason who does not renounce his connection with the
Craft, and this chiefly on the grounds that the above question must
be answered in the negative.

In the letter it is stated that the writer has found among Masons
a great variety of opinion, and much ignorance. While it is
asserted that Freemasonry is a world-wide, universal institution
accepting men of all races and nationalities and of all religions,
there is uncertainty whether it is, as an institution, committed to
any religious system. Some holding that it is essentially Christian
and others asserting that it is anti-Christian "in the sense that
it rejects some of the most fundamental doctrines of the Bible."

Of course there is a stock answer to this, that Freemasonry is not
in any sense a religion, and acknowledges every faith and creed.
And to many it will seem that this is the last word and that there
is nothing more to be said. Nevertheless there are logical
difficulties in the way of fully defining the position which are
not always fully realized. All Masonic authorities in English
speaking countries insist, first that Freemasonry is not a
religion, and secondly that every Mason must profess the
fundamental and essential tenet without which religion can hardly
exist, that is, a belief in God.

In spite of the unhesitating acceptance by the great majority of
Masons of these two postulates it is doubtful if most of them have
realized the debatable character of the conclusions that follow
from them. In order to accept the above statement it is necessary
to assume that though belief in God is an essential to religion it
cannot constitute a religion by itself, and also that there is some
underlying conception of God that is common ground to all
religions.

It is not necessarily to be understood from this that there is no
answer to these difficulties, but only that the problem is seldom
realized, and more seldom discussed. We have an institution to
which are admitted on equal terms men of the two great unitarian
creeds, Islam and Judaism, with the Unitarians, who as a body
historically seceded chiefly from the Congregational Church; and
besides we have those who adhere to all the denominations of
orthodox Christianity, ranging from the Holy Orthodox or Eastern
Church itself to the minor Protestant bodies of the West, and also
members of various other sects that are unorthodox and others that
would be classed as pantheistic. Now it is a theological question
of great complexity to reach any definition that would be true of
all these religions that at the same time would be anything more
than the barest abstraction, the mere empty form of a Deity; it is
even open to doubt whether more than such an empty form could
possibly fit the case. There is, however, a side path which may be
taken, and which is perhaps the proper answer, and that is that
every Mason is to think that his conception, his belief is the true
one, and that he accepts the beliefs of others who differ from him,
as evidence of good will on their part and a sincere desire to come
at the truth (as he sees it) but which they are prevented from
fully seeing by reason of inherited prejudices and erroneous
teaching. This is the tolerant attitude, and tolerance is certainly
a Masonic virtue, even though nowhere mentioned by name, but though
unnamed it is implied everywhere all through the Masonic system,
ritual, symbolic and constitutional.

Supposing then that this is the answer to the second part of the
problem, and that we need not bother with the complicated
theological questions that seemed to be involved, what is to be
said to the first of two suppositions, that belief in God is not in
and by itself a religion? To begin with comes the question what is
to be understood as a religion. In the sense of a church it is not,
of course, but in the sense of a creed it seems difficult to answer
with a sweeping negative. If belief in God is more than mere assent
to a verbal formula without meaning, and certainly more than that
is generally understood, it is practically impossible to believe in
God without believing something about Him. To give content to the
word we must conceive Him, for example, as eternal, omnipotent,
omniscient, or the reverse; as personal, super-personal or
impersonal; as beneficient or indifferent, and so on. And by the
time we have selected the attributes which we believe to inhere in
the Deity, we have a full fledged creed, to which it will be very
difficult to deny the name of a religion in that sense, and which
certainly is some justification for the contention of the churches
who denounce the Masonic Institution as a secret theistic religion.

But here again perhaps the same by-path will permit us to avoid the
impasse. Freemasonry is not a religion because every man who enters
it brings his own religion, and keeps it, taking nothing from
Masonry but its tolerance--to which of course he must have been
disposed or he would never have come.

