A Brother Asks: Coach,
what do we make of the sacrilegious brothers who reject the fact that
Freemasonry has always been intertwined with Christianity and that many brothers
believe that the symbolic lodge is supposed to have tolerance for their
religious beliefs when in fact they are to have tolerance for hers-
Christianity?
Coach: We should
make nothing of it. Yours is not a view
that is commonly held by many members and stating it as fact doesn’t help to bring
harmony among Brothers and Fellows. Opinions
shared such as yours will likely cause more division than unity. It is not conducive to the fellowship many seek.
Brother: It's no
secret that Freemasonry has been mostly tied to countries in which Christianity
is the religion of the land and that the charges hold that we are to be members
of the religion of our country, …
Coach: Those
charges were Stonecraft charges. They were not universally in force when Grand Lodge Freemasonry
was first established circa 1717 CE (see: Bro. Anderson's disclaimer about "ancient times").
They were based upon prior era Stonecraft documents, not upon Freemasonry
documents created during and after the start of the Grand Lodge era. Brother Anderson referred to these charges in
his Constitutions. However, he did so only to pave the way for a non-religious fellowship, one
that was more suited to the ends of the organization and not to the ends of specific religious
members. It is one of many reasons why
religion is not to be discussed within open lodge. It is not what the fellowship is about and for good reasons... the USA, and many other countries for that matter, is not a Christian country.
Brother: …but
what do you make of the fact that modern Masons have destroyed the significance
of the Holy Bible as the Volume of Sacred Law in order to fit their logic of "universality?"
Coach: You are
stating your opinion as fact and doing so in a clearly divisive manner. Modern
members of the Freemasonic fraternity accept other members based upon their
belief in a Supreme Being and not how they choose to view that Supreme Being. The sacred text of each member is only
significant to that member; as it should be. None of this destroys anything
other than the ability of zealots to push their own personal religious agendas upon other members.
Brother: If I live in Idaho and Christianity is NOT my
religion but the Holy Bible is the VSL in my lodge in Idaho, what does that say
about me if the Bible is not binding on my conscious?
Coach: Using your
proposed “ifs”, I give you the following… The book you took your obligation upon
should be the book that best exemplifies what is etched in your heart. The book that is upon the Altar should be
that book when used for that purpose. Unfortunately,
the Volume of Sacred Law upon the Altar does indeed vary from one jurisdiction to another. Should the book upon the altar not be your Volume of Sacred Law when your
obligation is taken, then the default defense for taking your obligation upon a
different book is that the book symbolically represents, as a suitable
substitute due to the jurisdiction’s conditions, the book that is etched within
your heart. We could painstakingly quibble
the nuances of this ad nauseam; however nothing shared will change the validity and
utility of what was just shared. It's the reality and it is this way for good reasons as well.
Brother: In my opinion, it
means that my obligation is not binding and thus void.
Coach: I’m glad
that you are sharing this as your opinion. It is a typical one brought about by an either-or, all-or-nothing, black-or-white mental process. Freemasonry invites men to think outside this narrow box. That being said,
ritual is a “symbolic” lodge experience. The Volume of Sacred Law is a symbolic prop that you place your hand
upon during the Obligation. In turn, when you want authenticity, it
should be symbolic for what is etched within your heart. When you can get to use the real thing to take your
obligation upon, it only adds to the authenticity of your experience! However, when you can’t have in place the actual artifact you
would like to have, you must find or accept a suitable substitute that'll serve this purpose instead. It doesn’t invalidate anything, unless you
truly want it as an excuse to invalidate something. That will always be your choice; however, invalidation is not required and it is certainly not desired by the majority.
Brother: If I
subscribe to no religion, as many brothers today, then ultimately there is no
book for me to take my oath upon.
Coach: Within the context of your "if", you can
take a lot of things to an extreme in analyzing Obligation scenarios. However, your all-or-nothing conclusion is not supported by any strong realistic arguments. The entirety of ritual is allegorical and when taken
literally, and not symbolically, tends to ruin the experience and its
intent. A non-religious spiritual person already
understands the Volume of Sacred Law to be symbolic for what is already etched within the heart of
the man taking the obligation. Books in these scenarios are only outward representations of what is already written within.
Brother: If every
lodge in America uses the Bible as their primary Volume of Sacred Law, what does that say about
modern American Freemasonry and its members?
Coach: Once again, within the context of your "if", it says that
the symbolic lodge experience is still vibrantly valid, that it is not taken literally by the
majority of its members and that zealots have not yet ruined this experience for the
majority. I think that says a lot about
the special nature of our institution, its resilience and the men who belong
to and run it.
Brother: My
cognition is that we're doing it wrong and allowing some to join who really
don't belong and it is these sacrilegious brothers who have tarnished the
proper order and interpretation of the symbolic lodge, just as in the higher
degrees of the AASR where Jesus Christ was revered as the Grand Master of
Masons before these sacrilegious men infiltrated Freemasonry and removed all
connotations and references to Christ.
Coach: It appears you are quite zealous in your
stance and equally zealous in your views.
You have the right to state your opinion in this matter. However, I believe you’ll not find much
support for your staunch opinions and views by the majority of men who do not and will
not buy into either of them, and for good reasons too. The premises, arguments and conclusion you have put forth are not based upon reality. They are based upon conjecture, false conclusions and wishful thinking and not many care to hang their hats upon things that will not hold them in a secure way. You might do well to keep your passions within due bounds on this for they are bound to cause undue friction when shared with those whom you disagree.
Bro. John S Nagy
No comments:
Post a Comment