The following article is courtesy of Dr. Gary Leazer.
I recently read an article in a journal of a well-known Masonic research society in which the author argued for a Masonic theology to explain the beliefs of Freemasonry. I wish to respond to the author as his article raises many questions of immense personal importance to all Masons.
I agree with the author that Freemasonry is based on a belief in God. It is a requirement of all Masons. However, Masonry does not define who God is, but allows each Brother to define God as his faith dictates. That does not make Freemasonry a religion nor require a theology.
The author calls for a Masonic theology which is not identified with any religion. In fact, that would be another religion. "I’m challenging Masonry to identify its own theology of religion without identifying with any one religion." That is what our critics have been claiming we are — another religion. If we do this, the Ankerbergs, the Hollys, the Deckers, will win by default.
The author says he sees no conflict between a Masonic theology and the theology of Baptists or Roman Catholics. He obviously does not understand Baptist or Roman Catholic theology. Both faiths are very strict in what is acceptable belief. Would the author ask a Muslim to give up his belief that Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet or a Christian that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh? These are fundamental beliefs of each of these faiths. Which of these Masons would be required to give up his faith — or would both be required to do so. These beliefs are, after all, divisive. The role of the pope in Roman Catholicism is not up for discussion. In fact, Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics split over this very issue in the 11th century and still have not been able to make the first step toward resolving this split in over 900 years.
The author does not develop a theology or belief about God in any significant way. He proposes that a Masonic theology begin with a blank slate, a tabula rasa [philosopher John Locke argued the mind is an "empty cabinet" into which "experience" is to be added to develop intelligence] in which faith is developed to include all others. Religious beliefs would be critiqued by Masonic theology. No one religion could criticize another. Would Christians be required to give up evangelism and Muslims to give up dawah, the sharing of Muhammad’s teachings? Would I be required to give up my personal faith as a Baptist because my faith has certain essential statements of belief that are not shared by all others?
He speaks of a Mother God. Mormons would approve of such a belief, but not Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics or Protestants. Muslims definitely would not approve of such a belief. He speaks of "a Father God manifestation, which is not only a New Age but a very Age Old aspect of universal spirituality." From my study of the New Age Movement, God is usually seen as an impersonal force that is present everywhere and in everything, not a personal God who has entered into history.
The author sees "pluralism within Masonry" as a negative. I see it as a strength, just as I see the pluralism in our nation with its thousands of different faiths as a strength. Our nation was founded by the desire for freedom, including religious freedom, and it has worked well for over 200 years.
If we develop a Masonic theology, will we hold seminars to teach candidates about our theology and then test them on those beliefs before we vote whether to accept their petitions? What will we do if a Mason cannot accept the proposed Masonic theology? Expel him. Would a Christian candidate still take his oaths while resting his hands upon the Holy Bible, or will some other book be used which will not offend another candidate? Or would we, as happens in most court rooms today, simply not use a Holy book when witnesses are sworn in before testifying? Would we rewrite all Blue Lodge, Scottish Rite and York Rite rituals to remove references to the Holy Bible? Will we drop the symbolism of King Solomon’s temple in our degree work? What about Hiram Abif, a character in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Christian Old Testament).
Theology is, by its very nature, divisive. There is simply no way to develop a Masonic theology that would be general enough to satisfy everyone. In fact, a Masonic theology could not be developed that would satisfy more than a very small minority of Masons today.
Creating a Masonic theology would bring a conflict of beliefs that would make the feud in the Southern Baptist Convention seem like a Sunday School picnic. Masons don’t want to be told by anyone what they have to believe. We stress to a new Mason that he must study and learn what Masonry is for himself. Is that going to change? Will we be required to believe a Masonic theology or will we be free to continue believing theology of our chosen faith? Would we be expected to be members of two faiths — two faiths that certainly would be in theological conflict?
I know of nothing that has caused more argument and division among people who supposedly worship the same God as has "religion." Churches has split over which translation of the Bible to use; whether Jesus will return before, during, or after the tribulation which some believe will occur before the rapture; or whether there will be a rapture at all; what are the ordinances or sacraments of the Church; whether to use wine or grape juice (or water as is the Mormon practice) in the sacraments; whether only the clergy can drink the wine or may the laity do so; what day of the week to worship (Saturday which is the Sabbath, or Sunday which is the Lord’s Day); and then there are a whole bunch of social issues such as ordination of women, homosexuality, racial reconciliation; the list is almost endless. The Christian Church has not been able to resolve these differences in 2,000 years. Add in the immense differences among the world faiths. How can Freemasonry do what nobody has been able to do since man first walked on the face of the earth?
I have been involved in formal dialogues with Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and other faiths. Some of the dialogues, usually held once or twice per year for one-two days, went on for five-six years. At the conclusion, we often came to the conclusion that we would agree to disagree, but remain friends. I may disagree with beliefs held by Brothers in Lodge, but we remain friends. I even disagree with many Baptists within my own denomination — and they with me. That’s okay.
The author criticized the late John Robinson, who he said, introduced his own Protestant theology into his defense of Freemasonry. I maintain that it is impossible to separate our personal faith, if it is important to us, from our daily life. Our faith enters into decisions in the voting booth, what movies we watch, even who we marry. A Baptist is still a Baptist when he sits in Lodge. A Roman Catholic is still a Roman Catholic when he sits in Lodge. A Jew is still a Jew when he sits in Lodge. However, out of respect for another’s faith, we do not bring up religion during the Lodge meeting. We meet "on the level." This practice has brought harmony to our Lodges — certainly more harmony than is found in the religious world. Why should we risk causing disharmony?
Developing a Masonic theology to satisfy everyone would be impossible. It would be divisive as men would be expected to choose between their faith and a Masonic theology. One’s personal faith is intensely personal and would not be easily give up to adopt a Masonic theology. I would never renounce my faith. Our critics would have "a field day." And Freemasonry would lose — and probably die.
We permit Masons to freely express their opinions — and many have done this to our critics’ delight. We must bury the idea of a Masonic theology once and for all. It is a bad idea.