Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
May 21, 1970

Freedom Of Choice-Or Monopoly?

Burl E. Russell

If you were asked what you think has made our country the greatest nation on earth — what would you say? Most informed people would answer, it is because it has been, in the past, the nearest to being a Christian nation, and that we have had a competitive society of free enter-prize, which has offered the freedoms, and the incentives to produce better products. This, in turn, has given us the freedom of choice, and we wouldn't want it otherwise — in the commercial realm.

But, does this freedom of choice extend into the religious realm, which is also highly competitive? Here the true God has many rivals, all competing for man's favor — as there is a popular concept that man can choose what Deity to worship, what religious promoter to follow, and what "Redeemer" we can have to reconcile us to Deity, all of which are competing against God for man's devotion. But have we a choice? On the other hand, does not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by virtue of His being the Creator of man, the universe, and having provided for man's every need, have the right to dictate whom we will worship, and through whom we can be reconciled to Him? Have we any other choice?

I believe that most citizens, in varying degrees, believe that Jehovah is the Great Creator, the Great I AM, and does have this right. However, there seems to be those, particularly of the Masonic order who, if they believe Masonic dogma, honor another Mediator, another Redeemer, than the one God has decreed, and through whom they can be "translated from this imperfect to that glorious and celestial Lodge above." Just because they say they don't believe this credo, does not alter the fact that all Masons are morally and financially supporting a "religious institution" that officially teaches by precept and example, a faith that relegates Jesus Christ to the inferior role of just another redeemer — not the one and only one God has ordained. I would like to quote briefly from this creed — The Kentucky Monitor, written by Henry Pirtle, Past Master, and which we can assume is taught universally regarding what Masons believe.

First from page 28:

"Because, as Masons, we are taught that no man should enter upon any great and important undertaking without first invoking the blessing of Deity. This is because Masonry Is A Religious Institution..." (Emphasis added)

From page XV:

"All believed in a future life to be attained by purification and trials, in a state or successive states of rewards and punishments, and in a Mediator or Redeemer, by whom the Evil Principle was to be overcome, and the Supreme Deity reconciled to his creatures.. The Hindus called him Krishna, the Chinese called him, Kioun-tse; the Persians — Sosiosch; the Chaldeans — Dhouvanai; the Egyptians — Horns; the Scandinavians — Balder; the Christians — Jesus; The Masons — Hiram" (Emphasis added)

From Page 152:

"Then let us imitate our G.M.H.A. in all his varied perfection. Let us emulate his amiable and virtuous character, his unfeigned piety to God, and his flexible fidelity to his trust, that, like him, we may welcome the grim Tyrant Death, and receive him as a kind messenger sent by our Grand Master to translate us from this imperfect, to that all perfect, glorious and celestial Lodge above...."

Here Masons are officially told that Masonry is not only a "religious institution," but is regarded as a parallel, and a competitor of other religious bodies, all with their respective Mediators and Redeemers. In spite of the fact that God has said "... there is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ." (I Tim. 2:5) and speaking of Jesus, we read these words: ". . . in whom we have redemption through His blood. . ." (Eph. 1:7), Hiram is the Mediator or Redeemer of all Masons! Did Jesus shed his blood in vain — only to let another take the credit?

I believe the majority of Masons, like most married men, would go into a rage, if they learned their bride was sharing her affections, which they considered theirs alone, equally with another lover. Yet the church is the "bride of Christ," so why wouldn't the "Bridegroom" also be enraged when he sees members of his church — "his bride" sharing their affections equally with Hiram, as their redeemer, when God has bestowed this exalted honor upon Him alone? If it is infidelity in the first instance, then why isn't it infidelity to the Son of God?

Moreover, the greatest tribute that can be given another, is to emulate his life and his characteristics, and the entire theme of God's word depicts Christ as the one great example — the one being man must imitate. His humility, his life of sacrifice, and sinless perfection is jealously projected as man's one and only example. Yet despite this, Hiram apparently is the Mason's great example — not Christ! Will a "jealous God" look upon this affront to His Son tolerantly or in wrath?

Friends, in a free competitive society, we can have two competitive products, such as a Ford and a Chevy in our garage, which show to the world that we value both equally, but how can anyone actually believe that we can have two competitive Redeemers in our spiritual life. When God has made it so clear that man has only one, and that is His Son? When He has said "He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber." (John 10:1) and in verse 7, Christ himself said; "I am the door" — when God has made it clear that he "will not give his glory to another" (Isa. 42:8) and "unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus" (Eph. 3:21) can you risk the wrath of God as a "thief and a robber" and for giving His glory to Hiram, who has obviously usurped the exalted place of Jesus? When God has said He will not give His glory to another — He hasn't left man a choice. He will have a monopoly — or nothing — and make no mistake about it!

— 3000 S. Lynhurst Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana