FROM NORTHERN IRELAND TO Iran, from the Middle East to the United States, religious extremism is a growing force throughout the world. Jarred by the rapid pace of social and cultural change, especially the appar­ent disintegration of moral values and the breakup of the family, some people within this move­ment have sought refuge from the complexity of modern life by embracing absolute views and rejecting tolerance of other beliefs.

Simple, easy, seemingly stable answers bring comfort in a rapidly changing world. For ex­ample, some churches have responded to the personal anguish of their members by circling the wagons, that is, by strictly defining theological concepts and insisting their mem­bers "purify" their fellowship by renouncing any other beliefs.

 The next step, already taken by various churches, is to yield degrees of control within their ranks to vocal factions espousing extremist views. These splinter groups focus the congregation's generalized anxieties on spe­cific targets. The proffered cure-all is to destroy the supposed enemy. Freemasonry has become one of these targets precisely because it encour­ages members to form their own opinion on many important topics, including religion.

 Thus some churches have expressed con­cerns, even condemnations, of Freemasonry. Generally, these actions are based on misun­derstandings. A case in point is the June 1993 report to the Southern Baptist Convention by the Convention's Home Mission Board. This report defined eight alleged conflicts between the tenets and teachings of the Masonic Fraternity and Southern Baptist theology.

 Let's briefly look at those areas as rep­resentative of the thinking of some well ­meaning but misinformed church members today, and see if the concerns are real or simply a matter of misinformation or misunderstanding.

1 of  7

Most of the issues really deal with language in one way or another. Almost every organiza­tion has a special vocabulary of words which are understood by the group. It's hardly appropriate for someone outside a group, and without the special knowledge of the group, to object to the terms unless he or she fully understands them and why they are used.

 If someone wants to read the Journal of the American Medical Association, for example, that is his right-but he doesn't have a right to complain the articles use medical terms. A person reading a cookbook had better know terms like fold, cream the butter, or soft ball have special meanings-or he'll make a mess instead of a cake.

 The same is true of a non-Mason reading Masonic materials. As to the critique of Free­masonry by the Southern Baptist Convention (which, incidentally, had several positive things to say about Masonry), here is a brief explanatory discussion of each point.

"Offensive Titles"
Some don't understand the historic source of the terms used in Freemasonry. They complain of "offensive" titles such as Worshipful Master for the leader of a Lodge. This is simply a matter of misunderstanding. The leader of the Lodge is called the Master of the Lodge for the same reason the leader of an orchestra is called the Concert Master, or a highly skilled electrician is called a Master Electrician, or the leader of a Scout troop is called a Scoutmaster.

Masonic use of the term Master originated in the guilds of the Middle Ages when the person most skillful was called the Master. Much Masonic vocabulary dates from that period. For instance, "Worshipful" is a term
still used in England and Canada today to refer to such officials as mayors of cities.

2 of 7

Worshipful John Doe means exactly the same thing as The Honorable John Doe.

 Also, in the John Wycliffe translation of the Bible, "Honor thy father and thy Mother" is translated "Worchyp thy fadir and thy modir." Some persons seem not to distinguish between "worshipful" and "worshipable." There is certainly nothing irreligious in the title as used in Masonry.

 "Archaic, Offensive Rituals"
Some object to the use of "archaic, offensive rituals" and what they term "bloody oaths." There is nothing offensive in Masonic rituals, at least not to anyone who understands them. They are ancient, many of them so old their origins are long lost in history. But there is nothing bad in that. Many creeds and statements of faith are far older than the Masonic rituals. The Lord's Prayer is 2,000 years old, but no one suggests it be updated just because it was set down long ago. The Declaration of Independence is about the same age as the Master Mason degree, but few complain that it is "archaic."

 As to the allegedly "bloody oaths," the his­toric penalties associated with the Masonic obligations have their origins in the legal system of medieval Europe and were actual punish­ments inflicted by the state on persons guilty of fighting for civil liberty and religious freedom. Included in the accused were many of the martyrs who died to secure the principle of religious toleration.

 In Masonry, these penalties are entirely symbolic. They refer to the shame a good man should feel at the thought he had broken a promise, and they remind us of the price so many have paid for the liberties and freedoms Masons are pledged to protect.

3 of 7