American Freemasonry from 1730 to 1830 (abbreviated from lecture by S.B. Morris)

1730: The Beginnings of American Masonry

        Like so many Masonic events, the first American appearance of Freemasonry is not precisely known. Jonathan Belcher (1681–1757), a native of Cambridge, Massachusetts and later Governor of the Colonies of Massachusetts and New Hampshire from 1730–41 and the Colony of New Jersey from 1747–57, was made a Mason in London ca. 1704.

       It is possible he held private Lodges at his residence before time-immemorial or chartered Lodges appeared. On 5 June 1730, the premier Grand Lodge appointed Daniel Coxe (1673–1739) Provincial Grand Master for New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, giving the first official Masonic recognition of the English colonies. Bro. Coxe does not seem to have exercised his authority, even though he lived in New Jersey from 1731–1739. 

       The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania possesses a book marked “Liber B” which contains the records of the earliest known Pennsylvania and American Lodge. The first record is for 24 June 1731, and in that month Benjamin Franklin (1705–1790) is entered as paying dues five months back. Franklin’s entry implies Lodge activity from at least December 1730 or January 1731.  No earlier Lodge records exist in the United States, though there are suggestive comments in newspapers.

       Provincial Grand Masters were appointed after Daniel Coxe from 1733 through 1787: twenty-two by the moderns, six by the ancients, and four by Scotland.

     In 1775 John Batt initiated fifteen free African-Americans in Boston. Batt was Sergeant in the 38^th Regiment of Foot, British Army and Master of Lodge No. 441, Irish Constitution. When the Regiment and Lodge departed in 1776, the fifteen new Masons were left with a permit to meet, to walk on St. John’s Day, and to bury their dead. They in turn applied to the Grand Lodge of Moderns for a warrant and were chartered as African Lodge No. 459 on 29 September 1784 with Prince Hall as the first Master.

   

      In 1792 when the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was formed, African Lodge did not join but remained attached to England. This could be due to loyalty to the premier Grand Lodge or to racism from the newly formed Grand Lodge. However, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts also didn’t recognize St. Andrews Lodge, which had a Scottish charter. There is evidence that white Masons visited African Lodge and that England relied on Prince Hall for information on Boston Lodges. In any event African Lodge continued its separate existence until 1813 when it and all other English-chartered American lodges were erased from the roles of the newly formed United Grand Lodge of England. Then in 1827 officers of African Lodge declared themselves independent and constituted themselves as a Grand Lodge. From these origins grew the large Masonic organization known today as “Prince Hall Masonry.”

 

 Most American Lodges originated from one of the British Grand Lodges—England, Scotland, and Ireland, though Germany, France, and other Grand Lodges issued charters. Traveling British military Lodges spread Masonry through much of North America as they initiated civilians in the towns where they were stationed. Also imported from England was the rivalry between the Ancient and Modern Grand Lodges. Many states had competing Grand Lodges that eventually merged after the Union of 1813 in London, though South Carolina did not see Masonic unity until 1817. Modern Masons tended to be conservative in promoting the fraternity, prosperous, and loyalists, while Ancient Masons were aggressive in expanding Lodges, working-class, and revolutionaries.

      The early forms of Masonic ritual in the United States are less known that those in England and France. We do not have the large number of 18^th century documents—Gothic constitutions, manuscript catechisms, memory aides—that can be found in Europe. Presumably the first rituals were transmitted mouth-to-ear, and Lodges may have patterned their ceremonies after some of the exposés, either imported or printed domestically. 

     The first American exposé was Benjamin Franklin’s 1730 reprint of The Mystery of Freemasonry (intended as an attack upon rivals), but there do not seem to have been any exposés of American ritual practices until the anti-Masonic period, ca. 1826–1840.

The Influence of Itinerant Masonic Lecturers

      With a diversity of ritual sources, the work in American Masonic Lodges must have been variegated during the 1700s. This began to change in 1797 when Thomas Smith Webb (1771–1819) published The Freemason’s Monitor or Illustrations of Masonry. It acknowledged that “The observations upon the first three degrees are many of them taken from Preston’s ‘Illustrations of Masonry,’ with some necessary alterations” to make them “agreeable to the mode of working in America.”

Webb was the first and most prominent of several Masonic Lecturers who toured the country teaching a uniform of ritual to Lodges, Chapters, and any other body they could convince to pay their fees. These lecturers often had “side degrees” available for sale or as gifts. Webb trained Jeremy Ladd Cross (1783–1861) who succeeded Webb as the generally recognized chief ritualist. Cross’s great contribution was his 1819 The True Masonic Chart or Hieroglyphic Monitor. It was largely Webb’s Monitor with a few small textual changes and one major visual addition: forty-two pages of engravings by Bro. Amos Doolittle.

Doolittle’s engravings did more than illustrate Cross’s text, they provided a memory map for students learning the ritual. Each image on a page was a milestone in the lectures. By associating an image with a portion of ritual, it was possible to mentally review an entire lecture by thumbing through a few pages of Cross’s Chart. The book was very successful and has influenced the artwork in almost every subsequent American Masonic monitor.

      Other Masonic lecturers trained by or with Webb and Cross include John Barney (1780–1847), James Cushman (1776–1829), David Vinton (d. 1833), and John Snow (1780–1852). They each seemed to concentrate on a different part of the country, much as salesmen have defined territories. There was some cooperation among the lecturers and not a small amount of competition.

The Royal Arch

     The first “high degree” to appear in America was the Royal Arch Degree. In fact, the first recorded conferral of this degree anywhere occurred in December 1753 at Fredericksburg Lodge in Virginia, where George Washington (1731–1799) was initiated an Entered Apprentice in 1752. The American Royal Arch ritual is based upon the story of Jeshua, Zerrubabel, and Haggai and the rebuilding of the second Temple in Jerusalem. The degree began to spread steadily throughout the colonies:

 

1758—organization of Jerusalem Chapter in Philadelphia;

1769—organization of St. Andrew’s Chapter, Boston;

1790—organization of Cyrus Chapter Newburyport, Massachusetts;

1792—organization of a Chapter in Charleston, South Carolina;

1794—organization of Harmony Chapter, Philadelphia.

 

Other unrecorded or forgotten degrees and chapters doubtlessly occurred. In 1795 the First Grand Chapter was formed in Pennsylvania, and in 1797 the first national American organization was created—the General Grand Chapter of the New England States, which is today the General Grand Chapter of the United States. Additional Grand Chapters quickly followed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island in 1798. By 1830 there were twenty-one Grand Chapters in the United States. 

       The early conferral of the Royal Arch Degree seemed to be based on the authority inherent in the charter of a Lodge. Not surprisingly, it was Ancient Lodges that were most likely to see this high degree authority inherent in their charters. Royal Arch Chapter in the United States, in contrast to their English counterparts, quickly organized themselves into state Grand Chapters and, with the exception of Pennsylvania and Virginia, quickly placed themselves under the authority of the General Grand Chapter.

     A quirk of American Royal Arch Masonry is worth noting: (unlike elsewhere) the American presiding officer is not the King, representing Zerrubabel, but the High Priest, representing Jeshua. 

