The Church Mouse Blog
The Church should update its policy on Freemasonry
TUESDAY, 17 MAY 2011
The news that the Bishop of Ebbsfleet designate was appointed despite his high level involvement in the Freemasons has caused quite a stir.
The initial report from the Telegraph focused on the Archbishop of Canterbury's historic opposition to Church members being Freemasons. He had previously said that he had blocked senior appoints within the Church of Freemasons and that Freemasonry was 'incompatible' with Christianity.
And he is certainly not alone in that view. Many last week were expressing surprise that Freemasons could still be Bishops.
According to a statement from Rev Jonathan Baker, the Bishop designate concerned, Rowan 'invited him to reconsider' his membership of the Freemasons, but went ahead with the appointment without insisting on it.
There are a few interesting aspects to this story, not least the fact that the Catholic Church's position on Freemasonry is absolutely clear - it is prohibited, and defined by Papal Bull as a 'grave sin'. A relevant piece of information for a role where the previous incumbent left the Church of England for the Catholic Church and who's primary role is to oversee a largely Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church.
So what is the Church of England's official position on Freemasonry?
Well, there isn't really one.
Some have a hazy memory of a report and a debate at General Synod in 1987 which said that Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity, but that wasn't actually the conclusion. That was certainly the view of many who wrote the report, but the group who authored the report also included Freemasons who opposed that view.
The actual conclusion of the report was:
This Report has identified a number of important issues on which, in the view of the Working Group, the General Synod will have to reflect as it considers 'the compatibility or otherwise of Freemasonry with Christianity'. The reflections of the Working Group itself reveal understandable differences of opinion between those who are Freemasons and those who are not. Whilst the former fully agree that the Report shows that there are clear difficulties to be faced by Christians who are Freemasons, the latter are of the mind that the Report points to a number of very fundamental reasons to question the compatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity.
So that's clear as mud. Whilst the report said that there were serious issues over whether Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity, it fell short of a clear and definitive conclusion. The resolution that followed at Synod merely commended the report to the Church and endorsed the concerns. No follow up ever happened, and no final conclusion was ever drawn which adopted a clear policy for the Church in senior appointments.
The House of Bishops reconsidered the position in 2007, after a request from Truro Diocese, and concluded that "the position adopted by General Synod in its motion of 1987 did not need to be revisited".
Mouse begs to differ.
We currently have a position where some, including the Archbishop of Canterbury in the past, are blocking senior appointments as a result of membership of the Freemasons, whilst others, including the Archbishop of Canterbury today, are not. We also have some within the Church arguing that Freemasons are heretics and pseudo satanists, whilst bishops argue there is nothing wrong with it.
Mouse asked Lambeth Palace how many other bishops are Freemasons, and they didn't know.
Mouse's has two issues with Freemasonry. Firstly, he doesn't like the idea of Bishops being members of a secret society which requires pledges of primary loyalty. That doesn't sound like the kind of thing bishops should be doing. He is also nervous about the pseudo-spiritual nature of some of the rituals he hears about.
However, the problem with Freemasonry is that the secret nature of it makes it pretty easy for members to claim that reports of their activities are not accurate, and it is hard to look at it from a position of certain knowledge.
So Mouse suggests that the dust should be blown off the 1987 report, and the Church of England should revisit this position, if only to ensure consistency of approach across the country.
http://churchmousepublishing.blogspot.com/2011/05/church-should-update-its-policy-on.html
29 comments:
Justin Brett said...
Mouse,
What do you mean by 'pledge of primary loyalty'? One of the first things that is made clear when you join is that Freemasonry takes second place to your family and any sort of public or private duty. Your first loyalty is expected to be to them. In the case of a Bishop, the promises made and duties assumed at their consecration would come before anything to do with Freemasonry.
17 May 2011 10:24
6eight said...
When I became a Freemason it was on the undersatnding that Masonic values were only ever to suppliment my existing religious and social obligations, loyalty, and duty.
Bishops however are made to swear an oath of alligence to the Crown, the monarch and their successors in title. Perhaps we should ban Anglicans from becoming bishops?
As do members of the millitary, perhaps they aren't real Christians either?
A foolhardy argument Mouse, I'm slightly dissapointed.
