# The Continuum of Freemasonry



## My Freemasonry (Jul 22, 2014)

​
I've been in Freemasonry for nearly a decade now. Since my first day as a Mason on a cold day in early February, I have been learning and growing, talking with other Masons online and in person to get a sense of what Masonry is. What I have learned from all these years is that Masonry is not one thing but many things.
I was feeling a little nostalgic so I started looking at old blogs that I used to frequent during my own early years as a blogger and arrived at Thomas Munkholt’s excellent Grail Quest site. I have been reading a lot about the Swedish Rite lately because 1) I really like it and 2) because I wish I could bring it to my jurisdiction. (That’s a subject for another day) I started reading comments and ran into this one by Chad Simpson:

“I read your comments regarding the concern of some Freemasons for the exclusively Christian nature of the Swedish Rite.
Having shared that concern at one time, I can only say that Freemasons at their best are traditionalists and at their worst are provincial.
Because of the emphasis that Freemasonry places on tradition, it is very easy for the untraveled or unread Freemason to believe that every Lodge is just like his own.
In fact, it is often a shock for a Brother when he finally realizes that Freemasonry is as diverse as are Freemasons themselves.
Though universality is an essential element of Freemasonry under most Grand Lodges, it is understandable why the Swedish Rite has developed as it has.
Though I enjoy studying the various forms of Freemasonry–variety being the spice of life after all–I must confess that I enjoy most a familiar dish.”​ Source

I think the commenter is onto something. I think we, as Masons, even with our ability to travel, like to stay within the familiar. I find this most especially on sites like the Freemasonry subreddit. Nearly every day, brothers will tell other brothers that what they are doing, whether it be mouth to ear ritual education or some other subject that is different from their own jurisdiction, is wrong. That’s right, just plain wrong.
It makes sense why these feelings exist. We are usually laboring in the quarries in our own jurisdiction. Sure, the random business trip may take us to a place where a lodge is actually meeting that night and that we have the good fortune to have remembered a business suit to be able to attend but, for the most part, we stay within the walls of our own Masonic experience.

I think the most common topic, the one that generates the most heat on nearly every forum I’ve ever been a member, is how religion, in particular, how Christianity, should fit within the Masonic system. Because of our history, the nature of religion (especially Christianity) and the Craft is very important to understanding development of the Craft degrees, the various side degrees, side orders, rites, and even the youth groups. It is very misunderstood as it varies among all the jurisdictions.

I think the best way to think about the varying viewpoints is to place them on a continuum. I choose a continuum because, it is most basic, using a continuum presupposes that all data in the set share some common theme, in this case, the fact that all of them are Masonic. On the left most side, we will place the Swedish Rite. On the far right side, we will place so-called “Adogmatic Freemasonry”, of which the Grand Orient of France would be an example. Between these two points, we can arrange the various rituals. Preston-Webb would be near the center as would Emulation and its many variants. In fact, most, including the Swedish Rite, would be clustered near each other.

My supposition is that wherever you are on the continuum, both based on your own experiences in Masonry as well as in which jurisdiction you were raised, will affect how you view other practices of Freemasonry. If you believe that God (or a Supreme Being) is an essential aspect of Freemasonry, any practice that does not recognize His importance in the work will not be considered regular in practice. And depending on how far you are away from another practice will likewise determine how uncomfortable you are with a Masonic practice. That’s why, at least in my opinion, many brothers within Preston-Webb will denounce Swedish Rite as unMasonic. And this is even more pronounced if that brother is not Christian. Of course, this always means that compared to Swedish Rite, some brothers may feel more comfortable with “Adogmatic Freemasonry” than to any practice that restricts membership to Christians. You’ll find statements like, “why can’t we use a blank book?” to be common with the compelling argument of having it represent all VSLs.

I point out this continuum because I think we, especially we Americans, get lost in the world. Most of us, including myself, have never traveled to a foreign location in our lives. It’s sad but true. Because of that, we become, just as the comment states above, provincial in our way of thinking and we shut ourselves off from the wider Masonic world. Universality within Freemasonry was not a given and even Anderson backed away from perfect universality when he released his revised 1738 Constitution. It’s difficult. Universality is just one of the goals of Freemasonry and it wasn’t, and has never been, universally accepted.

The Antients disdained the Moderns and that grand body’s rejection of nearly all Christian allusions. Even at the merger, the Antients felt it important to insert language acknowledging the chivalric degrees practiced by so many Antient lodges and chapters; "[t]his article is not intended to prevent any Lodge or Chapter from holding meetings in any of the degrees of Chivalry, according to the Constitution of said Order." It’s a tug of war match between those that seek to acknowledge the Christian origins of the degrees and those that would like to remove them for a new universal philosophy. And that tug of war continues.

