Secrecy, Wisdom, and Discretion in the Bible

One of the most common accusations leveled against Freemasonry by its Christian critics is that its private or reserved nature is inherently unbiblical. John 18:20 is frequently invoked as a proof text: “I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.” From this verse, critics conclude that any form of secrecy or restricted knowledge must be incompatible with Christianity. This argument, however, rests on a serious misunderstanding of both the immediate context of Christ’s words and the broader biblical theology of knowledge, wisdom, and discretion. This article builds upon an earlier one (Secrecy: What’s the Big Deal?) in which I examined secrecy through sociological and anthropological lenses, addressing longstanding criticisms of Freemasonry’s private nature.

Scripture does not equate secrecy with deception, nor does it present openness as an absolute moral requirement in every domain of life. Rather, the Bible consistently treats the responsible withholding, ordering, and gradual transmission of knowledge as an expression of wisdom and stewardship. When examined in its full canonical context, John 18:20 does not condemn private instruction or reserved knowledge; instead, it affirms the public legitimacy of Christ’s teaching against the charge that He was fomenting sedition or teaching illicit doctrines in hidden corners.

Christ’s statement before the High Priest must be understood juridically and polemically. He is not offering a universal doctrine of disclosure, but defending Himself against an accusation of subversive teaching. His appeal is to the openness of His proclamation in synagogues and the Temple, places where His words could be publicly heard and examined. The passage addresses where and with what authority He taught, not whether all truth must always be disclosed to all people at all times.

Far from opposing discretion, the Old Testament explicitly affirms the selective handling of knowledge. Deuteronomy 29:29 establishes the principle at the outset: “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Revelation and concealment are not opposites in Scripture; they are complementary aspects of divine wisdom. God Himself withholds certain knowledge while revealing what is fitting for human understanding.

The wisdom literature reinforces this theme repeatedly. “A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness” (Proverbs 12:23). “Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction” (Proverbs 10:14). “A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter” (Proverbs 11:13). In these texts, restraint is not a moral failure but a virtue. Discretion is presented as evidence of faithfulness, maturity, and sound judgment. Scripture does not praise the indiscriminate divulgence of all things; it warns against it.

Christ Himself consistently practiced selective instruction. In Matthew 7:6, He cautions against careless disclosure: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” This is not elitism; it is discernment. Holiness requires context, preparation, and receptivity. The same principle governs His use of parables. When asked why He spoke in this manner, Jesus explained that the parables were intentionally designed to veil understanding from some while revealing truth to others (Matthew 13:10-13). Later, He explained their meanings privately to His disciples (Matthew 13:36). He states the rationale explicitly: “Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given” (Matthew 13:11).

This pattern did not end with His crucifixion. After the Resurrection, Christ spent 40 days instructing His disciples concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3), yet there is no indication that these teachings were publicly proclaimed in full. The apostolic Church inherited not only the content of Christ’s teaching, but also His pedagogical method: truth communicated according to readiness, capacity, and responsibility.

The apostolic writings confirm this framework. Paul repeatedly refers to divine truth as mystērion, not in the modern sense of something irrational or occult, but as something once hidden and later revealed according to God’s timing (Ephesians 3:3-6; Colossians 1:26). He distinguishes between levels of instruction, reminding the Corinthians: “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able” (1 Corinthians 3:2). Knowledge, in this view, is not a weapon to be indiscriminately distributed but nourishment to be given responsibly.

Paul’s exhortation to Timothy reinforces the same ethic: “That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.” (2 Timothy 1:14). Truth is something entrusted, preserved, and transmitted with care. Guarding does not imply deception; it implies stewardship.

When viewed in this light, the blanket condemnation of secrecy as “unchristian” collapses. Scripture does not oppose secrecy as such; it opposes falsehood, manipulation, and the concealment of injustice. Discretion, ordered instruction, and the faithful keeping of entrusted knowledge are not only permitted in the biblical worldview…they are repeatedly commended.

Thus, appeals to John 18:20 as a criticism against Freemasonry’s private or reserved elements fail both exegetically and theologically. They isolate a single verse from its legal context, ignore Christ’s own instructional practice, and disregard the consistent biblical testimony that wisdom often involves knowing when to speak, what to reveal, and to whom. The Christian tradition has never understood truth as something cheapened by indiscriminate exposure, but as something ennobled by reverential handling.