The Growth of the Chapter Degrees

 

      As Lodges had a “chair degree,” the Past Master’s Degree, it only made sense that the Royal Arch should have one too, and so the Order of High Priesthood came into being. It is not mentioned in Webb’s 1796 Monitor, but it is in his 1802 edition as well as Cross’s 1819 Chart. It is usually conferred on High Priests before they can assume the Oriental Chair of Solomon. The degree, still worked today, may have had European ancestors, but its genealogy is uncertain.

       As in England the Royal Arch Degree in the United States can only be conferred on Past Masters. American practice soon required the conferral of the chair ceremony to qualify candidates as “virtual Past Masters.” The Chapter degree seems to have contained the essential elements of the Lodge degree, but the candidate was given humorous trials and tribulations to endure. 

 

 

The Growth of the Chapter Degrees

      The earliest record of the Mark Degree is in 1783 at the Royal Arch Chapter in Middleton, Connecticut. Soon the Mark was adopted by Royal Arch Chapters as the first in their sequence of degrees. This is in contract to most European jurisdictions where the Mark is independent and controlled by its own Grand Lodge.

The Most Excellent Master Degree, a uniquely American degree in origin, first appeared by name at the Middleton Chapter with the Mark Degree in 1783. Its legend revolves around the completion of the Temple of Solomon and the placement of the keystone in the Royal Arch. It may contain elements from older European degrees, but its current organization is unique to the United States. Thomas Smith Webb published a description of this degree in his 1797 monitor as the third of three degrees leading to the Royal Arch, and it has remained in that position until today. 

The sequence of degrees conferred in American Royal Arch Chapters since then (except for Virginia and West Virginia) is

 

1. Mark Master Mason,

2. Past Master,

3. Most Excellent Master,

4. Royal Arch Mason,

      5. Order of High Priesthood for High Priests.

The Cryptic Degrees

The Degrees of Royal and Select Master seem to have originated as side degrees available from itinerant Masonic lecturers. They are known collectively as the “Cryptic Degrees” or the “Cryptic Rite” because their legend deals with the secret vault or crypt beneath King Solomon’s Temple. 

Cross included these two degrees in his popular 1819 illustrated monitor, producing a nine-degree system extending from Entered Apprentice to Select Master. The degrees were some times conferred in Royal Arch Chapters, but slowly emerged as independent Masonic bodies, governed by state Grand Councils of Royal and Select Masters and a national General Grand Council. The earliest independent Councils were formed in

 

1810—New York City,

1815—New Hampshire,

1817—Massachusetts, Virginia, and Vermont,

1818—Rhode Island and Connecticut.

      By 1830 there were Grand Councils in ten states. Under the influence of Cross’s Chart and other monitors, the Select Master’s Degree came to be viewed at the culmination of “Ancient Craft Masonry,” even if Councils were found in only a few metropolitan areas and their degrees available to only a few. This is probably the beginning of the American “York Rite,” consisting of the Chapter of Royal Arch Masons, Council of Royal and Select Masters, and Commandery of Knights Templar.

Knights Templars and the American York Rite

       The first reference to a Masonic Templar degree is found in the minutes of St. Andrews Lodge, Boston, an Ancient Lodge, when on 9 April 1769, William Davis received the Excellent, Super Excellent, Royal Arch, and Knight Templar Degrees. In 1796 the first Commandery (or Encampment or Priory) was established in Colchester, Connecticut, and eventually received a charter from England in 1803.  

 

Today in America a Commandery of Knights Templar confers the Order of the Red Cross, the Order of Malta, and the Order of the Temple on Christian Masons. In 1816 the Order of Malta was placed as the last degree in the series until 1916 when it returned to second place. 

The Red Cross legend is similar to the Knight of the East and Prince of Jerusalem detailing the return of Zerubbabel from Babylon to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple. It is entirely out of place among Christian chivalric orders. Nonetheless it remains and provides an important part of the York Rite legends.

      Taken together, the Craft Lodge, Royal Arch Chapter, Royal and Select Council, and Knights Templar Commandery form the American “York Rite.” The name is inexact as the degrees did not originate in York, England, but then again the Scottish Rite did not originate in Scotland. 

       Reflecting the widespread belief that the York Rite was the purest and oldest form of Masonry, some American Grand Lodges originally styled themselves, “Ancient York Masons” (A.Y.M.)

 The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite

     A high degree event in the United States occurred on 31 May 1801 when John Mitchell (ca. 1741–1816) elevated Frederick Dalcho (1770–1835) to the 33^rd Degree, and they then elevated another seven until there was a constitutional number to open a Supreme Council. Their actions were announced to the world in a circular dated 4 December 1802. The opening of the first Supreme Council 33° was preceded by considerable “Scottish” activity.

Etienne Morin (1693?–1771) received authority in 1761 from Paris or Bordeaux to promote Masonry throughout the world. This included propagating a rite of twenty-five degrees, sometimes known as the Rite of Perfection. Morin moved to San Domingo and soon appointed six Inspectors General.  The most successful of these was Henry Andrew Francken (d. 1795), from whom fifty-two Inspectors descended, though he only appointed six. 

After Morin’s arrival in America, bodies of his rite were soon established:

 

1764—Loge de Parfaits de Écosse, New Orleans, Louisiana;

1767—The Ineffable Lodge of Perfection, Albany, New York;

1781—Lodge of Perfection, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

1783—Lodge of Perfection, Charleston, South Carolina;

1788—Grand Council, Princes of Jerusalem, Charleston, South Carolina;

1791—King Solomon’s Lodge of Perfection, Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts;

1792—Lodge of Perfection, Baltimore, Maryland;

1797—Sublime Grand Council, Princes of the Royal Secret, Charleston, South Carolina;

1797—La Triple Union, Chapter of Rose Croix, New York. (17)

 

Inspectors propagated the degrees of this rite with little organization, often for the fees they could negotiate. The Supreme Council’s motto, Ordo ab Chao, is indeed appropriate for the situation. 

Webb’s Monitor had monitorial instructions for the ineffable degrees, which served to make American Masons aware there was more than the York Rite. Thus when the Mother Supreme Council formed itself in 1801, it did not operate in a vacuum.

In August 1806 Antoine Bideaud, a member of the Supreme Council of the “French West India Islands,” visited new York City and found an opportunity to make a little extra money. 

He conferred the Scottish Rite degrees on four Masons for $46 each and then created a “Sublime Grand Consistory, 30°, 31°, and 32°.” Bideaud’s authority was for the islands only and certainly did not extend into New York, which was under the jurisdiction of the Charleston Supreme Council. (18)

In New York City in October 1807, Joseph Cerneau (d. 1827?), a jeweler from Cuba, constituted a “Sovereign Grand Consistory of Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret.” Cerneau was a “Deputy Grand Inspector, for the Northern part of the Island of Cuba” under Morin’s rite. His patent limited him to confer the 4° through 24° on Lodge officers, and the 25° once a year. Early records are sufficiently vague that it cannot be determined if the original members of Cerneau’s Consistory thought they had the 25° or the 32°. With even less authority than Bideaud, Cerneau launched his foray into high degree Masonry in New York. 