17 May 2011 10:31
6eight said...
A second point I humbly suggest:
Hymns are sung at football matches, and prayers are said before formal dinners, each has it's own developed liturgy, language and adherants; are they too to be considered pseudo-religions?
17 May 2011 10:41
Chris said...
Of course, it should be well-known that Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher was a Freemason, and Grand Chaplain of the United Grand Lodge of England.
17 May 2011 11:04
W. Huber said...
It is really hard to determine the nature of Freemasonry due to the veil of secrecy, but I agree that a proper attempt to investigate it is in due order. I believe that the Episcopal Church has some statement or other saying that church people should not be Freemasons, but I'm not sure.
There is a factor in the US that may or may not be different in other places: the Freemasons have their fingers in everything and have had them there since day one of this nation's very existence. They represent a very significant political entity, a brotherhood based on the gaining and raising up of powerful people. A few years ago, they even /advertised/ this aspect on TV.
They once controlled all the knowledge of building more than the most simple buildings, but now engineering has well surpassed that. however, the Freemasons still do control the licensing of professionals in the civil engineering related fields, from electricians to architects and everything in between. You don't have to be a Mason to get your licence, but you do in order to be called a master or really get any significant employment. It's a rather inappropriate level of power for an organization to have with zero transparency or oversight, imho.
I don't know if Freemasons should be allowed into the hierarchy of the church or not, but I do have strong hesitations about the organization and its purposes and power that really need addressing in the governance of the church.
17 May 2011 12:27
6eight said...
Mr Huber, with respect; do you have any references?
1 - "the Freemasons have their fingers in everything"
2 - "based on the gaining and raising up of powerful people."
3 - "Freemasons still do control the licensing of professionals in the civil engineering related fields, from electricians to architects and everything in between"
IMHO strikes me as surprising.
17 May 2011 13:02
Justin Brett said...
@W. Huber - while some of what you say may be true for the States, it isn't like that in this country. Freemasonry is resolutely apolitical, and there is certainly no connection between it and professional licensing of any kind.
17 May 2011 13:24
The Church Mouse said...
Thanks to Justin and 6eight for commenting from a Freemason's perspective. As I said in my post, it is pretty hard from the outside to talk from a position of clarity, as much that is written about Freemasonry is so heavily disputed. As I understand it, there are also significant differences in the way different lodges operate, which no doubt muddies the picture further for those of us who find the whold thing rather confusing.
I wouldn't want to approach the issue with an attack on Freemasonry, but from the outside it does look a little worrying. Which is why I think the right course of action is to address the concerns which were raised, but never concluded upon, in the 1987 report. From a CofE perspective, the last word on this issue was a 24 year old report which said there are serious questions to be asked. That seems pretty unsatisfactory to me.
17 May 2011 14:59
sattler said...
I grew up in Bury near Manchester. My grandfather was a Freemason. When my grandfather died his funeral was taken by Canon Reg Smith, the Rector of Bury, also a Freemason. I can only recall, from a child's perspective, that several members of my family took offence at finding secrecy in what should have been an open and accessible occasion.
As an Anabaptist (with distinctive practices around truthtelling such as the renunciation of the oath) I suppose I have a particular point of view on secrecy and openness. The existence of any kind of confidentiality in the church creates settings in which 'secrecy' is tolerated or even necessary. In my view there should always be a presumption in favour of openness. I've said as much recently in supporting a multi-voiced church (http://radref.blogspot.com/2011/05/re-formation-after-christendom.html). The presence of an ongoing secret society runs counter to that presumption. For that reason I haven't changed my views after all these years.
17 May 2011 15:08
Justin Brett said...
I agree, Mouse. A report left hanging like that 25 years ago is not very helpful. Not that I'm particularly keen on the idea of finding something else to fight about, though...
17 May 2011 15:09
SheepOfJesus said...
This post has been removed by the author.
17 May 2011 15:10
SheepOfJesus said...
The only way to the Father is through me - Jesus..
Also look at the 1st Commandment ..
There is many different pieces of Scripture I could find in order to say "Christianity is the ONLY Truth"......
But we should NEVER exclude someone from being a "Child of God" as we all are sinners and do not know what is in each others heart.. God will be the judge of us all 1 by 1 when the day comes...