A Decade in the Rose & Cross

On this date 10 years ago, I was initiated into the Societas Rosicruciana in Civitatibus Foederatis and joined Wyoming College. Even now, it is difficult to fully express what that step has meant to me, but I can say without hesitation that membership in this Society remains one of the greatest honors of my Masonic journey.

Alongside one of my closest friends, I traveled hundreds of miles (through severe snowstorms) to attend that first meeting, where I received the I° through IV°. From the beginning, I sensed that this was something rare: a Society devoted not only to scholarship and ritual, but to quiet service and genuine fraternity.

Over the past decade, I have tried to engage as fully as possible in the life and work of the SRICF. In October 2016, I assisted the Chief Adept of Wyoming in initiating several Fratres and establishing Montana College. In May 2017, I delivered a lecture before Wyoming College and was appointed Acolyte, an early encouragement that affirmed my commitment to the work and aims of the Society.

In January 2018, I was advanced to the VII° and later that year attended the inaugural Rocky Mountain SRICF Conference in Salt Lake City. That November, at my first High Council meeting, I joined with another Idaho Frater, who would later become the first Chief Adept of Idaho, in petitioning the then Supreme Magus for permission to form a College in Idaho.

That work came to fruition in 2019. After further initiations in Wyoming and preparation of regalia and paraphernalia, Idaho College officially received its charter in April. I was honored to serve as its founding Celebrant, a role I held until 2024. That summer, at the Rocky Mountain SRICF Conference in Denver, I witnessed a friend receive his IX° from Supreme Magus, Billy Koon. In November of that year, I was myself elevated to the VIII° and, unexpectedly, to the IX°, in recognition of my service in establishing Idaho College and assisting Montana College. I received that degree in the presence of the Supreme Magi of England, Scotland, Portugal, and the United States, during a High Council that also saw the election and enthronement of a new Most Worthy Supreme Magus.

Like so much else, Rosicrucian activity was curtailed in 2020. In 2021, I was grateful to return to active participation at the Southwest RCC and SRICF Conferences, and to witness several Fratres from Mexico receive the I° from Arizona College.

In February 2022, I was appointed Celebrant of the VIII° team. That year included the inaugural Southeast SRICF Conference in Birmingham, AL, and a High Council meeting at which I had the profound honor of presiding over the conferral of the Grade of Magister (VIII°). I was asked to continue in that role and was also appointed Guardian of the Cavern for the triennium. At that same High Council, I gave a presentation on the Roman cult of Mithras, a subject of longstanding interest to me.

In 2023, working with the Chief Adepts of Arizona, Utah, and Colorado, I helped coordinate the Rocky Mountain SRICF Conference in Las Vegas, where several Fratres from Nevada were initiated. That November, I presided over the VIII° for the second time and witnessed the installation of one of my closest friends as Chief Adept of Idaho.

The following year included the inaugural Midwest SRICF Conference in Dayton, OH, in August and my third opportunity to preside over the VIII° at High Council in November. I believe that conferral was our strongest yet.

Last year, I assisted in coordinating the 2025 Rocky Mountain SRICF Conference in Boise. We welcomed new Fratres, shared excellent educational work, and at High Council I again served as Guardian of the Cavern and presided over our largest VIII° class to date. With the election of new Senior and Junior Deputy Supreme Magi, I was also appointed First Ancient of the High Council.

Looking back on these years, I am struck less by offices held than by gratitude...the gratitude for the trust placed in me, for enduring friendships, and for the privilege of service. To preside over the conferral of the Grade of Magister, and to serve both Idaho College and the High Council, has been an honor I do not take lightly.

May the next decade be guided by the same Light that has illuminated the first.

Matthew 5 and Masonic Obligations

From time to time, critics of Freemasonry attempt to condemn the taking of Masonic obligations by appealing to Christ’s words in Matthew 5:34-37: “Do not swear an oath at all.” This passage is often quoted in isolation, treated as a universal and absolute prohibition against any form of oath, vow, or solemn obligation. Such readings are not only contextually unsound, but they stand in clear contradiction to the rest of Scripture and the historic understanding of the Christian Church.