 

      The Bideaud organization was “healed” by Emmanuel de la Motta, Grand Treasurer of the Mother Supreme Council on 24 December 1813. This group assumed control of what is today known as the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction. 

        The Cerneau Consistory ignored de la Motta’s actions, but decided they had to expand their degrees to thirty-three to “keep up with the competition.” They eventually claimed jurisdiction over the “United States, Their Territories, and Dependencies.” Thus in 1830 there were three competing Supreme Councils in the United States. All three became dormant during the anti-Masonic period.

Side Degrees

 

        The last category of pre-1830 degrees is “side degrees,” conferred under irregular circumstances with little formal authority. They sometimes were communicated by itinerant lecturers, sometimes by Masons who possessed the degree, sometimes for a fee, sometimes for free. 

        Some of these degrees could have coalesced into a rite if anti-Masonry hadn’t crushed them. There is scant information on them, sometimes little more than a title mentioned in passing. A search of all American Lodge minutes before 1830 might yield a few more names, but probably no more rituals.

Some of our information comes from two exposés from the anti-Masonic period, David Barnard’s 1829 Light on Masonry and Avery Allyn’s 1831 A Ritual of Freemasonry. Both authors seemed to been originally motivated in “saving” the American public by exposing the “evils” of Freemasonry. However, general interest in Masonry was spurred on by the public conferral of the degrees by anti-Masonic troupes. 

This interest, in turn increased demand for exposés, especially those complete with passwords and grips. Bernard obliged this demand by adding the secret work from Delaunaye’s Thuileur, without regard for whether it matched the American degrees he described.  It is often difficult to know if the degrees described were widely worked, if at all. Of these many degrees, only the Heroines of Jericho seems to be an American original. It survived and is worked today by Prince Hall Masons.

         

         Another source of pre-1830 side degrees is a series of newspaper articles, “Recollections of a Masonic Veteran,” by Robert Benjamin Folger (1803–1892). Published in 1873–74, these articles describe his fifty years in Masonry with a few comments about side degrees. Finally, there is tantalizing evidence that Zorobabel Lodge No. 498 in New York City worked the Rectified Scottish Rite and may have conferred the fourth degree, Scottish Master. 

 

Pre-1830 American Masonic Side Degrees:

 

Knight of the Christian Mark Bernard, Allyn

Knight of the Holy Sepulchre Bernard, Allyn

Holy and Thrice Illustrious order of the Cross Bernard, Allyn

Knight of the Three Kings, Allyn

Knight of Constantinople Allyn, Folger

Secret Monitor Allyn, Folger

Ark and Dove (RAMs only), Allyn

Mediterranean Pass Folger

Knight of the Round Table (fun degree), Folger

Aaron’s Band (similar to High Priesthood), Folger

Master Mason’s Daughter (for women), Folger

True Kindred (for women), Folger

Heroine of Jericho (RAMs, wives and widows), Allyn

1830: The End of the First Era of American Masonry

  

        As early as March 1826 a New York Mason named William Morgan began plans to publish the “secrets of Freemasonry.” This created quite a stir in his small town of Batavia, New York. Neither Morgan, nor his potential readers, nor the local Lodge seemed aware that ritual exposés had been available in the United States since at least 1730 when Benjamin Franklin republished The Mystery of Freemasonry. Masons tried to purchase the manuscript from Morgan’s publisher, David Miller, a former Entered Apprentice Mason. When this failed, Miller’s printing company was set on fire twice, presumably by Masons.

Morgan, a ne’er-do-well in frequent debt, was jailed in Canandaigua, New York, for a debt of $2.00 assigned to Nicholas G. Chesbro, Master of the Lodge at Canandaigua. On the next day, 12 September 1826, Chesbro appeared at the jail with several other Masons and discharged his claim against Morgan. They escorted Morgan outside and into a waiting carriage. Before entering the carriage, Morgan was heard crying during a scuffle, “Help! Murder!” He was driven north to Niagara County and held in the old Powder Magazine at Ft. Niagara until 19 September. Morgan was never seen thereafter. 

 

Morgan’s abduction, disappearance, and presumed murder set off a social and political crisis in the United States. Many came to believe that Freemasonry was a secretive power behind the government, murdering those who dared cross it. Soon the fear of Masonry manifested itself in the creation of the first major “third part” in American politics: the Anti-Masonic Party. The party attracted reformers, abolitionists, and idealists, but its primary purpose was the destruction of Freemasonry and other “secret societies.” From about 1826 to 1840 the anti-Masonic movement swept across the country. The northeastern states, where the Craft was most prosperous, endured the worst destruction, but few parts of the country was spared. By the time the Anti-Masonic Party collapsed as a political force in 1840, Freemasonry began to reemerge, but as a more conservative organization.

Appreciating Diversity, Focusing on What's Important

"'In non essentials, variety; in essentials, unity' might have been written of Masonry. It matters little how we wear the apron in given degree - so be it that it is worn with honor. The method of giving a sign or a pass matter much less than that what we do is done with understanding." MSA, 1934

According to the General Regulations published by the Grand Lodge of England in 1723 "Every Annual Grand Lodge has an inherent power and Authority to make new Regulations or to alter these, for the real benefits of this Ancient Fraternity; provided always that the old Land-Marks be carefully preserved." However, these landmarks were not defined in any manner. An early attempt at this was in Jurisprudence of Freemasonry 1856 by Dr. Albert Mackey. He laid down three requisite characteristics:

   1. notional immemorial antiquity
   2. universality (of usage)
   3. absolute "irrevocability"

He claimed there were 25 in all, and they could not be changed. However subsequent writers have differed greatly as regards what they consider the Landmarks to be. In 1863, George Oliver published the Freemason's Treasury in which he listed 40 Landmarks. In the last century, several American Grand Lodges attempted to enumerate the Landmarks, ranging from West Virginia (7) and New Jersey (10) to Nevada (39) and Kentucky (54).

One Grand Lodge even added ritual as an unchanging landmark when they were in the process of making drastic changes in their ritual!  Rituals today of course bear little resemblance if at all to rituals of old, and the lectures are relatively modern appendages added to make the degree work more meaty (some say boring and dull) and also to give various brethren in the lodge something to do.

There is much to be said for doing away with these lectures that are now often longer than the ritual itself; particularly that they trample on the individual's freedom to draw meaning from the rituals as they choose, not as some long winded 19th or 20th century lecturer chose.

Joseph Fort Newton, in The Builders, offers a simple definition of the Landmarks as: "The fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the moral law, the Golden Rule, and the hope of life everlasting." While that sounded fine and expansive, Newton excluded blacks (along with women and the disabled and others considered undesirable.)

The noted American 20th century jurist and influential Freemason Roscoe Pound subscribed to six landmarks:

   1. Belief in a Supreme Being
   2. Belief in the immortality of the soul
   3. A "book of sacred law" as an indispensable part of the "furniture" (or furnishings) of the Lodge
   4. The legend of the Third Degree
   5. The secrets of Freemasonry: The modes of recognition and the symbolic ritual of the Lodge
   6. That a Mason be a man, freeborn, and of lawful age.