If this person is then preaching the Gospel his words will be tested against Scripture as we are told to do!!
17 May 2011 15:10
David L Rattigan said...
I'm not a Freemason. I don't really see the problem with this. I don't see any direct contradiction between Freemasonry and what a bishop is required to do and believe. There are religious aspects to the Masonic ceremonies, but again, I think it'd be very much a matter of opinion whether they conflict with being a Christian bishop. Certainly nothing firm enough that someone could point to it and say, "Look, he's breaking the rules."
I guess the best argument would be that its controversial (and now very high-profile) nature would hinder his effectiveness in ministry, but that's a matter of conscience for the bishop to decide.
17 May 2011 15:23
proxburgh said...
I think more importantly, it would help to ensure that Bishops were actually Bible-believing and Bible-doing Christians before they were appointed.
This would negate any links with Freemasons:
Matt 5:14-16 "Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl...let your light shine before others that they may see your good deeds."
and...
1 john 1:6 "if we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth..."
Let's not worry about the Freemasons, rather we should be concerned about those who call themselves Christians and worse still, those who call themselves Bishops.
17 May 2011 15:23
6eight said...
I quite agree with you Mouse, that the Church needs to address its concerns.
But I think one can hardly blame Masonry for the ignorance, and slow working of some within the church heirarchy.
I remain an active member of the Church in Wales, committed to an ecclesiology built on an evangelical paradigm, and I see no conflict between that and my status as a Mason.
17 May 2011 15:24
David L Rattigan said...
SheepOfJesus, Jesus=Way to Christianity=Way is a very big leap.
17 May 2011 15:24
6eight said...
My sheepy friend, I fear your point has been lost in the ether; are you trying to suggest that masons break the first commandment?
I can assure you, when I pray, I pray to the God of Abraham, who spoke through the prophets, who revealed Himself fully in Christ Jesus.
I worship none other than He.
I will vouch also for the good bishop
17 May 2011 15:41
Youthpasta said...
A couple of years ago I read The Brotherhood (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brotherhood-Panther-Books-Stephen-Knight/dp/0586059830/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305626171&sr=1-1). It is an eye-opening look into Freemasonry and one that I would recommend anyone to read. From it I read that members, whilst they may be told that they are to put their family first, are often putting fellow masons first out of a sense (rightly or wrongly) of loyalty. Given that church leaders are supposed to be chosen for their giftings from God, the mere possibility that this might change and become about outside affiliations is worrying to say the least. Just look at what has happened in America where a man as good as allowed his brother (non-masonic) to get away with child abuse.
Now I am sure that there are many good people who are masons, indeed I wouldn't be surprised if the majority are. But the secrecy and often misplaced loyalty are not things which should be associated with a church leader who, a Paul writes "Now the overseer must be above reproach" in 1 Timothy 3:2.
And then there's the question of the need for secrecy if Freemasonry really is as innocent as it is claimed. It's practices really do not suggest it is compatible with Christianity, let alone leadership within the Church.
17 May 2011 16:08
Crimperman said...
This post has been removed by the author.
17 May 2011 16:44
Crimperman said...
Surely I can't be the first one to realise that having women bishops negates any concern over freemasonry ;) (edited a typo in first one)
17 May 2011 16:46
Battersea Boy said...
For me, there were two issues of conscience that arose as I progressed through the various degrees and orders, which resulted in my withdrawal from freemasonry.
For others, perhaps the issue is straightforward and I have friends who would never have responded positively to an invitation in the firstb place.
Others may not see it as clear-cut at all. And I would not seek to dissuade friends who gain considerable fellowship from activities arranged by lodge and chapter; neither would I wish to exclude anyone from being put forward for a leadership role within the church purely on the basis of their involvement with freemasonry.
In respect of Jonathan Barker, it seems to me that he has acted wisely, although like all former Freemasons I suspect he will have moments of regret as he looks back on the fellowship, trust and encouragement he experienced as a member of that body. I wish him well.
17 May 2011 16:59
obreption said...
I'm surprised that the issue of women in the Church has only been mentioned once. The issue of women in Freemasonry is another delicate subject. While there may be an Order of the Easter Star, some women have formed their own lodges. What would be the chance of a woman bishop being a Freemason at the same time?
