The EMFJ website contains a personal story by Mr Washum. It tells why he chose to leave Freemasonry. While I respect his decision, and am appalled by some of his experiences, the story contains some misunderstandings which I would like to comment on.
Mr Washum gives six reasons for leaving Freemasonry.
Anti-Masons have often claimed that "G.A.O.T.U." (The Great Architect of the Universe) is a different god, some pagan entity or such. I cannot see how or why this would be the case. G.A.O.T.U. is simply a different way to say "The Creator".
God has many names. We call him the Lord, the Father, the Almighty, the Creator, The God of Abraham, and so on. Even the Moslems, when they call God "Allah" are not talking about their specific god, but simply of God which is what "Allah" means; Christian Arabs use the same word. The Masonic term for God is not blasphemous or heretical in any way. It speaks of the Creator in words that have connotations to the symbolism of Freemasonry. It clearly states that God is the origin of all things, visible and invisible, as the Nicene Creed says.
A very prominent Mason habitually used foul language. Mr Washum harshly reprimanded him for this in public at a Masonic meeting. The reaction from bystanders was to criticize Mr Washum for the attack, saying things like "After all, Duane, he is a Grand Lodge officer".
In this, I quite agree with Mr Washum's conclusion. Clearly, high official rank does not make it right for anyone to do what is wrong. The Masons who tried to defend the high-ranking officer with reference to his position were clearly in the wrong.
Yet, it is hardly strange that such a sudden and vehement attack on a fellow Mason was shocking to the bystanders. Freemasonry is based on friendship. That is why discussion of politics and religion is banned from the lodge; such subjects easily disrupt friendship. Mr Washum's attack was not very friendly, as he himself admits.
As officer in his Lodge, Mr Washum said a prayer in the name of Jesus and was criticized for this by a Past Master.
Freemasonry does not forbid anyone to pray in the name of Jesus. But if you lead people in prayer at a meeting where participants may belong to several different religions, it is a matter of courtesy that you do not phrase your prayer in a way that is specific to your own religion. I certainly would be put-off if I was participating in a prayer, e.g. grace at dinner, and the speaker finished with "in the name of Joseph Smith, the Great Prophet" or something else that goes contrary to my faith.
Hence, if we want to have a fraternity which is open to believers in different religions, we must either abstain from prayer altogether, or hold separate prayers for separate faiths, or say the prayer in such a way that everyone can join in. Since Freemasonry in the British-American system allows different religions but requires belief in God, where "God" is defined as "the Supreme Being", it is only natural to keep prayers "ecumenical".
I can understand and sympathize with the zeal of Christians eager to confess their faith in Jesus Christ. But there is no denial here. If you wish to pray to Jesus, you can add "through Jesus our Lord" quietly to yourself. All you are doing by not mentioning him in the public prayer is showing courtesy to those of different faiths. But if you do not feel that you can do this, if the presence of Jews and Moslems disturbs you, then I quite agree that you should not be a Freemason in the British-American system. This is your personal decision, however. It does not mean that it is wrong for all Christians to be Masons.
Mr Washum feels that "Worshipful Master" is a title that should be used for God alone.
In Masonry, the usage comes from the medieval guilds. The stonemasons who built the great cathedrals in Europe, much like other craftsmen of that time, were organized in guilds. Members started out as apprentices, then became journeymen or fellows, and finally -- when they had acheived great expertise -- masters.
This system is still in use today for certain crafts, at least in Europe. I know a person who is a "master tailor". In order to get this certificate, he had to go through the long business of learning his craft, and had to present a "piece" on each elevation, a work that demonstrated his skills. Hence the word "masterpiece".
What the Bible condemns is not such ranks, nor does it condemn leadership or authority. It says that Christians should all be brothers. It warns against using the faith to set oneself up as master over other Christians, thus usurping the position which belongs to Christ. Is that what Masonic Worshipful Masters are doing? I don't think so. It's just a title for the leader of the lodge.
The promises given by Masons are notoriously gruesome. This originates in the early days when religious freedom was inexistent in most countries, and private piety was seen by the authorities as dangerous. Religion was a matter of conforming to what had been ordained by the State religion, and betraying the confidences of a brother could result in him being punished (possibly executed) by secular or oppressive ecclesiastical authorities. Note, however, that it is never said in Freemasonry that those horrible punishments shall be carried out. The candidate confirms that if he betrays his promises, he deserves to be punished in such ways.
The question of "swearing" is an old one in Christianity. At the reformation, some groups wanted to ban all oaths. The mainstream Reformers agreed that it is permissible for Christians to take oaths and in general conform to the legal demands of secular society in as far as these do not contradict the Christian faith (Confessio Augustana XVI).
Mr Washum feels that Masonic oaths are bloody and sworn to God. But they are not sworn to God. The obligations are given to the brethren of the lodge. God is a witness thereof. Is he not a withess to all promises?
When Mr Washum made known his desire to leave the lodge, he was subjected to pressure and persuasion attempts. Those who did this demonstrated that they were not Christians, but rather secular humanists.
I am appalled by their behavior. Obviously it was they who should have left Freemasonry rather than Mr Washum. Yet I truly hope that they are not typical Freemasons. People have told me that in America, Freemasonry is very much a social thing. It is possible that many people join not because they are interested in Freemasonry but because it is a way to get contacts and become established as good citizens. If this is true, it reflects poorly on American Masonry.