Pound omits however that the legend of the Third Degree itself changed and in fact the expansion to three degrees was itself an "innovation".  Pound assumed a Bible would be that book of sacred law which is hardly an innovation considering Freemasonry in its early days was not at all religiously tolerant but overtly and uniformly Christian. Moreover the modes recognition were repeatedly changed from time to time due to them becoming too well known by non-Masons in any particular jurisdiction. The modes of recognition were also different from place to place due to the difference in origins of various jurisdictions.

As for "freeborn", the notion was used as an argument for years that blacks under various governments did not enjoy the full rights of a freeman (even when said men were not born enslaved and slavery had been abolished.) This meant that the idea of "freeborn" was hardly one tied to innate rights but to the political situation of any given time and a lodge's interpretation.

Masonry thus simply was not and in some cases is not recognizing groups of men as born with the same innate right to freedom.  There has been great progress.  And it has been diversity at the lodge level rather than jurisdictional conformity that has led to an evolution away from those policies.

In the 1950s the Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America arbitrarily looked to three "ancient Landmarks":

   1. Monotheism — An unalterable and continuing belief in God.
   2. The Volume of The Sacred Law — an essential part of the furniture of the Lodge.
   3. Prohibition of the discussion of Religion and Politics.

Addressing these in reverse order; the third item as a Landmark can be dismissed easily since the whole notion was added long after the founding of the Grand Lodge of England and does not appear in original manuscripts. As for the second item, we need only to recall the evolution of Anglo-American Masonry from a Christian institution to a "religious" one.

The first item is of more interest not just for its status as a Landmark but because of its effects on the culture of the lodge. The terms "Monotheism — An unalterable and continuing belief in God" are specific, as it precludes "doubt" which is usually an acknowledged part of the path of faith in major religions. Also this specificity Monotheism may run contrary to Christian trinitarian doctrine.

We must accept that Freemasonry is neither a religion (for it does not have a set of basic and unchanging tenets) nor an inerrant and unchanging institution. Those who try to make Freemasonry something it is not and those who try to foist that upon others do Freemasonry and their brethren a great disservice.

Too often we see Masons dry, quiet and deadly serious about something that frankly draws its real meaning from lively, convivial engagement. Even the language of the business meeting, once perfunctory and common place becomes exalted in its strangeness though it was never intended to be. It is likely that these Masons who exalt function are seeking to bring something they lost in the Church, or personal religion into lodge; just as it is that those Masons who are the least intellectually developed or least academically successful take pride in uselessly exact memorization and recitation of procedural items in the lodge. (Stricken indeed are lodges dominated by such men, for they are the clear conscience but bloody handed assassins of many a lodge.)

It is important then that we remember: Masonry makes a claim of good will and brotherhood.  It makes no certain moral claim nor does it aspire to spiritual deliverance in its own words and observances, as religions do.

In fact Freemasonry has had many errors in its past and has so today whether that be in its regulations or its operation.  And perhaps the only thing that is universal and unchanging is paradoxically that that it is never universal nor unchanging.

Unfortunately, grand lodges and busy individuals have sought to not only make their changes but to enforce whatever their version of orthodoxy at the time.  The various victims have been neighborhood lodges, lodge traditions, various historical rituals, internal charity, bonhomie, religious or irreligious environment as fitting particular lodges, individual lodge character and the ancient rights of lodge autonomy.

Naturally there will be brethren who stand by their version and interpretation of Freemasonry.  That is the way it should be.  In diversity not uniformity there is tolerance and respect of different interpretations and traditions. The administrative energy used in enforcing conformity in our lodges is probably best used to righting ourselves.

Eagerness to reproach or correct others is an ugly flaw inside or outside of the lodge, though many Masons can attest, it is flaw that rears its head often in lodges whether concerning more consequential business or inconsequential procedural issues. Lodges would likely run in greater accord if Masons took to heart the words in the Book of Matthew, why behold you the speck of sawdust that is in your brother's eye, rather than the bit of wood that is in your own eye?

So it holds in the true practice of Freemasonry that we cannot forbid those Freemasons from rejecting among their own other versions and interpretations.  This is when we find the true test of Masons: one group clings to something finds another objectionable and another is just the opposite yet both groups maintain their perspectives.  Can each group still hold the other in fraternal regard even if in cool disagreement?  We show our own ignorance of the variety in the history of Freemasonry when we try to stamp out or denounce other practices.

What we can do is to appreciate the variety.  The more varied Freemasonry is, the more opportunity there is to have something which brethren support.  And should we find certain procedures in a lodge to be in some ways wrongheaded or tiresome we may find it best to avoid this part of lodge life or even to leave that lodge altogether for one more to our disposition; but we may also stay knowing that someone who we care about in the lodge actually finds good in the lodge's practices.

Freemasonry and British Imperialism, A Book Review

In 1925, Rudyard Kipling wrote in the London Times, "I was Secretary for some years of Hope and Perseverance Lodge No. 782, E.C. Lahore which included Brethren of at least four creeds.'

"I was entered by a member of Bramo Somaj, a Hindu; passed by a Mohammedan, and raised by an Englishman. Our Tyler was an Indian Jew.'

"We met, of course, on the level, and the only difference anyone would notice was that at our banquets, some of the Brethren, who were debarred by caste from eating food not ceremonially prepared, sat over empty plates."

The Lodge minutes prove the details of his Entry to be wrong and that Kipling was in fact entered, passed and raised by Englishmen. 

What is more interesting however is that Kipling, despite writing much that many now consider deeply racist and hateful toward non white, Christian Englishmen, would  feel compelled to create a false story.
 
Kipling obviously wanted to illustrate a cosmopolitan brotherhood, albeit one that existed within a distinctly English institution strictly administered along the same racial and class hierarchical arrangements that existed in every other aspect of British colonial life. 

This phenomenon is examined in the book "Builders of Empire" (interview podcast with the author, book abstract and several reviews to follow):

Author and professor Jessica Harland-Jacobs interview podcast– 

Author of “Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism, 1717-1927”. In the interview Ms. Harland-Jacobs is taken off track from her main thesis and even bloodied  a bit. Unfortunately the interview barely addresses her thesis but it is posted here. 

FREEMASONRY AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM

AUTHOR(S): HARLAND-JACOBS, JESSICA LEIGH DEGREE: PH.D. YEAR: 2000 PAGES: 00347 INSTITUTION: DUKE UNIVERSITY; 0066 ADVISOR: SUPERVISOR JOHN W. CELL SOURCE: DAI, 61, NO. 12A (2000): P. 4899 

Abstract: Emerging in Britain during the seventeenth century, the Masonic brotherhood—which claimed to admit any free man, regardless of his religion, social status, political orientation, and race (provided he believed in the existence of a supreme being)—taught its members lessons of self-improvement, spirituality, and benevolence. During the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the fraternity suited itself remarkably well to the British Empire. 

