A Brother Asks: Sacrilegious Brothers

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.

F&S,

Bro. John S Nagy