But we are not fully clear of the difficulties yet for this brings
us face to face with another question. What are the limits within
which the individual Mason's beliefs must lie? The series of
articles that have been appearing in THE BUILDER have so far not
thrown very much light on this point. Most of them have done little
more than exhibit, what was obvious to begin with, that very
different conceptions of God were held by members of the Craft.
Practically everyone willing to accept the local formula, and
profess belief in God, with or without some qualification or
attribute, is accepted without further question--so far as this
point goes at least. This is an eminently practical method, and is
justified by its results we may say, but it is something of a
disgrace to the supposedly intellectual character of Freemasonry
that the philosophical and metaphysical aspects of the requirement
have been so little studied. There have been floods of oratory and
reams of rhetoric, going about and about the question, and glossing
over all the difficulties, but very little serious thought.
Apparently the position may be summed up thus, tentatively at
least: that we require that everyone who desires to join us should
have some religion, but that it has never been agreed exactly where
the line should be drawn; that while in the great majority of
actual cases we are all in practical agreement, there are different
opinions as to the exact limits that should be set.

But it is precisely this understanding of the situation which is
the reason that certain churches forbid their members to become
Masons. Other reasons may be added based on misunderstanding and
misinformation, but this is really the essential point. Freemasonry
has a religious character because it demands a religious test, and
therefore it is not a truly neutral organization like a
professional society, say, or a social club. On this ground it
would seem that any organized religion with an intolerant creed is
justified on its own premises, or at least is consistent, in
condemning it. In the little pamphlet above referred to we find for
example a statement that "to ignore or deny one [of the Persons of
the Trinity] is to disavow all." And another to the effect "that
the Bible in all its words is the Word of God" and "that it is the
only divine truth known on earth." Further, "all unbelievers will
be sent into eternal condemnation," and what is to be understood by
unbelievers becomes clear in the statement that "at the Last Day
all those human beings who die without faith in Christ will be
consigned to the same hell of eternal torment and doom," to which
the fallen angels are already condemned.

This is of course intolerance pure and simple, and men who so
believe are right to eschew Masonry. But essentially Islam is
equally intolerant, and though our liberally minded Jewish brethren
may dissent it seems true that Judaism is in some places (and it
must be confessed very naturally) as intolerant of Christianity as
some Christians are of Judaism. In a sense it is so natural as to
be almost inevitable, that an ethical religion should be
intolerant. Polytheism is broad and inclusive, a new god is simply
added to the pantheon; India has thousands of gods and goddesses.
But the higher and purer a religion becomes, the more it holds its
followers morally and spiritually and the more certain they become
that they are right; and the corollary of that certainty is that
others are wrong. There is a higher level still, we believe, but
not easy to attain, and that is that our rightness does not exclude
the rightness of others even though we cannot see how logically
conflicting beliefs can be reconciled in the same system of truth.
This tolerance is a positive thing, it is hard to attain. It is
hard, for instance, to believe that Christ is God, and that
Salvation comes only through Him, and yet admit that the Unitarian
or the Mohammedan also believes in and worships the same God, and
that God will receive them according as they followed the light
given them. There is a much easier form of tolerance which is
really incipient un-belief and indifference. The former, truer
tolerance would hardly be condemned; men possessing it may be found
in every church and every creed--not many, but here and there one
or two. The other tolerance is what our religious opponents see in
Freemasonry and condemn. And are they altogether wrong? Is such
tolerance really an asset ? Practically it may be to some extent,
but it comes back to what is perhaps the real point of the question
with which we started, can an intelligent person who believes in a
definite positive creed hold to the religion and philosophy of
Masonry? It is possible that it is this implication that leads many
brethren who are sincere and earnest Christians to interpret
Masonry in a Christian sense. This is their undoubted right so long
as they do not seek also to force it on their brethren as the only
interpretation. But on the other hand it certainly seems that those
whose beliefs are as exclusive as those quoted above are right, and
fully justified, in remaining outside, and possibly even in
condemning the Fraternity.

