Following the Methodist Conference Report on Freemasonry, an Association of concerned Methodist Freemasons was formed to review the Report at the earliest opportunity. While awaiting such a review, the Association held a number of successful Grand Lodge Exhibitions and Open Days adjacent to the Conference venue which were open to delegates and the public. It also dealt with cases of discrimination arising within the Church as a result of the 1985 strictures.
    It was not until June 1993 that the Faith and Order Committee of the Methodist Church accepted the Memorials (Resolutions) prepared by Circuits (groups of churches) with the help of Grand Lodge in the previous year. Details of discrimination &c were then requested from the Circuits by the Faith and Order Committee. In 1994, the Conference accepted the information, which included over 350 letters of support for a Review from Methodist Freemasons at home and abroad, and requested the Faith and Order Committee to review the 1985 Report ready for the 1996 Conference. A draft Review was prepared by the Committee’s Working Party, to which the Association and Grand Lodge responded with comprehensive comments. However, it became clear during a meeting held in September 1995 between two members of the Working Party, the President and Secretary of the Association of Methodist Freemasons (under the Chairmanship of the Grand Secretary), that the Working Party were unlikely to alter their draft Report to accommodate our suggestions. Whilst the Association considered the Report satisfactory in some respects, it was convinced that “political” considerations hindered the Committee from taking an impartial and tolerant view of our position.
    This was confirmed when the final Report appeared, without any notification to the Association or Grand Lodge, and it was discovered that as in the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Freemasonry, the conclusion which followed from the Report preceding it, had been amended at the last moment by the Faith and Order Committee to reaffirm the underlying prejudice against Masonry of many of that Committee’s members.
    As in the case of the Home Affairs Select Committee, evidence concerning Freemasons’ activities within the Church was anecdotal. For example, an unsubstantiated story from the 1985 Report concerning a discussion on the stationing of Ministers, alleged to have taken place informally at the time of a lodge meeting, re-appeared with no other supportive evidence or additional examples. The final clause re-affirmed the convictions of the 1985 Report: “that Methodists should not become Freemasons”, giving a list of instructions to Methodist Freemasons as to their behaviour in the Craft.
    Whilst the Report did not call for a register of names, as proposed in the final amendment to the Home Affairs Report, the 1985 Report had called on them “on appropriate occasions to declare their membership in order to avoid suspicion and mistrust”, resulting in many resignations of Church officers who were masons who felt that their integrity had been called into question. At least one Methodist journalist noted that the instruction had led to the greatest loss of Church workers than for any comparable period.
    Methodist Ministers who were Freemasons were loath to add their names to the Association since, had their connection become known, they might have had to resign from the Craft rather than risk adverse prospects for Church appointments. There can be little doubt that any such list, whether it be the Association membership list or a list such as that proposed by Chris Mullin MP, is open to being used as a “black list”, rendering named persons open to suspicion. Such a list, as the original conclusion to the Home Office Report stated, and the Methodist Report proved in practice, “would be an unnecessary interference with a person’s right to privacy, which like the secrecy of the vote, we struggle to preserve in so many areas of British life.”
    Apart from the hard core of evangelical members who are opposed to the Craft on principle, most delegates to the 1996 Methodist Conference were, like the Home Affairs Select Committee, concerned with the Craft’s secrecy. The Report asserted that the Craft “has what may be described as a secrecy culture, greater, in the Committee’s judgement, than comparable organisations.” The debate called, among other things, for “greater openness among Freemasons and suggesting that they wore badges as in America and as in other similar organisations in this country.”
    While the media took little interest in either the debate - or the Conference - some local radio stations did interview two members of the Faith and Order Committee, followed in some cases by ‘phone-ins’. Grand Lodge transcripts of these reveal that in general the presenters were unconvinced by the churchmens’ belief that Freemasonry and Methodism were incompatible, concluding that the Report indicated that masons were unwelcome in the Church. It is likely that the Methodist Authorities were unhappy at having the matter raised again after the dissension of 1985 and strove to keep the subject low key. Fortunately for them, the 1996 Review had little impact although cases of discrimination continue to occur in some areas from time to time.
    Naturally the Association and its Committee were extremely disappointed that years of hard work have been to so little avail while critics continue to bear unreasoned prejudice against our Order. However, the dialogue entered into over the period has helped others to start appreciating Freemasonry’s contribution to society’s well being both in the past and the present.
   

The author of this article, David Walton PJGD, is the Secretary of the Association of Methodist Freemasons.