These feelings manifest themselves within a jurisdiction. The most apparent example in my jurisdiction is Commandery. Commandery is decidedly Christian and has a long history. Yet, many brothers will denounce it as unMasonic, placing it somewhere between Freemasonry that allows women in and whatever Leo Taxil had in mind when he wrote his hoax. It’s one of the few bodies that I've seen actively derided. I used to be bothered by this but then I thought of the continuum.

I don’t find the Commandery or Swedish Rite or Rectified Scottish Rite as offensive because I am a Christian. Yet, I can also understand why some Masons may have a problem with it. It’s restrictive by its very content. The Crusades were a destructive series of events in the Levant. Yet, the chivalric degrees are also very much Masonic. They are both historically and traditionally relevant within the body of Masonry.

Masonry is vast. If our lodges symbolically extend into the deepest core of the Earth all the way into the Heavens, then it will most assuredly pick up all those practices and styles. Knowing where you are on the continuum is the first step in seeing the wider world, understanding which practices make you comfortable, which practices or styles make you uncomfortable and ultimately understanding why. For me, I cannot accept Adogmatic Freemasonry as regular because I feel that Masonry is a Deity adoration society. By first knowing where I am on the continuum, I am forced to articulate reasons for why I don’t like a practice, in this case, the removal of God from our ceremonies. It also gives perspective as to why another person may accept some practice with which I don’t agree.

I don't think we need to accept every practice in Masonry but we should at least know why a practice, qualification, or some other Masonic tic that differs from our own may not be totally unMasonic. The Commandery exists, it has Masonic roots, and even though it restricts membership to only those adhering to the Christian religion, I would consider it Masonic. The Rose Croix, as it’s called in England, only accepts Trinitarian Christians, unlike its counterparts in the United States; I would also call it Masonic. The Grand Orient de France removed mention of the Great Architect of the Universe from its constitution; I would consider that practice to be irregular but I think analyzing the reason why Frédéric Desmons, a Calvinist Priest, instigated its removal is important.

Masonry is vast. Yet, within its vastness, it’s still held to the aforementioned continuum. Try for yourself. I've found that by arranging Masonic rituals in this way, I've learned tolerance for all of Masonry’s windings.

_What do you think? Where are you on the continuum? Where is your Grand Lodge on the continuum? Does the continuum help you? Leave a comment below._

Continue reading...


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Jul 22, 2014)

Hmmm... just doesn't seem right to exclude anyone just because they don't share the same belief system in deity.

And truth be told, I'm still hung up on how any Christian who believes that Jesus is the only way to the father can identify and accept the principles of masonry. One of these days I'll have to sit down with a Christian brother and ask.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jul 22, 2014)

News Bot said:


> Universality within Freemasonry was not a given and even Anderson backed away from perfect universality when he released his revised 1738 Constitution. It’s difficult. Universality is just one of the goals of Freemasonry and it wasn’t, and has never been, universally accepted.


This statement only supports the proposition that universality hasn't been accepted in Masonry since sometime before 1738, but that doesn't mean never.  Perhaps it is just lost.

If Universality is lost perhaps someone is still searching for it.


----------



## BroBook (Jul 22, 2014)

When looking for that which was lost and not knowing what it looks like one must look everywhere!!!WWEA


Bro Book
M.W.U.G.L. Of Fl: P.H.A.
Excelsior # 43
At pensacola


----------



## admarcus1 (Jul 23, 2014)

So here is where I have a problem:

"I don’t find the Commandery or Swedish Rite or Rectified Scottish Rite as offensive because I am a Christian."

What this basically says is that the writer does not have a problem with the exclusion of others based on their religion because he is not excluded. I guess that's honest. 

I am not a Christian, but that is not why I consider the exclusion of non-Christians as unmasonic. If there were a degree that allowed only Jews  (which I could join), I would consider that unmasonic as well. I have no issue with sectarian fraternities with similar aims. Bnai Brith was one such organization (though it is no longer a fraternity). Knight if Columbus is another. But they are not, and should not be, a part of Masonry. I feel the same way about the Swedish Rite et al. Perhaps wonderful organizations with beautiful teachings and ritual, but they violate one of the vital tenets of our institution, a tenet which changed the western world for the better. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 23, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> So here is where I have a problem:
> 
> "I don’t find the Commandery or Swedish Rite or Rectified Scottish Rite as offensive because I am a Christian."
> 
> What this basically says is that the writer does not have a problem with the exclusion of others based on their religion because he is not excluded. I guess that's honest



I find such side orders neither offensive nor un-Masonic.  But no matter the religious requirements I have yet to join any that I qualify for.  Then again there are a ton of side orders without religious requirements that I have yet to join.  The difference is internal not external.



