A Brother Asks: Coach, I've had a few members of my congregation claim Freemasons take oaths and therefore are in violation of what is written within holy scripture. Are they right?
Coach: To what exactly are
they referring?
Brother: To Matthew 5:34.
Coach: What does it say?
Brother: The exact scripture is, “But
I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:”.
Coach: Ah! Okay... I’ve heard that one before.
Brother: Good. I’m told this says what Freemasons do is
against scripture.
Coach: Does it?
Brother: It’s pretty
straightforward Coach.
Coach: Is it?
Brother: Okay, you’re hinting at something
and I’m not getting it.
Coach: I’m glad you are catching
on.
Brother: It took me a
moment. What am I not seeing?
Coach: What is being quoted to you is
out of context and it is done so purposefully to deceive you.
Brother: How so?
Coach: The clause, “But I say to you…”, is a direct indication that what is to follow is making comment on what was preceding it.
Brother: The previous statement?
Coach: Yes. Look it up please.
Brother: Okay. The previous statement is, “Again, you have
heard that it has been said by them of old time, You shall not perjure
yourself, but shall perform unto the Lord your oaths:[1]”?
Coach: Exactly! What you just quoted refers to not giving false witness, as in, not lying under
oath. It also refers to being true to
your word.
Brother: So, the proscription
against swearing oaths is trying to emphasize that it is enough to give your
word and simply live up to it.
Coach: Yes. It was to convey that there should be no double standard between giving your word with or without an oath, which was a big issue back then, as it is in some circles to this day. But there's a lot more to it.
Brother: How’s that?
Coach: If you look at what
follows that proscription, you come to understand that the context is important to
understanding what is actually being proscribed.
Brother: The scripture says, “But
I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor
by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city
of the great King. Neither shall you swear by your head, because you can not
make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay,
nay: for whatsoever is more than these comes from evil.[2]”
Coach: Yes. Now look at the context to which you should
not swear.
Brother: hmmm... context... let me review it... okay, got it! It says to not swear neither by heaven, by
earth, by your nation, nor by your head.
Coach: Exactly!
Brother: Wait. Everything mentioned therein is something other than
God!
Coach: Good catch Bro.!
Brother: Wow!
Coach: Why “Wow!”?
Brother: None of those things has
any power over you other than what you give it.
Coach: Indeed. And the proscription is not about not
swearing. It’s about not swearing by
anything other than God.
Brother: I can see where this
scripture can be used out of context to manipulate people who don’t know how to
understand it within context.
Coach: Yes! There’s more to it than
meets the eye.
Brother: I’ll say.
Coach: Yes, and there’s more to
it than many usually understand.
Brother: Okay, you’re baiting me.
Coach: Yes. I am.
Brother: I’ll bite. What are you hinting at?
Coach: It’s clear that this scripture is not
a proscription against any swearing or oath taking.
Brother: Okay. Let me have it Coach.
Coach: Refer to this scripture, “And
the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it
which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest
answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us
whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast
said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. [3]”
Brother: Okay. Would you say this in modern English?
Coach: Let me use a different
translation, “So the high priest stood up and asked Him, “Have you no answer?
What are these men testifying against you?” But Jesus remained silent. Then the
high priest said to Him, “I charge You under oath by the living God: Tell us if
You are the Christ, the Son of God.” “You
have said it yourself,” Jesus answered. “But I say to all of you, from now on
you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and
coming on the clouds of heaven.[3]”…
Brother: Wait?! Does that mean the question was answered
under oath?
Coach: Yes. And that also means by default that under specific
circumstances oaths are acceptable and answering under them is equally acceptable.
Brother: Then why are some
people saying oaths and swearing is not okay under any circumstance?
Coach: It's all a red herring argument. It is a logical fallacy.
Brother: Red herring?
Coach: Yes. It is intended to mislead you from the
truth by throwing you off its trail.
Brother: What’s the truth?
Coach: They use the words
"swear" and “oath” out of context to leverage an argument that has no basis.
Brother: What’s their end-in-mind?
Coach: They are trying to
persuade you not to be okay with taking upon yourself a legitimate obligation and they are using a
logical fallacy to do so.
Brother: How deceitful!
Coach: Agreed!
Brother: What more can you tell
me about this?
Coach: Think about it. Although the words "swear" and
"promise" are used within the Freemasonic obligations in many of their rituals
and is often times referred to as an "oath", the irony to all this is
when you dissect the entire obligatory passage from one end to the other, you'll not
get one word of swearing to anyone or anything at all.
Brother: WOW! You’re right!
The obligation is not to anyone or anything, other than one's self!
Coach: Indeed! And all that it says is that the person
promising and swearing recognizes he is doing so in the presence of his
Brothers and God.
Brother: Okay. I can see it.
I reviewed the obligation in its entirety and see that anyone who takes
it is merely making a long interlaced promise to one's self with witnesses,
expressing what he is willing to have occur (by his own hand) if he fails and
capping it off with a request for God to assist him in assuring his promise is
upheld.
Coach: Yes. That "so help me God" tag line on the end means just that! “God
help me in what I have promised to undertake".
Brother: It is quite masterful in its rendering.
Coach: Yes. The way it is
constructed avoids the very things that those who are making effort to persuade
you otherwise are putting forth as leverage.
Brother: How’s that?
Coach: The obligation is to one’s
self. The promises are witnessed. The
penalties are to one’s self and self- inflicted. It is asking for God’s help in keeping one’s
promises.
Brother: Pretty straightforward.
Coach: Yes.
Brother: But what's this about asking God for help?
Coach: That's the "...so help me God..." clause.