Some have referred to Freemasonry as a secret society, though the Freemasons in England have said that they are a society with secrets. This may appear to be rather Delphic. I'm not sure what the Roman Catholic view is on Freemasonry as they have many sorts of 'grave crimes', one of which seemed to have resulted in the sacking of a Queensland bishop for not singing from the same hymn book as the Vatican.
Personally, I'm with Groucho Marx on this one: I don't think I would want to belong to a club which included me. One thing you haven't raised is the Scottish Rite, which is very big in Chicago and I believe in Washington, though I don't have a PhD in Dan Brown Studies. Nice post, Mouse. This should get your ratings off the Richter scale!
17 May 2011 20:12
Tiffer said...
Freemasonry encourages heretical ideas about God. By heretical I mean not compatible with the historic creeds. If I can be an Anglican Priest and a Christadelphian, then I can be an Anglican priest and a Mason. Whether virgins are sacrificed or bizarre oaths are taken is almost immaterial.
17 May 2011 21:26
Justin Brett said...
@Tiffer - my own experience suggests otherwise. Could you please be specific about the heretical ideas that Freemasonry encourages?
18 May 2011 08:39
6eight said...
Tiffer, I must beg to differ.
Being an attendee of a rather evangelical church, I sometimes worry that I take creeds such as the Athanasian Creed much more seriously than anyone else in my congregation.
Also, speaking of historic creeds, councils and the like, where do you stand- Cyril or Nestorius?
18 May 2011 09:07
Tiffer said...
It encourages belief in a non Trinitarian God. Freemasonic prayers never mention Jesus Christ, indeed the 1987 synod report showed that they sometimes deleted his name from Christian prayers (eg the collect for purity). That is heresy, because it portrays a God who is other than the God revealed in Jesus Christ.
Jesus isn't an add on to a belief in a "higher power". You can't boil down religion to a belief in a divine being, because the Christian God cannot be separated out. The God you have to believe in in order to be a freemason is a single person God, which is fundamentally different from a Trinitarian God.
I could happily go to a Unitarian church and interpret all that they say and sing about God through Trinitarian eyes, but essentially we would still be worshipping a different God.
@6eight.Cyril of course.
18 May 2011 19:57
Justin Brett said...
@Tiffer - Thank you for that. If Freemasonry were a religion, then I would agree with you. However, Freemasonry isn't a religion - which is why your Unitarian analogy doesn't fly. You have to believe in *a* God if you want to join - one of the first questions you are asked is 'In whom do you place your trust', and the expected answer is 'In God' - but Freemasonry is open to anyone who can, in conscience, make that statement.
In other words, you enter Freemasonry with the beliefs of your own religion, and there is nothing subsequently to challenge that. There is no Masonic God in the Craft, only the God in which each individual believes. That does mean, of course, that as a Mason I have to consider that someone else's faith is valid for that person, just as they must accept that mine is for me, but that's a whole different argument. I am indebted to a friend of mine for the analogy, but if Freemasonry is heresy then so is Alcoholics Anonymous, or any other twelve-step program - as well as the Brownies.
18 May 2011 21:23
Tiffer said...
I nearly mentioned aa actually, as another example. The difference is that aa doesn't have formal ritual, nor does it contain mythology. Just saying freemasonry isn't a religion doesn't make it the case.
But I wouldn't say that a Christian shouldn't go through the twelve steps. So I will rethink my position rather than just bring up something else. Like all the virgins.
18 May 2011 23:05
6eight said...
"The God you have to believe in in order to be a freemason is a single person God, which is fundamentally different from a Trinitarian God."
I think you have fallen prey to a common misunderstanding, that there is a vague, deistic, Masonic god.
There is not.
Masons are encouraged to believe in the God of Abraham, who directed the construction of Solomon's Temple. There is no obligation to follow any particular doctrine, or dogma attached to such a belief.
Therefore, I am free to continue in my worship of One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. The God who revealed Himself in the person of Christ.
Muslims who are Masons are free to follow what ever they believe about God, and how he revealed Himself.
I want to make one thing clear, Masonry calls me to respect their path, it does not call me to accept it as an alternative.
