Freemasonry and Quakerism Posted by Jeff

I've been a Freemason for a few years now. I'd like to take a minute to compare it to the Quaker faith. Although I am not a Quaker, I have been visiting a Quaker Worship Group on a regular basis for a little over a year. Also called The Religious Society of Friends, I have found its long name to be a pretty accurate description of the experience. The group I've been visiting is an unprogrammed worship group, which translates roughly to "liberal quaker" as opposed to "evangelic quaker." The Friends are one of those groups that I would tend to call quasi-religious. I don't mean to belittle anyone for whom the Quaker experience is their Religion or spiritual home, but what I mean is that by having no creed, established doctrine, or sacraments, liberal Quakerism appears to make a fine appendage to whatever type of religion one already accepts. It pronounces no theology and no plan of salvation, leaving you free to hold your own views. As long as this type of participation is acceptable to your existing religious conscience, you have nothing to lose. If there is one belief that all Quakers do share, it seems to be the understanding that there is "that of God in everyone" or that the Spirit may speak through any human being, or that there is a divine component to every human.

Being entirely devoid of ritual and creed, I now contrast it to my experience with Freemasonry. Someone might be tempted to say they are entirely opposite. However, I have found that not to be the case. Masonry is not a religion, and makes no claim to be one. It has been said, however, that it is the "handmaiden of religion", and that it is "so far interwoven with religion as to lay us under obligation to pay that rational homage to Deity which at once constitutes our duty and our happiness". Masonry does not admit atheists, but beyond that requires no specific theology or religious alignment. It does teach of the Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, and the Immortality of the Soul, although an individual brother's understanding of these things is up to his own interpretation. Masonry is full of elaborate tradition, ceremony and ritual.

At an administrative level, the process for governing each of these groups appears to be very much the same. Masonry exists in the form of local Lodges, each governed by a Grand Lodge, of which in the United States there exist separate Grand Lodges for each state. The Grand Lodges are each soveriegn, meaning that they maintain relations with one another, but each one has the highest authority over the Lodges in its jurisdiction and falls under jurisdiction of no other body. Representatives from local Lodges attend yearly communications of Grand Lodge, at which legislation can be proposed, worked out, and a decision can occasionally be reached. Any types of change or efforts put into play are generally worked out and discussed at the local Lodge level ahead of time, before the Grand Lodge convenes. The Quakers are divided into Weekly Meetings, Monthly Meetings, Quarterly Meetings, and Yearly Meetings. Each of these is a group which "umbrellas" all of the groups beneath it, with the smallest units being "Worship Groups" (areas too small to have their own Weekly Meeting), and Isolated Friends (people who are in an area without any type of quaker meeting). The Weekly Meetings all belong to a Monthly Meeting, and they all belong to a Quarterly Meeting. The Quarterly Meetings all belong to a Yearly Meeting. At each level, the geographical area over which the group covers is expanded. The Yearly Meetings maintain relations with one another, but are also 'sovereign' although I haven't heard a Quaker use that term. Each Yearly Meeting has its own flavor and style, and some contain Programmed Meetings ("Evangelical Quakers") while others are of the liberal variety. The business is usually dealt with on a local level, and a few people may attend the Quarterly or Yearly Meeting and participate in the business at the higher level.

Both groups share a propensity towards being very involved in the process and very slow and inefficient at reaching any conclusion or action. Although, it could be argued that perhaps this is a good thing and keeps them from swaying to and fro on whims?

Both groups accept into their fellowship people from a wide variety of backgrounds, and are defenders of freedom and set pretty good examples of tolerance.

On the other hand, Masonry is limited to men, ability to attend is restricted to members, and new members must be voted upon. Both organizations also serve very different additional purposes.

I get the impression that the Quakers consider someone into doctrine and ritual and the type of exactness that I appreciate as a Mason to be a little bit out of place in a Quaker meeting, or at least to be the minority, however, it seems they have far more in common than they probably realize.