It spread primarily through the activities of lodges in British Army regiments, which resulted in the development of a vast service network that was fundamentally global and masculine in nature. Looking at the British North Atlantic world between 1751 and 1918, this dissertation explores the reciprocal relationship between Freemasonry and imperialism. It asks how Freemasonry contributed to the building and consolidation of the British Empire and what the fraternity reflected about the broader imperial context. 

Having conducted research in Masonic and public archives on both sides of the Atlantic, I draw on a wide range of manuscript and published sources, including correspondence; private papers of prominent Freemasons; British government documents; proceedings of the English, Irish, Scottish, and Canadian grand lodges; and Masonic speeches, sermons, periodicals, pamphlets, and monographs. 

I deploy the methodology of world networks history to argue that cultural institutions played a critical role in British imperialism and that the imperial and metropolitan spheres were highly interconnected arenas. As it underwent the simultaneous processes of bureaucratization in the metropole and global expansion, Freemasonry experienced a transformation. Despite its consistent cosmopolitan claims, it became increasingly Protestant, middle-class, loyalist, and white over time. From the mid-nineteenth century on, Freemasonry marched hand in hand with the British imperial state. Its network connected the metropolitan and colonial spheres, fostering what I describe as an imperialist identity among its members and becoming implicated in the increasingly racialized imperialism of the late nineteenth century. 

Like cosmopolitanism, imperialist identity is an example of an under-studied supra-national identity. Appreciating its role in imperialism is crucial for understanding the timing and location of national identity formation and the hegemonic function of cultural institutions in the imperial arena. 

-------------------------------

The Lodge Room's Review:

“Builders of Empire: Freemasonry and British Imperialism, 1717-1927″ by Jessica L Harland-Jacobs (Univ of N Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2007)

Freemasonry began in the pre-"Enlightenment" period and in time became very much a reflection of the Enlightenment era.  Freemasonry displayed all the era's ennobling ideals, intellectual advancement, liberating sentiment and advancement of thinking.  It also shared Enlightenment's  deep hypocrisy, historical and cultural blindness, inflexible thinking and ultimate failure to reconcile lofty ideals with behavioral realities and conditions.


Modern, post-Enlightenment thinking tends to characterize, in hindsight, an intellectual movement that became a veneer of noble sentiment for the prevalent power arrangements, abuses and injustice.  Post-Enlightenment modernists over the better part of the century have pointed to ample evidence for this view.  Imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, slavery, genocide, racial and ethnic disparity and economic, political and social injustices seem to coincide with the rise and decline of the Enlightenment. Barely a single institution of major significance has been unexamined for its role in that problematic era.


There is one major institution that has escaped serious examination: Freemasonry. Historian Jessica Harland-Jacobs has undertook to right this omission.  Her “Builders of Empire: Freemasonry and British Imperialism, 1717-1927″  examines particularly the role of Freemasonry through the rise and height of British imperialism.  The results are hardly surprising.


From a pre-Enlightenment, Christian brotherhood with the presence of some random moral speculators, British Freemasonry quickly transformed to imperialist state machinery. If there is anything surprising perhaps even to the well informed student of the period, it is the major role of Freemasonry in reinforcing the imperialistic social order.


There may be an aspect of "blaming the plate for the meal" in Ms. Harland-Jacobs' book.  Institutions evolve with  society, their framework being used for whatever the energies and the imagination of the time order.  Freemasonry can be no more (or less) condemned for its role as the church or educators in British public schools.  These institutions however have examined themselves, as they are still crucial to modern society whereas Freemasonry is not.   A book like this does a great deal of good for all concerned to understand the era of British imperialism and its underpinnings. It does even more for our understanding the  continuing evolution of Freemasonry. 


A final note.  It is lamentable that a Freemason did not write such an excellent and needed work in this field.  Such authorship could have been an indication that Freemasonry is moving into a new period of intellectual  and societal relevance. The popularity of Ms. Harland-Jacobs' book in the Masonic community      nevertheless may be reason to take heart.

------------------------------------------

Bruno Gazzo
Editor, Pietre Stones Review of Freemasonry. Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism, 1717-1927 (review)

British Masonic or Academic historians have always forgotten to investigate in depth the Freemasonry's role in the Empire and it is not surprising to me that only a woman and an American professor has fulfilled this task writing such a significant and sophisticated book, with some shortcomings.

 

Examining the fate of Freemasonry's inclusive promise - the Universal Brotherhood of Man - in the diverse historical circumstances presented by the British Empire is the central hinge upon which this valuable book by Pro. Harland-Jacobs unfolds.

 

The British Empire of the eighteenth century provided fertile ground for the building and functioning of an extensive Masonic network. In this period, the fraternity remained a relatively fluid and inclusive institution that did, at times, live up to its ideology of cosmopolitan brotherhood. 


Although white Protestant men of the upper classes vastly predominated with Freemasonry much less established abroad, eighteenth century British Masonry did have room in its some of its lodges for Jews and Muslims, African Americans, South Asians and others. Freemasonry's cosmopolitanism was by definition fraternal. Eighteenth-century Masonry also included men of a diverse range of political opinions who both supported and challenged the imperialistic Whig oligarchy running Hanoverian Britain and its growing empire.
 

As Britain withstood the Age of Revolution and emerged victorious from the Napoleonic Wars, Masonry underwent a major transformation that reflected the strengthening currents of nationalism, capitalism, and imperialism. Like their eighteenth-century brethren, nineteenth-century Freemasons continued to champion an ill defined Masonic ideology of openness, but in practice the brotherhood virtually abandoned its radical past of open, even dangerous  intellectual inquiry and political discourse.

 

Reacting against Freemasonry's elasticity during the previous century, grand lodge officials fought and won a struggle to gain control over the brotherhood by consciously identifying the brotherhood with loyalty to the state, with any political or philosophical discourse otherwise ended. Meanwhile, as the Catholic Church waged a sustained campaign against worldwide Freemasonry, the brotherhood became a primarily Protestant institution.

 

In the colonies, Masonry's long-established associations with men of prominence ( such as military officers and colonial governors) made it attractive to rising men who sought status and power to accompany their wealth. Local lodges were willing to admit some men of humble origins, but colonial Masons made every effort to ensure the respectability of the brotherhood by regulating the membership, conducting elaborate public ceremonials, and keeping leadership positions in the hands of the most respectable brethren.

 

The brotherhood was thus instrumental in the making of a colonial middle class and defining its boundaries at the very moment its male constituents were entering into power sharing arrangements with traditional elites The brotherhood that was initially open to all men was, after the age of revolution, dominated by loyalist, Protestant, respectable white men.  Status, wealth, free time, and of course race and sex were all determinants to the "representative" process in the lodge.  If anything, the black balling process, conventions against openly campaigning for a seat, and the status recognition lodges gave to high ranking or distinguished visitors reinforced the necessary social environment for imperialism. 


The acceptance of the "natives" neo-colonial functionaries in the lodges where they were told they were brothers and equals assisted in psychologically co-opting that class.   Despite the real inequality in the Freemasonry of the day, membership provided a reward and a re-enforcing concept for the whole practice of neo-colonialism itself.  Masonry thus reflected and contributed to the "fundamental reordering of the Empire" as the old Atlantic empire transformed into the so-called "Second British Empire" of the nineteenth century.  