Brother: Doesn't that mean "I really mean what I say"?
Coach: Sure. But it's also an imprecation.
Brother: Hey! That's a word used in Ritual.
Coach: It sure is in a lot of jurisdictions.
Brother: But isn't an imprecation a curse?
Coach: It is.
Brother: But that's not a good thing.
Coach: Only sometimes.
Brother: Sometimes?
Coach: Yes. A curse in its neutral form literally means "to be bound by words". Of course, you're going to have to go down the rabbit hole quite a way to get to know this.
Brother: Wow! Okay... this is making more sense.
Coach: How so?
Brother: By saying, "so help me God", your binding yourself to your words and you're asking God to help you in making sure that you are bound.
Coach: Yes. It's an abbreviated form of saying, "So may God help me at the judgment day if I speak true, but if I speak false, then may He withdraw His help from me.[4]"
Brother: This is getting deep. But that's good. I'm enjoying all this.
Coach: Yes, it can be fun and the discoveries are eye opening.
Brother: Indeed. So, is there actually a proscription against taking any oath?
Coach: Not really. If there were a proscription
against such things, the One proscribing such things would not have answered
under oath[5].
Brother: That makes sense.
Coach: And having God as a
witness is totally permissible in communicating your being truthful in what you
say.
Brother: Okay, you're throwing another one at me. Please share the evidence?
Coach: The apostles Paul is
reported to have written the following… “Now the things which I write unto you,
behold, before God, I lie not.[6]" and "Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.[7]" This is a pretty straightforward calling God as his witness.
Brother: WOW! Another example of how Freemasonic Obligation
toes the line scripturally, neat!
Coach: I thought you’d like that.
Brother: I do. But what are the essential differences between vows, oaths and promises?
Coach: Great question! What do you know?
Brother: Are you putting it back on me?
Coach: Yes. I am!
Brother: An oath is a solemn promise.
Coach: Anything to add to this?
Brother: Yes. It is often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior.
Coach: And?
Brother: It is a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior.
Coach: Can it also be, "a profane or offensive expression used to express anger or other strong emotions"?
Brother: Yes. It can. But that does not apply to what we are doing as Freemasons.
Coach: Agreed. What about a vow?
Brother: It's also a solemn promise. Although it could be a set of solemn promises committing or dedicating one to a prescribed role, calling, or course of action, typically to marriage or a monastic career.
Coach: Yes. Does this sound familiar?
Brother: Yes. It sounds like what we do by taking our obligations.
Coach: I agree. So are we taking an oath or are we taking a vow?
Brother: It sounds like both.
Coach: It does. Is it within the constraints of Scripture?
Brother: It certainly is.
Coach: What is their common basis?
Brother: They both involve solemn promises.
Coach: And?
Brother: You're going to expect me to go there as well, aren't you?
Coach: But of course!
Brother: Okay, a promise is a declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that a particular thing will happen.
Coach: Does this sound like a guarantee?
Brother: It sure does.
Coach: What makes it solemn?
Brother: It's solemn when it is formal, serious, dignified and that it is characterized by deep sincerity.
Coach: You mean it comes from the heart?
Brother: Yes. That too!
Coach: How does the word "covenant" play into this?
Brother: Covenant?
Coach: Yes, covenant!
Brother: Isn't that an agreement?
Coach: Yes. But it is not just an agreement when God is involved.
Brother: Yes. I'd have to agree. When God is involved, it's an agreement that brings about a relationship of commitment between God and God's people.
Coach: And in this case, the person calling God in as a witness?
Brother: It's more than that Coach.
Coach: Okay. Tell me, please.
Brother: This entire obligation is ended with asking for God's help.
Coach: Does that plea then include an agreement?
Brother: Yes!
Coach: What is this agreement?
Brother: From what I can ascertain, the person making all these promises is doing so as an agreement with God expecting God will help the person making these promises in carrying them out.
Coach: So, can we include in the long list that this obligation is also a covenant with God?
Brother: Wow! Yes. It is a solemn promise, witnessed by God and in exchange for making that promise, God's assistance to carry it out.
Coach: Are you enjoying this exchange?
Brother: Indeed I am.
Coach: What have you learned?
Brother: That anyone claiming the Freemasonic obligations violate what is proscribed by Matthew 5:34 is either ignorant of their scripture or is a sophist trying to mislead you.
Coach: That's my assessment as well. Anything else?
Brother: I know a bit more about the differences between vows, oaths and covenants.
Coach: Awesome! Anything more?
Brother: I can quickly identify this proscription as a red herring argument when used out of context and can effectively deal with it back up by scripture.
Coach: But only when the other side is rational, open and available to examining their preconceived notions, premises and conclusions.
Brother: But of course! Otherwise I'd be better off just ignoring them.
Coach: Indeed. You'd be throwing pearls to swine.
Brother: Yes. Thanks Coach!
Coach: You're most welcome. Thank you!
Brother: You're thanking me?
Coach: Of course I am.
Brother: But why?
Coach: Had you not asked the question, others might not have benefited from the work you and I did here today.
Brother: I had not thought of this beyond my own situation.
Coach: Now that you are?
Brother: I see such conversations can benefit others who are faced with the same situations.
Coach: Yes. And it will be of benefit to many.
Brother: Then you are most welcome, Coach!
Coach: Would you like to read more on this?
Brother: Sure!
Coach: You can find more Light here.
Brother: Thanks again Coach!
Coach: You're most welcome! You didn't asking me about bloody oaths though?
Brother: That was next on the list.
Coach: Good! Read this article first and get back with me if anything is not clear.
Brother: Will do and thanks again!
------------
No comments:
Post a Comment