> Perhaps wonderful organizations with beautiful teachings and ritual, but they violate one of the vital tenets of our institution, a tenet which changed the western world for the better.



Right.  Once it is established that a man of good character of any faith may join our craft lodges, we have established the trunk of our principles but like the branches that grow out of a trunk become separate from each other, I'm okay with there being Masonic orders that separate from each other.  As long as each such order springs from the trunk.  And as long as they don't mind that I never bother to petition.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jul 23, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> Right.  Once it is established that a man of good character of any faith may join our craft lodges, we have established the trunk of our principles but like the branches that grow out of a trunk become separate from each other, I'm okay with there being Masonic orders that separate from each other.  As long as each such order springs from the trunk.  And as long as they don't mind that I never bother to petition.



I certainly see your point with regard to the appendant orders. Not sure I feel the same way, but the point is well taken. 
However, isn't the Swedish Rite a grand lodge in its own right?  To me that would be a different story. In that case, the very trunk if the tree denies brotherhood based on religious dogma. If a core tenet of Freemasonry is that we are brothers and God is our father, then just as denying God makes a GL irregular, so should denying that brotherhood. Again, that doesn't make it something bad, and doesn't make it any less worthwhile, but I do think it makes it something different. 




Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jul 23, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> If a core tenet of Freemasonry is that we are brothers and God is our father, then just as denying God makes a GL irregular, so should denying that brotherhood. Again, that doesn't make it something bad, and doesn't make it any less worthwhile, but I do think it makes it something different.


I love logic.  Logic says:
IF A is true,
AND
IF B is true
THEN C must be true
The beauty of logic is that you are allowed to challenge A, B, or C in your rebuttal.

admarcus1 says:
IF a core tenet of Freemasonry is that we are brothers and God is our father
AND
IF denying God makes a GL irregular
THEN so should denying that brotherhood

Hmmmm, I got no rebuttal.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jul 23, 2014)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> I love logic.  Logic says:
> IF A is true,
> AND
> IF B is true
> ...


My logic only works if you accept my statement as a core tenet of Freemasonry, and ascribe equal weight to both parts if that tenet. So rational minds can disagree.  It disappoints me to think, though, that one of the most beautiful things about our gentle craft, what attracted me to it and what attracted my Grandfather to it, at a time when he would not be welcome in many social societies of the time, is not considered a defining trait of the fraternity. It signifies to me that as a non-Christian Mason, I am considered less of a brother. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Brother JC (Jul 24, 2014)

It is my understanding that the first three degrees, and possibly others, of the Swedish Rite are open to followers of any religion. It is only the higher degrees that require a Christian belief, degrees with strong similarities to our appendant bodies.


----------



## admarcus1 (Jul 24, 2014)

trysquare said:


> It is my understanding that the first three degrees, and possibly others, of the Swedish Rite are open to followers of any religion. It is only the higher degrees that require a Christian belief, degrees with strong similarities to our appendant bodies.


According to all the sources I could find, including the Swedish Rite FAQ on the website of the GL of British Columbia, the SW, including the first 3 degrees, requires that members be Christians. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 24, 2014)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> I love logic.  Logic says:
> IF A is true,
> AND
> IF B is true
> ...



Oh, dear, deary golly dear.

Have you actually studied logic. Logic says that if A is true and B is true then A and B are true and one can make no conclusions at all about C, since no connection has been stated between either A or B vs. C.

A: Dogs like to eat meat. (True)
B: Cats purr. (True)
C: Naturally orange swans exist. (Cannot be inferred from both A and B being true).

You would say that the fact that dogs like to eat meat and cats purr means that naturally orange swans must exist.

Now, let's assail your utter lack of logic.

Freemasonry says that we are brothers. It also says that God is our Father. Now, point out SPECIFICALLY where freemasonry REQUIRES that human brotherhood (as opposed to Masonic Brotherhood--Freemasonry recognizes both as separate but related things) only exists if someone acknowledges God.

The rest of your very poor excuse for an "argument" hinges upon that unproved assumption you made. Until you provide proof of it, you have no conclusion worth addressing.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 24, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> I certainly see your point with regard to the appendant orders. Not sure I feel the same way, but the point is well taken.
> However, isn't the Swedish Rite a grand lodge in its own right?  To me that would be a different story. In that case, the very trunk if the tree denies brotherhood based on religious dogma. If a core tenet of Freemasonry is that we are brothers and God is our father, then just as denying God makes a GL irregular, so should denying that brotherhood. Again, that doesn't make it something bad, and doesn't make it any less worthwhile, but I do think it makes it something different.