It is not surprising then that so many leaders of liberation movements in the Third World spent time in lodges where the discerning eye might realize in a scaled version of the world of British imperialism.  This could have only illustrated the differences between stated values and practice among the British.

 

By the last third of the nineteenth century, the Masonic brotherhood had become an unquestioning ally of the British imperial state. It took part in various efforts to shore up the empire in the face of internal and external pressures during the age of high imperialism. Imperial proconsuls like Kitchener, Wolseley, and Connaught considered Freemasonry a valuable ally not only as they governed and defended the empire but also as they pursued the imperialist mission of making the empire a source of national strength. In places like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the brotherhood helped turn men into ardent citizens of the empire who contributed their energy, money, and even their lives to the imperial cause.

 

Meanwhile, outside the settlement colonies, indigenous men of various religious and racial backgrounds had begun seeking admission into Masonry. The empire became a practical testing ground of Freemasons' commitment to their ideology of cosmopolitan brotherhood in an age of increasingly racialized attitudes. British Freemasons on the imperial periphery ultimately and reluctantly admitted native elite but they did so - Professor Harland-Jacobs reminds us - specifically because they believed it would help strengthen the Empire.

 

The book deals with all of the above subjects and makes a significant contribution to the history of the Freemasons and imperial Britain.  

Note: Specifically in some of her scholarship on pre-1717 Freemasonry (which has some bearing even for a book covering post 1717), Harland-Jacobs has not  moved research forward and may have done inadequate study in keeping with this exhaustively well researched area. 

She fails to understand or explain the  complex rivalry with the increasingly egalitarian London based "Moderns" and the  at least one faction of conservatively Christian "Antients" who many understand as largely Anglo-Irish and to some degree Scotch-Irish, as well as the  alleged Jacobite element in  some Scottish and some Anglo-Irish lodges. 

These issues are complex and cloudy  and thus might have been best avoided by dealing with British imperialism outside of the British isles. It is Masonry's influence in the overseas empire in fact where her work is unrivaled in its research and informative in its interpretations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Fozdar, Fahid. Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism, 1717-1927 (review) Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History - Volume 8, Number 3, Winter 2007

The Johns Hopkins University Press

Vahid Fozdar | Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History  Vahid Fozdar on Jessica L. Harland-Jacobs Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History  |  2008 Vahid Fozdar Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism, 1717-1927. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007. 

Jessica Harland Jacobs' Builders of Empire explores the reciprocal relationship between British imperialism and the institution of Freemasonry over two centuries. She argues that eighteenth-century Freemasonry's transformation from a cosmopolitan and politically inclusive institution into a loyalist, Protestant, white, middle-class fraternity had, by the early nineteenth century, made it a fit instrument and key bulwark of British imperialism. In turn, the imperial government, through officials and royal family members who were Masons, helped protect and extend the Masonic network throughout the empire.

-------------------------------------

Rowan Berkeley
Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism, 1717-1927 (review)

If you want to understand — if you think you can bear to understand — the hypocrisy of liberal, Anglo-American imperialism, I  think there is no better way of doing it than studying the history of Freemasonry, (and to a slightly lesser extent, the history of post-1688 ‘Glorious Revolution’ Anglicanism). 

Freemasonry, in its Anglo-American form, is the absolute quintessential representation of liberal hypocrisy, in every single respect: religiously, racially, sexually, geopolitically, culturally, and intellectually. Its ability to deploy terms like “Freedom”, “Justice” and “Equality” quite unblushingly to mean whatever it wants them to mean is absolutely unrivalled.  “Builders of Empire: Freemasonry and British Imperialism, 1717-1927″ by Jessica L Harland-Jacobs (Univ of N Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2007) makes this absolutely clear.


There are loose ends  and errors in tangential subjects that may irk anyone familiar with early Freemasonry and politics in Britain: she does not in give enough attention to the other streams of Freemasonry, those not in accordance with the criteria of the Grand Lodge of England, French Freemasonry in particular. 

She minimises the extent to which non-English Freemasonry went its own, rather less hypocritical and more interesting way. She makes it clear that in practical terms North American Freemasonry has managed to be very closely allied with the English, in a sort of woolly ‘fraternal’ way. 

It has never, to put it the other way, been actually hostile to English Freemasonry.  North American Freemasonry has been distinctly hostile to French and other continental European Freemasonries, and the various extra-European Freemasonries allied to them, have not accepted Anglo-American presumptions. To quote an interesting but regrettably brief passage from the book:

“Latin Masonry” was the term twentieth-century British Masons used to describe European Grand Lodges and their offshoots with which the English Grand Lodges had broken off communications in the late 1870s.

The original cause of the rift was the decision on the part of the Grand Orient of France to admit atheists into the brotherhood in 1878. British Masons and their allies throughout the world had therefore refused to take part in various internationalist movements undertaken by the representatives of “Latin Masonry” in the 1890s and early 1900s.

In 1919 the European Masons proposed the formation of a Masonic International Association. At the first congress, held in October 1921, representatives from most European grand lodges, as well as the Grand Lodge of New York and the Grand Orient of Turkey, met to discuss their common aims. The grand lodges of Britain, the empire, and the United States (except New York) refused to send representatives to the congress.

It is not altogether clear whether this dispute was ever really resolved, see here. An amusing footnote from the same book:

Recently returned from Africa in 1922 General Sir Reginald Wingate (governor general of the Sudan between 1899 and 1916, High Commissioner for Egypt from 1917 to 1919, District Grand Master of Egypt and Sudan from 1901 to 1920) noted the existence of many lodges that worked in Arabic and “various European languages.” Describing some of these lodges as “centres of sedition and even of revolution,” he happily reported that “British Freemasonry is entirely free of any such taint.” (Our emphasis.)

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

Related: Mystical Imperialism 

Explanation of Some Terms and Expectations

What does the term, Entered Apprentice (EA) mean?

Entered Apprentice refers to someone who has received the First Degree in Masonry. When builders had beginners who were learning their work they called them apprentices. Often these were young men of good reputation who were willing to listen and learn in the Lodges of builders and they were evaluated by the members. If the Entered Apprentice learns what he is required about Freemasonry, he will advance to the Degree of Fellowcraft. Entered Apprentices are expected to abide by the rules of Freemasonry, show caution and industriousness.

Where is a man first prepared to be made a Mason?

We say he is prepared in his heart, because becoming a Mason involves a commitment.

How are Entered Apprentices then prepared?

They are said to be duly and truly prepared. This phrase means wearing special garments furnished by the Lodge to emphasize our concern with the equality of all candidates.

What is a hoodwink?

It is a blindfold and a symbol of darkness denoting the fact that the candidate has not yet had the opportunity to learn the lessons of Freemasonry.

What is meant by the length of your cable tow?

A cable tow is a strong rope symbolizing our Masonic obligation to every Mason to every other Mason, given his reasonable ability to help or respond. It also is a symbol of the external restraints that are placed upon all of us during our lives.

Why does Masonry ask in whom a candidate puts his trust?

A fundamental principle of Freemasonry is a belief in God. It is necessary, in order to become a Mason, for each candidate to state that he puts his trust in a Supreme Being.