Christ’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is not a series of disconnected prooftexts. It is a sustained moral discourse aimed at correcting abuses of the Law, not abolishing lawful moral practices rooted in truth, justice, and integrity.

In 1st century Judaism, a complex hierarchy of oaths had developed. People swore by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or their own heads (anything short of explicitly invoking the name of God) to preserve the appearance of piety while retaining plausible deniability. This casuistry (using clever but unsound reasoning; sophistry) allowed individuals to evade accountability by manipulating the form of their oath rather than honoring its substance.

Christ cut through this hypocrisy and deception. His rebuke is directed at dishonest speech and moral evasion, not at the concept of solemn promises themselves. His command, to let one’s “yes” be yes and “no” be no, is a call to radical truthfulness, not legalistic silence. His point is not a prohibition of all oaths in every circumstance, but the elimination of deceitful systems that undermine moral responsibility.

A blanket ban on all oaths immediately collapses under the weight of the rest of Scripture. The Mosaic Law explicitly affirms the moral seriousness of vows:

“If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word.” (Numbers 30:2)

Here, the sin is not vow-making but vow-breaking. The Law condemns false or manipulative oaths, not sincere promises made in good faith.

Scripture further records God Himself swearing oaths (Genesis 22:16), commands lawful oath-taking under the Law (Deuteronomy 6:13), and shows St. Paul invoking God as witness to his truthfulness (2 Corinthians 1:23). If Matthew 5 were an absolute prohibition, Scripture would contradict itself and Christianity would fail to understand Christ, not as contradicting the moral law, but that He came to fulfill it.

The historic Christian consensus overwhelmingly rejects the idea that Christ abolished all oaths. Augustine of Hippo taught that Christ’s words were aimed at correcting dishonesty, not abolishing lawful oaths. In his writings on truth and lying, Augustine explicitly permits oaths when taken truthfully, justly, and for the sake of moral order or charity.

John Chrysostom likewise interpreted Matthew 5 as a rebuke of habitual swearing and moral evasion. He recognized that solemn oaths remained necessary in courts, covenants, and public life precisely because of human unreliability.

Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae, teaches that oaths are morally lawful when they meet three conditions: truth, judgment, and justice. Aquinas directly cites Numbers 30:2 to affirm that vows are binding and good when made rightly, and he interprets Matthew 5 as condemning careless or deceitful swearing, not solemn promises made in good faith.

Protestant Reformers like John Calvin rejected the idea that Christ forbade all oaths, arguing instead that Jesus dismantled reliance on verbal formulas used to mask dishonesty. Calvin affirmed judicial oaths, marriage vows, and civic obligations. Martin Luther defended lawful oaths taken in the service of truth, neighbor, and social order, including oaths of office and military service.

Modern New Testament scholarship continues this consensus: Christ is confronting casuistry or systems that preserve the appearance of righteousness while hollowing out integrity. His teaching calls believers to such deep truthfulness that oaths become unnecessary, not unlawful.

It is worth noting that those who condemn Masonic obligations on this basis rarely, if ever, condemn wedding vows, courtroom oaths, or soldiers taking lawful oaths of enlistment. This faux outrage reveals that the objection is not biblical but selective. If Matthew 5 truly prohibited all obligations “at all,” consistency would require the rejection of marriage covenants, civic office, and military service alike. Such absolutism has never been the position of historic Christianity.

Masonic obligations are moral commitments. They do not replace Scripture, supersede civil law, or demand immoral action. They are precisely the kind of solemn promises that presume honesty and accountability, not deceit.

If one’s word is truthful and one’s life upright, the form of the promise is secondary. Christ condemns deception, not honor; duplicity, not fidelity; hypocrisy, not moral accountability.

Reducing Matthew 5:34-37 to a blanket ban on all obligations ignores biblical context, contradicts Scripture, and stands outside the historic Christian tradition. Christ’s teaching condemns dishonest speech and manipulative oath-taking, and not solemn promises made in good faith. To claim otherwise is not a defense of biblical Christianity, but a distortion of it.