I can't do a thing about Sweden. Will never live there, will never visit. I am not emperor of the world. The errors that Sweden makes aren't something I can fix. Do you also go around demanding that all Muslims, worldwide, be held responsible for what has happened in Mosul, recently?


----------



## admarcus1 (Jul 24, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> I can't do a thing about Sweden. Will never live there, will never visit. I am not emperor of the world. The errors that Sweden makes aren't something I can fix. Do you also go around demanding that all Muslims, worldwide, be held responsible for what has happened in Mosul, recently?


Gosh.  No one is asking you to be responsible for Sweden.  Nobody is attacking Christians (which you seem to feel that everyone is doing if they ask a question that touches on Christianity in any thread).  I just wonder about the fact that one jurisdiction's decision to allow atheists loses them recognition, and another's decision to exclude non-Christians is met with a collective "Meh".  My opinion, and only my opinion, is that both are violations of core principles.  If the GL of a predominantly Muslim country excluded non-Muslims, I would hope that my GL would consider them irregular as well.  Same for a Jewish only or Buddhist only GL.  

As for the attack on my logic in a most derisive tone, and with an utterly ridiculous example I can only explain as a deliberate misunderstanding of my reasoning, perhaps I stated it poorly.  My logic is not that one of the two prongs cannot exist without the other (though I believe that the brotherhood of man derives from having a common creator).  I am stating my opinion that I think that both belief in God and the brotherhood of man are core tenets of Freemasonry, and that just as acceptance of atheists (as a violation of the former) makes a GL irregular, then so should rejection of Muslims, or Christians, or Jews, or anyone else who believes in God (a violation of the latter).  

The logic only works if you believe that the acceptance of all those who believe in God is an essential part of the brotherhood that makes Freemasonry what it is. I believe that.  It is one of the things that attracted me to Freemasonry.  I don't actually care what they do in Sweden.  I do care that my GL doesn't have a problem with it.  

With that, I am out of this thread.  What started as an interesting discussion with different perspectives has turned into something ugly.  Arrogance and derision don't make for good discussion.  Perhaps I will hear your opinions on other topics on other threads, but I won't be reading anything else on this one.

Thank you for everyone for giving me things to think about, dfreybur in particular.


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 24, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> Not sure I feel the same way, but the point is well taken



We may be taught that we are supposed to agree, but that's a lesson I'm not all that good at!  I am obedient within the parameters of the GL bylaws, but I disagree with a lot of stuff.  Thing is I don't consider agreement to be needed for brotherly love, peace and cooperation.  Requiring agreement is a lower standard than the brothers at lodge tend to hold themselves to.



> However, isn't the Swedish Rite a grand lodge in its own right?



They are but they are old compared to most jurisdictions so what I consider their error is grandfathered in.  Plus the fact that I consider their policy to be in error carries zero relevance to them.

UGLE operates lodges in Swedish territory.  Had I lived in Sweden at the time I petitioned I could have petitioned one of those lodges.



> If a core tenet of Freemasonry is that we are brothers and God is our father, then just as denying God makes a GL irregular, so should denying that brotherhood.



The fatherhood of the divine isn't among the landmarks that I can recall, but it's a universal opinion among the brothers I've known long enough to be willing to discuss such issues with them well away from our meetings.

How symbolic is it?  Very.  Masonry doesn't ask at that level of detail and that's how it should be.


----------



## chrmc (Jul 24, 2014)

Just to clarify some of the misconceptions put forth here. The Grand Lodges who work the Swedish Rite, being Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland do not actually require you to be a Christian. What they do require is that you've received a baptism and that you can prove that. 
Believe this is mainly a historical leftover that they have not seen a need to change as most people in those countries always get baptized anyway. Think the GL of Sweden may even have given up this requirement as it is no longer listed on their website. 

The Rite and rituals are in general founded on a Christian philosophy and biblical texts, but having attending most of the degrees, I can say that I do not find it more Christian than the three blue lodge degrees, or the York rite in general. 

In all the jurisdictions that work the Swedish rite, there are also "standard" blue lodges most often working the Emulation or similar English ritual. So you can just join one of those if the requirements of the Swedish Rite doesn't appeal to you. 

I believe that once you've taken the 3rd degree in the given Emulation lodge you can cross over and take the remaining degrees in the Swedish rite, but I may be wrong. 

So all in all they're actually not as bad, non-inclusive boogeymen as often made out to be


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 25, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> With that, I am out of this thread.  What started as an interesting discussion with different perspectives has turned into something ugly.  Arrogance and derision don't make for good discussion.  Perhaps I will hear your opinions on other topics on other threads, but I won't be reading anything else on this one.



Then maybe you shouldn't practice them so eagerly.


----------