Why are Lodges dedicated to the Holy Saints John?

Because of the religious traditions in this country when Freemasonry was established in Virginia, Lodges are said to be dedicated to the Holy Saints John: Saint John the Baptist, representing morality, and Saint John the Evangelist, representing love and zeal. 

What is the Masonic significance of the East, West, North and South?

The Worshipful Master, the presiding officer, sits is symbolically called the “East”. The sun rises in the East, and the East is symbolically a place of light and learning. The Senior Warden sits in the “West” and the Junior Warden in the “South.” No officer of the Lodge sits in the North, which symbolically a place of darkness

What is the purpose of an altar in the Lodge?

The altar with the Holy Bible is the place where candidates are brought to light. We place the Bible or other Holy Books in the center of the Lodge to symbolize that faith should be at the center of our lives. Square and the Compasses- The Square symbolizes morality and honesty. The Compasses symbolize self-restraint. Together they are called the Three Great Lights in Masonry.

What are the three Lesser Lights in Masonry?

They are the Sun, Moon, and Worshipful Master, and are represented by three lights placed in the East, West, and South around the altar (the North is Dark.) The Worshipful Master should rule and govern his Lodge as reliably and orderly as the Sun and Moon rule and govern the day and night.

What does a Lodge represent, and what is its form?

The Lodge is said to represent the world, which is checkered, (a struggle between) good and evil.

What is a Masonic obligation?

Obligation is another word for oath, affirmation, or promise. In the Masonic Degrees, candidates are asked if they will agree to be obligated to undertake certain duties such as helping their fellow Masons.

What are the physical penalties included in the Masonic obligations?

Masons to show how serious they are when we swear to do certain things, people state that if they do not keep their promise, they hope they will die or suffer certain penalties.

What is the purpose of the Masonic apron?

The Masonic apron symbolically points to man’s physical and spiritual nature. Historically, builders’ apprentices wore aprons to protect their clothing. Masons today wear their aprons to symbolize the fact that they are trying to protect their characters and improve themselves. The white color of the apron symbolizes purity of character for which we should strive.

What is the Rite of Destitution?

When candidates are brought into the Lodge, they are asked to remove all metals on their person. It teaches Masons that they should not bring anything into the Lodge which might disturb peace and harmony, and that we are all viewed as equal brothers. 

What are the Working Tools of an Entered Apprentice?

The Working Tools are the 24-inch Gauge and Common Gavel. In Freemasonry the 24-inch Gauge is to teach us to use the hours of the day for important purposes. The Gavel is to smooth out the rough edges of our character. 

What are the requirements to be an Entered Apprentice?

A man must come to Freemasonry of his own free will and accord. This means that he has not been coerced to join, and wants to be a Mason to better his own character. 

What does it mean to say that Masons are Brothers?

Freemasonry teaches that there is a special bond between Masons, brought about by our shared experiences with Masonic ritual and teachings and by certain obligations we have accepted to help and support each other, and to try to do everything we can to assist our Brother Masons. We try not to become angry with another Mason, but if we do, we go out of our way to resolve our differences. We should never harm a Brother and always seek to treat our Brethren exactly as we would want them to treat us. 

How do you know when to rise and when to be seated in a Lodge?

When the Worshipful Master raps his gavel once, this rap indicates that all the Brethren should come to order. When he raps twice, the officers (and only the officers) rise. When he raps three times all the Brethren stand. When all are standing and the Worshipful Master raps once, everyone is seated. If the Worshipful Master addresses a member of the Lodge by name, he should stand, salute the Worshipful Master with his right hand below his heart and listen. You are encouraged to speak. When you wish to, wait for an appropriate pause and rise while saluting the Worshipful Master, and speak. If you need to leave the Lodge before it is closed, do the same (you may do this by a subtle gesture when needing to go to the restroom or if you have previously made the Worshipful Master aware.)  

Can a Mason enter a Lodge meeting after it has begun?

Yes. Identify yourself to the Tiler outside the door and prove that you are a Mason in the manner in which you were taught. Wait until the Tiler has informed the Lodge and has been instructed to admit you. When you enter the Lodge, approach the altar, salute the Worshipful Master, and then follow his instructions. Most Lodges operate at the Third Degree so be prepared to wait if you are an Entered Apprentice or Fellow Craft.

Are there subjects that cannot be discussed in Lodges?

Religion and politics are frowned subjects in the Lodges unless it is part of a philosophical or historical program. Business discussions are also best discussed outside of the lodge room itself unless it is part of the Lodge program. As a matter of good taste one ought to be very cautious about pursuing divisive subjects around lodge meetings. These two subjects can cause disputes and disharmony. One of the main points of Freemasonry is to provide an oasis from the discord and divisiveness of the world, where men can come together and enjoy each other’s company in peace.

Masons are encouraged to do business with each other on the principles of fair dealing and mutual assistance. Masons are also strongly encouraged to take part in political life and religious life. So relationships with Masons outside of the Lodges may often include political and religious considerations and business involvement but it is important that you heed the first word you heard when you came into the Lodge to become a Mason- CAUTION. 

Distinguished Cuban intellectual in NYC, Miami

Cuba

by Melissa Lockhart Fortner  |  on November 11th, 2009 

Dr. Eduardo Torres Cuevas is a Cuban national treasure. A professor of history at the University of Havana and Director of the José Martí National Library, he has received the National Literature Prize and the National Prize in Social Sciences of Cuba. His work focuses on topics of Cuban independence, abolition, slavery, popular religion, freemasonry, and the formation of “cubanidad” (i.e. what defines the Cuban identity, and what it means to be Cuban).

Dr. Torres Cuevas is currently on an extended visit to the United States; he managed to secure a visa from the U.S. government in order to give a number of lectures—including at CUNY (the City University of New York), Hunter College, and Florida International University.

His talks and presentations will be on “Rethinking Cuban History”; “The National Library of Cuba: its structure and future plans”; and “The History of Freemasonry in Cuba.” Read about them here (CUNY), here (Hunter College), and here (FIU).

For those who can attend, the event at FIU is this Friday, November 13 at 10 AM. Here, Dr. Torres Cuevas will present on the first topic: “Repensando la Historia de Cuba: La cubanidad en el contexto de las Américas,” in the LACC Conference Room, DM 358, on Modesto A. Maidique Campus.

Traditional Observance, European Concept, Affinity

Going in circles? "If we examine where Freemasonry is at the moment, to put it bluntly, we are engaged in initiating ever more men into the craft and conferring second and third degrees on them, so that they shall in their turn confer more degrees to a new lot and be Appointed To Offices on to the Masters Chair. To what end? Is it too much to ask 'what advancement'?" -Julian Rees PGM

"What will keep them? More mindless, boring meetings? Only good will and respect keeps many brothers from walking out and it is often not enough to keep them coming back. Lodge meetings are essentially ritualized business meetings but too often there is little business being accomplished. The Master of the Lodge opens and closes in Long Form because without that tedious recital nothing would occur. This is Freemasonry in name only." - James Garland PGM

A struggling lodge is an opportunity and a rare one when there is leadership available. When a Lodge is pared down of excess it is an opportunity to bring in best practices and to look for a new path with new blood while giving committed brothers the chance help set things aright. Far too many lodges just fold up their tent or consolidate with another struggling lodge only for that lodge to do the same in another five or ten years. Many potentially good or worthwhile members are likely to see the handwriting on the wall and get out. The answers for a lodge's problems are most often to be found internally not externally. -George Brat, PGM

Old and New Concepts Give Lodges Direction

European Concept


European Concept lodges infuse themselves with the Continental European system of candidate education, i.e., discussions, essays and reading on the philosophy and history of Masonry. "Short form" language is often used by the Master in non-degree meetings to get to the heart of the Masonic program, i.e., discussions and presentations. There is focus on convivial activities outside of lodge such as meals and mixers as well as events with guests and speakers.

European Concept lodges were pioneered in the 1990s both in the United States and Australia. These lodges differ by means of stricter dress code, and formal festive boards. The term "European Concept" is regrettable, as this format exists all over the world, and it is not terribly unlike the Masonry found in the early days in America.

European Concept (EC) lodges offers its members an opportunity to partake in a thoughtful approach to ritual and emphasis on sociability that can hardly be found anywhere else today. The lodges maintain a dignified and intellectually engaging atmosphere, where the members can study the lessons of Freemasonry and learn to enact them in their daily lives.

Many EC lodges prefer to be selective in their encouragement of visitors (while adhering to the Masonic "open door policy")  to maintain  and enjoy the particular atmosphere of these lodges. EC lodges are often involved in social activities in conjunction with organizations organizations other than the blue lodge.

In New York state, the Independent Royal Arch #2 is a notable example of a EC lodge though its character as such is a result of history rather than adaptation. Humanitas #1123 is another example of an EC lodge.

Traditional Observance

Traditional Observance (TO) lodges generally follow the established ritual of their Grand Lodge, with some ceremonial additions, so far as they may be allowed by their Grand Lodge.  


TO lodges begin with the North American Masonic lodge model and enrich it with traditional initiatic elements practiced in Continental Freemasonry.

Traditional Observance Masonry is characterized by:  1) a solemn approach to holding stated communications and conferring degrees,  2) the use of the Chamber of Reflection as part of the initiation ceremony, 3) and demanding candidate advancement requirements that reflect an internal consideration of the ritual and Masonic tenets. 


Traditional Observance lodges have an emphasis on the initiatic process.  TO lodges regard the degrees as a transformative process of personal reflection and consideration of how one can engage in self improvement in a community dedicated to that aim.

As "best model" lodges, TO lodges encourage visiting masons though they may be selective in doing so. TO lodges may be less apt to have social functions with external organizations.

St. Johns # 1 is an example in New York, and it has recently officially applied to be such.

Affinity lodges,

Affinity lodges, where men of like interests can gather within the Masonic order, stress brotherhood and familiarity both inside and outside of the lodge. Affinity lodges (AL) may include discussions of topics of interest particular to the Masons involved both in the lodge.

These lodges have been better than most at adapting technology and other means to draw brethren together. Brothers often share information to an extent that may be absent elsewhere, particularly regarding the thematic interest of the lodge and the benefit of the brothers.

It is typical that Affinity lodges will visit other lodges fairly often as a group. This may be owing to the traditions of military or "traveling lodges" that many of these lodges adapted. 


In many of these lodges there is a particular choice in clothing or adornment among the officers and even the general group (such as Scottish kilts.)

It is the habit of Affinity lodges to hold social functions and outings with external organizations whether it be organizations that share a thematic interest, entertainment or for the promotion of the welfare of its members and charitable causes.

One thing Affinity Lodges share with European Concept and Traditional Observances lodges (which may both be described rightly as "affinity lodges") are emphasis on relationships and personal familiarity with the brothers within the lodge. 


Affinity lodges may feature more active festive boards, emphasize communication and relationships outside of the lodge; they may restrict size of membership and emphasize on individual contribution to discourse. Like EC and TO lodges, convivial activities outside of lodge such as meals and mixers as well as events with guests and speakers are encouraged.

Many lodges that are not Affinity lodges formally or historically have the character of Affinity lodges.   These lodges informally gather people who share interests or background. Brothers bring new brothers whom they work with, know from school, church, etc.  The core group provides a natural basis for recruitment and familiarity. By having several groups sharing core interests, these informal affinity lodges do not become claustrophobic and isolated.

Traditionally many Affinity lodges embrace the Grand Master's Classes ("One Day Classes") as the Grand Master's Classes go back in history to old university and military affiliated lodges. Conversely, these same Masons are more active in performing the drama of the degrees later as Master Masons due to the more elaborate staging utilized in the Grand Master Class. 

Affinity Lodge candidates are usually much better informed than the average candidate. Affinity lodge candidates are often already familiar with the brothers, Masonic ritual (it is all public today).  And thus the Affinity lodge candidate has contemplated his decision and is whole heartedly committed. 

Many Affinity lodge members are drawn by the familiarity and community with the brethren rather than the locale.  (Old school, university, workplace or cultural lodges for example often have members far and wide.) Thus the Grand Masters Classes have a particularly useful function for him. Affinity lodges using the Grand Masters Classes have better brother retention than those who give degrees separately or in Grand Masters Classes in non-affinity lodges.

The Affinity lodge is also, notably accompanied by Affinity Masonic Clubs. These clubs often form the basis of  unusually successful Convivial Calendar (with dinners, mixers, cocktail parties, nights out, family nights, business networking, job boards, discussion groups and internet forums. In many circumstances several Affinity lodges of similar nature may be active in a single Masonic club. 

The willingness of these Affinity lodges to extend their involvement with Brothers outside of the lodge room is an obvious cause for their incredible success.

Affinity lodges have boomed and are currently the only area in Freemasonry that may be said to be in such a condition. Affinity lodges have been around continuously, from the days of military and philosophical lodges. Indeed Freemasonry as a Speculative Art was something of an affinity lodge among the working craft masons. Some of the oldest and most prestigious lodges are affinity lodges, such as Ars Quatuor Coronatorum and the Harvard Lodge.  


In America there is a strong history for example of cultural lodges, community and professional lodges. Half the lodges in the London metropolitan area are now affinity lodges. There are an abundance of Affinity lodges in New York- Kane, Daylight, Publicity, Holland, Scotia, to name just a few.

Are there drawbacks with the Traditional Observance, European Concept and Affinity approach? Perhaps. They tend to be a drop of water on a thirsty plain, and thus quickly become much more exclusive and expensive for new members. Without growth of these approaches, there may be a justifiable fear that the popularity of TO, EC and Affinity lodges can polarize lodges between these successful lodges and those that struggle.

Lodges that that do not encourage healthy fraternal relationships outside the Lodge become less charitable and the Masons less engaged.

---------------------------

WHEN THE WAYS OF OUR LODGES DO NOT WORK IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE. LET US BRING GOOD IDEAS TO OUR LODGES AND APPLY THEM SO THAT WE MAY SAVE AND REJUVENATE RATHER THAN CLOSE THEM.